Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Solar panels line the roof of a home on Channing Avenue in Palo Alto on March 3, 2009. Photo by Veronica Weber.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently set aside plans to vote on a controversial proposal to revise the state’s rooftop solar program. That’s good. This time-out gives regulators a chance to rethink their proposal and tackle what Gov. Gavin Newsom described as “still … some work to do.”

I agree there is still work to be done. California is the U.S. leader in solar energy and adds a power plant-worth of rooftop solar about every five months. As of last year, our state had 25 gigawatts (GW) of solar on the grid, with utility-scale solar accounting for 15 GW and 10 GW of distributed solar, nearly all of it from rooftop solar. To put that into perspective, 1 GW is enough to power 110 million LEDs or about 9,060 Nissan Leafs.

However, being the leader doesn’t mean our work is over. Our state’s current plans assume California will need as much as 208 GW from a mix of clean energy technologies to reach the goal of 100% clean electricity by 2045. We need more clean energy of every kind, and I’m working on legislation to encourage that.

The CPUC’s pause on its proposal is important because it provides time to craft a better solution to balance incentives for clean energy and remedies to address affordability concerns for non-solar customers. An updated approach shouldn’t slam the brakes on the growth of solar, or other clean energy technologies. Our goal is a clean energy transformation. We need to get there faster, and we need to bring everyone along in the process.

Solar arrays in the front parking lot of Gabriela Mistral Elementary School in Mountain View on Oct. 25, 2021. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

The CPUC proposed changing the key incentives that enabled Californians to put solar on more than 1 million roofs of homes, apartments, schools and businesses including many in the 13th Senate District. Supporters of the CPUC’s proposed changes say these benefits have gone mostly to the wealthy, but in recent years almost half the growth in rooftop solar occurred in working- to middle-income neighborhoods, according to a study of solar-adopter income trends.

The CPUC proposed several changes:

• A “participation fee” only for solar customers

• Changing the payments to existing solar customers

• For new solar customers, dramatically reducing the rate of compensation customers get for selling excess energy to the grid.

I strongly agree that more support is essential for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation and to incentivize storage. However, there are ways to accomplish this without drastic changes that kill new rooftop solar and change the deal for existing solar customers.

We should protect existing customers.

Josh Becker is a Menlo Park resident and a California state senator representing the 13th Senate District.

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

  1. I too agree “that more support is essential for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation”.

    Before looking at a solar tax, how about doing all we can to make (or keep) electricity more affordable than its alternatives.

    Next month, PG&E and SVCE (and other CCCAs) will raise their electricity generation rates by 8-10%. PG&E justifies that increase by its reliance on natural gas to produce electricity. SVCE doesn’t even bother to justify their increase, it seems to be done because they can.

  2. We agree. However, it’s not enough to fund the solar roof program if new house flip rebuilds by contractors who are looking for a quick buck are allowed to shade the legacy solar panel investments. The Solar program needs to protect access to the sun. These new monster homes are not green and not affordable so why are we allowing them?

  3. Josh, two things:
    1) if nearly half of recent solar growth occurred with working/middle income neighborhoods, do we really need to focus on “more support … for low-income Californians to participate in clean energy transformation”? This seems a red herring issue by CPUC change supporters.
    2) I’d really like to see more support for low carbon energy of all types, especially nuclear which should be replacing hydrocarbons as reliable base load.

  4. I second the motion for non-exclusionary support of zero
    carbon energy production, such as nuclear fission.

    And to make our intentions clearer, avoid loaded, ambiguous
    terms like “clean” and “green” in favor of unambiguous language
    such as “carbon-free”.

Leave a comment