The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
The recent documents related to A22-05-022 provide a comprehensive update on the state of renewable energy programs in California, focusing on the Net Value Billing Tariff (NVBT) and community solar projects. Here's a breakdown of the key points and positions from various stakeholders:
Discussions include FERC orders related to electric storage and distributed energy resources, emphasizing that community solar facilities and utilities do not engage in wholesale sales.
The treatment of credits from net metering and community solar is debated, with a focus on retail rate design under state jurisdiction.
The document highlights the importance of targeting low-income households and recommends utilizing various funding sources for renewable energy projects.
Suggestions include implementing a net surplus compensation framework and applying it to all surplus energy at the end of the NVBT facility’s Relevant Period.
The NVBT program is praised for its flexibility and contribution to peak load reductions, with a call for the Commission to confirm NVBT resources as load modifiers.
Recommendations include utilizing state and federal funding sources like AB 102 and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for renewable energy projects.
Emphasizes the importance of automatic enrollment and flat monetary credits on bills for existing program participants.
Discusses the challenges with PURPA prices in attracting developers to community solar projects and suggests using additional funds to incentivize participation.
The documents collectively underscore the potential savings and advantages of deploying NVBT for renewable energy programs in California. Stakeholders urge the Commission to modify or reject the Proposed Decision based on these findings, highlighting the need for a program that benefits all ratepayers, promotes energy efficiency, and ensures participation from low-income households.
Last Week's New Comment +1
Hexagon Energy, LLC, a Virginia LLC developing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) in northeastern California, submits opening comments on the 2027-2028 Transmission Planning Process (TPP) portfolios. Hexagon holds 13 prospective projects totaling 1.3 to 2.5+ GW of clean firm capacity, targeting commercial operation by 2032, with interconnection at Round Mountain, Malin, and Hilltop substations. The company states transmission deliverability, not resource potential, is...
the key constraint.
Key Requests
Commercial and Financing Context
RESOLVE and Transmission Recommendations
Last Week's New Ruling +1
On October 8, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Nilgun Atamturk issued an email ruling in Rulemaking 24-01-017 granting 16 motions for late filing of 2021-2024 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance reports. The ruling was filed with the Docket Office the same day.
Motions Granted
Last Week's New Rulings +2
An October 8, 2026 administrative law judge ruling seeks party comments on proposed changes to timeline reporting and application fees for non-Net Energy Metering and non-Net Billing Tariff resources. The proposals address processing-time standards, public reporting, fee design, and methods for checking whether fee revenue covers processing costs.
Procedural background
The proposals draw on comments on the Order Instituting Rulemaking, comments on the March 3, 2026...
Scoping Memo, and responses to the July 14, 2026 ruling. Opening comments are due within three weeks of the ruling’s issuance, with reply comments due one week after opening comments.
Timeline reporting framework
The proposal would assess processing performance mainly through end-to-end business-day timelines from an application being deemed complete to permission to operate (PTO), excluding time attributable to customer responses. It would establish base timelines for groups of similar applications, add fixed extensions for additional process steps, provide for exceptional or non-routine cases, and require standardized data reporting.
Utilities would add reporting on eight processes, including site visits and inspections, line-side tap variance requests, storage load studies, customer disconnects and reconnects, Equipment Type Testing, Distribution Group Studies, backup-system notifications, and Special Facilities Agreements. The proposal would discontinue reporting on seven existing timelines, including acknowledgment of receipt, several study and test milestones, total request-to-PTO time, and scheduling of commissioning tests.
The proposed base timeline is 20 business days for projects of 30 kVA or less. For projects over 30 kVA through 500 kVA, the proposed base is 30 business days, with extensions for specified steps such as Supplemental Review, Detailed Study, inspections, grid upgrades, and certain equipment or connection requirements. The ruling seeks comment on standards for projects over 500 kVA.
Utilities would separately report each application-review cycle, including mean, median, and maximum processing times. For projects excluded from end-to-end requirements because of specified circumstances, utilities would still report processing-time statistics, PTOs, and withdrawals.
The proposal calls for updated Rule 21 webpages and monthly online reporting. Reporting would include processing-time statistics and compliance with applicable standards, with details varying by project size and, for projects over 30 kVA, by additional process steps.
Timeline questions for comment
The ruling asks parties whether existing timelines should be discontinued and what additional processes should be tracked; whether project-size groups need further subdivision; and whether the proposed 20- and 30-business-day base timelines are appropriate.
For projects over 30 kVA, parties are asked to address the proposed extensions, how to measure time for each added step, and how repeated steps should be treated. The ruling also seeks proposals for timelines and reporting for projects over 500 kVA, criteria for exceptional-case exclusions, and any needed reporting changes.
Application fee proposal
The proposed fees would apply only to non-Net Billing Tariff and non-Net Energy Metering resources. The stated objectives are to balance total fee revenue against total processing costs and to differentiate fees among project groups with different processing costs.
One illustrative schedule sets fees at $400 for residential projects up to 15 kW; $700 for residential projects over 15 kW through 30 kW; and $1,000 for non-residential projects up to 30 kW. For projects over 30 kW, it proposes $1,000 plus $5 per kW above 30 kW, capped at $4,000.
After a fee schedule takes effect, utilities would sample projects using 2024–2025 historical volumes and report actual processing costs. Proposed cost categories include engineering and administrative staff time, legal review, field inspection and testing, and IT systems; Supplemental Review and Detailed Study costs would be excluded. Sampling could last up to 12 months for smaller groups and up to 24 months for the largest group.
A separate illustrative calculation groups projects by size, including 30–500 kW, 500 kW–1 MW, 1–5 MW, and 5 MW or larger. It applies each category’s fee to the 2024–2025 project counts reported for each of three utilities, then compares combined fee revenue with combined processing costs.
The illustrative calculation reports approximately $7 million in combined processing costs and more than $8 million in fee revenue. The proposed balance is assessed across the three utilities together, rather than requiring each utility to break even individually. Reported project totals are 5,060 for Utility #1, 2,496 for Utility #2, and 2,004 for Utility #3.
Application fee questions for comment
The ruling asks parties whether they support the fee approach and illustrative amounts; what project groupings and fee levels are appropriate; and what sampling periods, sample sizes, and project-selection methods should be used.
Parties are also asked whether the proposed cost categories are complete and appropriately defined, and whether alternative fee-calculation methods would better balance accuracy, administrative effort, and timely implementation.
