Make San Diego stronger. Support independent, fact-based journalism.
Voice of San Diego
Investigative journalism for a better San Diego
Sign up for The Morning Report with all your must-read news for the day.
Voice of San Diego reports that SDG&E and other investor-owned utilities are lobbying hard against “balcony solar” — devices that allow people to reduce electricity costs by plugging small solar panels into their home outlets — arguing this could put electrical workers at risk. Meanwhile, three states have already approved it, and legislation is pending in other states.
The irony of SDG&E’s stance is stark. For years they have lobbied heavily and successfully to stanch the adoption of rooftop solar by homeowners by reducing incentives and adding fees, arguing in part that it is unfair that those who own a house can reduce their electric expenses through solar installations, while renters and condo owners cannot, and that some homeowners lack the financial wherewithal to install solar systems. Now, a low-cost system allows most of those same people access to solar, but SDG&E seeks to deny them as well.
The rooftop solar movement started with great fanfare, as a way to engage individual homeowners to help reduce California’s and the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, while reducing their own electric costs. Incentives to convert included partial rebates on installation costs and the ability to “sell” power back to SDG&E, thus reducing monthly bills. But it turned out that investor-owned utilities were not fans.
In 2012, SDG&E proposed adding a surcharge to the bills of those with rooftop solar. In the ensuing uproar, SDG&E convened a stakeholder group, comprised of a number of interests. I participated as the “homeowner representative.” My qualifications? I showed up at a public meeting convened by SDG&E, I was a homeowner with rooftop solar, and I expressed my opposition to a fee SDG&E was seeking to impose on rooftop solar.
SDG&E is part of SEMPRA, an investor-owned, for-profit company. Although many assume that SDG&E profits by the amount of energy it sells to consumers, it actually profits by building the infrastructure that it takes to generate and deliver energy — like power plants and electric lines — and delivering energy. The amount it profits from that work is set by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). And through this process, unlike most businesses, SDG&E’s profits are guaranteed at set levels. Sweet deal.
This system creates a perverse incentive though. The more energy generation and delivery infrastructure SDG&E builds and maintains, the more money SDG&E makes. This extends, incidentally, to “hardening” the grid against wildfires, which is probably a major reason why SDG&E has been so aggressive in that area.
SDG&E can’t just build whatever it wants and pass the costs on to ratepayers. SDG&E must convince the PUC that a proposed project is truly warranted. And SDG&E spends loads of money in that effort.
Rooftop solar reduces the need for SDG&E to build power generation projects. So, it should be no surprise that SDG&E, joined by other investor-owned utilities in California, has engaged in a long-term battle at the PUC and the Legislature, to reduce incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar. They’ve been very effective.
SDG&E is not opposed to solar energy. In fact, they built the massive, costly Sunrise Powerlink, which conveys power from solar panels in the desert, and they have plans for more of the same. Of course, unlike rooftop solar, SDG&E profits from that installation and substantial expenses are passed on to ratepayers.
How, in a green oriented state like California do you successfully blunt an effort to encourage homeowners to help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels? You demonize the rooftop solar homeowners as privileged people who force other ratepayers to subsidize them. And you declare that those without homes are inequitably treated because they can’t benefit from solar-related electricity cost reductions.
Our stakeholder group posed this question: What if the installation of rooftop solar actually decreases the need for SDG&E to build power generation infrastructure to the degree that there is a net benefit for all ratepayers?
Pressed hard on this by the committee, SDG&E agreed to pay for an independent research firm, reporting to the stakeholder committee, to look into the question. And they did. But SDG&E blocked them from accessing key data that they had originally promised to share. The independent research firm was thus unable to answer the key question. Solar incentives have been eroded ever since.
But now, balcony solar would allow any ratepayer with exposure to the sun to inexpensively install small solar panels to reduce their electricity bills. This puts SDG&E in a bit of a pickle. All this supposed advocacy on the part of the customer who can’t benefit from rooftop solar goes up in smoke. So, they’ve come up with new arguments against these inexpensive solar systems. Apparently, SDG&E wants no one to generate their own electricity.
There is an old adage that one should follow the money. It is apt here. SDG&E’s primary motive is profits, not ratepayer equity.
B. Chris Brewster is a retired San Diego lifeguard chief who lives in Pacific Beach. He currently serves as the editor of American Lifeguard Magazine and as chair of the National Certification Committee of the United States Lifesaving Association.
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
2 Comments
Well I have 2 280ah lifepo4 batteries I put in my minivan to use when camping (with 200w solar on the roof) they certainly cant stop me from hanging a couple panels on my el cajon condos south facing balcony and going off grid with some of my power needs. With the appropriate inverter thats about $1800 all in just to save about $30 a month off my bill. Deleting the batteries but buying the necessary grid tie in equipment would mean about a $1000 investment by the average condo dweller… Again to save about $30. (Im going to propose 400w in panels, for my $1k cost, more than your linked example of 180w)
Im a former navy aviation electronics tech with decades of automotive electrical repair and install experience and dont need any permits for the off grid setup so its within my skill set.
I cant say the same for the average condo dweller. Even the low voltage output of each solar panel can start life threatening structure blazes in the hands of fools. Let alone when boosted to 120v and injected into the grid.
Conclusion, I dont see the market or payoff for such small setups for condo dwellers, and if SDGEs concerns are about safety they have sound basis.
If their motivation is greed then kudos for exposing it, but I have seen too many jerry rigged wiring jobs from idiots in cars and homes to trust my neighbors with my life rigging up their own solar setups.
You know the solar setup over the walmart in kearny mesa? Nice shade right? Most have no idea that system has been offline since not long after it was installed due to safety concerns. A repair company sent out a new tech to identify panels that were faulty and he put a small piece of electrical tape on the bad ones. This caused “hot spot” cells which can cause the panel to catch fire. They shut the system down and walmart litigated with the install company. Dozens of similar systems shut down nationwide and one store burned to the ground for a similar issue.
This technology is not to be treated lightly safetywise.
Your email address will not be published.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Voice of San Diego is a registered trademark of Voice of San Diego, a California non-profit.
401 B Street, Suite 302, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-325-0525
We rely on people like you to support this service. Please donate or sponsor
Voice of San Diego® today.
DONATE NOW
