---

---

Assembly Bill 942 was recently amended by the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. The amendments keep net metering agreements in place for solar consumers who sell their homes or properties. They also pertain to climate credits.

California has just a shade under 40 million people and over 2 million rooftop solar power installations. It is the number one solar power state in the US. Solar power legislation that affects net metering is important for all solar power consumers and those who are considering going solar. The Golden State has a goal to be operating on 100% clean energy by 2045.

JD Dillon, Chief Marketing and Customer Experience Officer at Tigo Energy, answered some questions for CleanTechnica.

Who wrote AB942, when did it pass, and what does it require?

It’s important to remember that solar adoption isn’t a partisan issue, or always motivated by the same things. People go solar to save money, gain energy independence, or reduce emissions, but the end results are broadly the same: local jobs, cleaner air, and more resilient communities. That said, I come to this conversation with a few different perspectives. I’m a cleantech executive and a supplier to solar installers across California, but I’m also a residential solar system owner. I see firsthand how policy decisions impact the economy around installing and servicing solar technology, as well as those who benefit from it at home. 

According to the California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA), AB942 was authored by a former utility executive, and originally would have ended net metering agreements after ten years or when solar users sell or transfer their home or property. 

But on July 15, the California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee amended Assembly Bill 942 to maintain net metering agreements for solar consumers who sell their homes or properties. 

Why was it written?

I am not privy to the full history of the motivations and reasoning for drafting this legislation, but according to CALSSA, the bill’s supporters claimed it was intended to lower energy rates. 

From my perspective, AB 942 was concerning. To meet mandates for lower electricity rates, some utilities have turned their focus to the structure of solar programs. This has resulted in proposals that scale back benefits for solar customers, under the assumption that doing so will reduce costs for others. But this approach overlooks the value that distributed solar brings to the grid and the communities it serves.

Why was AB942 controversial, and who objected or opposed it?

From my perspective, the previously drafted version of the bill would have undermined consumer confidence, devalued home solar investments, and stalled what is a common sense approach to harvesting energy that simply falls from the sky each day.

According to CALSSA, AB 942 was also opposed by the California Association of Realtors, the California Building Industry Association, and Los Angeles Business Council.

More broadly, one concern with this bill was the precedent it could set by changing the agreements homeowners made years before, long after investments have already been made. A drastic change in policy and incentive structures that alters financial assumptions after systems are installed forces everyone involved, from homeowners to financiers to installation businesses, to reevaluate their financial and business models out of the blue. That kind of uncertainty can stall progress.

Who authored the amendments, and what do the amendments provide?

The Senate Energy Committee, following a legal analysis, voted to amend the bill under the leadership of State Senator and Committee Chair Josh Becker.

The amendments maintain net metering agreements for solar consumers who sell their homes or properties, and also remove language that would deny cap-and-trade climate credits to solar consumers, according to CALSSA. 

Why are the amendments important?

They’re important because the solar industry thrives when legislation supports innovation, consumer choice, and long-term resilience, not when it introduces unnecessary friction for emerging technologies that do something as useful as solar.

We need policies that support innovation and consumer choice, not ones that penalize people for investing in clean energy. When solar is allowed to thrive, we all benefit through lower energy bills, more high-skill local installation and solar service jobs, and a cleaner power grid that’s built to serve everyone, regardless of their politics.