California’s carbon saving mantra screws the small solar guy

October 3, 2024

OPINION by RICHARD SCHMIDT

California’s new carbon-saving mantra seems to be “screw the small solar guy.” Small guys like me.

In 2003, we went PV solar not because it made any economic sense, but because it was to us clearly the right thing to do. We already didn’t use much electricity, having been inspired by years of pro-environment sentiment to minimize our impacts. A small 1 kw system could offset almost our entire electric impact. So, $12,000 later, we were set to go.

Now, in its infinite wisdom, the state of California has decided people like us should no longer live with simple net metering agreements (under ours we have traded electricity with PG&E as our meter goes both directions, and are not paid for a surplus), but must transfer to a newfangled “solar billing plan” that’s designed for high-consumption all-electric homes that charge electric cars and have a heat pump – none of which conditions apply to us. We’re still minimizing our electric impacts, with a daily use of about 5 kwh, most of which is our electric stove.

So, I looked into this newfangled rate plan PG&E assigned to us. And was stunned.

Not only does it have incredibly high energy charges for prime time usage like dinner time – 62 cents per kwh, its off-time rates – 40 and 45 cents per kwh – are also high. This “plan” includes an extra $15 per month “base charge” which PG&E alleges “lowers the price you pay per unit of energy (kwh), on average, compared to other rate plans.”

Well, maybe if you’re a profligate user, but for energy conservers like us, it adds 10 cents per kwh to our energy charge. That means our charge goes from an all-the-time 39 cents per kwh under PG&E’s best small-user plan to a whopping 72 cents per kwh when we’re cooking dinner. On a monthly basis, my electric bill will approximately double.

Clearly, that is a problem and is not fair. So I called PG&E to ask to be placed in some better plan, one suitable for a small energy user.

No soap, I was told. All solar producers must be in the “solar billing plan.” No exceptions. One size fits all.

I asked if I could drop solar altogether, and was told yes, that way I could choose a better plan.

This is environmentally stupid. If the state’s goal is to save the earth by reducing carbon emissions and transition to renewable energy, why punish those who out of their own pocket and good will have helped initiate that transition?

So, I may very well respond as the market suggests I should – disconnect my small solar contribution to reducing carbon emissions and go back to relying on the environmentally trashy energy PG&E delivers to us. That, after all, given how the new electric rates are designed must be what the state of California wants me to do, eh?

Richard Schmidt is an architect and teacher, and served for 19 years as a volunteer on various city committees and commissions, including eight years on the Planning Commission, terms on the Waterways Planning Board, Environmental Quality Task Force, Election Regulations Committee, and Housing Element Task Force, and is sick about what his city has become in the last decade and a half.