Table of Contents

The Solar Blame Game: Debunking PG&E and CPUC’s False Narratives

A blog series examining the facts behind PG&E and CPUC’s claims about solar.

The Solar Blame Game: Debunking PG&E and CPUC’s False Narrative

A common claim made by those criticizing rooftop solar is that “non-solar customers are paying for solar users.” This narrative might seem convincing at first glance, but it crumbles when you take a closer look at the facts. Here’s why it’s not just misleading — it’s outright wrong, and why PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are completely off the mark.

Over the next few months, we’ll be sending follow-up emails backed with facts, helping to debunk these false narratives aimed at solar. For this first one, let’s focus on PG&E’s changing Time-of-Use (TOU) rate structure and the shifting narrative surrounding solar.

Part I: Solar disrupted the midday money machine — now PG&E wants to rewrite the rules.

Under PG&E’s old E-7  Time Of Use rate plan, solar users were actively contributing to the grid, especially during peak hours. Most families never recognize that the peak hours were between noon to 6PM or between 1PM to 7 PM. Solar power generation happens most effectively around midday, right when demand for electricity is at its highest. When solar customers generated power, they helped reduce the need for costly peak hour plants — those expensive, inefficient power plants that are used when demand spikes.

This made a big difference. Solar energy is cheaper and cleaner compared to these fossil-fuel-based plants, helping keep electricity prices lower for everyone. Solar users weren’t just benefiting themselves; they were also contributing to grid stability by cutting down on the use of expensive energy during peak times.

However, PG&E and the CPUC now claim that solar customers are shifting costs onto non-solar customers. They argue that non-solar customers are shouldering more of the grid’s infrastructure costs because solar customers aren’t paying enough, especially under current net metering rules. But this narrative completely ignores the real value of solar generation — particularly during those key midday hours when it’s most needed.

The issue isn’t that solar customers aren’t paying their fair share; the real issue is that solar has disrupted the traditional utility model. PG&E used to profit from high-margin electricity rates during the middle of the day, but as solar adoption grew, those daytime rates became less relevant. In fact, solar users were making such an impact that PG&E had to shift the peak hours to the evening — when solar isn’t producing. This shift wasn’t about meeting demand, it was about maintaining PG&E’s revenue from those high-margin daytime rates.

PG&E and the CPUC restructured TOU rates to curb solar, not carbon

PG&E and the CPUC’s decision to change the TOU rate structure wasn’t driven by a natural shift in energy demand. It was driven by solar’s growing success. Solar was helping the grid exactly when it was needed — reducing the reliance on fossil-fuel plants, lowering wholesale electricity prices, and increasing grid stability.

As rooftop solar systems became more widespread, PG&E saw its revenue from high-margin peak pricing slip away. In response, PG&E rewrote the TOU structure, shifting the financial burden to late afternoon and evening hours, when solar generation isn’t available. When the hours were changed, PG&E not only raised the cost of the off-peak hours, but they more than tripled over the last 10 years. 

However, here’s the key: this isn’t about fairness. It’s about keeping an outdated system in place for utility companies to profit more and more billions of dollars annually. This is not for the benefit of the consumers or the environment. By undermining the financial incentives for solar, PG&E and the CPUC are working to protect the old utility model, which serves their interests more than it serves the public.

PG&E Rate Comparison: E-7 vs. E-TOU-C (TIER 1)

Here’s a quick look at how the rate structures have changed:

Rate PlanPeak Hours (Weekdays)Summer Peak Rate (c/kWh)Summer Off-Peak Rate (c/kWh)Winter Off-Peak Rate (c/kWh)
E-7 (2015)12pm – 6pm36.011.011.0
E-TOU-C (2025)4pm – 9pm53.040.037.0

*An example of Tier 1 would be in the Tri-Valley area where customers have somewhere in between 300 – 320 kWh. 

PG&E Rate Comparison: E-7 vs. E-TOU-C (TIER 2)

Rate PlanPeak Hours (Weekdays)Summer Peak Rate (c/kWh)Summer Off-Peak Rate (c/kWh)Winter Off-Peak Rate (c/kWh)
E-7 (2015)12pm – 6pm38.013.014.0
E-TOU-C (2025)4pm – 9pm63.050.047.0

 Key Observations:

  • Off-Peak Rate Increases: Summer off-peak rates increased by almost 4x and winter off-peak rates have increased by more than 3.5 since 2015. 
  • Shift in Peak Hours: Peak hours have shifted from midday (12 p.m. – 6 p.m.) to late afternoon/evening (4 p.m. – 9 p.m. or 5 p.m. – 8 p.m.), times when solar generation is minimal. Without solar, these peak hours would be more costly to the public.
  • In 2015, the E7 rate plan was optional. A few years ago when PG&E was herding their subscriber base into Time-of-Use rate plans, most customers were previously on a tiered only rate plan which represented a consistent 24 hour rate plan. If you did not pay attention to the notices that were delivered, you were automatically moved to the Time-of-Use rate plan. You do not have the opportunity to return to the rate plan you started with if you weren’t paying close attention to the little fillers that came along with your bill statements. 

Impact on Non-Solar Customers

With more people adopting solar, the overall load on the grid has decreased during sunlight hours.

  • Most non-solar subscribers are using solar, and they don’t even know it. This benefits PG&E because they can just send energy to the house next door or to the house behind instead of bringing it all the way from the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo or the hydroelectric plant near Chico.
  • However, in the evening, when solar power isn’t available, demand remains high, and PG&E is forced to rely on more expensive, inefficient power plants. Both solar and non-solar customers end up paying for this grid stress, even though they weren’t the ones causing it.
  • With more people adopting solar batteries, this has helped decrease the stress on peak hours even more. Families with batteries are storing the batteries’ energy during the early hours of the day. In the evening peak hours, the battery energy is pulled into the home and/or pushed into the grid to help ease the stress and prevent unnecessary outages for neighbors.

PG&E Money Grab

Now, despite solar owners actively helping the grid and lowering costs, PG&E and the CPUC have shifted the blame. Here’s why:

  • More Revenue for PG&E: As solar power has become more effective, PG&E is claiming lost revenue. If they have lost revenue, how did PG&E earn their highest yearly earnings of $2.47 billion dollars in 2024? 
  • The “Cost-Shift” Narrative: PG&E and the CPUC claim that solar owners are shifting the costs of maintaining the grid to non-solar customers. They argue that solar owners don’t pay enough to cover grid infrastructure costs, particularly when they export power back to the grid. This argument overlooks the real value that solar customers provide. This is especially during peak hours when they reduce the need for expensive energy. Can somebody explain how it is more expensive for PG&E to send energy neighbor to neighbor, rather than hundreds of miles?
  • A Flawed Incentive System: The real issue is a broken incentive system. PG&E is incentivized to spend money. PG&E and the CPUC want to protect the old grid system and maintain growth of their profits. This is why they push this misleading cost-shift narrative. It’s simply a money grab. Solar reduces the demand on the grid, saving everyone money by reducing the need for expensive power plants and gigantic trunk lines. Instead of recognizing this benefit and honoring their previous long-standing agreements with clients, PG&E and the CPUC are using solar owners as scapegoats. The best defense is a good offense.

Conclusion: A Misguided Blame Game

PG&E and the CPUC’s attempt to shift the blame onto solar owners for rising electricity costs is misleading and unfair. The real problem lies in the outdated utility model desperately trying to protect and grow its profits in the face of a rapidly changing energy landscape. 

PG&E began forming its electrical grid in the Bay Area during the late 1800s. Unfortunately for PG&E, their technology is yesterday’s news. 

The previous NEM and NEM 2.0 agreements were fair. With all the people that are on solar now, PG&E are coming up with false narratives to turn the public against each other the same way politicians gaslight the public.

Solar owners should not be blamed for helping the grid and contributing to a cleaner, more sustainable future. In fact, we should be celebrating their contributions. We are creating a more fair system that truly values the ability for neighbors to help each other by sending energy through the lines door to door, rather than hundreds of miles — we will move toward a more sustainable energy future.

PG&E, we know that you don’t want families to be energy independent. One thing we’ve learned over the history of time is that powerful organizations crave more power. There’s plenty of people out there that can never go solar. All the little clean and quiet energy factories on rooftops are benefitting the families who can never go solar. 

We make it cheaper to distribute electricity by eliminating the need to build additional power plants and major infrastructure upgrades that would cost billions of dollars.

References:

As you may know by now, the California Public Utilities Commission is proposing cuts to solar incentives.. They argue that solar customers are shifting grid maintenance costs onto non-solar ratepayers, which disproportionately affects lower-income households. As longtime solar customers, we — like many others — feel this violates clear written agreements. 

We were also led to believe it would focus on the bill that was being pushed forward by Assemblymember Lisa Calderone — a former Southern California Edison executive — Her push to help California’s three major electric utilities break their 20-year NEM contracts with solar customers is puzzling. Instead, the CBS local News  piece started and ended with defending the 

Public Utilities and PUC’s false narrative, ignoring the central issue of trust and fairness for those who adopted solar in good faith.

For more resources about solar
By Uncategorized