California and the war on rooftop solar
About ten years ago, we had 22 solar panels installed on the roof of our St. Louis house. Half the cost was paid by Ameren, the electric utility, and we got a 30% tax rebate on the balance. But even with reversible metering, we hadn’t made back our cost when we sold the house two years ago. At that time, ours was among only about a half-dozen homes in our neighborhood with rooftop solar. Here in Rumford RI, there are at least twice as many.
California seems like a state ideally situated to exploit rooftop solar, but the Democratic governor of CA is fighting on the side of utilities to curb distributed power generation in the state, which the utilities claim is eating into their profits. Of course, they don’t admit that.
“Consider California’s residential solar program (its “net-metering”), which the governor has all but dismantled. Believe it or not, in December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted 5-0 to slash incentives for residents to place more solar power on their homes. Part of the boilerplate justification offered by the CPUC, Newsom, and the state’s utility companies was that payments to individuals whose houses produce such power were simply too high and badly impacted poor communities that had to deal with those rate increases. They’ve called this alleged problem a “cost-shift” from the wealthy to the poor. It matters not at all that the CPUC, which oversees consumer electric rates, has continually approved rate increases over the years. Solar was now to blame.
“It’s true that property owners do place those solar power panels on their roofs. What is not true is that solar only benefits the well-to-do. A 2022 study by Lawrence Berkeley Labs showed that 60% of all solar users in California then were actually low- to middle-income residents. In addition, claiming that residential solar power is significantly responsible for driving the state’s electricity rates up just isn’t true either. Those rates have largely risen because of the eternal desire of California’s utility companies to turn a profit.”
On my bike rides out to west St. Louis County, I saw a couple of McMansions with rooftop solar, but most of the houses our neighborhood there and in Rumford look like middle-class homes. So why is the utility pointing the finger at rooftop solar? Is it really the cause of rate increases?
“Here’s an example of how those rates work and why they’ve gone up. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), whose downed power lines have been responsible for an estimated 30 major wildfires in California over the past six overheating years, was forced to pay $13.9 billion in settlement money for the damage done. The company has also been found guilty of 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter for deaths in the devastating 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County. In response to those horrific blazes and the damages they inflicted, the company claims it must now spend more than $5.9 billion to bury its aging infrastructure to avoid future wildfires in our tinder-box of a world. Watchdog groups suggest that it’s those investments that are raising electric bills across the state, not newly installed solar power.”
On the contrary, rooftop solar *saves* money for rate payers:
“A recent Colorado-based Vibrant Clean Energy analysis confirmed the savings rooftop solar provides to ratepayers. Their report estimated that, by 2050, rooftop panels would save California ratepayers $120 billion. That would also save energy companies from spending far more money on the grid (but, of course, that’s the only way they turn a profit).
“What our model finds is that when you account for the costs associated with distribution grid infrastructure, distributed energy resources can produce a pathway that is lower cost for all ratepayers and emits fewer greenhouse gas emissions,” said Dr. Christopher Clack of Vibrant Clean Energy. “Our study shows this is true even as California looks to electrify other energy sectors like transportation.”
Here in Rhode Island, we’ve elected not to get rooftop solar. For one thing, our roof is screened by tall trees. For another, we’ve contracted with a regional solar farm utility for renewable energy. And solar farming doesn’t mean cutting down trees. Back in St. Louis, the company that installed our solar also installed rooftop solar on campus buildings at U. Missouri-St. Louis and Saint Louis University. There are plenty of big box stores, warehouses, municipal buildings and parking lots in California for CP&E to install solar to increase its profits and defend its business model against distributed power without degrading the environment.
Sadly, California isn’t the only state attacking rooftop solar. Residential solar programs in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina are also being targeted for roll-backs to preserve the current fossil fuel-based electrical generation business model.
California’s war on rooftop solar
California seems like a state ideally situated to exploit rooftop solar, but the Democratic governor of CA is fighting on the side of utilities to curb distributed power generation in the state, which the utilities claim is eating into their profits. Of course, they don’t admit that.
“Consider California’s residential solar program (its “net-metering”), which the governor has all but dismantled. Believe it or not, in December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted 5-0 to slash incentives for residents to place more solar power on their homes. Part of the boilerplate justification offered by the CPUC, Newsom, and the state’s utility companies was that payments to individuals whose houses produce such power were simply too high and badly impacted poor communities that had to deal with those rate increases. They’ve called this alleged problem a “cost-shift” from the wealthy to the poor. It matters not at all that the CPUC, which oversees consumer electric rates, has continually approved rate increases over the years. Solar was now to blame.
“It’s true that property owners do place those solar power panels on their roofs. What is not true is that solar only benefits the well-to-do. A 2022 study by Lawrence Berkeley Labs showed that 60% of all solar users in California then were actually low- to middle-income residents. In addition, claiming that residential solar power is significantly responsible for driving the state’s electricity rates up just isn’t true either. Those rates have largely risen because of the eternal desire of California’s utility companies to turn a profit.”
On my bike rides out to west St. Louis County, I saw a couple of McMansions with rooftop solar, but most of the houses our neighborhood there and in Rumford look like middle-class homes. So why is the utility pointing the finger at rooftop solar? Is it really the cause of rate increases?
“Here’s an example of how those rates work and why they’ve gone up. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), whose downed power lines have been responsible for an estimated 30 major wildfires in California over the past six overheating years, was forced to pay $13.9 billion in settlement money for the damage done. The company has also been found guilty of 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter for deaths in the devastating 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County. In response to those horrific blazes and the damages they inflicted, the company claims it must now spend more than $5.9 billion to bury its aging infrastructure to avoid future wildfires in our tinder-box of a world. Watchdog groups suggest that it’s those investments that are raising electric bills across the state, not newly installed solar power.”
On the contrary, rooftop solar *saves* money for rate payers:
“A recent Colorado-based Vibrant Clean Energy analysis confirmed the savings rooftop solar provides to ratepayers. Their report estimated that, by 2050, rooftop panels would save California ratepayers $120 billion. That would also save energy companies from spending far more money on the grid (but, of course, that’s the only way they turn a profit).
“What our model finds is that when you account for the costs associated with distribution grid infrastructure, distributed energy resources can produce a pathway that is lower cost for all ratepayers and emits fewer greenhouse gas emissions,” said Dr. Christopher Clack of Vibrant Clean Energy. “Our study shows this is true even as California looks to electrify other energy sectors like transportation.”
Here in Rhode Island, we’ve elected not to get rooftop solar. For one thing, our roof is screened by tall trees. For another, we’ve contracted with a regional solar farm utility for renewable energy. And solar farming doesn’t mean cutting down trees. Back in St. Louis, the company that installed our solar also installed rooftop solar on campus buildings at U. Missouri-St. Louis and Saint Louis University. There are plenty of big box stores, warehouses, municipal buildings and parking lots in California for CP&E to install solar to increase its profits and defend its business model against distributed power without degrading the environment.
Sadly, California isn’t the only state attacking rooftop solar. Residential solar programs in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina are also being targeted for roll-backs to preserve the current fossil fuel-based electrical generation business model.
California’s war on rooftop solar
Our PG&E cost per kilowatt hour in Northern California is 47.38 cents. The cost of electric in at our house in Northern Montana 5.925 per kilowatt hour at winter peak time! I find the difference mind boggling. One would think that increased population density would drive the costs down. Obviously not.
Northern Calif.- Surprisingly, we were the only house on the block that had solar installed (just before the state government drastically reduced the compensation you get for solar electrical production).
I had it installed on sides and back of roof so that it would not deter from the curb appeal of the house.
Best decision I’ve made!: I financed the whole project over a 25 year period. No cash out of pocket up front. My monthly repayment loan is $162. Every month we produce more electricity than we use, so we get a monthly credit of $50 to $80 dollars from PGE and we pay nothing to the utility company monthly! So our monthly out of pocket cost for electrical, taking into account. the credit from PGE, averages $110. Meantime, all our neighbors lament over their $600 to $1000 monthly electric bill. A side benefit is that the panels shade the roof from direct sunlight so attic stays cooler and the shielded roof surface lasts longer as it does not have the direct uv exposure.
Leland:
Maybe get a smaller house and plant trees if you can do so?
We live in the Arizona desert. We have experienced a couple of months of temperatures ober 100 degrees with many days 110 to 115 degrees. Three bedroom, two bath, 1500 square feet. 2×6 construction with open cell foam insulation in the attic and the walls. (I believe it is open cell). The attic is cool. The bill this month was $185 and included those hot days. Temp is 73 at night and 78 during the day. Heat pump.
For some reason in AZ, the electric company will only allow you so much credit for solar. Hve not heard why. I will explore it some time.
Correction: financed system for 25 years, not 2 years ( typo).
Leland Kimball’s contract term is the reason I never put solar panels on our house. That, and that all of the salespeople seemed to be from California, where the SRECs had a set floor, so they could manage their cash flow, while we could not in NJ.
That said, it’s a relatively small upfront cost (ca. $17-20K, last time I checked), so it seems much more possible to make it make sense as an investment with a large(r) down payment and higher cost over the first five to ten years.
The breakeven is probably still close to 10-12 years (think mortgage-equivalent financing), but I suspect that model doesn’t make the firm selling the panels enough money.
@Ken,
At the time, we were told we’d break even at ca. seven years, but I knew that unless utility prices rose at a previously unseen rate, the break even would be closer to 10-12 years. It all depends on the utility rates, which were low in Missouri during that time.
Gentlemen, we live in unincorporated Roseville Ca. So we are not part of Roseville Electric. Pioneer generates electricity and PG&E delivers it.
PG&E in the spring or so decided to add capacitor banks to offset the power surge when the temperature went into triple digits. I was clocking on average 258 volts. They are allowed 5% under or over 240 volts. In that upper range our solar panels were shutting down and not generating any power so anything that we used we were paying for. We are still working on exactly how much money we lost on our 19 rooftop panels.