This year, April 22nd marks the 51st EarthDay, a holiday celebrated by folks all over the world. It started in 1970 as a“teach-in” by Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, who took action to shed light on the lack of attention given to the environment by American media and politics. It had been eight years since Rachel Carson published Silent Spring,over a year since the disastrous oil rig leak off the coast of Santa Barbara and less than a year since the Cuyahoga River caught on fire from industrial toxic spills.[1] Since that first Earth Day in 1970, April 22nd has become an annual time to celebrate,protect and advocate for the planet.

‍

For some, Earth Day is a time to reconnect with nature and feel gratitude for being supported by such a resilient macro-organism that provides us with the essential elements we need to survive and thrive. Butfor many, Earth Day is also an increasingly urgent reminder of how little has changed over the past five decades, and how much needs to be done to ensure a just and livable future can prevail on this planet.

‍

But it wouldn’t be wise to try to chart the course of our future without reckoning with our past. Indigenous peoples are the original caretakers and inhabitants of the land, yet their voices have been silenced, their land has been stolen, their subsequent treaties with the U.S.have been violated and their autonomy has been oppressed. They, along with Black, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Latinx and other communities of color have been disproportionately suffering environmental injustices[2] from systemic racism through oppressive policies, practices[3] and institutions.

‍

It is clear that white-centric and westernized environmentalism is not the answer. The folks who have been on the frontlines since the beginning of American history should and must be central to the path forward. Reparative actions are desperately needed to prevent further harm and try to repair the relationships that white supremacy has abused. While the recent years have been devastating and tragic in endless ways, it has woken more of us up, showing us just how much work needs to be done and how we must do it. We are amidst critical times that call for us to be thoughtful in the rebuilding, including,how we can uplift and center perspectives of communities of concern who do not have the same resources and ability to participate in decision-making processes- due to lack of time, childcare, transportation, money, Internet, ability to participate in another language, etc. - to be actively involved in self-education, advocacy and the political process. This is a result of the same systems that created climate injustices and the need for advocacy and must be at the forefront of our minds for those of us who do have the privilege to be involved advocates.

‍

It is also clear that we need more rooftop solar, not less clean energy (see this recent LA Times article), especially for communities of concern, which are often impacted by the climate crisis first and worst impacted. We need Indigenous wisdom, knowledge and sovereignty to be central to efforts, especially conservation, agriculture and soil health. We need localized, community-centric energy independence, not shareholder-drivencorporations profiting off of the backs of ratepayers. We need reparativeactions to sufficiently address redlining, which created the environmental injustices plaguing communities of concern.

‍

We are proud to advocate for both a national Green New Deal and a San Diego Green New Deal, helping move us to zero carbon while advocating for the climate, jobs and justice for all. We invite you to get involved as well! There are many, many other solutions at our disposal and it is up to us to speak loudly and stand strong, in solidarity with those most impacted by climate injustices, to forge the path to a more just and livable future.

‍

[1] See “The History of Earth Day” athttps://www.earthday.org/history/

[2] See “Toxic Wastes and Race in the U.S.” athttps://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1310/ML13109A339.pdf

[3] See NY Times Article “How Decades of RacistHousing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering” athttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/24/climate/racism-redlining-cities-global-warming.html

One of the California’s Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) most watched rulemakings is the net energy metering (NEM)3.0 decision, since it will decide the future of solar power in America, as California often sets the precedent in terms of environmental policies. Net energy metering, simply put, is the policy that has made solar increasingly accessible to low-and-moderate income families, schools and other public buildings. You can visit our previous blog to learn more about NEM. While the CPUC analyzes the 17 NEM proposals that were recently submitted to determine which proposal would allow solar to grow sustainably while making sure there are no inequities as a result of the decision, California Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez has introduced Assembly Bill 1139 (AB 1139).

‍

AB 1139 proposes a new incentive structure that pays solar customers wholesale rates for their excess generation, has high fixed fees and breaks contracts that were signed under the previous solarrules, NEM 1 (the original solar agreement that was in phased out through out the state in 2016 and 2017) and NEM 2, the current solar agreement. The calculations from the bill in its current state are alarming - the most aggressive attack on solar to date - and provide clear data showing not only how this bill would kill the solar industry, but hurt California’s 1,200,000 solar customers while making solar inaccessible for everyone, including renters, people in communities of concern and multi-family tenants. The bill slashes economic savings from solar for low-income families by 80% and payback periods are going from 11 years to over 45 years - 20 years after the system warranty ends. The bill has subsidies set aside for helping low income families receive solar, however the proposed high fixed fees paired with ending retail credit for solar customers (meaning ratepayers get paid pennies for the clean energy they put on the grid which the utilities make millions of dollars off of),could easily result in families, businesses and multifamily tenants to be paying more to have solar than they did before getting solar! Fully-subsidized solar power systems don't pencil out under this new bill, meaning the millions of dollars of ratepayer money for low-income solar will sit idle.

‍

The bill is sponsored by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the Coalition of California Utility Employees, both who usually take positions on behalf of their utility employers. If the utilities successfully kill rooftop solar, that means there will be more utility-scale solar plants in the desert, which the utilities own and profit off of, and if those new transmission lines cause fires as they have in the past, ratepayers will also absorb those costs.

‍

Aside from the effects this bill would have on the industry, taking clean energy solutions away from Californians would also further exacerbate the climate crisis and continue the environmental racism that goes hand in hand with the continued use of dirty energy. This bill would also make it nearly impossible for California to reach 100% clean energy since the state has said that in order to reach these targets, rooftop solar needs totriple.

‍

Last week, nearly 60 environmental, solar,climate justice, equity and other advocacy groups wrote to Gonzalez to urge her to make amendments as the bill would effectively kill the rooftop solar industry. IBEW contractors Sullivan Solar Power and Baker Electric Home Energy called in to give public testimony opposing this bill in addition to the Center for Sustainable Energy and GRID Alternatives, program administrators for the state's $1 billion Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing rebate program.Unfortunately, these concerns went seemingly unheard even after 75+ individuals and organizations called in to express opposition and the bill passed through the Utilities and Energy (U&E) Committee.

‍

The U&E committee’s analysis of the bill provided no real analysis of how this bill will impact jobs, low income and CARE customers, or the multifamily sector so Hammond Climate Solutions,provided a letter with our analysis and other resources with information the committee had stated they were unaware of. In summary, our letter refutes the cost shift arguments being pushed by the utilities, provides reliable studies showinghow solar can save ratepayers billions of dollars while not going solar willcost ratepayers, outlines issues with the studies paid for by the utilities,and shows that this bill will kill rooftop solar.

‍

The bill is now headed to the Appropriations Committee where it will be voted on again. While public comment won’t be accepted,written testimony to oppose this bill can be submitted to the committee via email at approps.committee@assembly.ca.gov.  A draft comment, with talking points can be found in our toolkit.

As we see the devastating effects of climate change across the globe, most recently in Texas where communities were suffering in freezing temperatures without water or power for days, it has become clearer than ever that we need to transform our power supply to renewable energy in order to increase resiliency. This past summer, California experienced the opposite, where sky high temperatures and demand for air conditioning resulted in rolling blackouts for California residents. In a time where it is crucial to increase the deployment of renewable energy, the United States’ largest solar market, California, is under attack. What happens in California will likely be the example for other states, and this is a crucial battle that we’re on the front lines of right now. 

‍

The success of rooftop solar relies heavily on net energy metering (NEM), a solar producer’s agreement with the electric utility company. At a high level, NEM is a billing structure that allows solar customers to sell their excess electricity back to the grid. The amount is then applied to their utility bills, leaving the solar customer to pay the net amount of energy used. California’s first solar agreement, known as NEM 1.0, was extremely successful and accelerated the transition to solar for California residents, businesses, schools and municipalities. Since then, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) across the state have continuously attacked rooftop solar, proposing egregious policies that would make solar economically infeasible. In 2016 the second solar agreement rolled out initially in the San Diego Gas & Electric utility territory, and made its debut for Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison in 2017. This successor tariff is known as NEM 2.0, and after a tough battle against the utility companies, the California Public Utilities Commission decided that the new solar rate would be similar to the first, maintaining the major benefit of allowing customers to sell electricity back to the grid at retail rates. However, NEM 2.0 required all solar customers to transition to a time-of-use (TOU) rate and non-bypassable rates. Under a TOU rate, a customer is charged different rates based on the time of the day with designated on peak and off peak times. The highest rates are during peak demand, which is late afternoon and early evening, while off peak times occur early in the morning and late at night and have the lowest cost. The new rate structure under NEM 2.0 has serious implications for solar customers, because it changes the value of the energy sold to the grid based on the time. This means that in order to get the highest NEM credits, customers need to sell the bulk of their energy during peak hours. Although NEM 2.0 is substantially less beneficial to solar customers compared to its predecessor, it still retained the major benefits of being able to sell energy back to the grid. Solar companies even began to adapt to TOU rates by designing solar systems to face west in order to capture the maximum energy possible during the late afternoon. Now, California’s IOUs are attempting to make modifications to net metering, ushering in NEM 3.0. 

‍

As details of NEM 3.0 continue to unfold at the California Public Utilities Commission, it is clear that the IOUs are calling for drastic cuts to NEM. The California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA) estimates that the economic value of going solar will be reduced by 50-75 percent with the IOU’s proposed changes. Decisions made during these proceedings will not only affect new solar customers, but existing customers as well as the IOUs have proposed removing grandfathering periods for current customers, essentially forcing all solar customers onto NEM 3.0. 

‍

With the understanding that NEM 3.0 could kill rooftop solar and that California is a leader and looked to as a model for shaping renewable energy programs, it is not an understatement to say that we are fighting to save solar. We are calling on organizations to sign this net metering letter and individuals to sign this petition, by early April, which will be sent to Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Public Utilities Commision. 

‍

Our founder, Tara Hammond, began a small local coalition to save rooftop solar in California last year and the coalition has quickly grown to a statewide grassroots effort, with more than 70 organizations being involved. To learn more or to join the battle, please reach out to our Climate Justice Policy Advisor, Karinna Gonzalez at karinna@hammondclimatesolutions.com.