Controversial solar bill Rewritten in Committee in Sacramento
 |
| Utilities loose billions by keeping Net Metering |
California Assembly Committee Advances Amended Solar Bill AB 942, Raising Concerns Over Property Transfers
By Claude Reporter
May 1, 2025
In a divisive 10-4 vote Wednesday evening, the California State Assembly's Utilities & Energy Committee passed an amended version of Assembly Bill 942, a controversial measure that solar advocates say would break contractual agreements with solar customers across the state.
Changes to Original Bill
The bill, initially introduced by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), has undergone significant amendments since its introduction. The original version would have forced all customers who installed solar panels before April 2023 (under NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 programs) to lose their net metering benefits after 10 years, pushing them onto the less favorable NEM 3.0 rate structure that pays approximately 80% less for electricity exported to the grid.
The amended version approved by the committee takes a narrower approach, focusing specifically on property transfers. Rather than automatically ending all net metering agreements after 10 years, the modified bill would terminate these agreements only when homes with solar systems are sold or transferred to new owners.
"This amended version still breaks contracts with solar customers that had been backed by the state," said Brad Heavner, Director of the California Solar & Storage Association, in a statement following the committee vote. "The agreement language that every solar user signs is abundantly clear that the 20-year net metering terms are attached to the solar system and not the property owner."
Impact on Solar Homeowners
For the more than two million California homes, schools, and businesses with rooftop solar installed before April 2023, the implications could be significant. Many solar owners made substantial investments with the understanding that their systems would provide predictable electricity costs for 20 years and would enhance their property values if they decided to sell.
Under the amended bill, selling a home with solar would trigger an immediate loss of the more favorable net metering rates, potentially reducing the value proposition for prospective buyers and diminishing the return on investment for current solar owners.
Solar industry representatives estimate that shifting from older net metering plans to the current NEM 3.0 structure would increase a typical solar customer's monthly bill by approximately $63, as the compensation rate for excess energy would drop from around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour to about 8 cents.
Utility Support vs. Solar Advocacy
The bill has strong backing from California's investor-owned utilities, including Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). These companies argue that net metering creates a cost shift that burdens non-solar customers.
"According to the California Public Utilities Commission, Net Energy Metering subsidies shift 11% to 20% of fixed grid costs to non-solar customers, amounting to $200-$400 per year per customer," said a PG&E statement supporting the legislation.
Solar advocates, however, present a different economic analysis. They point to research showing that rooftop solar actually saved all energy consumers $1.5 billion in 2024 through decreased grid load and other shared benefits.
Critics also highlight that Assemblymember Calderon previously worked for 25 years in government affairs and political compliance roles at Southern California Edison before her election to the Assembly. Solar rights groups suggest the legislation serves utility profit interests rather than addressing root causes of high electricity costs.
"The real reason electricity rates keep skyrocketing in California is out of control utility spending on transmission infrastructure," Heavner said. "For-profit utilities get a lucrative guaranteed profit return on infrastructure spending, which provides an ongoing motive to keep spending more."
What Happens Next
Having cleared the committee stage, AB 942 will continue through the legislative process. It could potentially reach the full Assembly floor for a vote in the coming weeks.
Solar advocacy groups are mobilizing opposition to the bill, urging California residents to contact their Assembly representatives. They argue that changing the terms of existing agreements would set a dangerous precedent for consumer protection in California.
"This bill would break contracts and set a terrible precedent to consumers that California's clean energy promises cannot be trusted," said a coalition letter signed by nearly 100 organizations opposing the legislation.
Many observers are also watching for potential legal challenges should the bill ultimately pass, as questions remain about whether the state can retroactively modify existing contractual agreements.
Sources:
-
California State Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee votes 10-4 to pass amended Assembly Bill 942, Action News Now, May 2025. Link
-
California committee advances bill to break rooftop solar contracts on home sale, PV Magazine USA, May 2025. Link
-
Bill Text: AB 942 Net energy metering: eligible customer-generators: tariffs, California Legislative Information, 2025. Link
-
Don't Break the Promise: AB 942 Undermines Solar Consumer Protections, Vote Solar, April 2025. Link
-
California proposes break to rooftop solar contracts, raising average bills $63, PV Magazine USA, April 2025. Link
-
AB 942: Net energy metering: eligible customer-generators: tariffs, Digital Democracy, 2025. Link
-
Newsom Admin, utilities push to break 2 million solar contracts, Solar Rights Alliance, April 2025. Link
SIDEBAR: Follow the Money - Lisa Calderon's Utility Connections
Edison Ties Run Deep
Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, the primary sponsor of AB 942, spent over two decades as a key insider at one of California's largest utility companies. Before her 2020 election to the Assembly, Calderon worked as Government Affairs Director and Policy Advisor at Edison International (parent company of Southern California Edison) from 1996 to 2020. During her Edison tenure, she managed the company's corporate political action committee, giving her extensive experience in utility political advocacy.
Part of a Political Dynasty
Calderon's family connections run deep in California politics. Her husband, Charles Calderon, previously served in both the Assembly and State Senate. When elected in 2020, she assumed the seat previously held by her stepson, Ian Calderon, creating a seamless continuation of the Calderon family's political influence in the district.
The Revolving Door
Calderon represents a classic example of the "revolving door" between regulated industries and government positions. Critics point to AB 942 as a case study of this phenomenon: a former utility company executive proposing legislation that would directly benefit her former employer. Edison International has publicly declared its support for AB 942, stating it would "reduce electric bills for millions of customers."
Financial Landscape
While complete campaign finance details weren't available in search results, Calderon's campaign has received substantial support from energy industry interests. According to the Progressive Voters Guide, her campaign received "large donations from corporations and organizations with ties to the fossil fuel industry," including the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance PAC.
Broader Utility Influence
Calderon's legislation exists within a broader context of utility political power in California:
- Utility companies have contributed over $202 million to California political candidates between 2000-2024
- $11.3 million of those contributions went to current sitting legislators
- The industry spent an additional $147 million on lobbying during the same period
- Beyond direct political contributions, utilities directed $705 million to nonprofits, schools, and chambers of commerce between 2010-2023
Edison's Financial Stake
The financial implications of AB 942 for Edison are substantial. In 2023, Southern California Edison collected $91 million for shareholders out of a possible $198 million. The company's approved shareholder return rate for 2024 was 10.75%, the highest among California utilities. Changes to net metering that reduce competition from rooftop solar could potentially increase utility profits by millions.
Utility Arguments vs. Critics
Edison and other utilities claim net metering creates a "cost shift" to non-solar customers, arguing solar subsidies account for 21-27% of non-solar customer bills. Critics counter that rooftop solar actually saved all ratepayers $1.5 billion in 2024 by reducing the need for costly utility infrastructure upgrades. They argue utility companies are "falsely scapegoating" solar customers to "distract from the real reason rates are rising: their own increased spending."
Sources:
- Digital Democracy/CalMatters: Lisa Calderon profile, February 2025
- Solar Rights Alliance: "How Utilities Get Their Way in California," November 2024
- Solar Reviews: "California AB942 would break promises the state made to solar owners," April 2025
- Progressive Voters Guide: Lisa Calderon profile, 2024
- OpenSecrets: Lisa Calderon campaign finance data, 2021-2022
- Edison International Newsroom: "Correcting the Record on AB 942 and Rooftop Solar Reform," 2025
- CalMatters: "California electricity bills include profits for PG&E, SoCal Edison," January 2025
- Solar Rights Alliance: "Newsom Admin, utilities push to break 2 million solar contracts," April 2025
SIDEBAR: Committee Vote Breakdown on AB 942
Based on my research, Here's a complete list of the California Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee members with their districts. From the information I've gathered, here are the members of the committee:
California Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee Members (2025)
- Cottie Petrie-Norris (D) - Assembly District 73, Chair
- Joe Patterson (R) - Assembly District 5, Vice Chair
- Ash Kalra (D) - Assembly District 25
- Diane Papan (D) - Assembly District 21
- Chris Rogers (D)
- Pilar Schiavo (D)
- Nick Schultz (D)
- Tri Ta (R)
- David Tangipa (R)
- Greg Wallis (R)
- Rick Zbur (D)
- Lisa Calderon (D)
- Laurie Davies (R)
- Eduardo Garcia (D)
- Chris Harabedian (D)
- Jacqui Irwin (D)
- Josh Hart (D)
- [Member not identified in search results]
The committee appears to have 18 members total according to BillTrack50, though I was only able to identify 17 specific members from the search results. The committee has a Democratic majority, which is reflected in the 10-4 vote on AB 942 (with several members likely absent or not voting) . Apparently 4 members of the committee didn't feel this legislation was worth show up for or against.
Based on the hearing transcripts, we can see that members Cottie Petrie-Norris, Joe Patterson, Lisa Calderon, Laurie Davies, Eduardo Garcia, Chris Harabedian, Josh Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Ash Kalra, Diane Papan, Chris Rogers, Nick Schultz, Greg Wallis, and Rick Zbur were present at recent committee hearings .
The chair of the committee is Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) who was appointed in late 2023, and the vice chair is Assemblyman Joe Patterson (R-District 5) .
Sources:
The Committee Vote
The California State Assembly's Utilities & Energy Committee voted 10-4 to pass the amended version of Assembly Bill 942 on April 30, 2025. This crucial vote moves the bill forward in the legislative process, bringing it one step closer to potentially becoming law.
The Committee Leadership
The Utilities & Energy Committee is chaired by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who was appointed to lead the committee in late 2023. As chair, Petrie-Norris has emphasized tackling energy affordability issues, which aligns with the stated rationale behind AB 942. The committee's vice chair is Assemblymember Joe Patterson (R-District 5).
Committee Members' Positions
Proponents of AB 942
While the specific breakdown of the 10 "yes" votes has not been publicly detailed, supporters of the bill within the committee have echoed several arguments:
-
Cost Shift Concerns: The primary argument made by supporters is that the current net metering system shifts costs from solar customers to non-solar customers. They cite figures from the Public Advocates Office claiming that non-solar customers pay between 21-27% more on their electricity bills to subsidize solar users.
-
Equity Issues: Supporters argue that the average income of residential solar customers (estimated at $115,000 in 2023) is significantly higher than many non-solar customers, particularly those enrolled in low-income assistance programs. They frame AB 942 as a fairness measure to protect lower-income ratepayers.
-
Utility Support: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and other utilities have backed the bill, stating it would lower energy bills for all customers by distributing grid maintenance costs more equitably.
Opponents of AB 942
The four "no" votes likely included Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), who was mentioned in reports as opposing the bill. Other opposition arguments within the committee included:
-
Contract Sanctity: Opponents argue that changing the terms of existing net metering agreements breaks a clear promise made by the state to solar adopters. They emphasize that the California Solar Consumer Protection Guide explicitly guarantees 20-year terms.
-
Economic Impact: They highlight that forcing homeowners out of their solar agreements could significantly devalue their investments, with average bills potentially increasing by $63 per month for affected customers.
-
Utility Spending: A key counterargument raised by opponents is that the true cause of rising electricity rates isn't solar subsidies but rather "out of control utility spending." They cite that California's three largest utilities have raised rates by 82-110% over the last decade while transmission and distribution spending has increased 300%.
-
Environmental Concerns: Opponents also note that undermining rooftop solar conflicts with California's ambitious clean energy goals, including achieving 100% clean electricity by 2045.
What's Next
With the committee's approval, AB 942 will continue advancing through the legislative process. The bill could soon reach the full Assembly floor for a vote, where it will likely face continued opposition from environmental groups, solar industry representatives, and consumer advocates.
Local government leaders, including Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, have also voiced opposition, citing the potential financial impact on municipal solar investments and the precedent set by retroactively changing established regulations.
Sources:
- California State Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee votes 10-4 to pass amended Assembly Bill 942, Action News Now, April 30, 2025. Link
- Bill Text: CA AB942 | 2025-2026 Regular Session | Amended, LegiScan, March 2025. Link
- California committee advances bill to break rooftop solar contracts on home sale, PV Magazine USA, May 1, 2025. Link
- CA California Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, BillTrack50. Link
- Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris appointed Chair of State Assembly's Utilities and Energy Committee, November 2023. Link
- Fresno Mayor Says AB 942 Anti-Solar Bill Poses 'Significant Threat' to City, Residents, GV Wire, April 23, 2025. Link
Controversial solar bill advances in Sacramento
Controversial solar bill advances in Sacramento — but with a big change
A major portion of a controversial bill at the state Capitol in Sacramento that would have affected an estimated 2 million owners of rooftop solar systems in California has been scrapped.
Assembly Bill 942 advanced through the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy on a 10-5 vote late Wednesday, but only after legislators deleted a section of the bill that would have cut the benefits that solar customers receive from 20 years to 10.
Under what’s called Net Energy Metering, or NEM, rooftop solar owners get compensated when their systems generate more energy than they consume.
In December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission revised the NEM rules for new rooftop solar customers. Rather than getting paid at the retail rate of electricity when their systems generate excess energy, customers would get paid at the “actual avoided cost” of electricity, which is considerably lower.
Solar customers who installed their systems prior to the change still get compensated at the retail rate for 20 years before getting switched to the new rules. For example, a customer who had a system installed in 2018 would still receive the retail rate until 2038. After that, the customer would be credited at the avoided cost.
Heading into Wednesday’s committee hearing, AB 942 called for slicing the 20-year period in half. That prompted protests from the solar industry and many homeowners who made sizable investments to install panels on their properties, saying the legislation was essentially a breach of contract.
Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, introduced the bill, saying the state’s growing number of rooftop systems leaves customers who don’t have solar paying an unfair share of the fixed costs that come with maintaining the electric system — things like wires, substations and transformers — and drives up rates that utility customers pay.
AB 942’s supporters included the state’s three big utilities — San Diego Gas & Electric, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, the Rosemead-based power company that previously employed Calderon.
“Solar subsidies are no longer fair and have led to a cost-shift onto non-solar customers to ensure the grid is maintained,” Calderon said before the committee hearing.
Opponents have disputed the cost-shift argument, saying rooftop solar improves the environment, helps bolster grid resilience and reduces the risk of power outages.
While the version of AB 942 that passed through the committee nixed the section about reducing the time period from 20 years to 10, another provision of the bill remains.
If a rooftop solar property currently receiving compensation at the retail rate of electricity under the old rules is sold, the new owner would be compensated at the lower, “actual avoided cost” rate.
The California Solar & Storage Association trade group called the requirement “unworkable,” saying it would lead to confusion in situations such as owners changing names or when solar systems are leased or financed through loans.
Even with the revision, the group remains opposed to AB 942.
“This bill would break contracts and (sets) a terrible precedent to consumers that California’s clean energy promises cannot be trusted,” CALSSA executive director Brad Heavner said in a statement.
AB 942 now moves on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Originally Published:
Comments
Post a Comment