To Assembly members of California
Executive Summary:
Electric rates are based on costs of maintaining and growing the electric grid. Rates are applied to consumption. The consumer is at liberty to vary their consumption and therefore vary their cost/contribution to the grid. AB 1139 calls for a fee (tax) and an imbalanced KWh cost/compensation to be charged solar owners for their connection to the grid so that they may pay their 'fair share' of the grid. There is no clear representation governing the management of the privately-owned public-electric-utility industry and such a fee (tax) would be imposed without representation. Stock investors would benefit from such a fee (tax) in that their ROI is based on the electric rates/fees. Solar owners are also investors and they are entitled to a ROI as well. Solar owners have invested in the generating infrastructure directly, in an effort to battle the 'energy crisis' that California has committed itself to solving. AB 1139 effectively destroys the ROI of solar owners. Although the discussions around AB 1139 bring forth valid concerns of equity, AB 1139 fails to equitably address these concerns and commits economic violence to the solar-owner investors.
Please vote no on AB 1139
It is understood that electric rates are calculated and authorized by the CPUC on the basis of the number of miles of transmission line/equipment and not on the actual electrical energy being consumed. The consumption of electrical energy is simply used as the easily-metered commodity by which to estimate a consumer's contribution to the cost of the dynamic infrastructure which also respects the consumer's liberty to vary their use/contribution to the 'grid'. Consumers are at liberty to stay connected to the electrical grid for instantaneous use even if they choose not to consume any electrical energy or for many, even to minimize that consumption.
A concern exists that the consumer does not have sufficient if any say in how the electrical energy infrastructure is managed/grown. The consumption-based costs charged to the consumer are based on a physical infrastructure and managed by an albeit overseen/regulated investment/profit-based model industry. This industry is mandated to maximize the ROI to its investors. As long as the consumer's liberty to vary their costs by their activity/use is in place, this system is mostly tolerable.
'Fair share' is a term often applied to the justification of taxation in a society. Each member is obligated to provide their 'fair share' of the costs of administering and maintaining the infrastructure and maintenance of the society from which they derive an assumed benefit. Based on this understanding, the doctrine of taxation with representation, which is a method of preserving the people's right to regulate their tax (cost) burden, has been adopted and held with paramount importance. The very members who pay their 'fair share' must have a direct representative say in how much that 'fair share' entails.
The public utilities industry being a private investment/profit-based industry is not held to the doctrine of taxation with representation. Or to put it into the industry's parlance, fees/costs with representation. Rather this industry is based on a direct-consumption model and not a distributed societal model. Although it would seem that it is being treated as such by the author who uses the term, 'fair share', perhaps because of the oversight/regulation power of the CPUC. As seen, the consumption-based model allows for the user to vary their costs by varying their use of electrical energy. A flat fee charged to a solar owner removes their liberty to vary their costs and thus becomes an effective 'tax' imposed by the 'public' utility via the authorization of the CPUC. This has the odious nature of being a form of taxation without representation. To reiterate, the consumer does not have sufficient if any say in how the private industry is managed/grown which is the basis of how the rates are calculated/set.
Solar owners invest in generation equipment and pay the costs of installation and maintenance of said equipment. This investment in a part of the infrastructure of the 'electrical grid' is just as valid as the investments made by purchasing stocks. Investors expect a ROI as a motive for investment. The utility companies include the ROI to their stock investors via the rates they charge for the consumption of electrical energy. AB 1139 completely ignores and in fact destroys the ROI of the solar owners while assuming (by not even addressing) the ROI of the stock investors is valid and incontrovertible. The motive of the bill is based on a 'fair share' argument and that solar owners must contribute their 'fair share' to the infrastructure which includes the ROI of the stock investors. Charging the so-called 'fair share' to the solar owners in a form of a fixed 'fee' and imbalanced KWh use/compensation would obliterate the ROI of the solar owners while contributing to the ROI of the stock investors. With the passing of AB 1139, it has been estimated without known controversy that the time it would take to see a ROI for solar owners would exceed the effective lifetime of the generating equipment, which in this context results in a negative ROI. ROI is still the driving motive for installation of private solar in California, altruism may play its role, but it is claimed that that role is minor.
Solar owners and those with energy storage have invested in the electrical energy infrastructure with an expected ROI with the additional motivation that they are contributing a part to easing the burden on the electrical grid in what has been termed the 'energy crisis', which has been the reason for rolling power outages, time-of-use rate plans, a constant call and even legislation for energy conservation and energy-saving devices. To this author's understanding, the 'energy crisis' still exists and California has committed itself to the task of tackling and hopefully solving this problem. Private solar ownership with an expected ROI is a partner in that endeavor. The discussions around AB 1139 state valid concerns of equity, but AB 1139 fails to find an equitable solution and in fact commits economic violence to those who are doing a part to solve a very large and complex problem. It attacks and obliterates the primary motivation to participate, via an instantaneously-clean and renewable energy source, in working toward solving the 'energy crisis' problem.
I hope my logic and reasoning have been sound and I ask forgiveness and forbearance for any erroneous statements, poor communication skills or ignorance of facts that may exist.
Please vote no, find another way.