A controversial state bill that would alter existing contracts between homeowners and utilities for rooftop solar installations advanced in the California Assembly last week, despite vocal opposition from solar advocates, homeowners, and some lawmakers who initially promised to oppose it.
Assembly Bill 942, which passed the Assembly Energy and Utilities Committee on a 10-4 vote Wednesday, proposes to shift existing solar customers—those with Net Energy Metering (NEM) 1.0 and 2.0 agreements—into the current NEM 3.0 framework. The move would significantly reduce the savings on their electric bills many homeowners had anticipated under 20-year contracts they signed to make rooftop solar economically viable.
Nearly two million Californians have entered long-term agreements with utilities, expecting the cost of installing solar panels to be offset over time by reductions in their electric bills. Those agreements were upended for new customers in April 2023, when the Public Utilities Commission adopted rules that slashed reimbursement rates for excess power sent back to the grid.
At a town hall in Caspar on April 27, Assemblymember Chris Rogers expressed opposition to the bill, saying, “I'm a no on it, I'm voting no on it on Tuesday, Wednesday, whenever it's up in committee.” But when the vote came before the committee on April 30, Rogers joined the majority in supporting the bill.
Rogers said he had notified the bill’s author in advance that he could not support the legislation. “My main concern was that folks had made strategic investments in their homes that helped launch the solar industry … I didn’t want the state of California to pull the rug out from under them,” he said.
However, the day before the vote, the bill’s author returned with amendments that Rogers said addressed his concerns. “She has made substantial progress in addressing my chief concern, which is making sure that my constituents who are currently using solar are not impacted,” Rogers said, adding that he may reconsider his vote when the bill returns from the Senate or comes up on the Assembly floor.
Solar advocates remain unconvinced.
Dave Rosenfeld, executive director of the Solar Rights Alliance, warned that the bill could have severe financial consequences for homeowners who financed their systems. “When you break the contract when somebody sells the home, that puts the solar owner completely underwater,” he said. “Most middle and working class people don’t have $30,000 or $40,000 in cash to pay off their loan, which means they’re going to be stuck, unable to sell their home.”
Rosenfeld accused Rogers of “caving to the utilities” and ignoring the will of his constituents. “There is no way to make this bill better,” he added. “The state made a contract with two million consumers, and the state has to honor that contract.”
