CPUC Guts Solar Power in name of “equity,” adds $8/kW monthly charge paid to PGE [pdf]

SF Chronicle Editorial Board:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;fFG2l#selection-3261.0-3269.271" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;fFG2l#selection-3261.0-3269.271</a><p>&quot;While some modest rate adjustments may be appropriate, gouging rooftop solar users at the behest of private utilities, absent massive systemic changes to the way electricity rates are set in California, would be a terrible mistake. Making solar more expensive to operate will only entrench current inequities. If California is serious about lowering rates for customers, it should look for ways to expand solar roofs to renters and others who can’t currently afford to benefit from these installations.<p>It should also do something to bring its outdated utility model into the solar age.<p>PG&amp;E is a menace, responsible for some of the worst and most deadly wildfires in state history. And yet California’s energy policy guarantees the company and other private utilities set revenues, regardless of energy demand or competence in delivering that energy safely.&quot;

The word equity is repeated 108 times in this 204 pages document<p>On average once every two pages

Now, PGE will pay you unreasonably low prices when you sell power back to them. So much so that installing solar may not make sense. You will still buy from them at $0.30&#x2F;kw, or even more during peak.<p>Additionally you will pay to PG&amp;E $8 per kW of solar you&#x27;ve installed (and personally financed) PER MONTH, and get nothing in return. That&#x27;s just a transfer of money from you to PG&amp;E, to punish you for getting solar. (&quot;But no, PG&amp;E has to maintain transmission lines!&quot; Yes, that&#x27;s why they buy energy at wholesale rates are are allowed by law to sell them at retail at a huge spread. That&#x27;s where they make the money to maintain lines.)

Why do the affected California middle-class voters keep supporting government officials that do this to them? Where is the instinct of self-preservation here?

&quot;promote equity, inclusion, electrification,&quot;<p>EIE is not enough; we demand DIE: &quot; deuterium, inclusion, electrification&quot;!

Page 153 &quot;Step 4: No later than 120 days after the adoption of this decision, the Commission will implement a tariff sunset on NEM 2.0, after which time no additional customers will be permitted to take service under the NEM 2.0 tariff.&quot;<p>So 1&#x2F;27 + 120 days = 5&#x2F;27 is the earliest deadline for residential customers to lock in NEM 2.0.

* Purports to conduct analysis of alleged underpayment of pro rata distribution costs by people who have solar systems (and do of course pay PG&amp;E when they draw energy) *<p>* Conducts no corresponding analysis of PG&amp;E cost structure, assumes company is well run *

Ok, how do we start to immediately fight this?

That&#x27;s California for ya.

The headline is editorialized.