The California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, issued a proposed decision on the state’s programs to increase community solar, but a diverse coalition of groups say the decision would only further hinder efforts to scale up clean energy and bill savings for renters and low- to middle-income households.
Instead, the proposed decision supports a plan put forth by investor-owned utility Southern California Edison that largely keeps the status quo, expanding existing community solar programs. Those programs have been in place for more than a decade, but have failed to take off.
It’s why these groups — from ratepayers advocates to solar companies to environmental justice organizations — say the decision falls far short of what’s needed.
Community solar refers to moderately large solar projects — not “utility-scale,” like those massive solar fields in the desert, but also not rooftop solar. Customers can then subscribe to or jointly own these projects.
Unlike rooftop solar, community solar programs don’t necessarily involve a direct connection from your home to the solar power site. That’s why it can significantly expand solar access to renters who don’t own their own roofs, as well as lower- to moderate-income folks who may not be able to afford rooftop solar.
If placed strategically, community solar can also dramatically reduce the need to fire up gas-powered “peaker plants” that help keep the lights and A/C on when demand is extremely high, particularly during increasingly hot summer evenings.
Those plants were going to be shut down to align with California’s clean energy goals, but the escalating impacts of the climate crisis led to the state spending more than $1 billion to extend their use.
Read more about community solar, what it could mean for the Southland, why progress has lagged, and why it’s essential to expanding clean energy here.
Proponents of community solar say if the state spent the money to set up a viable community solar program instead, the need for gas-fired peaker plants could be offset by more than 60%.
“By not doing things that make sense, that are cost effective, you don't keep rates down. Instead, you have to take emergency actions to keep the lights on that are neither clean nor cheap,” said Brandon Smithwood, the director of policy at Dimension Renewable Energy, a solar developer.
Community solar can also be developed far more quickly than it’s taking to connect cities to distant solar plants out in the desert.
“These are the kind of projects you can actually bring online today,” Smithwood said. “We don't want to do projects today because they might cost something, but that's going to cost us a lot more in the not-distant future.”
The proposed decision primarily expands existing programs with few changes to make these programs more financially viable for solar developers. It also expands access to a new community solar program regardless of income, though 51% of the projects must be for low-income homes. And troublingly to solar advocates, it asserts that the virtual billing method proposed by the coalition groups — including the California Environmental Justice Alliance, ratepayer advocate group the Utility Reform Network, and a community solar trade association — is illegal under federal law. It also makes battery storage optional, not required, when proposing projects. Battery storage is an essential piece to maintaining A/C and lights during the aforementioned hot summer evenings, when power shutoffs are most likely.
That’s why the coalition of community solar proponents are pushing back against the proposed decision, laid out in a letter to CPUC.
Last year, they were hopeful a new law would help rectify the situation. Assemblymember Chris Ward, who co-authored that law, said in a statement posted to X that the proposed decision was “a step in the wrong direction.”
The next round of comments for the proposed decision on community solar is due by March 25. You can follow the proceeding here and submit public comments here.
Read our previous in-depth reporting on community solar here.
