The California Supreme Court has taken up a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Protect Our Communities Foundation and the Environmental Working Group challenging the state’s new NEM 3.0 rooftop solar policy. The petitioners are asking the court to review whether the California Public Utilities Commission’s NEM 3.0 decision follows state laws requiring that net-metering policies help the rooftop solar market grow, especially in disadvantaged communities.
NEM 3.0 went into effect on April 15, 2023, and cut the compensation homeowners receive for feeding excess solar power to the grid by around 75%. A 2022 analysis by Wood Mackenzie predicted NEM 3.0 would halve California’s rooftop solar market by 2024. Internal research by the California Solar & Storage Association (CALSSA) found California was on track to lose 22% of its solar jobs by the end of 2023.
In May of 2023, the Center for Biological Diversity and other petitioners filed a lawsuit against the decision, but an appeals court ruled in favor of the CPUC and upheld NEM 3.0. The groups now say the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeals court’s ruling is a chance to undo the damage and save solar.
“The court’s intervention is necessary to clarify whether the commission can disregard societal benefits in setting tariffs for residential rooftop generation and fulfill its obligation to promote rooftop solar growth in disadvantaged communities under the NEM statute,” said Environmental Working Group (EWG) General Counsel Caroline Leary.
Center for Biological Diversity Attorney Roger Lin told Solar Power World he expects court briefings to take at least the summer, after which point the court will schedule oral arguments.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a ray of hope for rooftop solar at a time when plummeting installations and massive layoffs are wrecking this vital industry and jeopardizing California’s climate goals,” Lin said. “The Public Utilities Commission made a huge mistake that’s putting rooftop solar’s benefits out of reach for working-class families. But the commission isn’t immune from legal review, and I’m now a lot more optimistic that we can get back to a reasonable policy that helps California fight the climate emergency and environmental injustice.”
Updated at 3:33 p.m.
Nem 3.0 more than doubled the equipment cost, and you have to replace the batteries every 10 years. They should have set payback rates similar to what LA does (about 14.5c/kwh) and subsidized battery implementations. They should also encourage more DIY batteries other electrician support as opposed to just supporting solar installation companies which add nearly 100% margins to a 20k installation. Solar equipment costs less than $1/watt now, and can be as low as $.40/watt if you are very good at sourcing. Why are we still paying $3/watt to get it installed?
Micros are suffering from the misbehaviors of bigs. Huge installations taken through horrible crony-eminent-domain allows old-tech to pit down renewables in general. I used to be an activist (put-down eord in US). When I was in US, one could upset the bigs by saying key-words and phrases like de-coupling and green-tea. I have no idea if that still works, but goldwater and friends borrowed total-eclipse-of-the-sun to put down an az utility. It was great fun. Anybody old enough to temember that?
In Germany, solar power fed into the grid is remunerated at approx. 9 ct/kWh. This guarantees amortization in less than 20 years. I don’t understand why it is not possible in California to find a compromise between net metering 2.0 (with a payback period of less than 10 years) and net metering 3.0 (with a payback period of no less than 15 years). Wouldn’t a 50% reduction in the feed-in tariff instead of 80% be a possible middle way?
I was promised to be under NEM2.0 since I signed to install my rooftop solar panels before April 15, 2023, however it seems PG&E has placed my installation under NEM3.0. This means for every 1kWh of electricity sent to PG&E, I’ll be credited 3 cents instead of 30 cents. No wonder other folks do not see any advantage in installing rooftop solar panels. I’d like to see this reverted back to 30 cents per 1kwh.
Good news to see people with proper skillset are pushing back on the CPUC decisions championed by investor owned utilities.
I do wish it was not focused on disadvantaged communities. I am not in a disadvantaged community. But i am older, on a fixed income that is not keeping up with inflated food, health and energy costs. My roof is south facing with no shade. Would be perfect if not for NEM3 and AB205 changing the ROI timeline to be nonsensical. Regardless of the community status the CPUC is acting in the interest of investor owned utilities and not the state of California.