Protect Access to Benefits of Rooftop Solar &
Batteries for California Renters
Sign-On Letter
CPUC Docket R.20-08-020 (Virtual Net Energy Metering)
Dear Members of the California Public Utilities Commission
cc: Governor Gavin Newsom
RE: Protect access to benefits of rooftop solar and batteries for California renters
Complete this form to join your organization to this letter
We, the undersigned organizations and community leaders, many of which represent working class and frontline communities that have suffered too long from air pollution, climate change, skyrocketing utility bills and blackouts - are writing to urge you to strengthen - not weaken - the state's program to bring rooftop solar and storage to California's 16 million renters. We are writing in strong opposition to the proposals from the utilities and the CPUC Public Advocate's Office that would eviscerate the state's Virtual Net Energy Metering (VNEM) program that serves multifamily renters, small businesses, and public agencies
Rooftop solar and batteries are a critical tool to help multifamily renters control unsustainable utility bills. Despite utility-driven and other bureaucratic obstacles, more than 37,000 renting families are benefiting from solar energy located on-site at multifamily developments across California. An additional 100,000 renters will benefit from new solar projects currently under development, and another 200,000 families in affordable multifamily developments are projected to get solar by 2030.
California should accelerate these adoption rates into the millions with well-established policy fixes that have been brought before lawmakers and regulators by frontline community advocates on numerous occasions.
It is critical to speed up the growth of rooftop solar and batteries on multifamily developments for a number of reasons:
It's one of the best ways to give California renters immediate utility bill relief. California utility customers currently pay more for electricity than the rest of the nation, with very few options to lower those electricity costs.
It's the best way to project renters from blackouts, and the only clean way to do so.
It can be deployed quickly, especially if the remaining bureaucratic hurdles are removed;
It is critical to the state tripling its solar capacity, as called for by the Energy Commission to meet the state's clean energy goals;
It helps reduce the cost of the electrical grid, benefiting all ratepayers.
The state's VNEM program is the foundation for bringing rooftop solar to renters. VNEM lets owners of multifamily developments install solar panels onsite and use the solar energy produced to reduce renters' utility bills. It is one of the best tools available to reduce renters' utility bills because it directly reduces the renters' need to buy more expensive electricity from the utility. And, when paired with onsite batteries, VNEM is the only way to protect renters from blackouts.
The utilities do not like the prospect of renters reducing their electricity purchases, which is why they are proposing to gut the state's VNEM program. Their proposal puts solar back out of reach for people living in apartment buildings, just as they were starting to get meaningful access to local, clean, affordable energy through VNEM. This would be unacceptable under any circumstance, and unfathomable that it would happen to some of the state's most powerless residents.
The utilities' proposal is a slap in the face to renters in two ways:
It guts the credit that multifamily properties receive for sharing excess energy with the grid.
It effectively blocks the only way apartment buildings can generate their own power to reduce the amount they purchase from the utility and create solar savings for the residents.
The proposal from the CPUC Public Advocate's Office is even more anti-renter, calling for the elimination of the VNEM program altogether in favor of community solar – a worthwhile program that, once established in California, should be in addition to VNEM not in place of. While we support community solar when it is done correctly, we unambiguously reject the notion that it should be the only option available to renters. California should be offering renters more opportunities to benefit from customer-owned solar, not less.
Furthermore, we strongly disagree with the continued use of the false narrative of the so-called "cost shift". As the Center for Biological Diversity has shown in their recent report "Rooftop Solar Justice", the cost shift is based on a manipulation of data that undercounts the true costs of large-scale utility infrastructure and significantly undervalues the real grid and societal benefits of rooftop solar and batteries. When the data is used correctly, it in fact shows that more rooftop solar reduces the cost of the grid for all ratepayers, as well as conferring significant societal benefits.
Our organizations serve, and represent, actual working-class and middle-class renters. Decisions like these should be centered around the best interests of underserved renters and impacted communities, not the outdated and unsustainable business model of the utilities.
Thank you,