Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Net Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears strong local opposition to proposed Clean Power SF net‑billing tariff and delays action
Summary
Clean Power SF staff proposed replacing retail net energy metering with an hourly avoided‑cost net‑billing tariff plus local and equity credits; dozens of local solar contractors and installers urged delay, and commissioners asked staff for more data—item pulled for further analysis and outreach.
Commissioners opened a public hearing on a proposed Clean Power SF net‑billing tariff (sometimes called the solar billing plan or NEM 3) that would change how rooftop solar customers are compensated. Staff framed the proposal as a move to align compensation with market value and to incentivize on-site storage and daytime use.
Andrew Bevington, Clean Power SF customer solutions manager, summarized the five principal elements of the plan: align export compensation to hourly market value using the CPUC's avoided‑cost calculator, add a per‑kWh local energy credit, provide an equity credit for low‑income customers, continue to charge retail rates for consumption from the grid, and limit the transition to systems with interconnection dates after April 2023 (or systems that require a new interconnection). "We would be using the CPUC approved avoided cost calculator...and we would add a per kilowatt hour local energy credit to account for the value of San Francisco specific generation," Bevington said.
A large portion of public commenters representing local solar companies, contractors and installers urged the commission not to adopt the proposal as drafted. Charles Adams of Avion Power Company contended the avoided‑cost calculator undercounts distribution, transmission and local benefits and said prior court consideration called aspects of the calculator into question. Janine Cotter (Luminalt) and other local installers said San Francisco's rooftop-solar profile differs from statewide patterns and argued the commission should not adopt a statewide-calibrated calculator without San Francisco–specific analysis. "Local generation is much cheaper for society even if not recognized in contracts," one speaker said.
Industry speakers asked the commission to wait for final regulatory outcomes at the CPUC and to publish the public comments and data used to justify the staff recommendation; staff said it will provide the submitted comments and additional supporting data to the commission. Staff emphasized parallel programs: expanded incentives for battery storage and heat‑pump water heaters, and proposed local credits to cushion impacts to low‑income customers; staff also said most existing systems (interconnected before April 2023) would remain on the prior net‑export approach for 20 years.
After extended discussion and more than 100 public comments submitted to staff, the commission did not vote on the tariff. The general manager said the item would be pulled from the calendar to allow more time to review the public comments and provide additional details; staff committed to returning with a timeline for continued public engagement and follow-up materials.
What happens next: Staff will supply the commission with the public comments and additional data requested, outline a timeline for continued outreach and analysis, and report back at a future public meeting before any formal adoption vote.
