|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
NEXTDOOR THREAD.
Start with the actual bill: Net energy metering. AB 1139, as amended, Lorena Gonzalez.
AB 1139 was placed in an “inactive” status last week because it did not receive the votes needed to pass the State Assembly. [received from SunPower]
Valued SunPower Customer,
In a huge victory for solar customers like you, AB 1139 was placed in an “inactive” status last week because it did not receive the votes needed to pass the State Assembly. This win couldn’t have happened without the support of customers like you voicing your objections and advocating for the protection of solar and clean energy in California. Thank you to all who made calls, posted on social media and sent emails to your representatives. Your work was invaluable to the success of this bill’s defeat.
Below is a list of legislators and how they voted on this bill – a “Yes” vote signaling that the legislator was in favor of raising the cost of solar energy for customers like you – and a “No” or “Abstain” signaling that they stood with solar customers to keep rates low and protect California’s green energy future.
If your representative voted No or Abstained, we encourage you to reach out with a message of thanks, by phoning their office. We offer the following as a suggested message: “Thank you for abstaining [or voting no on] AB 1139, the utility profit grab bill. You stood with solar customers like me and helped protect California’s green energy future.”
It is very important to note that rooftop solar is still threatened. As we speak, the utilities are lobbying state officials at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to destroy the major financial benefits of rooftop solar. The utilities are pushing the CPUC to hit new solar users with monthly fees of $70 on average and slash the net metering credit for sharing excess solar energy with the grid.
To make sure we continue defending solar at the CPUC – and wherever solar needs defending – SunPower encourages you to sign up with the Solar Rights Alliance. Solar Rights Alliance is the non-profit association of California solar users. They defend yours and everyone’s right to make energy from the sun and will alert you when there is a threat or opportunity to engage on solar issues. Sign up by visiting https://solarrights.org/signupsunpower.
Voted Yes on AB 1139 (in favor of raising the cost of solar energy for customers like you)
Assembly members Arambula, Bryan, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Cooper, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Medina, O’Donnell, Quirk, Ramos, Reyes, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Stone, Ting, Villapudua, Rendon
Voted No on AB 1139 (stood with solar customers to keep rates low and protect California’s green energy future)
Assembly members Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Choi, Cooley, Cunningham, Daly, Davies, Friedman, Gallagher, Irwin, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Maienschein, Mathis, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Seyarto, Smith, Valladares, Voepel, Ward, Wicks
Abstained on AB 1139 (stood with solar customers to keep rates low and protect California’s green energy future) Assembly members Aguiar-Curry, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Chen, Chiu, Megan Dahle, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gabriel, Gipson, Grayson, Kalra, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, Patterson, Luz Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Waldron, Akilah Weber, Wood To find your Assembly representative, enter your address here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.
Thank you for being a valued solar customer and advocate.
Sincerely, Suzanne Leta Head of Policy and Strategy SunPower [email protected]
Very good news. Thank you. I just wrote this to Kevin Mullin (abstained from the vote 😡):
“I am very disappointed to see that you abstained from the vote on AB1139. Would you mind telling me why you abstained. It was obviously a ploy by Big Energy to take more moneys from the pockets of its customers, and to discourage (if not eliminate) the home use of rooftop solar.”
We’ll see if he replies. If he doesn’t, he will not see my vote again.
So, I received a reply from Rep Mullin about why he abstained on the vote. Pasted below is his response and my reply to it:
Dear Mr. Mullin,
Thank you for your response. I understand your argument, but I disagree with the proposed solution(s). In my opinion, the real goal here is to fight climate change while also encouraging BIG ENERGY to properly maintain their infrastructure. Discouraging rooftop solar is totally opposite to that goal.
What needs to be done is:
A) BIG ENERGY needs to exempt CARE-qualified* customers from the Net-Energy Metering Tariff. That would eliminate the burden on predominantly low-income communities of all colors (edited: I used that term because Mr. Mullin did), while simultaneously encouraging those non-solar customers who can afford rooftop solar w/batteries to go for it when they realize their Net-Metering Tariff is greater than the potential rooftop solar w/batteries cost + energy savings.
B) The State of California should heavily subsidize rooftop solar w/batteries for CARE-qualified* customers. I would happily pay the tax for that!
Eventually the tariff would not cover the NEM outlay, but by then the vast majority of houses would have rooftop solar and BIG ENERGY would become superfluous, or at least just a delivery service.
And one last thing: I am of the opinion that CPUC is about as corrupt a public organization as one can find. They appear to represent PG&E (and I assume all BIG ENERGY), not BIG ENERGY customers.
Thanks again for your response.
Sincerely, John H Gruver
On 2021Jul 13, at 14:43, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Mr. Gruver,
Thank you for writing to express your views regarding AB 1139 (Gonzalez). I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of your concerns.
AB 1139 was deeply unpopular with the solar energy community and I can certainly understand and appreciate why, but the legislation looked to address a real equity issue. Those that have access to rooftop solar have benefited greatly from net-energy metering (NEM), but the reality is, those that do not have access to rooftop solar, pre-dominantly low-income communities of color, have had to bear the subsequent cost shift. Households that have installed rooftop solar save on their electricity bill, but the fixed-costs for the utilities to provide services does not simply go away when a household installs solar. Instead, that cost is shifted to those that are non-NEM customers. Numerous studies bear this out and explain how those that can least afford it, end up taking on the extra cost burden for those with rooftop solar: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2021/06/01/rooftop-solar-inequity/.
This is an issue I believe needs to be looked at, but I ultimately felt it would be best done through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC already has an open proceeding to look at this issue as part of their larger rulemaking process for developing a successor to the existing Net-Energy Metering Tariff and that is why I abstained when the bill came before me on the Assembly floor.
Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep me apprised of your views on this or any state issue of concern to you.
Sincerely, KEVIN MULLIN Speaker pro Tempore(edited)
Author: Coastside Buzz
Me
It would be interesting to look into the Campaign Contributions for all those voting to abstain to see if they are being supported by any in the POWER INDUSTRY.