![]() Interestingly enough, every demographic group involved in the survey opposed NEM 3.0. Among the survey’s respondents, 64% stated that they were opposed to NEM 3.0, 15% were unsure, and only 20% supported the CPUC’s proposal. A survey conducted by Newport Beach-based Probolsky Research revealed that California voters overwhelmingly opposed the CPUC’s proposed changes to the state’s solar rules. Survey results did not side with NEM 3.0, which energy research firm Wood Mackenzie believes could cut California’s solar market by half by 2024. Tesla CEO Elon Musk openly opposed the proposal on his Twitter account as well, describing it as a “bizarre, anti-environment move” by the state. Electric vehicle and energy company Tesla promptly directed its Engage program on the issue, urging California residents to make their voices heard. A Widespread Oppositionĭespite the CPUC’s apparent efforts to push through with NEM 3.0, the proposal had one glaring problem: it was highly unpopular outside the initiative’s direct proponents. A disagreement on an assumption does not equate to a flaw in the assumption,” the CPUC’s proposal read. Furthermore, CALSSA’s contention that the study’ assumptions are or appear flawed’ does not persuade us CALSSA and all stakeholders have been given several opportunities to weigh in on the development and drafting of the study. However, the Lookback Study can inform us of what not to do. We recognize, as SEIA/Vote Solar states, that the study does not tell the complete story. CALSSA and SEIA/Vote Solar would have the Commission dismiss the study because it is ‘backward-looking.’ The evaluation of the NEM 2.0 tariff tells us whether the tariff is or is not performing as required, thus establishing a foundation for creating the successor tariff. “We find the Lookback Study to be a sound analysis of the NEM 2.0 tariff and that it should be used in the development of a successor tariff. Despite these reservations, the CPUC stated in its proposal that it believes that the Lookback Study’s conclusions are sound. The California Solar & Storage Association (CALSSA), the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and Vote Solar expressed their reservations about the validity and value of the study, with the groups arguing that the research does not properly evaluate the existing NEM 2.0 program. The Lookback Study had detractors from the get-go. Credit: California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) It argued that NEM 2.0, California’s current system, (a) negatively impacted non-participant ratepayers, (b) is not cost-effective, and (c) disproportionately harms low-income customers who are not participating in the net energy metering tariff program. The CPUC’s 204-page proposal, which referenced a Lookback Study from Verdant Associates, was the same way. Organizations such as Affordable Energy for All, whose coalition includes companies like Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, heavily pushed this “rich vs. Supporters of NEM 3.0 advocated the idea that California’s existing solar rules take from the disadvantaged and give to the wealthy. NEM 3.0 supporters framed these proposed changes as a way for low-income families to not be burdened with the cost of maintaining the grid. NEM 3.0 would also dramatically cut the compensation that homeowners with solar receive for the power they give back to the grid. Tesla estimated that an $8/kWh charge could add between $50-$80/month to a solar customer’s power bill. ![]() If passed, NEM 3.0 would charge solar users with a “grid participation charge” of $8/kWh of installed solar. Initially unveiled last December, NEM 3.0 shocked climate advocates due to its proposed changes to the state’s rules on residential solar solutions. But before we get to the story of how NEM 3.0 was halted, we must look at why the proposal was controversial in the first place. The movement that opposed the CPUC’s NEM 3.0 proposal is quite extraordinary, as it involved the combined efforts of companies such as Tesla and environmental organizations such as The Climate Center and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), to name a few. Getting to that point was nothing short of a Herculean task, and looking at the factors that may have contributed to this halt is a story worth telling. Through an email, Administrative Law Judge Kelly Hymes notified parties officially involved in its proceedings that the proposed decision on NEM 3.0 and its implementation “will not appear on the Commission’s voting meeting agenda until further notice.” The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) proposed new net metering rules (NEM 3.0) hit an indefinite “Pause” button. Earlier this month, a small miracle of sorts happened in California.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |