Environmental organizations have sued California over new restrictions that they claim would stifle the spread of rooftop solar systems.
On Wednesday, three groups asked a state court in San Francisco to examine and reject recent California Public Utilities Commission policy changes that reduced the amount of money rooftop solar panel owners received for sending extra power into the grid.
Utilities and ratepayer organizations successfully argued in December that the benefit is unfair to those without panels, resulting in changes.
Environmental organizations warned on Wednesday that the new limitations, which went into effect last month, would “devastate solar adoption rates” and contravene a 2013 state law mandating the commission to support rooftop solar. They contended that ignoring growth would jeopardize government climate objectives.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group, and the Protect Our areas Foundation filed a petition claiming that the new criteria did not include a legally mandated budget to assist low-income areas in embracing solar.
The Commission, according to a spokesman, will reply to the case in court and examine regulation rehearing applications next month.
Last year’s decision by the Commission was dubbed a “step backwards” for the sector by the California Solar & Storage Association.
Two of the three companies affected by the limitations, Southern California Edison Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric, said Thursday that they were reviewing the situation but would not comment. The San Diego Gas & Electric Company did not comment on Thursday.
State households got the full retail energy tariff for exporting solar power to the grid under “net metering” laws.
The new regulations cap remuneration at what utilities would pay for renewable energy. According to the groups, the increased limitations would reduce consumer credit by 80%.
According to the petition, for-profit utilities are attempting to “kill” net metering programs throughout the country. Because they unfairly shift the expense of solar power installation onto low-income clients.
They say that since solar panel owners have decreased rates and taxes, non-solar energy customers are unjustly bearing the expense of maintaining the electric infrastructure.
Environmental organizations argue that such reasons neglect the programs’ advantages. Which include reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy security via localized generation.
Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, First Appellate District, Court of Appeal of the State of California, case number unknown.
The environmental plaintiffs are represented by Ellison Folk and Aaron Stanton of Shute Mihaly & Weinberger. Caroline Leary of the Environmental Working Group, and Roger Lin, Anchun Jean Su, and Howard Crystal of the Center for Biological Diversity.
