Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Net Energy Metering topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public raises objections to AB 942 net-metering changes; subcommittee asks staff to return item for fuller review

3869065 · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two members of the public urged Carlsbad officials to oppose AB 942, a state bill that would alter net-energy metering contracts for rooftop solar; the subcommittee directed staff to bring the bill back for discussion at a future meeting.

Two residents urged the Carlsbad legislative subcommittee on June 24 to oppose AB 942, a state bill described by speakers as changing how net-energy metering (NEM) contracts transfer at property sale and potentially reducing rooftop solar value.

Paige Desino, a Carlsbad resident, told the subcommittee she hoped the city would oppose AB 942 because she believes it would "break the contract" for NEM customers when they sell their homes and could undermine rooftop solar growth. Don Christiansen, another resident and renewable-energy advocate, said the bill would effectively destroy a successful program that has helped California reach more than 2 million solar rooftops and that the proposed changes would reduce property values and undercut clean-energy gains.

City staff and the state contract lobbyist had earlier briefed the subcommittee on AB 942, noting the bill would: sunset legacy NEM contracts after 10 years; require new property owners who inherit solar to take service under then-current NEM tariffs rather than inherited legacy terms; and end climate credit allocations for NEM customers beginning January 1 (as described in the lobbyist briefing). The lobbyist—s briefing also noted the bill was supported by investor-owned utilities and opposed by a large coalition of environmental and clean-energy groups.

Subcommittee members said they heard the public comments and that the item was not on the meeting—s notice as a formal action item; they asked staff to bring AB 942 back at a future meeting with full background and options so the subcommittee could consider a formal position. That instruction was included in a motion that passed later in the meeting.

No formal city position on AB 942 was adopted at the June 24 meeting; staff will return with additional information for the subcommittee to consider.