Last month President Joe Biden signed a bill that secured the largest investment in the United States’ history to combat climate change and invest in clean technologies. An analysis of the bill from Senate Democrats predicts that the bill will help the United States lower greenhouse gas emissions by about 40 percent by 2030. 

The Inflation Reduction Act is 730 pages of not-so-easy to read legislation with topics covering healthcare, energy, electric vehicles, corporate taxes and more. Keeping in mind that reading through federal legislation is time consuming and may not be easy to understand, this blog will break down the key points relating to clean energy from the Inflation Reduction Act from the information that’s available at this time. 

‍

‍Changes to the investment tax credit ‍

The tax credit that’s received for installing clean energy technologies has now increased from 26 percent back up to 30 percent and will be in effect until 2032. The tax credit will be available for both residential and commercial projects installed this year and moving forward. The investment tax credit will decrease to 26 percent in 2033 and 22 percent in 2034. 

The biggest change relating to the tax credit is that it includes a direct pay provision for a nonprofit or a state, local or tribal government. Previously, those entities were not able to use the tax credit available so often entered into power purchase agreements or leases to utilize the tax credit. We are excited for our nonprofit Solar Moonshot Program participants, which will now be able to utilize direct pay and own their systems outright from the day their rooftop solar power systems are energized. Unfortunately, residential customers are not eligible for the direct pay provision, however, residential customers who do not have the tax appetite to make use of the tax credit, are now about to transfer or sell the credits. 

There are also a number of adders that may increase the percentage of the tax credit. An additional 10 percent is available if the system is installed in an area with significant fossil fuel extraction or a brownfield. Another additional 10 percent is available for using domestic materials, which requires all steel and iron to be sourced from the United States and 40-55 percent of the value of manufactured products to be from the United States.  Finally, an additional 10 percent adder is available for solar projects that sell their electricity via community solar to low income households. The adders are also stackable meaning if a project has the 30 percent tax credit, a 10 percent adder for domestic materials, a 10 percent adder for being located in a fossil fuel community and another 10 percent for being a community solar project, the tax credits could potentially reach up to 60 percent of the total system cost. 

‍

‍Prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements ‍

New employment requirements exist for large clean energy projects 1MW or more. In order to be eligible for the standard 30 percent tax credit, workers installing solar projects must be paid prevailing wages and be part of an electrical apprenticeship program. Violations will not only result in projects unable to claim up to 24 percent of the 30 percent tax credit but also heavy fines of $5,000 for each worker who is underpaid. Furthermore, if the inability to meet the wage requirements is found to be intentional, the fine will double to $10,000 per worker.  ‍‍

‍

‍Additional incentives and information‍

There are many other investments in the bill including tax credits for electric vehicles, electrical panels and more. There are also details that are not determined yet, for instance about the time it will take for direct pay to be paid out, which we’ll update you on as the information becomes available. Sign up for our newsletter to be notified when part two of this blog, which will dive into transportation investments, is available.

On August 11, leading climate organizations, elected officials, candidates and local activists stood knee deep in the waters of Mission Bay to demonstrate the effects the climate crisis will have locally and launch the Fossil Fuel Free Pledge. The initiative aims to end the fossil fuel industry’s anti-climate agenda while celebrating and providing transparency regarding where organizations, elected officials and candidates receive funding. Those who take the pledge agree to not accept any fossil fuel money as part of their commitment to an equitable and climate safe future.  Speakers at the event included Carlsbad Councilmember Priya Bhat-Patel, candidate Tommy Hough and representatives with San Diego Coastkeeper, SanDiego350’s Youth4Climate, CleanEarth4Kids, Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation and San Diego Urban Sustainability Coalition. Additional attendees included Surfrider San Diego, SD-SEQUEL, candidate Georgette Gòmez and other climate activists. 

‍

It’s no secret that fossil fuel companies give funding to nonprofits and elected officials, and activists note that allegiance is often expected in return for those funds. Some nonprofit organizations that have accepted fossil fuel money have publicly supported a fossil fuel company’s anti-climate initiative, even when the initiative conflicts with the organizations’ mission, values and hurts the communities being served by the nonprofit. Fossil fuel companies have also invested billion of dollars to support elected officials and candidates who will vote for policies and laws that continue to benefit polluters. 

‍

Locally, two big fossil fuel corporations contributing funds to nonprofit organizations and candidate campaigns are San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and its parent company, Sempra Energy. SDG&E touts its renewable energy content in its state-mandated renewable portfolio standard program, although Voice of San Diego reported last year that SDG&E Walks Back Claim it Delivers 45 Percent Renewable Energy, citing only 31 percent of energy San Diegans consume is zero carbon. While SDG&E claims to support clean energy, their net energy metering proposal at the California Public Utilities Commission would erode the economics of rooftop solar, making solar out of reach for many Californians while setting what activists say is a dangerous nationwide precedent to rely on dirty energy for a longer period of time. If SDG&E’s net metering proposal is adopted, it would also lessen the benefits that the City of San Diego’s new Solar Equity Program has for San Diegans in communities of concern. Meanwhile Sempra Energy sold off renewable assets and continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels, primarily fracked gas, which accelerates the climate crisis and contributes to various climate injustices in California. 

‍

“You cannot buy my destruction. You cannot pay to poison my children. You cannot pay to poison my communities,” said Yusef Miller, a board member of CleanEarth4Kids and a NAACP North County leader, in a passionate message to the local fossil fuel company SDG&E. Miller’s high school aged son also spoke at the event.  

‍

With the climate crisis worsening, scientists, leaders and climate activists say it is now more urgent than ever to end our reliance on fossil fuels. Divesting from fossil fuel support and standing behind companies that prioritize clean energy, green jobs and communities of concern has never been more critical. In fact, earlier this year, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors made the unanimous decision to divest from fossil fuel companies. This allows the County to invest its money in companies that do not detrimentally impact the environment and accelerate the climate crisis.

‍

"The fossil fuel industry has invested millions of dollars towards campaign contributions, organizations and front groups to ensure billions of dollars in subsidies and laws that benefit polluters,” said Karinna Gonzalez, Climate Justice Policy Manager with Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation. “The Fossil Fuel Free Pledge is starting here in San Diego, and it will cut off the fossil fuel industry’s influence so that we can make meaningful progress towards a just and livable future."

‍

Fossil Fuel Free pledgees include SanDiego350, Hammond Climate Solutions Foundation, Bike San Diego, San Diego Coastkeeper, Surfrider San Diego, San Diego Urban Sustainability Coalition, CleanEarth4Kids, Democratic Socialists of America San Diego, North County Climate Change Alliance, SD-SEQUEL, San Diego Bike Coalition, South Bay Sustainable Communities, Climate Reality Project San Diego, Environmental Center of San Diego, University Christian Church, City of San Diego Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe, Carlsbad City Councilmember Priya Bhat-Patel and candidates Tommy Hough, Georgette Gómez, Tiffany Boyd-Hodgson and Cody Petterson. All local elected officials, candidates and nonprofit organizations are invited to take the pledge and join the movement for a healthier and more equitable future. 

‍

“As we stand here knee-deep in water, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this is our future if we allow fossil fuel companies to donate a penny to the environment while spending thousands to destroy it,” said Lucero Sanchez, Campaigns Manager with San Diego Coastkeeper.

‍

The Fossil Fuel Free Pledge launched targeting nonprofit organizations, elected officials and candidates, however, there are plans to expand the categories as well as the geographic region. For more information or to take the Fossil Fuel Free Pledge or to get involved, visit www.fossilfuelfreepledge.org.

After about six months of near silence from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) since their December 2021 proposed decision that would decimate the state’s rooftop solar agreement, net energy metering, they have recently announced that they are re-opening the proceeding to get input on some new elements of the proposal. Here is what we know: 

One of the most criticized elements of the proposed decision was the CPUC’s proposal to impose a fixed monthly charge for all solar customers. Previously, the charge was to be based on the size of the solar system, which would have resulted in $60 per month for an averaged sized residential solar system. The CPUC is now asking for feedback on charging customers based on self consumption - the solar energy customers produce and use at home. The less energy that is bought from the utility because of the solar, the higher the fee. The amount of the fee could be anywhere between $300-$600 per year on average. Local, state and federal governments have encouraged rooftop solar, similarly to promoting energy efficiency, which also reduces a household or organization’s energy use, lessening stress on the grid while minimizing CO2 emissions contributing to the climate crisis. A solar tax that punishes residents for using less energy is like taxing people for growing their own food instead of buying it from the grocery store. The proposed solar tax directly contradicts what the Newsom administration has said is one of their top priorities, addressing the rapidly accelerating climate crisis. 

Rooftop solar advocates, climate justice organizations, elected officials, community choice energy programs, houses of worship, nonprofits and schools have openly criticized the idea of taxing solar customers, which has resulted every single CPUC public voting meeting  being flooded with phone calls of concerned California residents voicing their strong opposition, which have lasted up to seven hours. The distributed solar and storage industry has been very loud in voicing opposition as well, hosting a number of rallies outside of the CPUC headquarters and turning out thousands of solar workers with one request: don’t kill our solar jobs.  

Another upsetting element of the December 2021 proposed decision was the idea to dramatically reduce the amount solar customers are compensated for sharing their excess energy with their neighbors. Unfortunately, a dramatic reduction in export compensation is still on the table, however the question that remains is how quickly those amounts will decrease. The industry has spoken very loudly on this particular issue, stating that a drastic reduction in export compensation would completely halt the growth of solar across the state. 

It is clear that both the CPUC and Governor Gavin Newsom have heard the voices of opposition and felt the pressure to distance themselves from the December proposed decision, with the governor stating in a press conference that “there is more work to be done.” It is clear that the CPUC still has plans to make serious changes to net metering, which will undoubtedly slow solar adoption and lead to more climate injustices. 

Locally, advocates in San Diego have been very vocal in criticizing the CPUC, and this potential new proposal comes in the middle of San Diego Gas & Electric increasing their rates making San Diego the city with the highest price for energy in the country and resulting in one out of four San Diegans unable to pay their electric bills.

The timeline remains unclear, however a revised proposed decision could come out as early as July, with a vote as early as August. To learn more about how you can get involved to help save rooftop solar in California, visit our toolkit!