California regulators torpedo popular plan to increase…

Over the past three years, an incredibly broad coalition has come together to advocate for a new way to finance and build community solar and battery projects in California. It includes solar companies, environmental justice activists, consumer advocates, labor unions, farmers, construction industry groups and state legislators both Democratic and Republican – a rare example of consensus in a state riven by conflicts over solar and utility policy on roofs.

Supporters say the plan, known as the net billing tariff (NVBT), may allow you to build up to 8 gigawatts of community solar projects in the coming decades, all of them connected to low-voltage power grids that sell cheap power to subscribing households, businesses and organizations.

However, on Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (Processor) I voted 3–1 reject the coalition plan. Instead, he ordered the state’s main utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – to restructure a number of long-term distributed solar programs that have spurred almost no projects in at least a decade of implementation.

Critics warn that these utility-backed plans will not create a viable path to expanding the solar class, which has become a major driver of clean energy growth in other states and a key focus of the Biden administration’s energy equity policies.

They also fear that ProcessorThe state’s dependence on state and federal grants to increase the economic competitiveness of these existing, failed community solar models could jeopardize the state’s ability to qualify even for250 million dollars in crowdsourced solar funding that the Biden administration has temporarily offered.

“With this decision, we are fooling ourselves and depriving ourselves of the benefits of community solar and storage,” said Derek Chernow, Western Regional Director at the Coalition for Community Energy Access for Communities (CCSA), which represents companies and nonprofit organizations promoting community solar energy.

From CCSA invented NVBT IN 2021won ​“unprecedented, bipartisan, broad-based support from stakeholders who don’t typically come together and address clean energy issues,” Chernow said.

Plan Processor composed of practical proposals, however, are missing ​“any support – broad or otherwise,” he said.

An outburst of fury from supporters of the solar community

Processor President Alice Busching Reynolds defended the decision to reject NVBT at Thursday’s meeting. She pointed to other existing California programs that help low-income households and multifamily buildings obtain solar energy, and noted that ProcessorThe plan will expand the existing community solar program, which offers low-income customers: 20 percentage reduction of your bills.

She said that NVBT the program was too expensive a way to provide the state with new solar and battery resources compared to large-scale energy projects contracted by utilities and local energy providers.

““California is truly at a tipping point where we need to use the most cost-effective clean energy resources that keep the system reliable,” Reynolds said.

Supporters NVBT they have a completely different view. Since March, when Processor presented a proposed decision to reject the above-mentioned NVBT, caused widespread public outrage. The editorial office received letters protesting against this proposal Processor from community solar advocacy groups, environmental organizations, commercial real estate companies, farmer advocacy groups, agricultural industry associations, and Republican and Democrat state lawmakers.

The Processor issued a revised proposed decision on Tuesday ahead of Thursday’s vote, which differs little from the original March proposal. The only significant change is the removal of the legal argument claiming that NVBT violates federal law – a theory that has been met with widespread disbelief and that three former chairmen of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have rejected in letters to Processor.

Utilities Reform Network (TURN), a nonprofit organization that advocates for public utility customers, warned that Processorthere will be a community solar plan ​“favor large utilities by ensuring that the costs of developing a solar program are borne by homebuilders, renters and other participants in the solar community,” while failing to offer lower-income customers a chance to reduce their rapidly rising electricity bills by subscribing to cheaper solar power solutions .

AND 20 MPs who supported AB 2316, 2022 state law that mandated Processor to create an equitable and affordable community solar program, they said Processor that it doesn’t support NVBT could mean the country is not meeting its clean energy and climate goals.

“Transmission-scale renewables face significant siting, interconnection and transmission challenges,” posing a risk that utilities will be unable to meet the aggressive clean energy procurement targets set by the Energy Council. Processor– legislators wrote in their September letter. ​“Small, localized solar and storage projects located in distribution have incredible potential as we modernize and expand our transmission system.

Speaking on Thursday Processor meeting, Assemblyman Chris Ward, a Democrat from San Diego, who is the author AB 2316the so-called Processorpending decision ​“rejecting California’s need for clean, reliable and affordable energy.”

“Having agreed with almost all stakeholders that existing Community renewable energy programs are not viable, the proposed decision has chosen to repeat these mistakes by creating an outdated, commercially unfeasible program that will not result in any new renewable energy projects or storage energy,” he said. the Processor commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Why California lags on community solar

California leads the nation in rooftop solar and is second only to Texas in utility-scale solar and battery farms. But its community solar projects amount to less than that 1 percent 6.2 gigawatts of solar power that has been built in 22 states that have policies supporting this form of solar energy development. This is largely because community solar programs, which have existed in California for more than a decade, are unattractive to developers, financiers and potential solar subscribers.

The earliest programs, aimed at commercial and industrial customers, charged more than standard utility rates, making them undesirable. Later programs created for lower-income and disadvantaged communities were hampered by limits on the number of megawatts of projects that could be built and the size of individual projects, as well as burdensome regulations requiring that projects serving disadvantaged communities be located within 5 miles of these customers.

Designed to remove these barriers, NVBT was modeled after a community solar program created in New York that led to over 2 gigawatts of projects in the state. This structure allows community solar projects to earn consistent revenues from the energy they produce based on complex benefit calculations. These benefits include helping meet state climate goals, delivering clean energy to underserved customers, and, importantly, helping to support power grids, for example by avoiding the costs of providing power during the rare times of year when power grids face their greatest stress.

Unlike California’s existing community solar programs, NVBT would encourage projects to add batteries to store and move solar energy from periods when there is a surplus to when it is needed most on the grid.

And under AB 2316any new community solar and battery projects in California must provide at least 51 percentage of their ability to serve low-income residential customers at prices that reduce their electricity bills – a valuable option for low-income households, renters and other utility customers who do not have access to rooftop solar.

“We are very interested in ensuring that tenants have access to local solar projects,” said Matt Freedman, an attorney at the firm TURN. ​“We’re thrilled that at least California law requires it 51 a percentage of the benefits go to low-income customers. We think this is a game-changer — that we are putting low-income customers first in line to benefit from these projects.”