Will the state of California break contractual agreements with nearly 2 million solar customers? That’s the question on many Central Coast homeowners’ minds, and mine, after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released a report in February proposing sweeping changes to how ratepayers are charged for electricity.
The CPUC proposes slashing payments to “legacy” solar customers who installed systems before April 2023 under Net Energy Metering 1 and 2. The report claims that the shift would lower bills for non-solar customers who are currently paying for fixed costs that solar users bypass.
However, solar industry proponents—myself included—believe this ill-guided approach will disproportionately penalize solar customers and discourage all California ratepayers from embracing clean, renewable energy.
The CPUC’s narrative of a “cost shift” is a gross oversimplification. Rooftop solar provides immense benefits to the grid, reducing strain during peak hours and minimizing the need for costly infrastructure upgrades. By imposing new fixed charges, the CPUC is effectively punishing homeowners who are actively contributing to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.
Also, the report fails to address the excessive profits of investor-owned utilities like PG&E. In 2024 alone, PG&E reported a record-breaking $2.4 billion in profits, while many Californians struggled with rising energy costs.
Instead of shifting costs onto consumers, policymakers should demand greater accountability and fairer rate structures that prioritize affordability and energy independence. By curbing corporate profiteering, the state can ensure a more balanced and sustainable energy future for all Californians.
Key concerns about the CPUC’s proposal:
• Discrimination against solar customers: The fixed monthly charge will disproportionately impact homeowners who have invested in solar panels, reducing the financial incentives that make solar a viable option.
• Misrepresentation of grid costs: The CPUC’s claim that non-solar customers are subsidizing solar customers ignores the significant benefits solar provides to the grid, such as reduced peak demand and grid stability. The “cost shift” argument fails to account for the billions of dollars in benefits that rooftop solar provides to all ratepayers by reducing the need for expensive grid upgrades and power plant construction.
• Failure to oversee utilities: The CPUC has demonstrated a pattern of inadequate oversight, particularly regarding utility companies like PG&E. This includes a lack of rigorous scrutiny of wildfire mitigation funding requests, allowing utilities to pass on excessive costs to ratepayers without ensuring effective safety measures.
I call on homeowners and solar advocates to voice their opposition to the CPUC’s proposal and demand a fair and equitable energy policy that supports the growth of rooftop solar and ensures responsible utility oversight. Δ
Mark Miller of A.M. Sun Solar + Roofing writes from Paso Robles. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Apr 3-13, 2025.