Appeal seeks to reverse CPUC’s flawed rooftop solar decision

Three nonprofit organizations have appealed the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)’s December 2022 decision to eviscerate the state’s rooftop solar program. The appeal outlines several ways in which the CPUC’s decision violates both the law and their own rules, and argues that the CPUC’s decision must be reheard and reversed.

To be clear, the appeal is administrative, meaning it is directed at the CPUC itself, not a court of law. Depending on how the CPUC responds, the matter could be escalated to a court of law. The CPUC has until the end of March to respond to the appeal before the appeal can be taken to the courts.

Read the appeal

Who filed the appeal

The appeal was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group and Protect Our Communities Foundation. These groups are rooftop solar allies who last year worked side-by-side with nearly 200,000 Californians, Solar Rights Alliance and 600 other nonprofits, cities and schools to stop the utilities and CPUC from killing rooftop solar.

Why they filed the appeal

While we collectively stopped the Solar Tax and protected the 1.5 million existing solar investments, we could not stop the CPUC from slashing by 75%-80% the credit that new solar users will get for sharing their extra solar energy with the grid. Other states that have made similar cuts saw solar adoptions drop by half or more. There is no reason to think California will be any different. Solar will become less affordable for millions of working people just when we should be making it more affordable.

Details of the appeal

The appeal outlines five ways in which the CPUC’s decision violated both the law and their own regulations, doing great harm to working communities around the state.

1. The CPUC decision violates the law requiring the sustainable growth of rooftop solar in California.

  • California law unambiguously says that any changes to the net metering program must meet several criteria, including this one:

“Ensure[] that customer-sited renewable distributed generation continues to grow sustainably…”

  • The CPUC itself acknowledges that their decision might result in a slowdown of rooftop solar, but erroneously claims it is allowed to elevate other criteria above the continued growth of rooftop solar.
  • The appeal argues that is not the CPUC’s choice to make, because the law is clear.

2. The CPUC decision violates the law requiring them to put forward an alternative that increases solar adoptions in working class communities.

  • California law says that any changes to the net metering program must include alternatives that will grow solar in “disadvantaged communities”. Disadvantaged communities are defined by the state of California as low-income communities that face disproportionate impacts from fossil fuel energy production.
  • Yet the CPUC’s decision actually makes rooftop solar and batteries more expensive for disadvantaged communities without putting forward a viable alternative. In addition, the CPUC’s decision is based on incorrect assumptions that undercount the actual cost to install solar in low-income communities.
  • The CPUC erroneously claims that funds will be available to offset these cuts for disadvantaged communities, but those funds are actually not available unless the Legislature allocates them in 2023. In addition, those funds are only for battery storage, which is important, but do not reach the heart of the matter which the law requires the CPUC to do – how to get more rooftop solar to more low-income communities.
  • The appeal argues that the CPUC’s decision is “arbitrary and capricious” by ignoring evidence that was brought before them, such as the true cost of installing solar in disadvantaged communities, and proven methods to bring solar to working families such as community solar.

3. The decision violates CPUC rules by failing to account for all of the benefits and costs of rooftop solar and batteries.

  • The Public Utilities Code requires the CPUC to follow certain rules when making changes to the rooftop solar program.
  • Any changes to net metering be based on the total costs and benefits of rooftop solar and batteries to all ratepayers.
  • However, the CPUC decision undercounts the benefits of rooftop solar while inflating its costs.
  • The CPUC’s decision relies on one narrow method to calculate some benefits (called “the Avoided Cost Calculator”), while excluding other methods to calculate rooftop solar’s total benefits. This is a departure from CPUC’s own practices.
  • The CPUC grossly undercounts the cost of long distance transmission lines. They also misrepresented the facts showing how rooftop solar reduces the cost of long distance transmission lines.
  • The CPUC also disregards both evidence and CPUC’s own internal research showing how rooftop solar and batteries increase community resilience to blackouts and other public health threats.
  • The CPUC also disregards evidence showing how rooftop solar reduces the land impacts of long distance power lines on the environment, as well as reduced air pollution in urban neighborhoods.
  • The CPUC violates its own process and precedent by counting solar users’ bill savings as a direct cost to other ratepayers, while not doing this in the case of energy efficiency and conservation. If the CPUC followed its own precedent, it would have instead calculated the cost to serve solar users, which is a much smaller number than solar users’ bill savings.

4. The decision makes it impossible to accurately measure its impact.

  • Consumers will only go solar if they can predict the value of their investment over the long term. The CPUC made this impossible by holding out the strong possibility of significant changes down the road.
  • Additional changes may include new fixed charges or solar taxes.
  • By leaving so many issues unresolved, it is impossible to measure the actual impact of the decision. That means the CPUC cannot demonstrate that their decision complies with the law.

5. The decision violates CPUC rules by slashing the solar program for churches, schools and businesses without basis.

  • The CPUC decision doesn’t just impact residential solar. The decision also slashed the solar credit by 80% for commercial and industrial solar projects. This includes schools, churches, farms and businesses.
  • The CPUC’s own analysis found that there was no basis to cut the solar credit for commercial and industrial solar projects.
  • This is a violation of the CPUC’s published rules for the proceeding. CPUC rules require a reasonable basis for making such drastic changes, supported by sufficient evidence and analysis.

To reiterate, this is simply an administrative appeal to the CPUC itself. The CPUC is under no time restraint to respond. At some point, the parties filing the appeal may decide to escalate the appeal to a court of law. We are following this very closely and will post updates as they happen.