The the public utility is attempting to overrule county ordinance 943, which orders the utility to re-establish its abolished net metering policy.
In the entire United States, it is unlikely that any county has as many MW of solar installed as Riverside County. The land is flat, open and, most importantly, sunny. These factors have made Riverside a hotspot for utility-grade solar projects, going back to the building of the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) in the mid-1980s.
Not only is the county home to solar farms, but traditional farms, as well as desert resorts. One would think that the two would be chomping at the bit to develop their own on-site solar installations and wipe out their monthly energy costs. That’s where the issue arises.
A significant portion of Riverside county falls under the coverage of Imperial Irrigation District (IID), a utility company that covers water for irrigation as well as electricity. In 2016, IID discontinued its net metering program.
The absence of caps, coupled with the fact that the more solar they install, the less IID’s customers need transmission and distribution system upgrades (which utilities profits from) naturally pits IID and other utilities against distributed solar.
The use of the word subsidy, in this instance, is a chosen editorial stretch by IID, as multiple studies have shown that net metering provides a net benefit to other ratepayers.
With this lawsuit, IID has entered into a battle with not only Riverside County, but with one of the largest rooftop solar companies in Southern California. Riverside County has come to an agreement with Renova Energy to allow the company to lead the county’s defense, which has meant the use of Vincent Battaglia’s legal team. Battaglia is the founder and CEO of Renova and was one of the largest proponents of Riverside County’s ordinance.
This filing of this lawsuit proves, yet again, the correction of an easy misconception. Utilities don’t oppose solar power, they oppose solar power they can’t profit off of.