The Congressional Committee retreated from the controversial provisions of the bill proposed to end solar credits for two million owners of the rooftop solar system on Wednesday night.
Introduced by Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), Congressional Bill 942 covers a long-standing program that provides energy credits to Californians who installed solar panels prior to April 15, 2025.
As originally drafted, the bill limited the profits of the current program to 10 years. The state told the rooftop owners that it would receive half of the 20-year period. The committee settled that provision, leaving another provision that would cancel the program for those selling their homes.
By amendment, the bill passed 10-5 and sent it to the Congressional Budget Committee.
The rooftop sun owner score attended the hearing and asked the committee members to vote no. Some said they believed that even with the revision the measure would reduce the value of their homes.
“We put our home for sale yesterday,” said Dwight James, a resident of Simi Valley. “We didn’t expect the nation to break our promises.”
Calderon, a former Southern California Edison executive, said he proposed the bill because the financial credit given to the owners of the rooftop sun due to the excess electricity sent to the grid is raising electricity bills for those who don’t own the panel.
Edison and two other large-scale for-profit electricity companies in the state, together with members of international electrical workers, supported the bill.
The main utility uses union labor to build and repair equipment, including lines connecting distant industrial-scale solar farms in the desert. Companies that install rooftop panels generally do not use union members.
This law does not affect the customers provided by local government utility companies.
Several members of the Assembly Utility & Energy Committee said at the hearing that their offices were overwhelmed by calls and emails from Solar customers.
“I got more opposition to this bill than any other bill, 8 to 10 times more,” said Rep. Pilar Siavo (D. Santa Clarita), who voted for no.
Before the hearing began, analysts considering the committee’s law recommended that the 10-year sunset provision be removed from the bill. She cites the state’s requirement that solar owners sign consumer protection guides, which calls arrangements “contracts,” and says the credits are “guaranteed” for 20 years.
Analyst Laura Shabhutt, the committee’s chief consultant, said it could pave the way for legal agendas to the law.
The bill prompted protests from rooftop solar panel owners this month. He said he invested thousands of dollars in the green energy system based on ensuring that the incentive lasts for 20 years.
Also, those who opposed the bill were schools, businesses, apartment owners and others who had rooftop panels installed.
A group of school districts, including Los Angeles Unit, San Diego Unit and the Alameda County Department of Education, have submitted letters to the Congressional Committee against the proposed law.
“The school district has made a sincere investment in solar energy technology based on state commitments,” the school wrote. “It is unfair and could raise legal concerns to retroactively change the rules.”
“The state needs to support investments in rooftop solar to meet our climate goals and promote affordability for all customers. It does not undermine those who pay attention to the guidance and orders for making these investments,” the school wrote.
Committee members said the revisions will no longer affect the school.
It also alleged that it was dozens of environmental groups, consumer organizations and the rooftop solar system industry that opposed the bill, with electricity bills rising due to excessive utility spending, not from the credit given to owners of green energy systems.
The value of credit provided to panel owners at retail electricity charges increased rapidly as the state Utilities Commission voted to approve the rate hike requested by the Utilities Company.
At a press conference Tuesday, Calderon appeared alongside members of the Utility Workers Union, saying the credits are changing billions of dollars in expenses to people who don’t own the panel.
“It’s about fairness and fairness. There’s nothing more than that,” she said.
Rooftop Solar advocates are challenging their claims by citing statistics from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that show 39% of rooftop panel owners in 2023 showed household incomes of less than $100,000. About 12% were below $50,000.
Several committee members said they heard from solar owners at all income levels on Wednesday night.
“We have to push back the narrative that all of these are high-income people,” Siavo said.
People without solar panels also questioned whether they would actually see a decrease in electricity bills if the measures were passed.
“How much of this will return to consumers?” asked Laurie Davies (D-Laguna Niguel). Her question could not be answered.
Source link
