DeSantis Saved Florida’s Solar Industry. In California, Newsom Prepares To Kick It To The Curb
DeSantis On Newsom: “Maybe Look Into His History With PG&E”
Pacific Gas and Electric—you know, PG&E, the people whose equipment failures continue to light California on fire—have a proposal in front of state lawmakers that would kneecap the state’s rooftop solar industry. And Californians are very unhappy about it.
It’s easy to understand the outrage. After shelling out tens of thousands of dollars to install rooftop solar, Californians want to recoup those investments through reduced electricity bills (and, for those who generate more solar power than they consume, through payment for contributing energy to the grid). But PG&E wants to kill the program known as net metering and instead charge a monthly fee to customers who use solar to power their homes.
A recent report from Environment California’s Research and Policy Center concluded that “cuts to net metering could threaten California’s clean energy progress.” Though Gov. Newsom has championed the idea of a carbon-neutral California by 2045, the research and policy center found that “California needs rooftop solar to meet its ambitious climate and energy goals” and this potential “rollback would likely slow down rooftop solar adoption dramatically, threatening California’s continued clean energy progress.”
So, just how unpopular is the PG&E proposal? The Los Angeles Times recently conducted a survey which found that 86% of respondents oppose the plan to “slash rooftop solar incentives.” That’s basically a greater percentage of people than those who agree the Earth is flat. With numbers like these, it would be a political no-brainer for California politicians to stand with the state’s environmental groups against the proposal.
Naturally, then, you’d expect Governor Gavin Newsom to be out in front of the cameras criticizing the proposal, loudly telling the regulators that he appointed to the Public Utilities Commission to kill it. But he hasn't. That’s right, the guy who just last week wrote a letter to a different public entity lecturing them on the need to “up our game” on tackling climate change, hasn’t used his power to protect rooftop solar in California, the state with the most residential solar customers in the country.
This same fight recently played out in Florida. Florida Power and Light drafted a bill that would have reduced incentives for customers both to install and to generate surplus solar power, and Republican-majorities in both chambers of the Florida legislature passed the measure. Yet, even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, not a known environmental champion and indeed a guy galavanting around the country trying to out-Trump Trump in a barely disguised pre-season Republican presidential primary campaign, had the wherewithal to act decisively to protect solar.
DeSantis vetoed the bill, saying that “the state of Florida should not contribute to the financial crunch that our citizens are experiencing” by undercutting the ability of hardworking Floridians to leverage solar to lower their utility bills especially “given the United States is experiencing its worst inflation in 40 years and that consumers have seen steep increases in the price of gas and groceries, as well as escalating bills.” Environmental groups praised DeSantis’ decision as a model for advancing climate change in red states, leaving implicit the seemingly obvious proposition that blue state governors would protect rooftop solar.
The different public postures that Governors DeSantis and Newsom are taking towards rooftop solar take on added importance given that both men are widely thought to be serious presidential contenders. After a recent visit to the White House, where Newsom strutted around the front lawn, smiling and talking to the cameras, one article put plainly Gavin’s not so secret ambitions for 2024—“Gavin Newsom Measures Drapes in the White House.” But the fact that Governor DeSantis acted more swiftly and decisively than Newsom raises the question of whether one can be a serious presidential contender and also be out-greened on solar by a Republican presidential frontrunner.
“Getting rooftop solar and batteries into the hands of millions of working and middle class households, schools, businesses, farms and churches is absolutely essential to meeting the State of California’s clean energy goals, and the climate change objectives that Governor Newsom is promoting,” said Dave Rosenfeld, executive director of Solar Rights Alliance, to Golden State Grid. “This is also what the public overwhelmingly wants, and is what over 150,000 Californians, 600 nonprofits, schools, cities and elected officials, and most of the state’s newspaper editorial boards have asked for.”
Multiple sources told Golden State Grid that the disparate reactions from DeSantis and Newsom boil down to the age-old battle between corporate interests and the interests of everyday people. Sammy Roth, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, has noted that the PG&E-driven proposal in California generated over 1,300 public comments. Roth highlighted one of those comments—from a California resident named Natalie, which he described as a “key theme” in the broader set of comments:
“I’m working class. I made solar a priority. But I am far from rich. Solar is affordable now, it’s an option for people like me. It’s a realistic and reasonable way of generating energy and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. I don’t care much if it cuts into PG&E’s profits.”
Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Gov. DeSantis, described the differences between the two governors to Golden State Grid: “the governor always strives to make decisions in the best interests of Floridians, even if that means vetoing priority legislation of the largest power utility in the state.”
Golden State Grid asked Governor Newsom’s office whether he could say the same given both his inaction thus far on the solar proposal and his background as a former luxury hotelier who couldn’t be bothered to wear a mask while dining at one of the world’s most expensive and cloistered restaurants during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic as the smell of burnt landscape from the PG&E fires still lingered throughout Napa Valley.
Pushaw, DeSantis’ press secretary, pointed toward another possible factor in Newsom’s decision-making: “I cannot speak for Governor Newsom, but I would suggest looking into his history with PG&E.” Over the past two decades Newsom and his wife have accepted over $700,000 from PG&E, its foundation and its employees, The Washington Post recently reported. Newsom received over $200,000 from PG&E during his most recent campaign for governor; and that same year, a political consultancy group that helped run Newsom’s campaign, received more than $1.1 million from PG&E, The New York Times has reported.
Golden State Grid did not receive a response from Governor Newsom at the time of publication, but Rosenfeld, from the Solar Rights Alliance, underscored that “Governor Newsom’s choice could not be clearer. He can say ‘No’ to PG&E and side with everyday people to expand rooftop solar and battery access and demonstrate commitment to his climate change goals in the most concrete way possible. Or, he can side with PG&E’s Solar Tax, protect their profits, make rooftop solar unaffordable for everyday people and undermine the state’s clean energy progress.”