The Natural Resources Defense Council is facing off against many of its peers in environmental advocacy in a policy debate about rooftop solar subsidies in California.
The NRDC joined forces with utility companies to demand major cuts in rooftop solar subsidies. This has prompted denunciations by other environmental advocates who see rooftop solar as vital for combating climate change and who claim that utilities are using NRDC greenwashing their agenda.
This conflict is a result of long-standing disagreements among environmental advocates over policy and strategy. There are differences of opinion among environmental groups about whether utilities can be allies in the transition toward clean energy. The groups also have differing visions of the future. Some envision electric vehicles and all-electric homes relying heavily on a centralized grid managed and maintained by utilities. Others want to see a decentralized system where most people can generate their own electricity and store it in batteries.
Jim Lazar, a Washington-based consultant on utility regulation issues, stated that NRDC has always advocated solutions that are good to the environment and good to the utilities. He has worked across the nation with state regulators and consumer advocates, as well as with NRDC. None of his clients are currently involved in the California debate.
He stated that I don’t agree with NRDCs strategies personally.
NRDC declined to allow interviews with its California staff members. Kari Birdseye (a spokeswoman for NRDC) stated in an email, that the organization continues to be independent in promoting renewable energies.
She said that NRDC supports rooftops and supported policies that helped Californias rooftop market. However, she now believes that subsidies need to be fair and financially sustainable.
California Public Utilities Commission has updated the rules for net metersing. This is the policy that allows solar owners who have excess electricity to be sent back to the grid to receive a credit. The commission issued A proposed decisionThe credit would be reduced and a monthly fee of $50 per month would be imposed on typical solar customers. The plan proposes that rooftop solar customers pay more to help cover the utility costs to serve them, and reduce the cost shift to non-solar customers.
The proposal has been met with intense criticism by environmental groups, including large national organizations like Sierra Club. Public comments in the docket have also strongly opposed the plan. The commission delayed last month’s vote on the proposal because it needed more time to review the matter and may issue an alternate.
The proposal has support from the major electricity utilities of California, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and NRDC. They also include unions that represent utility workers, consumer advocates, like The Utility Reform Network, along with business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce.
Tensions are high as both parties continue to lobby members of the commission and run ads on radio, television and social media. (Inside Climate News last month reported on a media campaign representing utility views.
Many of the pro-solar fervor comes from smaller grassroots organizations such as the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. These are the groups that call out NRDC.
It’s obvious that [NRDC is]A utility puppet, said Karinna Sanchez, climate justice policy adviser for Hammond Climate Solutions San Diego.
She expressed her concerns about NRDC. a blog postThis is in line with many grassroots groups’ views last year.
We urge legislators, CPUC commissioners, and other elected officials not to mistake buy-in by NRDC for buy-in form environmental groups.
Birdseye of NRDCs stated that it is incorrect to claim her organization’s position on net metering was the same as the utility’s. She cited initial filings in the case, in which the utilities suggested policy changes that rooftop solar customers would need their systems for 21 year before electricity savings would cover the costs of the systems.
The NRDCs original filing in the case requested a nine-year payback period. Pro-solar parties filed for payback periods of around five years. The commission states that the current payback period is 4.5 years.
Birdseye stated that the filings favor a position closer towards the solar industry’s perspective than the one taken by utilities.
NRDC, utilities and others are now in agreement to support the proposed decision. According to the commission, this would result in a payback period of approximately 10 years.
NRDC and Rooftop Solar: The Essential Role
NRDC is one the largest environmental non-profits in the world. It was established in 1970 and has since amassed a long list. CelebritiesA budget of almost $500,000 is available to supporters $200 millionand political influence, a prominent roleThe organization was instrumental in the development of President Barack Obama’s carbon emissions policy. The organization has worked to protect endangered species, clean air, clean water and reduce carbon emissions.
Its friends often include utilities companies. This led to a series o joint statements with Edison Electric Institute (a utility trade group) about shared priorities, including One in 2018Despite this, the clean energy transition has begun and is accelerating.
Birdseye from NRDCs stated that the organization will continue to work together with all stakeholders to find a fair solution that recognizes rooftop solar power’s essential role in our shared mission to combat the climate crisis.
Mohit Chhabra is a senior scientist at NRDC in the climate and clean-energy program. December blog postCalifornia’s rooftop-solar policy overpays customers and shifts fixed grid charges and societal fees that solar customers should pay onto others.
This was just one of many blog posts that endorsed the commissions proposal. In another, he attempted to discredit the commissions proposal. Myths and misinformationAbout the proposal. He stated that the proposal will boost utility profits.
Loretta Lynch, a member of California Public Utilities Commission 2000-2005 and its president 2000-2002, stated that it is misleading for NRDC, to claim that the proposal won’t increase utility profits.
She said that California Utilities are able to make money largely by making a profit from their assets. The commission determines the amount consumers must pay. A utility can increase its profit through the construction of more assets, including power lines and equipment.
Lynch stated that if rooftop solar is eliminated, they will need more transmission cables and thus, more profit.
Despite heated rhetoric, both sides agree on certain things. Nearly all the participants, including Sierra Club, agree that there is a cost shift between solar customers and non-solar customers.
There is overlap where Sierra Club agrees with NRDC that the current incentive was too high and it is fair that it be decreased, stated Katherine Ramsey, an attorney from the Sierra Clubs environmental law programs. We disagree with NRDC about how far you can go. I think that part of what’s missing in the NRDC proposal is there’s not a full and fair accounting of the benefits of rooftop solar.
She is referring to one of the main arguments for solar advocates: that supporters of the proposal are underestimating the cost shift and overestimating the positive effects of rooftop sun on the grid and the climate.
Two worlds completely different
Some of the divisions around rooftop solar policy are due to divergent views about what the transition to renewable energy should look like.
Currently, almost all electricity consumed in the United States is delivered by utilities. Nearly all the electricity consumed in the United States comes directly from centralized power plants. These can be either fossil fuels or renewables. They are also delivered to consumers through utilities.
Lazar, a regulatory consultant, stated that NRDC has chosen collaboration with utilities based in the view that these companies will continue to play a central part in delivering electricity.
If you believe the power companies will be around, then you need a deal with him.
However, not everyone believes this. Others, including those who support rooftop solar in California are pushing for policies that would decentralize electricity systems, giving consumers and communities more control over their own power needs.
Ramsey, Sierra Club, stated that the Sierra Club has a long-standing commitment to democratizing clean energy. This includes local, resilient power. That’s where we disagree. I think we envision an energy system in which we have more control over our energy consumption than NRDC.
The result is fundamentally different, according to Ben Paulos, an independent analyst in Berkeley, California who has worked with the Clean Energy States Alliance and Vote Solar.
He said it was two totally different worlds. The decision to install solar panels on your house is a consumer decision. This is consumer behavior. It has nothing to do with utility procurement.
A utility might argue that utility-scale solar is more affordable per unit of electricity than rooftop solar. However, this view doesn’t take into account the appeal of rooftop sun.
Paulos stated that rooftop solar offers customers the opportunity to own the energy transition.
This is the core of the conflict: utilities want to control the energy transition.
California regulators are trying to decide how much rooftop solar should be subsidized because of the differences in their worldviews.
Another important issue is: What is rooftop solar’s role in California’s energy transition. Mike OBoyle is the director of energy policy at Energy Innovation, a think tank based in San Francisco. Is it a unique resource or a core part of the transition?
Keep Environmental Journalism Alive
ICN provides award-winning coverage of climate free of charge and without advertising. To continue, we rely on donations from readers like yourself.
You will be redirected to ICN’s donation partner.
He believes that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Customer-owned resources such as rooftop solar can serve as an arrow to a broader energy policy.
California’s state government also has an opinion on this matter. Three state offices, which include the California Public Utilities Commission released the following: a joint reportThe state had to triple all forms, including rooftop solar, of wind and solar by 2045 to meet its climate goals.
Rooftop solar supporters insist that it will not be possible to achieve those goals, and have questioned whether the commission could co-author the report calling for a tripling rooftop solar and then propose a proposal that would lower financial incentives to adopt solar.
When asked for a response, a spokesperson for the commission pointed to the panels News releaseAnd Fact sheetabout the motivation of the proposal and had no other comment.
Utilities and environmentalists
California is not only a conflict over strategy or philosophy.
Some rooftop solar supporters say they are responding in good faith to the history of utilities in not acting in public interest by charging high rates, and operating power plants that cause pollution in communities of color. These critics also claim that NRDC has played a crucial role in giving utility-friendly policies a veneer of environmental virtue.
Jamie Court, president and CEO of Consumer Watchdog Los Angeles, stated that NRDC has sided with utilities to disadvantage progressive environmental policy in California and consumers in California.
Lynch, the former president of the commission, stated that NRDC’s support for utilities positions is so extensive that it cannot be explained as a matter overlapping philosophies. She said that NRDC does vital research on ocean pollution, improving water quality, and other issues. Her criticisms are limited to the climate and clean-energy program.
She said that NRDC greenwashed the utilities in my experience as a commissioner and president of the PUC.
Birdseye of the NRDCs said that it was incorrect to assume that the organization always agrees or co-operates with utilities.
NRDC has been a champion for clean energy for decades, she stated. We often find ourselves on opposite sides of utilities.
She cited examples, such as the opposition to San Diego Gas & Electrics application to establish a statewide water heating program. NRDC also supported Senate Bill 100, a landmark California bill that required a transition from net-zero emissions. It was opposed by Pacific Gas & Electric.
Lynch stated that although the debate centers on rooftop solar, Lynch believes it is really about who is responsible for high electricity rates. Utilities and regulators are focusing their attention on the many decisions they made to increase electricity rates, not solar owners. This includes the cost of wildfire liability, which is costly, and many other decisions that benefit the utilities at the expense consumers.
She stated that rooftop solar is a small cost shift compared to the above expenses.
Dan Gearino
Clean Energy Reporter for the Midwest, National Environment Reporting Network
Dan Gearino, ICNs National Environment Reporting Network, covers the midwestern United States. His coverage focuses on the business side and he also writes the ICNs Inside Clean Energy newsletter. He joined ICN in 2018, after a nine year tenure at The Columbus Dispatch. There, he covered the business side of energy. Before that, he was a journalist covering politics and business in Iowa as well as New Hampshire. He was raised in Warren County in Iowa, just south from Des Moines. Now he lives in Columbus.
Anne Marshall-Chalmers
Reporter, Berkeley, Berkeley Journalism’s Investigative Reporting Program
Anne Marshall-Chalmers, a fellow at the University of California Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism is Inside Climate News. She has spent much of her writing and reporting career in Kentucky and Tennessee but recently moved back home to California to pursue a master’s degree in journalism from UC Berkeley. Anne’s interests include agriculture, climate change, social justice and health. Her work has been published in the Los Angeles Times and USA Today, NPR. Anne lives with her husband, two small children and a puppy named “Peaches” near Berkeley.
