A bill introduced in the California legislature proposes to slash hundreds of millions of dollars from programs that help schools replace worn-out HVAC systems, low-income households install batteries, and affordable housing projects deploy solar panels — all for what would amount to a one-time rebate of no more than $50 for customers of the state’s three major utilities.

Lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have crafted the legislation, which they are calling the ​“affordability project,” in response to fast-rising utility rates at the state’s three large investor-owned utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric.

But community groups, environmental advocates, and clean energy industry groups say the cuts will cause immediate and severe harms to those relying on them while doing next to nothing to fulfill their purported goal of reining in the state’s sky-high electricity rates.

“It’s not a way to solve the problem, and you’re hurting programs that are working,” said 

Merrian Borgeson, policy director for California climate and energy at the nonprofit environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, told Canary Media in an interview.

AB 3121 emerged late Wednesday evening after weeks of backroom negotiations over how best to control rate increases for customers. But the reforms proposed by the bill do little to address the primary drivers of those increases, which come down to the investments utilities are making in their power grids to meet rapidly rising electricity demand, and also to harden them against the risk of sparking deadly wildfires.

Another bill introduced late Wednesday, SB 1003, would call on state agencies to increase oversight over utilities’ wildfire-mitigation spending, which could lead to cost reductions. And another bill, AB 3264, would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to assess and analyze total annual energy costs for residential customers, with the goal of finding ways to shift some costs from ratepayers.

“California’s high electricity prices are a decade in the making,” Borgeson said in a Thursday statement. ​“We need an overhaul that targets the root causes of this surge: wildfire spending, capacity constraints, insufficient regulatory oversight, and the need for funding sources beyond consumer-paid utility rates to address the climate crisis. This policy proposal will move the needle on some of these challenges, but it also includes damaging cuts to important programs that benefit vulnerable communities.”

NRDC has estimated that the cuts being proposed would yield only about a $50 one-time rebate for the average residential customer of the state’s three major investor-owned utilities. A report from Politico this week cited an unnamed California lawmaker who estimated the cuts would provide customers as little as $30 each in one-time rebates.

A Wednesday letter signed by NRDC and more than two dozen other groups warned Newsom, California Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas against cuts to ​“critical programs that advance energy affordability, reliability, and climate resilience for vulnerable communities.”

“Focusing on short-term tactics will not resolve California’s affordability crisis,” the groups wrote. ​“Instead, it will exacerbate it, making our energy system more expensive, polluted, and dangerous — especially for our most vulnerable communities.”

The pushback comes as lawmakers are scrambling to address unfinished business before this year’s legislative session ends at midnight on Saturday — including a June pledge from California Assembly Utilities and Energy Chair Cottie Petrie-Norris, sponsor of AB 3121, to cut the bills of customers of the state’s three big utilities by $10 per month. (Petrie-Norris’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.)

The high cost of electricity has become a pressing problem for low-income Californians struggling to pay their utility bills, and is threatening to derail the state’s broader electrification efforts by dramatically increasing the costs to consumers of switching from fossil fuels to electricity to power their cars and provide household heating.

In the past 10 years, average electrical rates have risen by 110 percent for residential customers of PG&E, 90 percent for those served by Southern California Edison, and 82 percent for customers of SDG&E, according to data compiled by state regulators. The past three years alone have seen average residential rates jump by 51 percent for PG&E and SCE and 20 percent for SDG&E.

And more rate hikes are looming at PG&E, the state’s biggest utility, which serves about 16 million people in Northern and Central California. In November, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a rate case adding about $32.50 per month to customers’ bills, followed by a further rate hike in March of about $5 to $6 per month starting this spring.

In a July report, the CPUC forecasted average annual electric rate increases of 10.8 percent for PG&E, 6.8 percent for SCE, and 5.6 percent for SDG&E, compared with an assumed inflation rate of 2.6 percent.

This chart from the CPUC’s July report breaks out the proportion of the state’s three big utilities’ ​“revenue requirement,” or how much money they must bring in from ratepayers to cover their costs. The biggest increases are coming from distribution-grid investments, primarily driven by PG&E’s program aimed at burying power lines, clearing vegetation, and installing technology to reduce wildfire risks.

According to reporting from The Sacramento Bee citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, earlier versions of the affordability package included proposals to reduce broader grid expansion costs via ​“securitization” — financing some portion of utility spending through debt, rather than by passing them on to ratepayers.

But those components, which could reduce the profits that utilities earn for investments in their capital infrastructure, were dropped from the bill, the Bee reported last week.

With the potential savings from the wildfire-mitigation cost controls and broader energy cost analysis as yet unclear, the only immediate savings from the legislative package would come from cuts to programs that serve ​“people who don’t have political power,” said Beckie Menten, senior regulatory and policy specialist at the nonprofit Building Decarbonization Coalition.

“We’re really supportive of solutions that address affordability,” she said. But ​“what we’re seeing on the table for the most part are pretty reactive and not very comprehensive of our systemic solutions.”

On the chopping block: School HVAC retrofits and solar and batteries for low-income residents 

AB 3121 proposes to provide utility customers with rebates by clawing back unspent and ​“unencumbered” funds from three programs: California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency (CalSHAPE); the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP); and Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing (SOMAH).

The CalSHAPE program, administered by the California Energy Commission, was created by a law passed during the Covid pandemic to help schools repair HVAC systems to improve health, and it has disbursed 646 grants totaling $421 million in funding for the ventilation upgrades.

Roughly $250 million remains in the program, and many schools were in the process of applying for funding, said Stephanie Seidmon, program director of nonprofit advocacy group Undaunted K12. But AB 3121 would retroactively set the deadline for those applications at July 1, 2024, and return any funds not disbursed to utility ratepayers.

But the one-time rebates per customer that would result aren’t worth the loss of funding for schools that need the money to improve air-conditioning and ventilation systems, Seidmon contended. ​“It’s really important for low-income schools that can’t raise a bond measure to upgrade their HVAC systems, or schools facing these wildfire and heat risks,” she said.

Much of CalSHAPE’s remaining $250 million in funding ​“is for schools that are replacing their HVAC as we’re going to be facing wildfires this fall,” said NRDC’s Bergeson. ​“It’s crazy to me we’d be taking away that money, especially when many of these schools are in disadvantaged communities and were depending on this.”

The SGIP program provides incentives for low-income customers to purchase batteries to provide backup power during power outages. In a March decision, the CPUC allocated $280 million to the program’s current grant cycle, and lawmakers pledged in a 2022 budget and climate law, AB 209, to provide $350 million to the program over the next several years.

Returning unspent portions of those funds to utilities would provide a minimal one-off rebate to individual customers at the cost of undermining a program that ​“helps both rural and disadvantaged communities” obtain batteries that are increasingly valuable in a state experiencing heat- and wildfire-driven grid emergencies, said Edson Perez, California policy lead for clean energy industry trade group Advanced Energy United.

The batteries installed through the program also help store solar power for use in evenings, when grid power tends to be dirtier and more expensive, which ​“helps the grid as a whole,” he said. A May report to the CPUC found that batteries installed through SGIP have reduced utility costs by roughly $27 million, primarily during a September 2022 heat wave that threatened to overwhelm California’s grid.

The SOMAH program has a budget of $100 million and a legislatively mandated goal of installing 300 megawatts of solar by 2032, and is ​“California’s landmark program for multifamily affordable housing access to affordable solar and affordable storage,” said Steve Campbell, western regulatory director for nonprofit Vote Solar.

AB 3121 doesn’t call for reclaiming the entirety of that funding stream. But it would require the CPUC to credit ​“no more than 1/2 of the program funds that are unencumbered as of January 1, 2025,” back to utilities to return to customers as rebates.

SOMAH was created in 2019 and saw a significant slowdown during the Covid pandemic, Campbell said. In the past year, however, applications and projects have picked up steam. 

“When a low-income program starts to work again is the worst time to pull the rug out from underneath it,” he said. 

California electric bill relief plan would gut low-income energy programs is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

North Carolina regulators have approved a controversial green tariff proposal from Duke Energy, rejecting protests from critics who argue it won’t bolster the company’s transition to zero-carbon electricity. 

Originally designed as a way for large electric customers to chip in extra for renewable energy projects Duke is already mandated to build, an amended tariff offered in April could allow some customers to speed up construction of new solar farms by about two years.

The revision appeared to help sway the Utilities Commission. The change, the panel said in its Jul. 31 order, is an “improvement” because the change “adds additional accelerated capacity” of renewable energy. 

The revised tariff, called Green Source Advantage Choice, has backing from the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates, an association of some of Duke’s largest customers. The utility says it plans to formalize the program soon in the wake of the regulators’ order. 

“The [commission] didn’t give us a deadline but asked that we do so when reasonably feasible,” spokesperson Logan Stewart said over email, “so it will be in the coming weeks. In conjunction, we will be working on updating the Green Source Advantage public webpage to include the new program details.” 

A question of ‘regulatory surplus’ 

For large customers with 100% clean energy commitments, a green tariff is a necessity in North Carolina, where Duke has a monopoly and cities, data centers and the like can’t buy clean energy directly from solar farms.  

In theory, a green tariff allows a company such as Google or Amazon to spur a new supply of clean energy equal to their electric demand, with Duke acting as an administrative go-between. An earlier iteration of Green Source Advantage more or less did just that. 

But the accounting got more complicated in 2021, when a bipartisan state law required Duke to cut its carbon pollution at least 95% by 2050. If the company is legally required to build scores of solar farms anyway, can a large customer legitimately claim its sponsorship of one project makes a difference? 

This question of “regulatory surplus” sparked a flurry of arguments and counter-arguments before the commission for some 18 months. Duke initially claimed such “additionality” was neither feasible nor necessary, and some businesses said chipping in to support the clean energy transition was good enough for them. More than a dozen local chambers of commerce and potential customers wrote regulators in support of the original program.  

But Google, the U.S. Department of Defense, and other large customers joined clean energy advocates to flag the problem of regulatory surplus, as did the Center for Resource Solutions, the nonprofit that certifies voluntary renewable energy purchase programs. Duke University, which has no connection to the utility, said it wouldn’t participate in the tariff.  

‘A small step in the right direction’ 

The debate, along with prodding from commissioners, prompted Duke to add a “resource acceleration option” to its proposal. The alternative allows large customers to advance about 150 megawatts of solar energy each year by sponsoring projects not selected in the company’s annual competitive bidding process. Every two years, Duke gets retroactive credit for this “extra” solar as part of its compliance with the 2021 law.

Clean energy advocates believe the new option is a “small step in the right direction.” But they note it accounts for 1 gigawatt of clean energy over ten years, a fifth of the entire program. Customers who lay claim to the remaining 4 gigawatts would not be impacting the state’s transition to clean electricity, they say. 

“If you’re the customer of a business who claims to support our state’s clean energy transition by participating in the program, you’re going to expect that business to be making a difference – not just subsidizing what Duke was going to do anyway,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. 

The Carolinas Clean Energy Business Alliance, a group of clean energy suppliers, also criticized the acceleration option. And though the Carolina Utility Customers Association, another group of large industrial customers, didn’t oppose the amended proposed tariff, it registered skepticism. 

“[Our] members have little interest in the Resource Acceleration Option,” the group said in a letter to regulators, “which would deliver electricity at a premium cost without providing the benefit of regulatory surplus-based environmental attributes that would be useful in meeting corporate environmental, social, and governance goals.” 

Cause for hope? 

While advocates see little good in the commission’s approval of the Green Source Advantage Choice program, they still have some faint cause for hope. 

One is the so-called Clean Transition Tariff, which Duke could propose later this year. An outgrowth of a May agreement between the utility and Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Nucor, that program could allow participating customers to spur new projects, such as solar-battery storage combos or small nuclear energy, that provide carbon-free electricity around the clock. 

“This is not within the order,” said Jimenez, but the May memorandum of understanding, “is the big opportunity for something better.” 

Duke says the Clean Transition Tariff would be another voluntary option for customers, not a replacement for the one just greenlighted. “We see the approval of Green Source Advantage Choice as a first step,” the company’s Stewart said, “enabling us to move forward with new tariffs like the Clean Transition Tariff.” 

Maggie Shober, research director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, agrees the memorandum of understanding is cause for some optimism. But she also notes that it’s only “an agreement to talk about something. It could be an opportunity,” she said, “or it could be a missed opportunity. “ 

And no matter what, the Clean Transition Tariff won’t cater to municipalities and other midsize customers with climate commitments. If these customers decline to pursue Green Source Advantage Choice, their only option is to wait for Duke to adjust.  

Commissioner Jeff Hughes pointed to that possibility in a concurring opinion. 

“Once the program offerings are launched, it will quickly become clear whether the program is as attractive as Duke asserts,” Hughes wrote. “If concerns continue and interest is modest from the outset, it is my hope that Duke will work quickly on new programs that will have a greater impact.”

N.C. regulators approve controversial Duke Energy plan that lets large customers chip in for solar projects is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Snaking under city streets, behind residential drywall and into furnaces, ovens and other appliances, natural gas pipelines are a ubiquitous presence in U.S. buildings. The question of what to do with them as the planet warms has become a serious debate — dozens of U.S. cities and states have crafted plans to reduce reliance on natural gas, and more than 20 other states have passed laws to preempt that type of regulation.

Now, utilities around the nation have begun testing a controversial idea aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of gas lines, while keeping them in place. Nearly 20 utilities have laid out plans to inject lines with a blend of gas and hydrogen, the latter of which emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) — a major greenhouse gas — when combusted. Testing such blends, these companies say, is an essential step towards understanding the practice, which they argue will help reduce emissions and fight climate change.

Deploying more hydrogen is also a federal priority — the Inflation Reduction Act created a tax credit for hydrogen production, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law set aside $9.5 billion to support hydrogen development.

But a federal hydrogen strategy released last year suggests blending hydrogen into gas infrastructure should focus on industrial applications. Many environmental and customer advocates agree; they argue that the use of hydrogen blends in buildings — rather than to power industries that are hard to electrify — makes little sense.

“Every dollar you’re reinvesting into the gas system could be a dollar you’re using to electrify the system,” said Nat Skinner, program manager of the safety branch of the California Public Advocates Office, an independent state office that advocates for consumers in utility regulation. “Finding the right uses for hydrogen is appropriate. But I think being really careful and thoughtful about how we’re doing that is equally important.”

Nearly 30 projects focused on blending hydrogen into gas lines that serve homes and businesses have been proposed or are in operation in more than a dozen states, Floodlight found, and many more utilities have hinted at future proposals. If all are approved, the projects as proposed would cost at least $280 million — and many utilities are asking that customers pay for them.

As regulators consider the proposals, advocates are calling for them to weigh the prudence of the investment. In California — where electric rates have climbed steeply in recent years — the Sierra Club has argued that the projects are “an inappropriate use of ratepayer funds” and “wasteful experiments.”

Blending brings, risks, rewards

Hydrogen blending can be undertaken in a section of pipeline isolated from the rest of the gas network or in a larger “open” system that serves homes. Utilities can inject it in large transmission lines, which ferry gas from processing and storage locations to compressor stations, or into distribution lines, the smaller pipes that bring gas to buildings.

Because hydrogen releases only water vapor and heat when it’s burned, it’s considered a clean fuel. And unlike traditional wind and solar energy, it can produce enough heat to run industrial furnaces. Utilities have framed the fuel as a clear way to slash the emissions associated with their operations.

“These demonstration projects are an important step for us to adopt hydrogen blending statewide, which has the potential to be an effective way to replace fossil fuels,” said Neil Navin, the chief clean fuels officer at Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), in a March statement on its application for hydrogen blending pilots.

Burning hydrogen, particularly in homes, also presents certain risks. Hydrogen burns hotter than natural gas, which can increase emissions of nitrous oxide (NOx), a harmful air pollutant that can react with other elements in the air to produce damaging pollutants including small particulates and ozone.

Hydrogen is a smaller molecule than methane, the main ingredient in natural gas, and can leak more readily out of pipelines. Hydrogen is also flammable. And when certain metals absorb hydrogen atoms, they can become brittle over time, creating risks of pipeline cracks, depending on the materials the pipelines are made of.

There are also outstanding questions about how much hydrogen blending actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Of the utilities that have offered details about the hydrogen source they plan to use for their pilot, roughly half plan to use “green hydrogen,” which is produced using clean electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind and solar. Today, fossil fuels power more than 90% of global hydrogen production, producing “gray hydrogen.”

Most utility blending pilots are targeting blends of up to 20% hydrogen. At those levels, research has shown that hydrogen would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by less than 10%, even when using hydrogen produced with clean manufacturing processes.

Some utilities have estimated the emissions impacts of their pilots. A CenterPoint Energy pilot in Minneapolis using blends of up to 5% green hydrogen was estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 1,200 metric tons per year, which is the approximate energy use of 156 homes. A project in New Jersey testing blends of 1% green hydrogen was estimated to reduce emissions enough to offset the energy use of roughly 24 homes.

Blending gray hydrogen may show no carbon benefit at all, according to some research. That’s in part because hydrogen produces one-third less energy by volume than natural gas, meaning three times the amount of hydrogen is needed to make up for the same unit of natural gas.

And hydrogen requires more energy to manufacture than it will later produce when it’s burned. For these reasons, some environmental groups say hydrogen is an inefficient way to decarbonize homes and businesses; some analysts have called the process “a crime against thermodynamics.”

“There are much better, readily available, more affordable ways to decarbonize buildings in the form of electrification and energy efficiency,” said Jim Dennison, a staff attorney at the Sierra Club.

Advocates including Dennison also worry that investing more in the natural gas system will delay electrification and allow utilities to keep their core pipeline businesses running. “I can see why that’s attractive to those utilities,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it makes sense for customers or the climate.”

‘We’re not sure’ of right mix

While the climate benefits are debated, some research and active projects indicate that burning blended fuel at certain levels can be safe. For decades, Hawaii Gas has used synthetic natural gas that contains 10-12% hydrogen. Countries including Chile, Australia, Portugal and Canada have also run hydrogen blending pilots.

And although pipelines can weather when carrying hydrogen, that’s less likely for distribution lines that reach homes because those pipes are often plastic, said Bri-Mathias Hodge, an associate professor in energy engineering at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

Hodge helped author a 2022 review of technical and regulatory limits on hydrogen and gas blending. With blends below 5%, Hodge said customers are unlikely to face risks or notice a difference in how their appliances or furnaces function.

More uncertainty exists around higher blends. “I think we’re not sure if below 20% or say, from 5 to 20% is safe,” said Ali Mosleh, an engineer at the University of California-Los Angeles who is spearheading hydrogen blend pilot testing with 44 partners, including utilities, to address knowledge gaps in the state.

Although Hodge at UC-Boulder thinks electrification is the more efficient choice for homes, he said the pilots can help utilities get comfortable with blending, which may eventually be applied elsewhere. “It’s not going to really move the needle in terms of decarbonization long term, but it’s a step in the right direction,” he said.

Steven Schueneman, the hydrogen development manager at utility Puget Sound Energy, which serves about 1.2 million electric and 900,000 gas customers in Washington, said incremental approaches like utility blending pilots will signal that hydrogen is a “real industry.” That could help the fuel gain a foothold in other areas, like industrial heat and aviation.

But Schueneman also acknowledges there remains uncertainty around whether hydrogen is the most cost-effective way to decarbonize buildings.

“It’s not clear that blending hydrogen is going to be a prudent decision at the end of the day,” he said.

Puget Sound Energy has conducted two small-scale blending pilots at a test facility. In the future, the utility plans to focus its hydrogen efforts on how blends may function in power plants, rather than in buildings. The nearly 30 blending pilots Floodlight tracked include only projects focused on use in buildings, but other utilities have proposed blending hydrogen at natural gas power plants, where the blend will be burned for electricity.

‘Cost is an essential consideration’

Blending pilots focused on buildings have been spearheaded by some of the largest utilities in the nation as well as smaller-scale gas providers, and are being considered from coast-to-coast.

Dominion Energy, which serves 4.5 million customers in 13 states, has laid out plans for three blending pilots, in Utah, South Carolina and Ohio. National Grid, which has 20 million customers, is pursuing a project in New York. And multiple large California utilities have proposed pilot programs.

Some utilities, such as Dominion and Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, did not reply to several requests for clarification on hydrogen blending plans, or replied to only some queries about their plans. But plans from certain utilities have been detailed in regulatory filings with state utility commissions.

The pilots for which cost data are available range in price from roughly $33,000 for Puget Sound Energy’s small-scale testing (which ratepayers did not fund) up to an estimated $63.5 million for a decade-long pilot proposed by California utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), which would focus on blending 5% at the start ranging up to 20% hydrogen in transmission gas lines.

If approved, customers would pay up to $94.2 million for PG&E’s pilot, because of the rate of return utilities are able to collect from customers. California utilities are aiming to recover more than $200 million in total from customers for their proposed pilots.

California regulators have rejected some previous blending proposals from utilities, saying companies should use “every reasonable attempt to use existing and other funds before requesting new funds.” Advocates including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) have argued that the projects are not in the public interest, particularly amid the state’s spiking utility bills.

“Cost is an essential consideration,” said Erin Murphy, a senior attorney at EDF. “When you’re passing on costs to ratepayers, you have to demonstrate that that is a prudent investment.”

Pilots have gotten pushback in other states, including Colorado and Oregon, where projects were recently dropped or delayed, and opposition has been fierce in California, which has the most pilots proposed to date. The mayor of Truckee, California, which could host a project, submitted a comment to regulators explaining the town does not support it. And following protests at two California universities that planned to collaborate on projects, utilities downsized the plans.

After student opposition at University of California-Irvine, SoCalGas reduced the scope of the project and proposed an additional pilot in Orange Cove, a small agricultural community of about 9,500 people. Ninety-six percent of Orange Cove’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino, and roughly 47% of residents live below the federal poverty line, according to the U.S. Census.

Some Orange Cove residents also are concerned about blending, which SoCalGas hopes to test at up to 5% hydrogen levels. Genoveva Islas, who grew up there and is the executive director of Cultiva la Salud, a public health nonprofit based in nearby Fresno, said the local approval process lacked transparency and public input.

The project is slated to sit steps away from the Orange Cove football field, near the town’s high school, middle school and community center. “In short, I would just say it is concerning,” Islas said.

In an email, the utility told Floodlight that the city “proactively asked SoCalGas to undertake this project in its community” and said it was “expected to bring socioeconomic benefits to Orange Cove.” The utility also said it hosted a community engagement meeting about the project in Spanish and English and has provided fact sheets to the community in both languages.

In Colorado, where Xcel Energy had planned to blend hydrogen in an isolated neighborhood, some residents learned of the pilot from a journalist reporting on the project.

That has made some feel like unwilling test subjects in an experiment that others, like the Sierra Club’s Dennison, say are unnecessary. “The community’s immediate reaction is that they don’t want to be guinea pigs,” Islas said. “They do not understand how this decision was made without their involvement or their consent.”

The great majority of the projects, including the one in Orange Cove, are still under review by regulators. Meanwhile, researchers are undertaking more studies to understand the technical limits of blending.

“There are a lot of unknowns,” said Mosleh from UCLA. “Some fundamental research needs to be done.”

Utilities are trying hydrogen-blended fuels. There are a lot of unknowns. is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Minnesota solar developers frustrated with the process of connecting projects to the electric grid will soon have a new place to turn to answer questions and resolve disputes.

State lawmakers recently passed legislation calling on the state Public Utilities Commission to hire an interconnection ombudsperson to provide clean energy companies with information, guidance, and mediation on connecting projects of 10 megawatts and less to the grid.

The legislation follows years of complaints by solar companies about disputes with utilities, Xcel Energy in particular, that have contributed to years-long delays for some projects to connect.

“We hope that we can create a role dedicated to understanding the entire interconnection process and help manage those disagreements when they arise,” said Logan O’Grady, executive director of the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association.

The legislation says the ombudsperson will track disputes and serve as a mediator between customers and investor-owned utilities. They will be expected to review policies, convene stakeholder groups, and assess ways to reduce conflicts.

O’Grady said customers, installers, and developers could contact the ombudsperson for assistance on issues involving rooftop, commercial, or community solar projects. 

The ombudsperson would not eliminate the state’s existing dispute process for interconnection issues, which can take over a month and require mediation if unresolved issues remain.

O’Grady said he hopes having an interconnection ombudsperson will more efficiently resolve some disputes and provide a new option for developers that haven’t wanted to deal with the time and attention required to file a formal complaint.  

Solar developers’ complaints have varied, but some involve inaccurate information leading to “weeks of back and forth to get clarity on a simple misunderstanding,” O’Grady said. The hope is that an ombudsperson with experience in the industry could more efficiently answer those questions or know who to contact in utilities to provide guidance. 

State Rep. Patty Acomb, a suburban Democrat and chair of Climate and Energy Finance and Policy committee, said the ombudsperson’s work is less likely to draw skepticism because it comes from an independent source.

Solar company leaders support the new position. Bobby King, Minnesota program director for Solar United Neighbors, said the ombudsperson could “centralize” information, advocate for interconnection, create solutions to improve the process and avoid litigation. “I think it’s a positive step in the right direction,” King said.

Michael Allen, CEO of All Energy Solar, said the ombudsperson would provide “unbiased information” to the Commerce Department, the Public Utilities Commission, installers, and utilities. He also believes an ombudsperson could reduce the number of disputes that reach the Public Utilities Commission.

Marty Morud, CEO and owner of TruNorth Solar, said he’d had few issues with Xcel but sees an ombudsperson as a source for helping move utilities to respond if installer emails and phone calls go unanswered.

More than a dozen states already have positions similar to interconnection ombudspersons, including California, Massachusetts and New York. Sky Stanfield, a lawyer who works with the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, said states approach the ombudsperson differently, not all requiring them to have the technical skills Minnesota seeks.

She said that having someone see all the disputes and detect patterns could also help the Public Utilities Commission target rulemaking in problem areas. 

“I do think having a person whose job is to stay up to date on what is happening seems to me like a positive step,” Stanfield said.

To be effective, the ombudsperson must be “empowered” by the Public Utilities Commission and accepted as an objective mediator by utilities and clean energy developers, she said.    

The Legislature created an initial $150,000 budget. The ombudsperson position, which has not been posted, is expected to be filled later this year.

Minnesota lawmakers hope ombudsperson can help defuse solar interconnection disputes is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Activists pushing San Diego to take over the city’s investor-owned utility aren’t letting last year’s defeat of a similar effort in Maine deter their goal of establishing a nonprofit power company. They recently submitted petitions bearing more than 30,000 signatures from residents who want the City Council to let voters decide the matter this fall.

Advocates say a municipal takeover of San Diego Gas & Electric would deliver cheaper rates and a faster, more affordable, and more equitable transition to clean energy. Still, the measure faces long odds from skeptical council members who have twice rejected similar proposals.

The campaign is the first public power ballot initiative since 70 percent of voters in Maine rejected a proposal to take over the state’s two largest utilities. A group called Power San Diego delivered several cardboard boxes filled with petitions to the San Diego city registrar’s office on May 14. If just over 24,000 of the signatures on those documents are deemed valid, the Council will have to decide whether to put the question to voters in the next election.

What’s happening in Southern California reflects growing frustration with the high rates and lackluster service investor-owned utilities often provide — and a desire to accelerate the green transition. Similar campaigns are afoot in Rochester, New York and San Francisco, and Empire State lawmakers recently introduced a bill to buy out Central Hudson Gas & Electric and create a public power authority. 

“Across the country, people are talking about public ownership of energy,” Sarahana Shrestha, a New York state assembly member who co-sponsored the bill, told Grist. “If we want a just transition — taking care of workers, and making sure that it’s affordable and brings benefits back into communities — there’s no effective way of doing that while you’re still answering to shareholders.”

San Diego residents pay some of the nation’s highest electricity rates, and by one estimate, more than a quarter of customers are behind on their payments. (The utility has attributed its high rates to the cost of everything from wildfire prevention to building transmission lines and other clean energy infrastructure.) Takeover advocates say the move would save residents 20 percent on their utility bills because a nonprofit model eliminates the need to provide shareholders with a return. It estimates the cost at $3.5 billion, citing a study commissioned by the city last year.

That analysis found that the utility’s 700,000 customers who live within the city of San Diego could save 13 to 14 percent annually if the city bought the utility’s grid assets for $2 billion and created a municipal utility. The math is less favorable if the cost of the buyout goes up, however; at a price of $6 billion, ratepayers could face additional costs of $60 million over the first decade but see long-term savings after 20 years.

San Diego Gas & Electric vehemently opposes the effort and has backed the political action committee Responsible Energy San Diego to block it. The organization calls itself “a coalition of diverse San Diego leaders” fighting “a reckless ballot initiative to force a government takeover of the energy grid.” The utility has contributed well over $700,000 to the committee, according to records on the San Diego Ethics Commission website. 

That’s more than twice what Power San Diego has raised and reflects a dynamic in which political action committees supported by Maine’s two investor-owned utilities received 34 times more money than public power advocates. Activists there say that allowed the utilities to finance a robust campaign of advertising and misinformation to defeat the referendum.

San Diego Gas & Electric has hired Concentric Energy Advisors, the same consultants who helped defeat the effort in Maine. The company’s study commissioned by the San Diego utility estimated the cost of a public takeover of the grid at $9.3 billion. 

Matt Awbrey of Responsible Energy San Diego told Grist the city should address other priorities like affordable housing rather than a proposal “to create a new government-run utility that has no plan, budget, or verifiable cost estimates.” He said the cost of the takeover likely would bring “higher taxes, higher electric bills, and/or cuts to essential city services we all depend on.” 

Power San Diego intended to gather 80,000 signatures by July, which would have placed the proposal on November’s ballot. But it lacked the funding for such an effort and decided to seek 30,000 signatures, or roughly 3 percent of registered voters. That would require the City Council to vote on whether to put the matter to voters.

Dorrie Bruggeman, senior campaign coordinator for Power San Diego, doesn’t expect the council to do that; it already has rejected such a proposal on two occasions, with council members calling for greater detail on costs and projected revenues. Council President Sean Elo-Rivera is among those with reservations.

“I have no love for corporate monopolies reaching into the pockets of everyday working people,” he told the local news outlet La Jolla Light. “But this is a very complex and important issue and I don’t think this is baked enough to go to the voters.”

Regardless of any qualms the council may have, Bill Powers, chair of Power San Diego, said his organization has prompted an important discussion within the community and sparked voter engagement on the issue. The next step is getting policymakers behind the idea.

“If we can get a couple of council members that are open to public power, if we can get a mayor who is open to public power, which we’ve had in the past, then the movement isn’t dependent on the endpoint of a ballot initiative,” Powers said.

Such campaigns are gaining momentum elsewhere. Public power advocates in Rochester, New York, want the city to evaluate the costs and benefits of a municipal utility. In San Francisco, city officials are currently working with the California Public Utilities Commission to determine how to set a fair price for Pacific Gas & Electric’s distribution grid, in the hopes of creating a citywide public power system. 

On May 17, New York Assemblymember Shrestha and State Senator Michelle Hinchey introduced a bill to create the Hudson Valley Power Authority, a public power entity that would buy out Central Hudson Gas & Electric. The utility has drawn criticism for its high rates and a string of billing failures since 2021. If the measure passes, the Hudson Valley Power Authority would seek to lower rates, improve service, and hasten the green transition while protecting labor rights.

Joe Jenkins, Central Hudson’s director of media relations, told Grist the proposed takeover would involve “significant hidden costs, loss of jobs, and loss of tax revenue for towns and schools,” adding that rates for municipal utilities in New York are nearly 9 percent more expensive than those of investor-owned utilities. 

Shrestha said the legislation reflects her constituents’ growing interest in public power. Her office has hosted seven town halls this past year to discuss energy democracy. “People are so fed up with getting bills that are inconsistent and late,” she said. “People are really excited about learning how we can actually get public power done.”

High rates, poor service spark new wave of utility municipalization campaigns is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.