Dissecting the CPUC’s Proposed Decision (PD):
Complete Dis incentivization of Solar and Batteries:
The proposal’s ramifications for multi-unit properties are grim. Owners are now facing an uphill battle if they wish to invest in rooftop solar and batteries. The new rules would compel customers to trade their solar production to utilities before buying it back at a marked-up price. This not only negates the solar self-reliance ethos but also financially pressurizes both property owners and renters.
Net Metering and Energy Netting:
The PD intends to abolish net metering and energy netting for all shared property tenants, be they residential or commercial. There’s a move to credit all Virtual Net Energy Metering (VNEM) production at Avoided Cost Calculator (ACC) rates with a paltry adder in the initial five years. Such a move not only deviates from past principles but also renders solar investments on shared properties financially unviable.
Ignoring Physics and Ethical Grounds:
The proposal turns a blind eye to the fundamental truth that VNEM PV systems counteract on-site loads. Denying multi-dwelling units the privilege of utilizing their solar generation goes against the grain of energy generation and consumption’s foundational physics. Moreover, the thought of utilities reselling solar energy to tenants at top-tier prices flirts with numerous ethical quandaries.
A Bias Against Renters:
At its core, the decision seems skewed against renters. The proposal acts as a barrier, preventing renters, especially from low-income backgrounds and communities of color, from harnessing solar benefits akin to individual homeowners. The ramifications for California’s renters, who are already grappling with towering utility rates, are far-reaching.
Contradictions with Past Decisions:
The CPUC has historically differentiated between on-site energy consumption and utility grid exports for individual homes. But this proposal glosses over this distinction, effectively compelling shared properties to part with their energy generation at rock-bottom prices and then buy it back at retail rates.
Strong Opposition from Industry and Local Government:
The proposal has been met with strong resistance from hundreds of clean energy and renters’ rights advocates, affordable housing, farms, and schools, 135 local elected officials, and city councils, all of whom highlight its deep flaws and inequities. The Oakland City Council’s recent resolution is a prominent example of opposition at the municipal level. The recently adopted resolution by the Oakland City Council calls on the CPUC and Governor Newsom “to reject any proposals that seek to frustrate or dismantle the ability of multifamily tenants and schools to avail themselves of the benefits of local, renewable, and affordable energy through rooftop solar and battery storage.”
Inconsistency with State Directives:
The CPUC proposal stands at odds with CA Title 24, which mandates solar adoption for multifamily buildings. This glaring inconsistency accentuates the disconnect between state ambitions and CPUC’s direction, which makes such solar adoption economically unfeasible.
Utility Profits over Public Welfare?:
A pertinent question arising from the proposal is its intent. There’s growing sentiment that it’s tailored more to cushion utility profits than to serve the public. It appears to let utilities misconstrue solar consumption, enabling them to profiteer by selling back to consumers at exorbitant rates.
Ivy Energy’s Stance and Commitment:
In conclusion, amidst the oscillating stances of the CPUC, a recurring theme emerges a tilt toward preserving utility profits at the cost of the public and the environment. The proposed decision is slated for a vote by the CPUC commissioners on September 21, 2023. At Ivy Energy, we firmly believe in equitable access to clean energy—whether for homeowners or renters. We remain unwavering in our commitment to craft a robust response and to be actively involved throughout the decision-making process.
For Further Information:
Ivy Energy remains committed to voicing concerns and opposing decisions that don’t serve the best interests of Californians. We thank you for your continued support and understanding. We are always here to answer your questions, provide insights, and assist in any capacity. Let’s work together for a sustainable and equitable energy future for California. Ahead of the CPUC’s scheduled vote on September 21, Ivy Energy invites journalists, media houses, and the broader public to join the conversation, ask questions, and ensure that the narrative surrounding this decision is well-understood.
“The CPUC’s proposal contradicts several established energy practices and principles,” added Young. “We firmly believe in the power of a well-informed public. Through media awareness, Californians can gain a deeper understanding of the proposal’s ramifications and voice their concerns.”
Austin Young and the Ivy Energy team are available for interviews, offering insights, data, and expert opinions on this pivotal development in California’s energy narrative. For more insights about the CPUC Proposed Decision, visit https://www.ivy-energy.com/blog/cpuc-proposal-ivy-energys-response-and-perspective or this fact sheet provided by solarrights.org https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SUgD1GRKx620Hy0FemfJSwNIxAogUdV2u5inC-_2xwk/edit
Contact: [email protected]
Austin Young
Ivy Energy
+1 801-318-7803
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Instagram
YouTube
Originally published at https://www.einpresswire.com/article/649337436/ivy-energy-calls-on-media-outlets-and-journalists-to-bring-awareness-to-cpuc-s-proposed-decision
