This website uses cookies to analyze site navigation and improve user experience.  We take your privacy seriously, and never collect any personally identifiable information, nor do we ever sell or share anonymized data with any third parties.  Click “Great!” to remove this banner.

San Diego Becomes the Largest City to Advocate for Continued Access to Rooftop Solar

Advocacy
Screenshot of the San Diego City Council's virtual meeting on the NEM 3.0 proceeding

On November 15, the City of San Diego became the largest city in the state to weigh in on the net energy metering proceeding, which is currently underway at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).  A proposed net energy metering (NEM) decision is expected to be made by next month on the future rooftop solar agreement in California, known as net energy metering 3.0 (NEM 3.0).  


The net metering resolution, which urges the CPUC to create a structure that will keep rooftop solar growing sustainably while expanding solar access to low-and-moderate income communities, was approved unanimously by the San Diego City Council today after receiving unanimous support during the San Diego Environment Committee last month.  Local organizations SanDiego350, Climate Action Campaign, Protect Our Communities Foundation, CED Greentech and the San Diego Democrats for Environmental Action joined the Hammond Climate Solutions team in making verbal comments in support of the resolution today, emphasizing the importance of this decision in the middle of a climate emergency.  Last month over 60 people made comments in favor of the resolution. 


“Rooftop solar is a lynchpin in the city's legally-binding Climate Action Plan,” said Matthew Vasilakis, Co-Director of Policy with Climate Action Campaign.  “We need to incentivize rooftop solar and storage with a strong NEM program and paired investments in communities of concern.  That's how we build a climate resilient 100 percent clean energy system.” 


Councilmember Raul Campillo, who was one of the first elected officials in the state to issue a letter to Governor Newsom advocating for a solar-friendly net metering 3.0 agreement, called out the importance of this resolution during his remarks today. 


“This {resolution} ensures that the City of San Diego has communicated its priorities to the state on this matter, and we cannot afford any changes to this {net metering} policy that slows down the process or limits accessibility to clean energy.  This resolution speaks loudly and clearly that the City of San Diego wants to protect the environment, create good paying, high-skilled jobs, improve our energy resiliency and save ratepayers billions of dollars."


Beyond the obvious carbon emissions reduction, local grid reliability and cost savings that come from the increased adoption of rooftop solar and energy storage, the San Diego region has thousands of local jobs at stake with this decision.  Jake Marshall, Operations Manager with CED Greentech San Diego, a distribution company out of Mira Mesa, called in to support the resolution.  Marshall’s comment highlighted the potential massive job loss that could result if the industry is forced to slow down. 


“I personally employ 75 people in Mira Mesa, we have run the numbers and with the {investor-owned utilities’ anti-solar} proposals, our numbers will go down to 22 people.” 


The resolution states that the City of San Diego “supports a CPUC NEM 3.0 decision, which emphasizes the sustainable growth of customer sited solar electric and energy storage facilities in order to meet California’s clean energy targets, particularly residential customers in disadvantaged communities” while also advocating to “reject elements of any proposal which will stifle sustainable growth of customer sited renewable generating facilities including high monthly fixed charges and avoided cost models which insufficiently account for the societal value of customer sited renewable generation.”


The resolution includes strong equity provisions, and Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe highlighted the importance of making solar jobs more accessible to communities of concern. 


Council President Jennifer Campbell ended the discussion by calling out the intentions of the investor-owned utility companies.  


“It's clear the investor-owned utilities are working hard to hamper solar energy growth, which is very short-sighted of them, as they could utilize this extra energy obtained to provide energy for other people in geographic areas that do not have as much sunshine as we have.  The cost shifting that {the investor-owned utilities} are proposing will hurt our climate action goals, will hurt our green job growth and the affordability of those who wish to push solar on their roofs.  Unfortunately it seems that their immediate bottom line is more important to them than a cleaner, green San Diego in which all income levels can participate in our abundant sunshine.  Let the {C}PUC know that San Diego stands on the side of rooftop solar, especially in communities of concern, and all the benefits of it, from good paying local jobs to healthier neighborhoods and increased clean energy production as solar energy brings.”


Once again, the only comment that was not emphatically in support of protecting rooftop solar was from one San Diego Gas & Electric employee who urged the council to meet with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an organization who is known to side with the utilities on this issue (learn more in this blog post, How an Environmental Group Aligned with Monopoly Utilities to Squash Rooftop Solar). 


The City of San Diego weighed in just in time before the anticipated proposed decision by the CPUC in December, while other cities and organizations in San Diego county have already gone on the record in support of protecting access to rooftop solar and energy storage.  In September, the City of Solana Beach became the first city in the state to issue a resolution standing up for a strong net energy metering with a unanimous vote.  San Diego Community Power, the community choice energy program for the cities of San Diego, Imperial Beach, Encinitas, La Mesa and Chula Vista, also submitted a letter jointly with San Jose Clean Energy, which highlighted the fact that the net metering proposal by the investor-owned utilities would result in fees that community choice energy customers would not be able to avoid.  Earlier last week, the City of Chula Vista voted unanimously to send a letter and approve a resolution calling for the CPUC to create a policy in which solar is able to continue to grow, and this week, Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina released a letter in support of a strong net metering 3.0 agreement. 


As the proposed decision by the California Public Utilities Commission rapidly approaches and the final decision expected by February of next year, local activists are hoping this resolution will lead to San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria weighing in as well to leverage his existing relationship with Governor Gavin Newsom. 


For latest information and up-to-date calls to action, visit our net metering toolkit at www.HelpCleanEnergy.org  

All Posts

Category
Select field
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

CA’s deadline to go solar to maximize savings is upcoming

The NEM 3 decision includes a “sunset period” that ends 120 days after the approval of the final decision, meaning anyone who goes solar before the sunset period date is still eligible for NEM 2.

In case you missed it, in December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision that ended a nearly two-year long battle between the investor-owned utilities and environmental groups over the future of rooftop solar in California. Although there was a coalition over 600 strong comprised of environmental and climate change organizations, nonprofits, schools, cities, churches, businesses and elected officials who spent two years urging the CPUC to keep solar growing sustainably, as instructed by law, the CPUC ultimately decided to side with the investor-owned utilities and made significant cuts to agreement solar customers go on, known as net energy metering. You can read more about the coalition here

Under the new net energy metering (NEM) agreement (known as NEM 3), solar customers will get about 75 percent less from the utility for the clean, local and reliable excess energy they share with their neighbors (which the utilities still charge their neighbors full transmission and distribution fees for). Just to give you a sense of how the new tariff compares to what solar customers are receiving currently, compensation for energy will go from an average of $.25/kWh all the way down to about $0.05/kWh. NEM 3 customers will also be forced to go on rates that have higher rates in the evening. All in all, these changes will nearly double the time it takes to pay off a residential system.  

There is some good news.  

If you already have solar, these changes will not affect you! All NEM 1 and NEM 2 customers will continue to receive benefits until their agreement expires, which is 20 years after the system was turned on. The only scenario that would make a customer lose their current NEM status is if a customer adds additional panels that exceed the allocated amount. 

The NEM 3 decision includes a “sunset period” that ends 120 days after the approval of the final decision, meaning anyone who goes solar before the sunset period date is still eligible for NEM 2. In order to go solar and receive maximum benefits, a solar contractor must submit a completed interconnection agreement without significant errors and a signed contract by April 14, although we recommend getting this submitted as soon as possible in case there are errors that need to be resolved. The solar power system can be installed after the cutoff date, so long as the application is submitted by April 14 and it is approved by the utility, however, if any significant changes are made to the equipment being used or system size, that would trigger a new application and cause the customer to lose their NEM 2 status.    

As the proceeding currently stands, customers should be prepared to go solar by the cutoff date, April 14, in order to receive the maximum benefits, however, there is a small possibility that this decision could be reversed entirely. Last month, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group and Protect Our Communities Foundation filed a formal appeal to reverse the CPUC’s final decision. The appeal highlighted ways in which the CPUC violated the law. 

The first and perhaps most obvious issue is that the decision violates a California law requiring the sustainable growth of rooftop solar. The California law is very clear in stating that the new NEM tariff must “ensure that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably,” During the course of the proceeding, some commissioner’s even stated that this decision may slow rooftop solar adoption but the CPUC has to consider other issues as well. The appeal rightfully argues that this decision is not the CPUC’s decision to make, as the law is very clear. 

The second issue is that the decision violates another California law that requires the CPUC to put forward an alternative option that would increase solar in communities of concern. The current California law states that any changes to NEM must include an option that will grow solar in “disadvantaged communities.” Not only does the decision actually make rooftop solar more expensive for everyone and disproportionately impacts communities of concern, but the CPUC promises funds to disadvantaged communities that are not available unless the legislature allocates them and are only for battery storage, not rooftop solar. 

  

The overarching issue of the entire proceeding is that the CPUC completely failed to account for all of the benefits and costs of rooftop solar. Any changes to NEM should have been based on the costs and benefits to all ratepayers and the CPUC not only disregarded the benefits of rooftop solar, but also misrepresented the impacts of long distance transmission lines. The appeal claims that in disregarding evidence presented to them, they violated their own process and precedent.  

What's next? 

Although the appeal is strong in its merits, this appeal is simply administrative, meaning that the CPUC has no real timeline to respond to the appeal or make any decisions. If the CPUC fails to respond within 90 days, the organizations that filed the appeal can escalate the appeal to an appeals court, which representatives have stated is the plan. 

The appeal is strong, and has already gained support from groups like 350.org and Solar Rights Alliance, however appeals similar to this have been filed in previous CPUC proceedings and were ultimately dismissed by a court of law and the CPUC. While we should remain optimistic about the appeal, customers should still plan to follow the current deadlines on the table to ensure they don’t miss the opportunity to go solar.   

Bottom line is that if you can go solar now, we recommend it as you’ll be able to maximize your savings and start producing clean energy soon!

Read more

Newsom cuts climate program funding to address budget deficit in a climate emergency

The 2023-2024 budget Governor Gavin Newsom released earlier this month makes cuts to some of the state’s most impactful climate programs and initiatives due to a decline in the state’s General Fund.

In 2022, California saw the devastating effects of the climate crisis as wildfires, droughts, floods and record-breaking heat waves impacted our most vulnerable communities across the state. It is clear that California needs to take aggressive measures to accelerate the state’s transition to clean energy, reduce carbon emissions and transform our transportation system. Unfortunately, while it is clear that the state should increase funding for climate initiatives, the 2023-2024 budget Governor Gavin Newsom released earlier this month makes cuts to some of the state’s most impactful climate programs and initiatives due to a decline in the state’s General Fund. 

We often say that communities of concern are often hit first and worst with the impacts of the climate crisis, and California is witnessing that now with multi-family affordable housing complexes being flooded, infant mortality rates increasing in areas where there is significant air pollution as a result of fossil fuels and long term health issues like asthma and cancer have higher occurrences in communities of concern. 

Transportation 

With transportation being responsible for more than half of the state’s carbon emissions, it is clear that climate investments in transportation need to be prioritized not only for the state to meet its climate goals, but also because pollution from transportation is causing long term adverse health outcomes for communities of concern. In 2022, the state budget included $13.8 billion for transportation programs for projects to advance rail and transit connectivity, improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and incentives for zero emission vehicles. This year, the budget includes a $2.7 million reduction in funding from last year making billion dollar cuts or delays in funding for programs. 

Energy    

Although the Governor’s budget states that California “prioritizes affordability, reliability and safety as the state encourages efforts to decarbonize the grid and scale deployment of clean energy generation and storage,” programs to transform our energy system are among the programs with the most drastic cuts in funding compared to last year’s budget. The 2023-24 budget proposes a reduction of $897 million in General Fund and an additional $370 million in General Fund in delays to future years. 

One of the programs with the most drastic cuts in funding is for Low Income Residential Solar and Storage. The program will suffer a reduction of $270 million for solar and storage incentives in 2023-24, just as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has finalized a decision to cut rooftop solar benefits for future customers

Another program to suffer reductions is the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program at the California Energy Commission, which not only includes a delay of $370 million in funds for this year, but also a reduction of $87 million for in the 2025 budget. 

Extreme Heat and Community Resilience 

In 2022, California experienced record-breaking heat waves that put a massive strain on our energy grid and resulted in deaths across the state. Despite knowledge of the fact that heat waves will continue to get worse as the climate crisis accelerates, funding for programs to address extreme heat and provide relief for communities suffered the most cuts in funding of any of the climate related programs, with a $735 million reduction across programs. 

Programs affected include the Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program with a $25 million reduction, which is a 43 percent reduction compared to last year as well as programs to develop community resilience centers, which suffered a delay of $85 million to 2024.     

With a reduction or delay in funding to nearly every single climate program, some more than others, it does not seem as though the state government, which claims to be a leader in addressing climate change is prioritizing funding for programs but more importantly, not prioritizing the health and safety of the frontline communities who suffer the disproportionate impacts of climate change. 

Read more in Governor Newsom’s budget summary.    

Read more

Solar Moonshot Program - 2022 Highlights

Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation has had the privilege of running its Solar Moonshot Program for three consecutive years now. To date, the Solar Moonshot Program has had a $1,000,000 budget per year, which has made solar and storage projects possible to over 100 nonprofit organizations across 27 states, deploying 5,458kW of solar and offsetting 136,049 metric tons of carbon dioxide. These projects are reducing emissions, offering solar education to the community, supporting green jobs and allowing nonprofits to save money on utility bills that are reinvested into their missions. 

In 2022 alone we have supported over 20 solar projects across nine states. The solar and storage projects range from educational facilities, food pantries, affordable housing complexes, schools and more. Collectively, these projects are deploying 853.25kW of solar and offsetting 21,266.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide that otherwise would be accelerating the climate crisis. This is the equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from 24,585 passenger vehicles per year and carbon dioxide emissions from 23,436,242 pounds of coal burned.

The following organizations have received grants this past year and are collectively helping combat the climate crisis:

We are extremely thankful for the generous support of Left Coast Fund, BQuest Foundation and an anonymous donor who have funded these grants and share our passion of combating the climate crisis and prioritizing communities of concern. The Solar Moonshot Program would not be where it is today without their support.

We are happy to announce funding for the 2023 Solar Moonshot Program! If you are part of a nonprofit organization that is interested in applying for a Solar Moonshot Program grant, please find the application here: www.solarmoonshot.org. We encourage you to follow us on social media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter) to check out our weekly #SolarSaturday posts that highlight grant recipients, the nonprofits’ inspiring missions as well as how solar positively benefits communities and the globe.

If you know of a foundation, philanthropist or company interested in supporting the Solar Moonshot Program, further expanding our impact, please reach out to maya@hammondclimatesolutions.com.

Read more