California doubles down on ‘unworkable’ community solar program

TL;DR

Prime Big Deal Days · Oct 6–7Offer from Amazon

Get backup power and energy gear delivered free — and shop member deals

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

The California Public Utilities Commission has approved a new community solar program based on existing utility-controlled rates, which industry advocates say will prevent new projects. Critics warn it replicates past failures and jeopardizes federal funding.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved a community solar program that critics say is unworkable and will likely prevent new projects from being built, despite ongoing energy affordability concerns across the state.

This week, the CPUC voted to finalize a community solar framework that relies on existing utility-controlled pricing structures, specifically the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (ReMAT), rather than adopting the solar industry-backed Net Value Billing Tariff model. Solar industry representatives, including the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), argue this decision effectively guarantees that no new community solar projects will be developed under the current structure.

Advocates from groups like Californians for Local, Affordable Solar and Storage (CLASS) contend that the decision hands control back to investor-owned utilities, which have historically opposed community solar expansion. The approved program uses the ReMAT rate, which industry experts say is too low to incentivize project development, making it financially unviable for developers. This approach also relies on a one-time federal grant of $250 million, but critics say packaging this funding into an utility-led model limits its potential for broader market growth.

CPUC President John Reynolds stated that the move aims to ensure responsible growth by balancing affordability, equity, and grid reliability, but critics argue the rate structure is too low to attract private investment, leaving consumers without the expected savings and limiting access for renters and small businesses.

Implications for California’s Renewable Energy Goals

By choosing a rate structure that discourages new community solar projects, California risks falling short of its renewable energy and climate commitments. The decision may also prolong high energy costs for ratepayers, as the state misses opportunities for cost-effective solar deployment that other states have successfully implemented. Industry advocates warn that the current framework could lead to a continued lack of market-based growth, leaving consumers without affordable solar options and the state behind in clean energy progress.

Background on California’s Community Solar Efforts

California has struggled to expand community solar programs, with previous efforts producing little to no new projects despite federal funding and policy support. The CPUC’s 2019 directive to develop scalable, market-based community solar initiatives faced resistance from utilities and policymakers favoring utility-controlled models. The latest decision continues this trend, relying on existing tariff structures rather than adopting more flexible, industry-supported models that have proven successful elsewhere in the U.S.

In recent years, more than 20 states have implemented market-based community solar programs that deliver tangible savings to consumers, contrasting sharply with California’s approach. Critics argue that California’s regulatory environment remains hostile to private project development, with utility interests often at odds with independent solar growth.

“Today’s vote is a doubling down on failure. Instead of enabling projects, the CPUC’s decision effectively guarantees no new community solar will be built in California.”

— an anonymous researcher

Unresolved Questions About Future Development

It is still unclear whether the CPUC will revisit this framework in response to industry pushback or if legislative efforts, such as AB 1813, will succeed in establishing a more viable community solar program outside the current regulatory structure. The long-term impact on project pipeline and federal funding utilization remains uncertain.

Next Steps for California’s Community Solar Policy

Advocates plan to focus efforts on the state legislature, pushing for the passage of AB 1813, which aims to bypass the CPUC’s current framework and establish a market-based community solar program by law. Meanwhile, industry groups and local organizations are likely to continue challenging the CPUC’s decision through legal and political channels, seeking to influence future policy revisions.

Key Questions

Will new community solar projects be built in California under the current plan?

According to industry advocates and critics, the current framework makes new project development unlikely due to low rate structures and utility control, effectively preventing new projects from being built.

What federal funding is involved, and how is it affected?

The decision relies on a $250 million federal Solar for All grant, but critics say packaging this funding into an utility-led model limits its potential for broader market deployment and scalability.

Can legislation override the CPUC’s decision?

Yes, advocates are pushing for legislative action through AB 1813 to establish a community solar program outside the CPUC’s current framework, which could provide a more viable path forward.

Why does the CPUC prefer the ReMAT tariff over other models?

The CPUC states the ReMAT tariff ensures responsible growth by balancing affordability and grid reliability, but critics argue it undervalues solar exports and discourages project development.

What does this mean for California ratepayers?

It may mean continued high electricity bills and limited access to affordable community solar options, especially for renters and small businesses, while other states benefit from successful market-based programs.

Source: PV Magazine