CA's horrible net metering law

Up until now, net metering has been a sort of mythical to me. I understand how it works – you put up solar panels or wind generators and the utility company rebates you for the power you make – to an extent. You can’t be paid for any extra power you generate. I get that, but I’d never actually seen what it looks like.

Then I checked my mail today and found a letter [PDF] from JB Neilands, a retired UC Berkeley biochemist and past writer for the Guardian who broke the original story about the Raker Act scandal. Six years ago Neilands put solar panels on his Berkeley home, and now PG&E sends him a summary of all the excess power he’s generating for them – that they don’t pay him for. He could have made $122.86 off his panels last year. That’s not a lot, but it certainly would have helped pay back some of the cost of purchasing the panels. Plus it gives you a good feeling about what you’re doing, and that can go a long way.

Instead, how crummy it must feel to get a letter from PG&E detailing the money the AREN’T reimbursing you. As Neilands points out in another letter [PDF]to Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, ten states surveyed by Home Power magazine (gotta be a member to read) found that California is the only one that doesn’t pay people for the extra power they generate.

This is ridiculous. California legislators need to rise above the lobbying of overly powerful utility companies and change this law. This is a disincentive to put up more panels than you need. Energy misers with huge roofs could be selling renewable power into the grid for the rest of us to use, but they’re not going to buy more panels than they need unless the cost can be recouped.

Assemblymember Jared Huffman has introduced legislation to fix this, but it appears PG&E has already gotten to him.

Last Friday, the Marin Independent Journal reported that Huffman supports Community Choice Aggregation (a public power co-op concept that utility companies hate.) However, he’s willing to change the law so that people would have to opt in to the program – which the utility companies would love. According to the IJ, “Huffman on Friday said if the county asks him to change the law, he will work on it. ‘If I'm asked, I'd be happy to do it,’ he said. ‘At this point, I haven't been asked.’”

Would he do it if PG&E asked him?

As it stands now, all citizens are automatically in the power co-op should their county decide to go for CCA, and they’re given several notices over time informing them to opt out if they want to stay with PG&E. The general laziness and apathy of the populace means actively opting-out to stay with PG&E isn’t likely to happen – unless the utility advertises so heavily against CCA that people get scared. Or the much easier solution – buy off the legislature. They’ve been dropping $1,000 donations into Huffman’s campaign for the District 6 (Marin/Sonoma) seat. Yuck. Let’s hope the former National Resources Defense Council attorney, who’s only been in the Assembly since 2006 and has enjoyed a lot of support from the local environmental community, doesn’t buy PG&E’s greenwashing.

Post a comment