Nearly 2 million solar owners on the roof in California could lose the energy credits that help them cover what they have spent to install the costly friendly climate systems as part of a state bill.
The author of the bill, the member of the Lisa Calderon Assembly (D-Whittier), is a former executive of Southern California Edison and his parent company, Edison International. She says that the credits that roof owners receive when sending unused electricity to the network increase customer bills who do not have the panels.
His bill, AB 942, would limit the advantages of the current program at 10 years – half of the period of 20 years that the State had said to the owners of the roof they would receive. The bill would also cancel solar contracts if the house was sold.
South of California Edison and the other two major public for profit have long tried to reduce The energy credits that prompted Californians to invest in solar panels. The roof solar systems have reduced electricity sales of public services.
The legislation, which applies to people who bought the systems before April 15, 2023, scandalized some Californians who have invested tens of thousands to install solar panels.
“We are just trying to reduce our carbon footprint and you penalize me for that?” said David Rynerson, a Huntington Beach resident who spent $ 20,000 to install the panels. “It’s just absurd.”
Until she was elected in 2020, Calderon spent 25 years in southern California Edison and Edison International. Her last position was as a government business in Edison International, where she managed the Public Service Political Action Committee.
Calderon refused to be interviewed. In a statement, she said that she did not act on behalf of public service companies.
“I presented this bill thinking of a single objective: to help reduce the cost of energy for Californians,” she said.
Calderon said that if his invoice was adopted, this would reduce electrical costs for customers who do not have the panels from 2026.
According to OpenSecrets.org, which follows political spending, Southern California Edison and the other two major public services belonging to investors are among the most generous corporate donors in Calderon.
Last year, the company gave Calerdon the campaign of $ 11,000. Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, also contributed $ 11,000, while Pacific Gas & Electric provided $ 8,000.
South spokesperson for California Edison, Kathleen Dunleavy, said that the company was taking care of solar energy on the roof, but also supports efforts to reduce the number of costs that have been transferred to customers who are not owners of the panels.
She said that the company’s political contributions to elected officials “are based on their common interest in the best way to serve reliable and affordable SCE customers.”
In his declaration to Times, Calderon said that “political contributions have no impact on the political decisions I make”.
Calderon is a member of a political dynasty which held power in the districts of the blue -collar workers east of Los Angeles for four decades.
She is married to Charles Calderon, former speaker of the State assembly and former head of the majority of the State Senate. She was elected to the headquarters of the Assembly which had been owned by her stepson Ian Calderon.
Within the framework of the California solar solar, the owners obtain a credit on their electricity bills for the solar energy they produce but do not use. Credit is based on current electric prices. The value of credits has increased rapidly as the State Commission of the State has approved the rate increases requested by companies.
In December 2022, large public service companies managed to put pressure on the Commission to reduce financial incentives that solar owners on the roof could receive around 75%, starting with people buying the systems on April 15, 2023.
The Commission left the program for the owners who bought the panels on this date. The agency claims that the value of the credits granted to these owners is now a main cause of the growing electricity bills of the State – a complaint which has been disputed by the solar industry on the roof and dozens of environmental groups.
In a February report For Governor Gavin Newsom, the Commission has suggested reducing the number of years that solar owners on the roof can receive credits at the electrical rate of retail – similar to what the Calderon bill would do – as recourse for the climbing of electricity costs. California now has the second highest electric prices in the country.
The Commission claims that the roof customers do not contribute to their fair share of costs to maintain the electrical network, so that the expenses are transferred to those who do not have the panels.
Dozens of environmental groups have sent a letter This month to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Services of the Assembly and Energy opposing the Calderon bill and stressing that the State has long declared that solar contracts would last 20 years, which is the expected useful lifespan.
“The new CPUC’s new proposal, to break energy contracts in the middle of the street, would be clearly unfair,” wrote the groups. “It would punish people even that California has encouraged to invest in solar energy. And that would prohibit consumer confidence and confidence in government. ”
The groups stressed that when the Californians bought the systems, they signed a legal agreement with their usefulness which details in terms of that the customer is eligible to receive credits for 20 years.
In California, as part of a policy known as decoupling, public services do not earn more money because customers use more energy. Instead, they make most of their profit by building infrastructure, including posts, wires and the rest of the grid.
In their letter, environmental groups highlighted an analysis that economist Richard McCann has carried out for the solar industry on the roof which found that electric rates had increased as public services spent more on infrastructure.
Even if the solar panels of the owners have helped maintain the demand for electricity flat for 20 years, the expenses of the three public services in terms of transmission and distribution increased by 300%, noted McCann.
“To respond to increase rates, California must focus on what is not really going with our energy system: uncontrolled public service spending and the profits of public registration services,” the environmental groups wrote.
An audience on the bill is provided for in the Committee of Public Services and Energy of the Assembly on April 30.
Cherene Birkholz of Long Beach said that she and her husband had spent $ 22,000 in panels for their home. The couple saw the solar panels, she said, as a way to control costs so that they can stay in California after their retirement.
Birkholz said she thought the credits would continue for 20 years. The proposed legislation, she said, “was a shock.”
“If I knew, I may not have made these decisions,” she said.
Dwight James de Sim Valley said that he had spent $ 35,000 on solar panels in 2018 and an additional $ 40,000 in batteries to store power in 2021. He said he had financed the purchase with a 20 -year loan and that he found “disturbing” that the State does not receive what he had promised.
“If you follow the money, it gives you all the answers,” said James. “I think this bill is a means for public service companies to try to keep a little longer and slow down the adoption of solar energy.”
California Daily Newspapers
