Categories: "Solar Economics"

02/01/23

  12:13:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 223 words  
Categories: Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Net Metering

Deadline Coming!

Solar installation in progress

It is sometimes said that deadlines focus the mind.  Well, if you are in SCE territory, there is a deadline looming that you need to keep in mind if you are thinking of going solar in the next three years!

The deadline imposed by the CPUC upon SCE customers to get into solar under the existing, far more lucrative NEM 2.0 rules is coming fast.  Here are the key takeaways:

  • You must have a complete application in to SCE - and accepted by them - before April 15th!
  • SCE loves to reject applications at least once - if that happens to you, so that it isn’t approved before the 15th, you are out of luck!
  • YOU DO NOT NEED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT BY THE DEADLINE!!!  YOU ONLY NEED TO HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION BY THEN.
  • Projects can be completed anytime within three years of submission!

I know people don’t think this way, but if adding solar is on your “to-do” list but realistically not for a year or two, YOU NEED TO GET YOUR APPLICATION ON FILE NOW!  It’s crazy, and it isn’t how we want to do business, but these are the cards we’ve been dealt.

One last point - this only applies to SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E customers.  If your utility isn’t one of those three, your fine, this does not affect you at all.

Tags: ,
 Permalink

01/04/23

  05:57:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 1512 words  
Categories: Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Net Metering, Solar Storage

NEM 3.0 is the Law - Here's What You Need to Know!

TL;DR: NEM 3.0 will drastically lower payback rates in SCE territory
Act before April 14th to lock-in the better rates of the current rules!


(NB: If you are NOT an SCE customer, you can ignore this entirely as it won’t affect you at all!)

In December, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously approved the Net Energy Metering (NEM) 3.0 proposed decision, making it the law in the territories serviced by the three Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) - PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE.  While the final rules aren’t as bad as they started out to be (more on that below), they are still a disaster for the industry.  Here’s our take…

NEM Today…

NEM is the policy that allows solar power system owners to be compensated for the energy that they export to the grid.  Typically, because energy use at home is lower during the day, while your solar system is producing its greatest amount of energy, that energy goes back onto the grid, where the utility then sells it to your neighbor, just as if they had generated it themselves.  But the utility didn’t need to incur any cost to generate that energy, so it is only fair and right that the customer who had invested in that solar power system should be compensated for the excess they provide to the grid.

NEM has had two distinct iterations in IOU territory.  The original form of NEM was full retail compensation - that is, the utility customer was credited one-for-one for the energy that they export.  Since that is the same amount that the utility gets to charge the neighbor receiving that energy, the transaction is essentially a push for the utility.  While that is still the case with the municipal utilities like PWP and LADWP, it is no longer the case with the IOUs in general and SCE in particular.

Back in 2017, the CPUC rolled out NEM 2.0 - and while it was a disappointing departure from full-retail NEM, it wasn’t as bad as the IOUs wanted.  Instead, the changes added a one-time interconnection fee ($75 in SCE territory), required solar customers to be placed on Time-of-Use rates (as opposed to the more economically beneficial tiered rates), and introduced the concept of Non-Bypassable Charges which reduced the value of exported energy by a little over two cents per kWh.  (You can read my post explaining NEM 2.0 here.)  Existing NEM customers were “grandfathered” in for twenty years, thereby guaranteeing that they would retain the value of their investment.

However, that wasn’t the end of the IOU’s war against rooftop solar.  It was understood that there would be a subsequent rulemaking - NEM 3.0 - and the IOUs vowed to bring solar to heel when that rulemaking rolled around.  Indeed, solar managed to thrive in the years since NEM 2.0 went into effect, with California installing more than 1.5 million solar systems by last September.  

I have written at length about the NEM 3.0 Proposed Decision that was released in December 2021, and the solar industry’s efforts to fight it off (as in here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)!  There was good reason for our sense of urgency and our advocacy: the PD was a disaster!  It would have threatened the grandfathering of existing NEM customers, it would have imposed an outrageous tax on new solar systems, and it would have drastically cut the compensation rate for energy exported back to the grid.  If approved as proposed, it would have decimated the solar industry in IOU territories.  Fighting back was our only option.

First - the Good News…

Our unprecedented advocacy had positive results.  The initial PD was withdrawn, and we bought 11 months of delay allowing thousands of additional solar systems to be installed under NEM 2.0.  The rules as adopted leave alone the grandfathering for NEM 1.0 and 2.0 systems which will remain under their rules for 20 years.  Most importantly, we killed the solar tax that would have added a monthly charge of $6/kW on all new systems!

We made a lot of noise and we defeated some of the worst provisions of the original PD - kudos to all who wrote, and spoke, and marched, and called - it made a difference.

And Now, the Bad News…

But as important as those results are, we took a major hit when it comes to the export value of solar energy sent back to the grid - on average, roughly a 75% haircut - and the change happens overnight!  Instead of providing a “glide slope” of reduced export rates over, say, a five-year phase-in period, the drastically reduced export rates land as of April 14.  This will create a “gold rush” to get applications in before the rules change - more on that below.

Not only did the CPUC drastically lower the export rate, they made the means of calculating it completely Byzantine in its complexity, making modeling of export savings more complicated by orders of magnitude.  Under existing NEM 2.0 rules, your compensation was tied to when the energy was exported (since all solar customers were put on a Time-of-Use rate).  That meant you could be getting compensated under one of six export values: essentially high, medium, and low periods for both Summer and Winter seasons. 

By contrast, the new system uses one value for every hour of the year - 8,760 discrete values!  Seriously?

In an effort to provide some clarity out of that chaos, our friends at CALSSA boiled that down into this heatmap that averages those values down to “just” 576 values (12 months times 24 hours, times two categories - weekday and weekend).  Here’s the weekday version (click for larger):

SCE Weekday Export Rate heatmap
 

The color coding here is a simple gradient going from red for the lowest values to green for the highest.  There is one thing here that is really curious - see those two green numbers?  If you are exporting energy to the grid between six and seven p.m. during September, SCE is going to pay you nearly $3 for that energy!  Of course, there is very little solar output at those hours, but a properly programmed storage system can time its release of energy to coincide with those peak hours.

Clearly, solar power systems that also include storage will fair better under the NEM 3.0 rules than will solar only systems.  Which is great for those who can afford the extra expense of adding storage, but is awful for everyone else.

New SCE rateIn addition to the vastly lowered export rates, all solar customers will be forced onto the TOU-D-Prime rate.  That rate structure imposes a monthly fixed charge of $14.  (Compare that to the 3.1¢/day rate imposed on the tiered, Domestic rate that SCE customers were historically paying.)

The On-Peak rates are eye-popping!  If you are using energy during that 4-9 p.m. window in the summer you will be paying 54¢/kWh!  While that peak is crazy high, the  differential between On-Peak and Off-Peak is enormous: 30.7¢/kWh.  Again, if you have storage and can shift energy from mid-day production peaks for use after 4 p.m., you can leverage that difference.

Of course this reliance on storage to make NEM 3.0 less painful is in discord to the IOU’s professed concern for the inequities of solar - i.e., that it is only for the rich. Making the payback period for solar longer for everyone simply makes it less affordable by working-class people.  Needing to add storage on top of that, really pushes these systems toward the rich, and away from the middle class.  But then, this was never about concerns over lower income customers, this was always about protecting SCE’s profits.

Going Forward

Ok, so we are stuck with a bad decision that goes into effect April 14.  In order to qualify for NEM 2.0, the interconnection agreement must be submitted no later than April 13, and must be “free of major deficiencies and includes a complete application, a signed contract, a single-line diagram, a complete California Contractors State License Board Solar Energy System Disclosure Document, a signed California Solar Consumer Protection Guide, and an oversizing attestation (if applicable).“  The ruling doesn’t define what a “major deficiency” is, and up until now, it has been SCE’s sole discretion as to whether an application was complete and valid.  We have seen applications kicked for the most minor of issues, and if you submit near the deadline, and SCE kicks the application and you now miss the deadline, the value of your project will have changed drastically for the worst.

I’m not sure what other companies will do, but this is our intention: WE WILL NOT GUARANTEE SYSTEM SAVINGS FOR ANY APPLICATION SIGNED AFTER MARCH 31!

We can be certain that there will be problems as we get closer to the deadline, so the above rule will be hard and fast, and our contracts will reflect that reality.  So, a word to the wise: if you are thinking about going solar in SCE territory this year - act NOW!  You do not need to complete the project this year to qualify - you just need the application in and complete.  You have up to three years to actually complete the project!

It’s gonna be a crazy first quarter - the joys of riding on the solar coaster!  Get in touch now so that we can get the process completed in a timely manner.

Tags: , ,

05/24/22

  08:10:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 1005 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, Commercial Solar, Residential Solar, Ranting, Non-profit solar, Net Metering

Rally to Kill the Solar Tax!

tl;dr - Come Rally with us on June 2, at 10:30 a.m. in Grand Park, DTLA!

As readers of this blog know only too well, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) had proposed - at the urging of the investor-owned utilities (IOUs), that is SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E - a new set of rules for how solar system owners would be compensated for the energy they put back onto the grid.  In a nutshell, that proposal would have pushed the payback period for solar systems to twenty years or more!  In an epic bit of organizing, our trade association - the California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA) - kicked up a ruckus that was clearly heard in Sacramento, by getting folks to sign petitions, issue public comments, testify to the CPUC for six hours straight, and two very loud, very colorful rallies in San Francisco and here in LA.  (If you missed that, you can read about the LA rally here.)

Thanks to those efforts, the original proposal was pulled back.  But that didn’t win the fight, as the CPUC is still talking about a Solar Tax that would destroy the value of rooftop solar for most Californians.

That’s why it’s time to lace up your protest shoes and attend the…

Rally to kill the solar tax

We need to more than double our impressive turnout from the last two rallies.  That means we need you!  And your kids.  And your friends.  And your kids friends - get the picture?

In case you need more detail - really, this is only about saving rooftop solar in California, so I wouldn’t think too many more details would be required but - let CALSSA’s Executive Director, Bernadette Del Chiaro, give you the Word:

On May 9, the CPUC took an unprecedented step of effectively issuing a new decision in the form of 14 questions. Those questions broke five months of silence, pulled back the curtain, and revealed what the CPUC is still thinking: tax solar and send the value of exports over a cliff. The CPUC has essentially floated a trial balloon to see how much push back they will get for proposing a solar tax (by a different name) and repackaging the solar cliff to make it sound nicer (ACC “plus”). Our job is to push back. Hard. Loud. Once and for all: No solar tax. No solar cliff. Not in California. Not now.

We need thousands of you. RSVP here.

Why June 2? For starters, because silence is acquiesce. Think about it. The State of California just floated a proposal to tax the behind-the-meter use of solar energy, again. Every day that goes by in which people aren’t reacting appropriately (i.e., freaking out), is a day in which the message back to our government is one of acceptance. That is certainly not our reality. If we could have, we would have rallied on May 10!
 
Another reason to rally on June 2 is because the CPUC has literally asked for our reaction to their “new” ideas: tax behind-the-meter solar consumption to the tune of $600 per year for the average customer (NOTE: the tax is not limited to the residential market – commercial market you could be caught up in this tragedy, too) and tie export values for everyone to the Avoided Cost Calculator which they have refused to adjust for the rising costs of natural gas, the crisis in the utility-scale market, and the demands of electrification. The CPUC has asked for our reaction by June 10. June 2 is simply the closest date to June 10 at which the CPUC is holding a meeting. The next meeting of the Commission is June 24 which would be too late.
 
Finally, there is never a good time to leave the office and come down off the roof. Collectively, we build more than 400 solar systems a day in California. That’s a lot of activity. And, with all the disruptions to supply chains along with the increased urgency due to this very campaign (ironically driving more people to solar than if they had promised to make gentle and gradual changes from the get-go), our days are busier and more complicated than ever. I get it. But what’s far more inconvenient and costly than shutting down your office for one day is closing your business or laying off half your staff in 2023 because the CPUC got NEM 3.0 horribly wrong. A stitch in time saves nine. Let’s save our market. RSPV now.
 
Finally, you might also be wondering why we should rally. Aren’t there other ways to make our voices heard? Of course the answer to that is, yes, there are many ways to make our voices heard. We are and should continue to speak out through petitions, letters to the governor, testimony that is being written by Brad now (to be submitted June 10), through media (like this question to Governor Newsom by Politico reporter last week), social media, and so much more. But to really be heard, we need to generate media attention too. We need to get on the nightly news and on the pages of the newspapers. Because when we do that, millions of voters hear our cry and we already know those millions are with us on the issue. 
 
It comes down to you reading this message and deciding to join the fray, the fun, the action. So, please join us in either Los Angeles or San Francisco on June 2. It will be worth your time. It will be fun. You’ll be glad you did it.
 
As always, email me with questions or comments.

p.s. Many people like to theorize about the likelihood of a Democratic governor in a pro-environment state harming the darling of the clean energy economy: solar. Putting aside the lack of understanding of how politics really works up here in Sacramento (hint: follow the money toward the path of least resistance), my ask to you is this: don’t leave this critical decision to political theory. Your active involvement in this campaign – most importantly joining us June 2 – will help make sure we win in reality, not just in theory. Let’s not leave anything this important to chance. Join us. 

This is up to us.  This is our fight.  Get in the game, people!  See you on June 2nd!

10/30/21

  03:11:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 588 words  
Categories: Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Net Metering

NEM 3.0 Transition Rules - Potential Solar Clients Need to Read This!

New solar clients in Southern California Edison territory (along with their counterparts in PG&E or SDG&E territories) will soon find themselves operating under the not yet known, but certainly less advantageous NEM 3.0 rules that has the potential to significantly affect their return on investment.  While NEM 3.0 won’t go into effect for some time, we already have an idea of what clients need to do to secure the benefits of the present NEM rules.  Here’s what we know so far…

NEM 2.0 - the Present State of Play

SCE customer presently operate under NEM 2.0 rules established a number of years ago.  (Municipal utility customers, such as those in PWP or LADWP, are unaffected by any of this, fortunately.)  We wrote extensively about the impact of the NEM 2.0 transition at the time, as this article from 2017 explained: NEM 2.0 is Here - Now What? 

Essentially the NEM 2.0 rules made several changes: they introduced a one-time application fee of $75, they forced solar customers onto a Time-of-Use rate structure (instead of the more solar-friendly tiered rates), and they introduced the concept of non-bypassable charges - components of the rate structure that have to be paid on every kWh imported from the grid, even if it would otherwise be “netted out” thanks to energy exported.

Those changes, while concerning as they marked the first successful effort to chip away at the benefits of net metering, turned out to be relatively mild and the industry surged forward despite them.

NEM 3.0 - Dark Days Ahead?

Now we are in the middle of the process of bringing about NEM 3.0, and it looks far scarier than what we faced in 2017.  For example, one proposal calls for monthly fees on the order of $75 for every residential solar customer (commercial customers would pay far more).  The value of exported energy might drop by as much as 80%!  Payback periods could balloon to as much as 20 years!

(Take a moment to sign the petition to make the new NEM 3.0 rules more favorable to solar system owners!)

However that process turns out, if it is possible to get in under the current rules you will save a lot of money!  Here’s what we know about how the transition period will be handled:

  • If you sign a contract and submit your complete interconnection application to SCE by mid-January you are guaranteed of 20 years under the more favorable NEM 2.0 rules!

  • If you submit between mid-January and April, you will start under NEM 2.0, but the 20-year term is not guaranteed.

  • If you submit after April but before NEM 3.0 is fully up and running, you will start on NEM 2.0 for a set term of years, but you may be forced onto a rate that includes a monthly fee.

  • Applications submitted after August, will likely be completely under NEM 3.0

The uncertainty around all of this is distressing but is out of our hands.

What we can do is to urge folks on the fence about going solar to act before mid-January.  Bear in mind that the project does not need to be completed by mid-January, you simply have to have your completed application submitted by then.  We anticipate quite the rush to get applications in by then, and there is always the concern that a reviewer at SCE might kick back an application and deem it incomplete.  The best way to be safe is to get the application in as soon as possible, thereby avoiding the crunch.

So right now really is the best time for anyone in SCE’s service area to go solar!  Give us a call and let’s get the process started!

 

Tags: ,

04/13/18

  11:10:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 2082 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, Residential Solar, Ranting

My Electric Bill is So High! Will Solar Help? Part 3: Evaluating Competing Solar Proposals

Editor’s Note: This is the third installment in our three-part series:
My Electric Bill is So High! Will Solar Help?  
You can read Part One, How High is High, here, and
Part Two, How Do I Find Someone to Trust, here.

With apologies to the Lovin’ Spoonful, eventually you have to make up your mind between those competing bids you’ve received, but how?  Let’s walk through the proposal evaluation process and see if everything that you need to see has been included!

What’s in the Proposal?

Solar proposals come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are very short – just a listing of what will be provided, a price, and a place to sign.  On the other end of the spectrum are proposals that are twenty pages long, most of it boilerplate about what is solar and how does it work, and what a great company this is.  But strip away the boilerplate and are they really giving you much information that is specific to your situation?

What were the inputs?

The old saying, GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out, applies to solar proposals too.  In this case, the inputs are your past energy usage, and a detailed site evaluation that looked at your service panel and your roof.  Omit any of those inputs, and the output is likely to be of dubious value, or worse, it will mask the true cost of installing solar at your home, leaving you exposed to costly change orders down the road when the contractor “discovers” something that should have been addressed at the proposal stage!

Your energy usage for the past year is the key input – without it you’re flying blind.  If you are in SCE territory, your potential installer should be asking for access to your  interval data.  For most residential clients, that is hourly usage measurements over the entire year, and that is important to accurately model your savings under now mandatory, time-of-use rates.  Where interval data is not available, monthly, or worse, bi-monthly billing records can be used, but they will not provide the granularity needed to see how the proposed PV system will actually operate to offset your daily loads.

Seasonal load profile comparison

Assuming that interval data is available – we ask our clients provide it through a secure service called UtilityAPI – it is the installer’s responsibility to properly analyze it to know how large a system you need.  As we mentioned in Part One, we use Energy Toolbase for our data analysis as it is the most authoritative tool on the market.  The chart above shows the average seasonal usage for one particular client as processed by Energy Toolbase from the raw interval data.  This shows the average hourly usage over spring and summer, with a very dramatic peak on summer weekends around 5:30 p.m.  Recall from Part One about “low-hanging fruit” – what you are seeing here is an excessive A/C demand that, if it can be addressed, would greatly reduce the size of the PV system needed for this client.

Ideally, this analysis takes place before the site evaluation so that the installer is able to advise the potential client about actions to be taken to reduce their overall usage, and thereby end up with the most cost-effective solution tailored to their needs.

Detailed equipment line items

One of the things that we see on competitors’ proposals that never ceases to amaze us is the total lack of detail regarding the actual equipment that is going to be installed!  It is as if the homeowner is expected to pay thousands of dollars for a generic solar power system – but you wouldn’t spend thousands on a generic car, would you?  Moreover, how can you assess the value proposition of a generic system?  A company that proposes a generic system intends to install on your home whatever is on sale that week.  Maybe you get lucky, more likely you don’t, but in either case, you simply don’t know, and that is no way to make a major investment.

Your proposal should have line items for all of the major components of your system: the solar panels, microinverters, racking, and installation costs.  And those items should be specific, down to the model being selected and the per unit cost.  Only that level of detail allows you to see what you are getting and for how much.

Utility savings analysis

Determining how much your proposed PV system will save you in Year 1 is the key to the entire analysis of the proposal, and it is a two-step process.  First, your historical usage data is analyzed against your current billing rate to determine what your energy costs will be over the next year.  There are a couple of assumptions built into that assessment, namely that both your usage and your billing rate will stay the same.  If you have been in your home for awhile, your usage last year is probably a pretty good predictor of your usage next year.  On the other hand, if you moved in rather recently, or made a major purchase like a new EV, that will skew your usage going forward.  Similarly, last year’s bills were predicated on the exact details of your billing rate structure in effect at that time – and those are subject to change without notice.  So look at what the proposal projects for your bill next year without solar, and see how that compares with last year.

The second part is the more important piece - assessing how  your bill will change now that you have added PV.  Here’s where things get complicated, and a tool like Energy Toolbase becomes essential.  The proposal should show a model of your past usage overlayed by the production of the PV system.

PV production overlayed on historical usage

As you can see in the graph above (click for a larger version), the darker blue is the historical usage (we are looking at two days in July), the green is the modeled production from the proposed PV system, and the pale blue is the net energy demand.  At the peak on the right, the PV system is producing 5.22 kW at a time when the historical demand was 11.95, meaning that the net demand from the utility is 6.73 kw – and that is the basis for what the client will be billed.  You can also see that there are periods in the morning when the system is producing more power that the client historically used, resulting in power being exported out to the grid – for which the client is compensated due to net metering.

This is the analysis that must underlie your savings analysis – anything else is simply guess work.

Cash flow analysis – payback over time

Part of any cash flow analysis is the cost of the transaction.  If you are making a cash purchase you know exactly what your transaction costs will be.  But if you are financing through the solar company, or heavens forbid leasing, those transaction costs may well be obscured, it not hidden altogether.  Make certain that you have all the information you need to determine exactly what that deal is going to cost you.

For the sake of discussion, we will assume that this is a cash purchase.  What other assumptions go into a proper cash flow analysis? To start, how long is the period of the analysis?  Ten years?  Twenty years?  Thirty years?  Beware of an analysis that simply says how much money you will have saved in the end, without calling out the period in question!  In our view, ten years is too short, and 30 years is too long.  But whatever the number is, make sure you are aware of it as you compare “total savings!”

Another key assumption is how much will utility rates go up over the lifetime of the analysis?  It used to be common to see rate escalators of 6-7% per annum, but there was no real data-driven basis for that number.  (In fact, long ago we used 6.7% based on a website that claimed that the California Energy Commission had published that figure.  But when we went digging for the source, we discovered it didn’t exist - there was just this circular linking of sites each claiming to have gotten this from the CEC!) 

Over time we have consistently reduced the value that we use for our models, so that now we are using 3%, which we think is reasonably conservative.  But this is really a matter of just throwing darts at a board, and no one really knows what that number will be. Keep in mind that for comparison purposes, you should be able to see what value was used, and the higher the number, the rosier the prediction!

PV systems degrade over time, and that output diminishment should be accounted for in the analysis.  Modern solar panels degrade less than 1% per annum (the LG panels that we use are around 0.5%), but in any event, make sure that is incorporated in the model.

Finally, the value of money in your hand today is, generally, worth more than money you will have at some point in the future.  How much more valuable is a function of the discount rate applied to those future savings.  If the model ignores that, your future savings are likely artificially high.  Again, no one knows what the right number is, but a proper model will account for it and allow you to know what you are comparing.

What’s in the Contract?

Strictly speaking not a part of the proposal, it is not a bad idea to ask to look at the contract before you pick a contractor.  Many solar contracts are very long, written in tiny fonts, with lots of legalese – all designed to make you throw up your hands and simply ask, where do I sign?  But slow down, friend, the devil may be lurking in those details!  Indeed, we have had clients who were ready to sign with another company until they looked at what was in the contract!

Ideally the contract should be written in plain English, it should clearly set forth what will happen, when, and how, and it should be even-handed.

An Important Caveat

Finally, it is important to call out what even the most carefully considered proposal cannot address - future uncertainty; in particular, what will utilities try to do, and what will the CPUC let them do!

Things outside of our control - CPUC & Utilities

If you follow this blog you will know that the solar industry is under constant assault from efforts by utilities – particularly the investor-owned utilities like SCE – to reduce if not altogether eliminate the economic value of adding solar.  Whether it is by lobbying for changes to the net metering rules (which just this past year imposed additional fees, charges, and mandated time-of-use rates), or designing utility rates that make solar production less valuable, there is a constant struggle behind the scenes to undermine the solar investment of thousands of California homeowners.  (And this is not at all limited to California – attacks on net metering and efforts to impose pernicious rate structures are a nationwide phenomenon.)

Things we can control - SolarCitiSuns & CALSSA

Fortunately there are a couple of entities out there that are working hard to preserve the value of going solar.  If you are a California homeowner with a solar power system, there is an organization specifically for you.  California SolarCitiSuns is perhaps a corny name, but its mission is crucial: to organize the political power of California’s thousands of citizens with solar on their homes or businesses, or anyone who wants to be part of advocating for a clean, renewable future.  If you have solar on your home or business, click here to join!   The investment that you are protecting is yours!

 And finally, solar companies, are you a member of the California Solar & Storage Association?  We are, and you should be.  Click here to join CALSSA today! 

Beyond that, rank and file solar workers – installers, designers, finance people, anyone whose livelihood depends on the solar industry – there is an action group that you can join, even if your company is not a CALSSA member!  Joining means that you will get alerts when a crucial vote is upcoming in Sacramento or San Francisco, and give you the opportunity to reach out and show your support for the industry that provides your livelihood.  It’s easy and important. Every solar worker in California – click on this link to join the CALSSA Action Network – the job you save will be your own!

So there you have it - everything you need to know about going solar – look forward to hearing from you soon!

1 2 3 4 5 ...6 7 >>

Search

Jim Jenal is the Founder & CEO of Run on Sun, Pasadena's premier installer and integrator of top-of-the-line solar power installations.
Run on Sun also offers solar consulting services, working with consumers, utilities, and municipalities to help them make solar power affordable and reliable.

Ready to Save?

Let’s Get Started!

We're Social!



Follow Run on Sun on Twitter Like Run on Sun on Facebook
Run on Sun helps fight Climate Change
b2evo