{"id":5981,"date":"2022-05-13T20:28:13","date_gmt":"2022-05-13T20:28:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/solarrights.org\/?p=5981"},"modified":"2023-12-14T18:03:36","modified_gmt":"2023-12-14T18:03:36","slug":"the-solar-tax-is-back-and-the-solar-cliff-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/solarrights.org\/the-solar-tax-is-back-and-the-solar-cliff-too\/","title":{"rendered":"The Solar Tax is Back (and the Solar Cliff, too)"},"content":{"rendered":"

On May 9th, the CPUC <\/span>formally requested<\/span><\/a> input on three changes they are considering to rooftop solar net metering. Among these changes is a Solar Tax of $300 to $600 per year on average. In other words, the CPUC appears to be pursuing a re-packaged version of their disastrous proposal in December.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As we feared, the utilities have so captured the CPUC that the best they can do is try the same thing with a different wrapper and hope the public doesn’t notice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Recap: the CPUC’s original proposal in December<\/b><\/h4>\n

The CPUC proposed in December <\/span>changes<\/span><\/a> to “net energy metering” that included a $700 per year Solar Tax, deep cuts to the credit solar users receive for sharing their extra energy with the grid, and to weaken protections on existing solar users. The proposal would have effectively doubled the cost of going solar, put solar out of reach for most consumers, and threatened 70,000 good-paying solar jobs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The public backlash to the CPUC’s original proposal<\/b><\/h4>\n

The public backlash was swift and clear. Over 150,000 submitted a comment to the CPUC and Gov. Newsom, along with over 600<\/a> nonprofits, cities, schools and elected officials and most major newspaper editorial boards.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In response, Gov. Newsom said that “changes needed to be made” and the CPUC pulled back their proposal in February.<\/span><\/p>\n

Warning signs in March that the CPUC didn’t get the message from the public<\/b><\/h4>\n

Since then, the CPUC and the Governor’s office have been silent on what comes next. But we caught<\/a> high-level CPUC officials repeating utility propaganda enough times to be concerned that despite public appearances, the CPUC had not fundamentally changed their intentions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This week’s announcement is a red flag that indeed, the CPUC has not gotten the message<\/b><\/h4>\n

The CPUC’s announcement<\/a> asks for input into three ideas they are considering. We think it makes sense to treat these ideas as effectively a new proposal. Here’s our analysis:<\/span><\/p>\n

1) A Solar Tax, again<\/b><\/h4>\n

The CPUC is considering what they call “Non-bypassable charges on gross consumption”. This is a twist on the CPUC’s original Solar Tax proposal in December, which would have been based on the number of solar panels on your roof.<\/span><\/p>\n

The CPUC’s new Solar Tax would be based on the amount of energy you make and use to power your home or business. We estimate the average solar user would pay between $300 and $600 per year under this new Solar Tax. Here’s a spreadsheet<\/a> with our calculations.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s like taxing people for hang-drying their clothing<\/b><\/h4>\n

In both cases, the CPUC is proposing to tax people simply for investing in and using solar energy. This is exactly like taxing people who hang-dry their clothing instead of running the dryer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s absurd, it’s intrusive, and it violates every principle of conservation and responsible citizenship. It also contradicts everything the Newsom Administration says it is for: solving climate change, promoting clean energy, making solar more equitable, and keeping the lights on. We are also quite sure it is illegal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A false premise<\/b><\/h4>\n

The CPUC continues to justify their Solar Tax by falsely accusing solar users of not paying their fair share of the electricity system. This, too, is absurd. Solar users pay their fair share in three ways: through their minimum bill of about $10\/month, through existing “non-bypassable charges” deducted from their net metering credit, and through the electricity they buy from the utility when the sun isn’t shining (between $50 and $120 \/ month according to utility data<\/a>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It’s not shocking that the CPUC would base their policy on shoddy facts, since all of their official research is conducted by firms with conflicts of interest with the utilities. That brings us to the second idea the CPUC is still considering.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2) A “glidepath” to making solar unaffordable for middle and working class people, brought to you by the utilities’ consultants<\/b><\/h4>\n

The CPUC’s original proposal was to abruptly slash the credit solar users receive for sharing their extra energy with the community, from an average of $.25\/kWh to around $.05\/kWh.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The CPUC is now contemplating creating a “glidepath” that slashes the net metering credit to this $.05\/kWh level over a period of a few years rather than right away. The CPUC left the actual time to get to this low price open-ended but suggested four years in their memo. In other words, the market would go off a cliff in four years rather than right away.<\/span><\/p>\n

Not much of a glide in that path.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The CPUC claims that $.05\/kWh is the actual value of your extra solar energy according to a computer model they call the “avoided cost calculator”. The CPUC also claims this is comparable to the cost of energy from solar and wind farms.<\/span><\/p>\n

If that were true, then wouldn’t the utilities be proposing to also lower our rates to $.05\/kWh? They’re not, and so let’s talk about where the CPUC’s avoided cost calculator comes from.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Avoided Cost Calculator” = Utility Math<\/b><\/h4>\n

The “avoided cost calculator” was developed by a consulting firm called E3, whose other <\/span>clients <\/span><\/a>include PG&E, SoCal Edison and SDG&E, along with many other North American utilities. To say this is a conflict of interest is an understatement.<\/span><\/p>\n

E3’s avoided cost calculator is rigged in several ways to make the utilities’ solar and wind farms seem cheaper than rooftop solar. For example:<\/span><\/p>\n