The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments at 9 a.m. PT on Wednesday, June 4, in a lawsuit challenging the California Public Utility Commission’s decision to significantly slash the credit new solar users get for sharing excess energy with the grid.
The commission’s updated net-metering policy, which took effect in April 2023, slashes customer credits by up to 80% for electricity generated on rooftops and sold back to the grid. This has stymied efforts to expand rooftop solar in the state, particularly in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods and led to huge layoffs in the solar industry. The Center for Biological Diversity says it also violated state law, which requires that the commission ensure the rooftop solar market keeps growing, particularly in environmental justice communities.
In 2022 the Center for Biological Diversity, The Protect Our Communities Foundation and the Environmental Working Group challenged the state’s new policy. Although the California Court of Appeal rejected the challenge, the California Supreme Court accepted petitioners’ appeal of that ruling. In May, the state Supreme Court issued a focus letter asking whether the lower court should have followed a state law that requires the reviewing court to consider the commission’s decisions as it would those of any state agency, rather than deferring to the commission.
News item from the Center for Biological Diversity
California’s Solar Promise Under Threat
California homeowners who invested in solar under Net Energy Metering (NEM) 1.0 and 2.0 were promised 20 years of locked-in benefits. These agreements were central to their decision to go solar—financially and environmentally. Now, proposed legislation like Assembly Bill 942 threatens to break that promise by stripping away those benefits when a home is sold.
This is a direct violation of contract principles, undermines property values, and discourages future investment in clean energy. It sends a dangerous message: California can’t be trusted to honor its commitments.
Changing the rules mid-game not only erodes public trust, it jeopardizes the progress we’ve made in reducing emissions and building a sustainable future. California must stand by its word and keep its promise to solar homeowners. This is corrupt!
I hope that the Court hears evidence that Commission is influenced by lawyers from the unions and the utilities. Of course, the unions want to reduce the proliferation of roof-top solar…because most of these are installed by non-union and private techs. Of course, the unions want to see more “utility-scaled” solar because that’s where the union jobs are.
..The TECHNICALl analysis should show the court that local solar generators are up to 50% more efficient than central solar farms, considering losses in transmission and maintenance labor costs.
..The eENVIRONMENTAL analysis should show that roof-top solar, particularly at scale of large warehouses, does not add to the loss of landscape and vegetation. It should be understood that earth’s plant life is the factor here: it has rescued us from the recent scare of global warming due to CO2. Turns out that, especially via the oceans, old Earth knows what to do: let those CO2-starved plants grow and absorb more. Further, there is a trend, especially in W Europe, to construct new building roofs using panels that are both roofing and solar collector. This should be encouraged via local feed-in incentive. Meanwhile, roofers are installing glass solar panels, with life of 50 years, over tar paper roofs that have life of 20 years! The other two advantages of local solar roofs is that (1)solar roofing contributes to the answer for fire resistant housing and (2) solar roofing panels are being developed that combine electrical power generation with water heating! A student science project once proclaimed: “Why would intelligent humans generate electricity in desert solar farms just to heat water in far away city homes?”
BIG money always wins. ALL (BOTH Democrats and Republicans) politicians are “For Sale,” but Dems are cheaper to buy so the money necessary to give control of California to the Dems has been spent by corporations (NOT “the people”).