cut the value of the credits<\/a> that panel owners receive for sending their unused power to the electric grid by as much as 80%. The rules apply to Californians installing the panels after April 14, 2023.<\/p>\nThe Supreme Court justices said the appeals court erred in January 2024 when it ruled against the environmental groups. In that decision, the appeals court said that courts must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission\u2019s work,\u201d the appeals court had concluded then in its opinion.<\/p>\n
The environmental groups argued the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission\u2019s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe California Supreme Court has ruled in our favor that the CPUC is not above the law,\u201d said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group, after Thursday\u2019s decision was published. The other groups filing the case are the Center for Biological Diversity and The Protect Our Communities Foundation.<\/p>\n
The utilities commission defended its 2022 rooftop solar decision Thursday. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe appreciate the Court\u2019s careful attention to the appropriate standard of deference for reviewing CPUC decisions,\u201d Terrie Prosper, a commission spokeswoman, said in a statement. \u201cWe are pleased that the CPUC\u2019s decision will remain in effect as an important part of controlling electricity bills.\u201d<\/p>\n
Matt Freedman, a lawyer at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said the state Supreme Court ruling could lead to more lawsuits against the commission.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt has been extremely hard to challenge the commission at the Court of Appeals,\u201d Freedman said.<\/p>\n
More than 2 million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California \u2014 more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal, set by a 2018 law, of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.<\/p>\n
The utilities commission has said that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in \u201ca cost shift\u201d of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This has raised electric bills, especially hurting low-income electric customers, the commission says.<\/p>\n
The credits for energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid had been valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commission has voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.<\/p>\n
The state\u2019s three big for-profit electric utilities \u2014 Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric \u2014 have sided with commission in the case.<\/p>\n
The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.<\/p>\n
For decades, the utilities have worked to reduce<\/a> the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities\u2019 sale of electricity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The California Supreme Court sided with environmental groups in a Thursday ruling, saying that state lawyers were wrong…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":127783,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[78111,78114,38360,283,78112,78115,78110,50,78117,58156,2290,78113,78118,69588,78116,67,132,68,78109],"class_list":{"0":"post-127782","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-appeal-court","10":"tag-california-supreme-court-side","11":"tag-credit","12":"tag-decision","13":"tag-electric-bill","14":"tag-electric-grid","15":"tag-environmental-group","16":"tag-news","17":"tag-other-state-agency","18":"tag-panel","19":"tag-review","20":"tag-rooftop-solar-case","21":"tag-rooftop-system","22":"tag-state-law","23":"tag-state-lawyer","24":"tag-united-states","25":"tag-unitedstates","26":"tag-us","27":"tag-utility-commission"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114990518365792816","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127782\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/127783"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}