Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community solar bill pits proponents against PUC and utilities over cost-shift and program viability
Summary
AB 18 13 would change the PUC's community renewable energy rules to use avoided-cost valuation and other changes supporters say are necessary to make community solar paired with storage economically viable; the Public Advocates Office and investor-owned utilities warned the bill risks shifting costs to nonparticipating customers and reversing recent PUC protections.
Assemblymember Ward presented AB 18 13 as a course correction to the PUC’s community renewable energy decision, arguing the commission adopted a compensation framework that will render the program nonviable and leave no new projects built. Supporters — including San Diego Community Power, TURN, industry groups and community choice aggregators — urged the committee to require an avoided-cost calculator and clearer load-modification protocols so community solar paired with storage can be financeable and accessible to renters and low-income customers.
Opposition testimony from the Public Advocates Office and major utilities warned that AB 18 13 would unwind recently adopted PUC safeguards designed to prevent cost shifts to nonparticipating customers. Shelly Leiser of the Public Advocates Office said the PUC decision followed extensive input over 23 months and struck a balance that protects nonparticipants; she said the bill’s approach could increase rates for customers who cannot participate. Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric also said the bill’s compensation approach misclassifies resource types and risks higher system-wide costs.
Assemblymember Ward and witnesses traded detailed technical arguments on whether a single avoided-cost methodology can equitably value geographically distant ‘‘front-of-the-meter’’ projects, whether the PUC’s recent decision depends on appropriations to be implemented, and how the Legislature should respond when it believes a statutory directive has been misread. Proponents described the PUC’s approach as a ‘‘sham program’’ that cannot proceed without supplemental appropriations and a pricing change; opponents emphasized the risk of shifting costs onto nonparticipants.
The committee moved AB 18 13 to Appropriations as a do-pass, amended motion after debate and several members urged the sponsor to work with the Public Advocates Office and utilities on technical amendments as the bill advances.
