California Assembly Bill 942 Faces Strong Opposition

Categories: California Business NewsCalifornia News

Protesters gathered outside the California State Capitol to voice their opposition to AB 942.

News Summary

California lawmakers are preparing to vote on Assembly Bill 942, which seeks to change the compensation for rooftop solar owners. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, aims at addressing perceived inequities in solar incentives. However, it has spurred protests from solar advocates, fearing it endangers existing contracts and diminishes investments in solar energy. With major utility companies backing the bill, ongoing discussions surrounding its implications for homeowners and the solar market continue as the vote approaches.

California state lawmakers are poised to vote on Assembly Bill 942 (AB 942), a controversial bill that seeks to alter the compensation structure for owners of rooftop solar power systems. The proposed changes have ignited significant backlash from solar advocates, who have gathered outside the Capitol in Sacramento to protest the measure, chanting “No AB 942!” as a demonstration of their discontent.

Authored by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon from Southern California, AB 942 aims to address what Calderon describes as the inequity of the current 20-year solar incentives. She argues that these incentives result in an estimated cost shift of $8.5 billion onto non-solar customers, a figure that is projected to rise. According to Calderon, this cost shift constitutes about 25% of a non-solar customer’s energy bill, which she believes places an unfair burden on those who have not adopted solar energy.

The bill faced backlash when it initially proposed reducing the 20-year compensation period to just 10 years; however, this clause was subsequently removed amid strong opposition. One of the significant points of contention is that if AB 942 passes, homeowners with existing favorable solar contracts would not have the benefit of these agreements transferring to new owners when they sell their homes. This stipulation raises concerns among current solar owners, who fear it could diminish the value of their investments.

Critics of AB 942, including figures from the Solar Rights Alliance, contest Calderon’s claims about cost shifts, asserting that the advantages of rooftop solar have been overlooked in financial assessments. They argue that while the proposed changes might aim to rectify perceived imbalances, they threaten the existing incentives that motivate homeowners to invest in solar energy solutions. Solar advocate Kathy Schiffer characterized the potential changes as a betrayal that diminishes the financial incentives for homeowners considering solar installations.

Despite these criticisms, major utility companies in California support AB 942, arguing that current solar subsidies are unfair to the broader customer base, particularly lower-income families who may struggle with the higher costs associated with infrastructure maintenance. With the bill’s passing, California schools and educational organizations are also expressing concern about the implications for energy costs associated with solar panels, should the new compensation terms take effect.

As the Assembly’s Committee on Utilities and Energy prepares for further review of AB 942, there are ongoing discussions about the legal and ethical ramifications that could arise from the bill’s approval. Some advocates view it as a breach of contract that could jeopardize future solar investments in California, potentially eroding trust in the state’s clean energy regulatory framework.

Supporters of AB 942 emphasize the notion of fairness, suggesting that wealthier homeowners have disproportionately benefited from existing solar arrangements at the expense of lower-income residents. They argue that adjustments are necessary to ensure a more equitable distribution of costs and that the repercussions of maintaining the status quo may lead to increased financial burdens on those not currently utilizing solar energy.

The California Solar and Storage Association has voiced strong objections to AB 942 as well, warning of the detrimental impacts on consumer protections and the overall stability of the solar market in the state. With continued discussions on the horizon and stakeholders on both sides of the issue preparing for potential outcomes, the fate of AB 942 remains uncertain. The upcoming vote will be a critical juncture that could either reshape the landscape of solar energy compensation in California or uphold current incentives that many are fighting to protect.