In the latest chapter of the “Rentseekers” of Big Energy stifling growth in the disruptive rooftop solar industry, consider for a moment the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which is trying to change the rules on rooftop solar customers in the middle of the game.

Since 2009, thousands of LADWP’s customers have signed lease agreements with third-party providers and had systems installed. These contracts were approved by DWP. Now, LADWP is trying to force hundreds of the city’s most recent solar customers to re-sign their contracts, attempting to force solar companies to insert amended language even though the utility acknowledges they had approved the contracts on no less than three separate occasions.

On precisely none of those occasions did their reviewers catch what they suddenly perceive to be language that may in fact violate their own standards for contract language.

By slowing the progress of solar energy and creating such a difficult consumer and business experience, LADWP is acting in direct contrast to the city’s goals for solar growth. Regardless, without re-signed contracts, LADWP says it will not allow these customers to interconnect their solar systems to the grid. This prevents them from accessing the benefits of local, clean power, and from lowering their electricity bills.  

The re-signing process has been extremely confusing and off-putting, especially for those who already have systems built on their rooftops. It, once again, puts the rooftop solar industry – a major source of job growth – at odds with the municipal utility. (See previous criticisms of LADWP, their delays, and inefficiencies here.)

Solar companies and constituents are in the process of contacting L.A. council offices, so there is hope that a policy fix is be on the way. Moreover, Mayor Garcetti has made his plans for increased distributed generation in L.A. clear. After all, the City did approve the original contracts that solar companies have used.

Meanwhile, interconnection is on hold for hundreds of families. Consumers are trying to do the right thing, and solar companies and customers have complied throughout the process, yet the utility is forcing everyone to jump through hoops despite approving the original course.

Let’s hope L.A. moves forward and changes the course.  

Oil company settles claims against it for Benecia refinery

by Brian Leubitz

Sure, you know Valero from their brightly colored gas stations. But if you’ve been following California politics for a while, you may remember when Valero got involved here. They were a big funder in Prop 23, a measure to repeal our landmark climate change legislation. It turns out that they have some other plans for chemicals in California air, as they have settled and acknowledge violations:

The Valero Refining Co. has agreed to pay more than $300,000 for repeated air quality violations, including gas leaks, over the past few years, regulators announced Tuesday.

The company will pay $300,300 in civil penalties for 33 violations in 2011 and 2012 at its petroleum refinery in Benicia, according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (SF Chronicle)

Valero actually self-reported, so this is somewhat a sign of the system working. However, for the people of the East Bay who face increased asthma rates, the system really isn’t working. Children in Richmond have asthma rates twice normal rates, and air quality is thought to be chiefly responsible.

As a sports fan, a question always pops to mind whenever I consider the story of David and Goliath: Who would take this match-up in a best-of-seven series? That’s because, in most sports, over time, the laws of averages come into play, the inherent advantages of one competitor win out over the disadvantages of the other, and a true champion is crowned.

So how do we explain the recent run of success that has the blossoming solar industry (i.e. David) routing monopoly utilities (Goliath) all across the country? Well, like they say in sports, they don’t play the games on paper. And the same would seem to apply in the world of competitive energy.

Since the beginning of summer, solar supporters have racked up a 3-0 record against big utilities…

Louisiana

In late June, the Louisiana Public Service Commission voted to maintain the policy that gives rooftop solar customers fair credit for the excess electricity they deliver back to the grid. This policy is known as net energy metering. It is a critical piece of revolutionizing our energy grid because it supports and encourages customer choice and private investment in rooftop solar.

As you might expect, the entrenched utility industry has been trying to kill net metering policies across the country since solar benefits like this put their profit margins at risk. But with net metering on the books in 43 states, the playing field may be too large for even big money special interests to execute a cohesive game plan. Which brings us to…

Idaho

Shortly after the landmark decision in Louisiana, Idaho Power tried to alter their net metering rules and lost huge when the Idaho Public Utilities Commission released its net metering decision, denying the utility most of its proposed changes. Among the highlights from that decision are that there will be no cap on net metering moving forward, no modification to the existing pricing structure, and no expiration of excess generation credits. All three points are huge victories for the solar industry.

California

But the big dog in any national policy debate will always be the Golden State. As the most populous state in the nation and the 8th largest economy in the world, decisions made on the left coast tend to wash over the rest of the country in time. So, it’s big news for solar energy that the California Legislature passed a bill (AB 327) in the final days of this year’s session that protects our state’s net metering policy. And in a coup for solar advocates, it had the support of the utility industry.

Originally seen as a solar killer, AB 327 received a makeover with amendments to: 1) lift a suspension order on net metering that would have gone into effect at end of next year; 2) provide certainty around how the current net metering cap is calculated, 3) provide a framework for removing the cap altogether and 4) remove the existing ceiling on California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which means the Public Utilities Commission can require utilities to get more than just 33% of their electricity from renewable energy sources.

By all accounts, this is a policy unique to California, and it encourages continued development of renewable resources on all fronts.

Kudos for this impressive run of victories is due to advocacy organizations like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the nonprofit group The Vote Solar Initiative. For the sake of our environment and consumer choice, we should hope their successes continue.

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

In order to protect itself from the perceived threat of rooftop solar, First Solar is filing comments against net metering in states like Arizona and Nevada where a significant portion of its large-scale project portfolio is located, and where the preservation of net metering policies is up for evaluation.  Nevada is the site of two of the company’s large scale projects, which means the utility in that state is a major customer for First Solar. Comments filed in Nevada by First Solar advocate for thwarting the growth of their own industry by attacking residential solar.  Similarly, First Solar filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on September 18, 2013, in which it claims that the spike in rooftop PV growth has led to a financial burden on ratepayers and utilities.  As I mentioned above, studies show this is not true at all.

Rooftop solar’s popularity among ratepayers and utilities does not come exclusively from the fact that it is a renewable source of energy.  In addition to societal benefits, it is also a form of distributed generation – which means that it is energy produced close to where it is used. In areas where the grid is constrained and electricity demand is on the rise, utilities have the potential to save millions by avoiding the costs of paying for new power lines and purchasing more electricity. Utility scale solar just cannot compete with that.

What do potatoes, surfing, and Mardi Gras have in common?  They represent states where leadership has made decisions demonstrating a strong commitment to rooftop solar.  Over the past several months, the states of Idaho, California, and Louisiana have served as battlegrounds where the rooftop solar industry and its advocates have successfully defeated monopoly utility attempts to limit or eliminate net metering. In all three states where the battles have been waged, utility regulators and legislators’ decisions have led to the preservation of net metering. Net metering is the cornerstone solar policy that gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  So far the score stands at 3-0, with solar in the lead.

What do potatoes, surfing, and Mardi Gras have in common?  They represent states where leadership has made decisions demonstrating a strong commitment to rooftop solar.  Over the past several months, the states of Idaho, California, and Louisiana have served as battlegrounds where the rooftop solar industry and its advocates have successfully defeated monopoly utility attempts to limit or eliminate net metering. In all three states where the battles have been waged, utility regulators and legislators’ decisions have led to the preservation of net metering. Net metering is the cornerstone solar policy that gives rooftop solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  So far the score stands at 3-0, with solar in the lead.

Policies like net metering, along with innovative financing options and the fact that the cost of solar energy has dropped dramatically, has led to tremendous growth in rooftop solar installations over the past decade.  This growth has come unwelcomed by utilities that see the trend as a threat to their revenue and growth.

Utilities are attempting to hinder the progress of rooftop solar by pushing legislation that limits or eliminates existing net metering policies.  Utilities want to do away with net metering because they are dependent on a centralized, monopoly model that is being threatened by the emergence of rooftop solar and other forms of distributed generation.

While the rooftop solar industry has three victories under its belt, the war is not yet over.  Net metering battles continue to crop up across the US, but the solar industry has history and public opinion on its side. It’s been said that utilities are like the typewriter lobby resisting modern computers.  Plus, consumers want the freedom, predictability, and cost savings of rooftop solar.  In a recent poll from Arizona, about 67 percent of respondents said solar is the energy source they want to encourage most.

About AB 327

As explained in a Vote Solar press release: AB 327 is “a net metering and rate reform bill that contains a number of strong provisions for distributed solar. AB 327 ensures that one of California’s most important solar consumer rights, net metering, will stay in place until at least 2016 instead of being suspended as soon as next year. It also gives the California Public Utilities Commission authority to remove caps on participation in the program altogether for the first time in California history. These changes chart the way forward toward long-term solar industry sustainability, and will help hundreds of thousands of homes, schools and businesses go solar and lower their electricity bills.”

The student-led campaign to pass an oil extraction tax in California via ballot initiative entered a new phase this week. The initiative, titled the California Modernization and Economic Development Act (CMED, for short), began gathering signatures in April and hit the signature gathering deadline set by the Secretary of State today. However, Californians for Responsible Economic Development, the student-led group that drafted the initiative, is announcing plans to strategically resubmit a revised measure: “This Summer has been busy for the CMED team,” said Aaron Thule, Grassroots Coordinator for the campaign, “after a lot of hard work, we have built a signature gathering coalition for Fall and Winter that will be ready to activate and qualify this initiative come November.”

The revised initiative will still utilize a tax on oil extracted from California to make investments in education and energy affordability, and authors have kept the same title. However, the authors made several key changes to the initiative. First, CMED will now feature a sliding scale tax of 2% to 8%, which proponents argue will protect small business owners and jobs. Proponents of the initiative predict that the oil tax would bring in 1 billion dollars a year in revenue for the state. Second, revenue in the revised initiative would be allocated as follows:

– 50% would be placed in a special 30-year endowment for education. After 3 years, the endowment would begin to payout in four equal parts toward K-12, Community Colleges, Cal State Universities and University of California. After 30 years of collecting interest, proponents predict it would bring in as much as 3.5 billion dollars a year (in today’s dollars) for California’s education system.

– 25% would be used to provide families and businesses with subsidies to help them switch to cleaner, less costly forms of energy

– 25% would be allocated toward rolling back the gas tax increase enacted last July, to make gas more affordable for working class Californians.

The growing coalition, which set signature gathering goals to qualify the measure by early Spring, includes the University of California Student Association (UCSA), groups at San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, CSU Bakersfield and several community colleges. California College Democrats and Young Democrats, which have both endorsed an extraction tax for education and clean energy, are also lending support. “It’s hard to believe that California is the only state that practically gives away our energy – especially when, as a state, our schools and colleges continue to struggle and we have yet to provide adequate funding to meet our own renewable energy standards,” said Erik Taylor, president of the College Democrats, who added: “Cal College Dems aren’t the only ones focused on the problem. At the Democratic convention in April, the state party endorsed an extraction tax policy for California. At the Democratic eboard meeting in July, the Young Democrats took it a step further and endorsed an extraction tax for education, renewable energy and community development.”

The UCSA, which represents hundreds of thousands of students in the UC system, plans to organize across several campuses in order to ensure benefits for students. Kareem Aref, the President of the UCSA, commented, “Affordability and funding are critical issues at the UC and Prop 30 simply is not the solution in itself that we need. Our campaigns for this year are designed to ensure a stable and long term funding stream for the UC. We are excited to push CMED to the next level and see this initiative implemented.”

More information and updates from the campaign can be found at http://www.cmedact.org

Legislative Compromise leads environmentalists to call for moratorium

by Brian Leubitz

I’ve already discussed the compromises made on the fracking legislation, SB 4, and the fact that environmental groups are now calling for a moratorium. Here’s an NRDC letter requesting the moratorium.

“Governor Brown let a good bill go bad,” said Annie Notthoff, NRDC director of California advocacy. “Our leaders should put Californians’ health and safety first.  But these last-minute amendments to the fracking bill undercut critical safety measures. Governor Brown needs to right this wrong by heeding the call of a majority of Californians – impose a moratorium on fracking now until the risks are fully evaluated.”

With all that being said, an unusual alliance between environmentalists and powerful ag interests is growing to oppose fracking. Fracking presents a whole raft of concerns to agriculture, big and small. Besides the obvious sheer amount of water required, the risks of chemical pollution to groundwater could be disastrous to farmers. Back in June, the New York Times took a look at that relationship

By all accounts, oilmen and farmers – often shortened to “oil and ag” here – have coexisted peacefully for decades in this conservative, business friendly part of California about 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles. But oil’s push into new areas and its increasing reliance on fracking, which uses vast amounts of water and chemicals that critics say could contaminate groundwater, are testing that relationship and complicating the continuing debate over how to regulate fracking in California.

“As farmers, we’re very aware of the first 1,000 feet beneath us and the groundwater that is our lifeblood,” said Tom Frantz, a fourth-generation farmer here and a retired high school math teacher who now cultivates almonds. “We look to the future, and we really do want to keep our land and soil and water in good condition.”(NYT)

So, where does the Governor go from here. In the past, he has sounded optimistic about fracking for economic reasons, but always given a caveat of environmental safety.  As of yet, it would be hard to say that the caveat can really be answered yet. So, will he issue a temporary moratorium, or will he trust that the regulations under the weakened SB 4 will be enough?  I’m afraid I don’t have that answer, but a lot rides on the governor’s response.

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

The future of solar energy in the state of California just got a little brighter.  Thanks to the recent passage of Assembly Bill 327 — a piece of legislation supported by solar advocacy groups and big investor owned utilities alike — rooftop solar will be accessible to more California residents.

When it comes to energy legislation, investor owned utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E and Southern California Edison are not very often on the same side of the fence as solar advocacy groups like The Alliance for Solar Choice (TASC) and the Vote Solar Initiative (VSI).  However, thanks to the leadership and successful collaborative efforts of California Gov. Jerry Brown, AB 327 has brought the IOUs and solar advocates together.

Since AB 327 lifts the ceiling on percentage of California’s energy generation that must come from renewable sources and brings stability and certainty to state’s solar net metering program, it supports the objectives of solar advocacy groups.  Net metering gives solar customers full retail credit for the excess energy they put back on the grid.  AB 327 removes the suspension on net metering that would have gone into effect at the end of this year and paves the way for completely uncapped net metering.  

The fact that the bill also includes provisions that give the California Public Utilities Commission new considerations for rate reform makes it attractive to IOUs.

Before the passage of AB 327, the future of net metering was uncertain.   This uncertainty threatened continued growth, especially the notable growth that the industry has seen in lower and middle income communities in recent years.  According to John Stanton, co-Chair of TASC and VP of Policy and Electricity Markets for Solar City, “Passage of this legislation means more Californians will now have access to cleaner, cheaper and better energy.”  Greater stability that the continuation of the program provides in the solar market also equates to more jobs in the state.

Next stop for AB 327: the Governor’s desk.

Environmentalists balk at Assembly amendments to Fran Pavley’s SB 4

by Brian Leubitz

Once there was a real split in the environmental community over fracking legislation. The National Resources Defense Council, CLCV and a number of other organizations were supporting Sen. Fran Pavley’s SB 4 to regulate the process. Others were calling for a complete moratorium to gather sufficient data to ensure safety.

It seems that bifurcation has ended upon the oil and gas friendly amendments made to the bill in the Assembly. The only remaining California bill this term to address fracking (SB 4) passed through the Assembly yesterday morning with new amendments by the oil and gas industry that undermine the bill’s original intent. The Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action and Environmental Working Group no longer support SB4 due to these amendments.

“Californians deserve to have their health and drinking water sources protected from oil and gas development. Last-minute amendments, added due to oil industry pressure, threaten to weaken the environmental review required by CEQA,” said Miriam Gordon, California Director of Clean Water Action.

“This unfortunate turn of events should give Governor Brown even more reason to immediately put in place a moratorium on fracking and well stimulation while the state evaluates the risks,” said Damon Nagami, senior attorney for NRDC.

Prior to the introduction of the new amendments that compromise the bill, NRDC, CLCV, CWA and EWG had been working to put the critical safeguards that SB4 contains – new permit requirements, groundwater monitoring, public notification, inter agency management and independent hazards study – in place to protect Californians from risky fracking activities.

The bill has now passed the Senate concurrence as well, and is as good as on the Governor’s desk. For better or worse, it looks like he is leaning toward signing it:

“The administration has worked collaboratively with the Legislature to craft a bill that comprehensively addresses potential impacts from fracking, including water and air quality, seismic activity and other potential risks,” Brown spokesman Evan Westrup said in an email.(Bee)

We need your help! In the last week of the legislative session, polluters may be getting a big gift if last minute legislation is not amended.

Californians can look forward to hazardous waste being “left in place” instead of removed and sent to specially constructed and licensed facilities under last minute amendments to Speaker John Perez’s Assembly Bill 1330. The legislation now calls for meeting environmental targets by “reducing the disposal of hazardous waste.”

That’s like “cleaning up” Prince William Sound by letting Exxon leave oil in the Bay.

Will you help us stop this outrageous power grab by polluters by calling on your legislators for amendments today?

The toxic amendment appears to be the brain child of polluters and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Director Debbie Raphael. The DTSC has been the subject of whistleblower and consumer complaints that it is falling down on the job, but the last minute amendments would let polluters have a pass on cleaning up their pollution. Among the beneficiaries are Boeing, Chevron, KB Homes, Lockheed Martin and Waste Management, all prolific donors in Sacramento.

No doubt major industry players from Boeing – with its radioactively contaminated Simi Valley land – to KB Homes – and their plans to build on radioactive sites next to industrial factories without adequate clean up, are rubbing their hands together. This legislation disposes of the need for disposal, saving them millions of dollars and making official what the DTSC has already been quietly sanctioning.

Waste that is not removed continues to expose the public to toxins via different pathways from breathing it in to ingesting it through food or water.

Please take a minute to weigh in with your state lawmakers and stop this power grab by polluters.

Posted by Liza Tucker, Consumer Advocate and Author of the Golden Wasteland Report. For more information on Consumer Watchdog and our Toxics Watchdog project, follow us online on Facebook and Twitter.