The Brief

California has nearly two million homes with rooftop solar — a major success. But that scale-up has largely left out nearly half of Californians who rent.

In Los Angeles, that number is even higher: more than 60% of people rent, according to 2021 data from the Southern California Association of Governments.

Now the California Public Utilities Commission is set to vote on Thursday on a proposal that could significantly cut current incentives for apartments, businesses and schools to put solar on their rooftops.

What does the proposal say?

The proposal changes the rules around “Virtual Net Energy Metering,” or VNEM, and “Net Energy Metering Aggregation,” or NEMA. The programs as they currently stand allow properties with multiple electric meters — such as apartments, schools, strip malls, etc. — to get paid back for the amount of excess electricity they generate on their properties and sell back to the utility grid, thus making solar more affordable for a wider array of people and businesses.

While the newly revised proposal still allows this credit for apartment residents, though at a lower compensation rate, it excludes energy use in apartment common spaces, such as shared laundry, outdoor lighting, gyms, and electric vehicle charging stations. Solar advocates and rental industry associations argue that makes apartment owners even less likely to install solar because the savings don’t pencil out.

Putting more solar panels on rooftops can help offset the need for utility-scale solar fields, but experts say both are necessary to generate the amount of electricity needed for a cleaner energy future.

(

Patrick T. Fallon

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

For schools, the proposal not only reduces the compensation for the excess electricity they send back to the grid we all rely on, but also requires them to pay the full retail price for the electricity they consume, even during the day when using the power from their solar panels.

The proposed changes don't apply to qualifying low-income apartments.

“We need to sprint, and we're throwing up these barriers to actually building renewable energy, while at the same time patting ourselves on the back like we're climate change heroes,” said Bernadette del Chiaro, executive director of the solar trade organization the California Solar and Storage Association.

She said a similar cut to rooftop solar incentives for single-family homes last year has already led to a steep drop off in the solar market — 80% year over year by her organization’s calculations. The L.A. Times reported that the nation’s largest solar installer, Sunrun, laid off 1,000 people since the policy change.

Investor-owned utilities including Southern California Edison argue the change is needed to avoid what they call a “cost shift” — that apartment dwellers and businesses without solar are bearing the burden of higher electricity rates and fixed costs, while those with solar disproportionately save on those costs under the current rules. They also say the complexity of accurately crediting multifamily properties is another challenge and added cost because it’s difficult to understand who is using how much solar energy and when in a multi-family or multi-business building.

Last year, California cut incentives for installing solar on single-family homes. Now the state is proposing cutting incentives for buildings such as apartments and schools.

“At SCE, we want to make sure that customers are paying a fair price for power,” said Jeff Monford, a spokesperson for the utility. “We believe that the incentives for producers of energy via solar are no longer needed to establish that industry like they were in the past. As we move forward into the clean energy future, we think it's time to reduce those subsidies and not introduce more of them, especially because the cost of power has such a disproportionate effect on customers who are not able to participate in solar generation.”

A renter’s perspective

Sean Draper rents an apartment in Simi Valley and has worked in the solar industry for the last seven years. He’s kept a close eye on solar decisions made by the state. He wants to talk to his landlord about installing solar, but worries the proposed changes to current policy make it unrealistic.

“I feel like it is going to be, as I try to engage in that conversation with ownership here, a bit of an uphill battle,” Draper said.

While he said leaving the credit for residents is a step in the right direction, the lack of inclusion for similar credits in shared spaces in apartments, such as EV chargers, doesn’t make it cost-effective for apartment owners.

“Gas where I am is up to $5, $6 dollars a gallon and we're all feeling the pinch,” he said. “I'm currently contemplating purchasing an electric vehicle and without that access to low cost energy, it’s just becoming rapidly less and less practical.”

He also has concerns for his friends with small businesses, because the credit would only apply to residential tenants in rental properties, not commercial tenants.

“I think that the only thing that makes sense is to continue to allow onsite netting of power for all tenants, commercial and residential,” Draper said. “I think the proposed rule for residential strikes a really good balance between providing benefits to residential tenants who are – many of us – living paycheck to paycheck, but also provides a small amount of relief to the utilities in terms of them being able to provide less compensation for the [power] generation.”

More than that, he said more solar is needed for a healthier planet. He worries this rule change will set California further back on its clean energy goals.

“I've got kids,” he said. “The world they live in hinges on us making the right decisions now.”

What schools say 

With already extremely tight margins, school districts across the state have raised alarm bells about the effects of the proposed decision. They’re particularly concerned about the changes that would require them to pay the full retail price for electricity, even when using their own energy generated onsite.

Solar panels on the top of Playa Vista Elementary School.

(

Courtesy of LAUSD

)

“These unfair practices help utility companies and hurt students,” L.A. Unified School District wrote in a statement posted to X, formerly known as Twitter. “Rising energy costs will make it harder for Los Angeles Unified [to] reach its climate goals, and these costs will come out of our classroom, hurting our ability to reduce emissions, electrify our schools, and invest [in] safe and healthy learning environments for our children.”

Schools are being mandated by state law to electrify school buses and add solar panels, among other things. Solar installation costs come out of their facilities budgets, but the state doesn’t have an ongoing funding source for school bonds that power those budgets — that’s why we see school bond measures on our ballots every few years.

Solar panels in a parking lot outside South East High School, an L.A. Unified School District campus in South Gate. (Photo courtesy of LAUSD)

At the same time, to receive financial benefits under the new proposal, schools would need to install battery storage for each meter — batteries are still expensive and new technology that would require modernizing meters on their campuses. But the state only provides funding for modernization every 25 years, said Nancy Chaires Espinoza, executive director of advocacy group the School Energy Coalition.

“California’s over 10,000 schools are critical to the state’s ability to meet its clean energy goals,” Espinoza wrote in an email to LAist. “We are excited to be a part of this transition. We simply ask that new mandates be feasible for us to implement and adequately financed to avoid further depleting our resources for educating students.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has attempted to use a number of tactics in recent weeks to remove California voters they say are likely noncitizens from state voter rolls — despite the voting process having already begun.

Election security experts told LAist, however, that the federal government’s case is unlikely to succeed, and that voters should proceed filling out their ballots as normal.

“I don't think most people in the L.A. area or beyond will actually encounter any of the disruption that the administration is trying to project,” Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said.

The backstory

Last week, Department of Justice election officials sent a list of 20,000 California voters it says it has “high confidence” are not citizens. (L.A. County election officials said they received records on a thumb drive, which they could not open for security reasons.) Two days later, the Trump administration sued California for not complying with its request to use the list to remove any noncitizens from local voter rolls.

California on Tuesday filed an extensive response to the DOJ lawsuit, saying it “borders on the absurd.”

Separately this week, the DOJ announced it had filed charges against 28 people, accusing them of registering to vote as noncitizens.

What is the DOJ claiming?

DOJ representatives said Monday they are attempting to keep U.S. citizens’ votes from being canceled out by noncitizens.

“We have an election coming up next month,” Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney, said. “Our biggest priority is to safeguard the integrity of the election.”

Essayli suggested he may prosecute election officials who knowingly process ballots “once we’ve informed them who the non-citizens are” and indicated the DOJ is working on “many more cases.”

Regarding the list sent to state and local officials, DOJ officials also said they have “high confidence” — not complete certainty — that the people on the federal government’s list are noncitizens.

“There may be some names on there who it turns out ultimately are citizens,” Trent McCotter, acting deputy attorney general, said Monday. “We're not perfect, and that's why we've asked California to cooperate with us.”

In a court declaration filed today, L.A. County Assistant Registrar Monica Flores said the DOJ’s list is “unreliable.” Analyzing a sample of 200 records, she said a majority are not active voters, and nearly 40% of the records indicate the individual was born in the U.S.

The L.A. County registrar of voters said officials here did not comply with the request to use the federal list and began coordinating with state officials — a point DOJ officials stressed on Monday, with McCotter saying this is “an emergency of their own [California’s] creation.”

Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who runs the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, disagreed.

“The federal government didn't produce its list of voters or its methodology to California until just a few days ago, so this is not an emergency of California's own making,” Hasen said. “It is not the federal government's job to decide who is on voting rolls. That is a job that is given to states.”

A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment for this article beyond pointing to Essayli’s X social media feed.

What role will local election officials play?

In large part, Hasen and Levitt said officials will play the same role that they always have, even though more eyes will be on them. County election officials send out ballots, process and verify signatures, and reach out to voters if there are any outstanding issues. The registrar then has 13 days to report on ballots to the state, including provisional ballots and same-day registration ballots, and 30 days to finish counting them.

That said, Hasen said Essayli’s threat of possible criminal prosecution against election officials is “really dangerous” — even though he said these cases are also unlikely to succeed.

“We've got a threat of criminal prosecution against election administrators for not being aggressive enough in policing voting rolls to the Trump administration's liking,” Hasen said. “Even if they were negligent in how they policed their voting rolls, there's no criminal liability here.”

What should voters do?

Levitt, who previously worked on voting rights at the Justice Department, said he doesn’t think Trump’s DOJ is serious about the legal merits of their lawsuit against California.

“I can completely understand that people may be freaked out,” he said. “Part of what DOJ is doing is an attempt to freak people out.”

For their part, local officials have reassured voters that they should proceed to cast their ballots. In a statement, L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn called the DOJ’s actions “voter intimidation and a blatant attempt to undermine trust in our midterm elections.”

Levitt recommended voting as early as possible to give voters time to check their registration and resolve any issues. If you have concerns, he recommended visiting an early voting center in person.

Hasen encouraged voters to double-check the status of their ballots to ensure they’ve been processed and counted.

“We have very good ballot tracking,” Hasen said. “California is not going to simply start throwing out ballots from people who are on an unvetted federal list of supposed noncitizen voters.”

What’s the future of this lawsuit?

Hasen and Levitt said the legal problems with the federal government’s arguments can be traced back to federal law and the Constitution.

“The Constitution gives states the power to run elections subject to Congress passing laws that can override that,” Hasen said. “There's no congressional override that would give the federal government the authority to do this.”

That makes the DOJ’s case unlikely to succeed, the professors agreed.

“It's possible that a court might not even really deal with it at all,” Levitt said.

What about the people accused of voting fraud?

The charges announced this week against 28 people accused of registering or voting as noncitizens, however, may be more successful, depending on the evidence presented in each case.

“Isolated cases of alleged voter fraud occur in red and blue states alike, and they should be prosecuted wherever they occur,” a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement.

But Bonta noted that the 28 people charged represent 0.0001% of California’s registered voters. The percentage is about the same in L.A. County: The 12 L.A. County residents charged this week make up roughly 0.0002% of people on the voter rolls.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.