SAN DIEGO (CN) — California’s contractor licensing board will have to temporarily hold off from enforcing a new rule that would have prevented solar energy installers from setting up or maintaining batteries after a state judge in San Diego agreed to a preliminary injunction on Thursday.
Judge Loren Freestone’s ruling blocks the rule from going into effect while the California Solar & Storage Association’s case against state’s Contractors State License Board for passing the rule “underground” progresses in court.
“Petitioners also argue that there is substantial evidence in the rulemaking file that a prohibition on retrofitting and maintenance would significantly impact businesses. Respondents disagree. It is unnecessary to address this issue. If CSLB failed to undertake any initial evaluation as to the impact of such a prohibition, that is itself a basis for invalidating the regulation,” Freestone wrote in a tentative ruling on Wednesday.
The rule — passed earlier this year by the board and meant to go into effect on Oct. 1 — would prohibit solar contractors from installing solar battery storage equipment if it exceeded a rating of 80 kilowatt-hours, or maintaining that equipment, even though they were previously allowed to do so with their own license from the board.
The new rule also requires certified licensed electricians be instead allowed to do the jobs that solar contractors were previously allowed to do since the state created the license in 1982.
The association says the board passed the rule without proper assessment under rulemaking requirements and procedures in violation of California’s Administrative Procedure Act, and without a proper analysis of the environmental impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
“We are very, very pleased with the court’s thorough ruling and analysis,” said Heather Minner, an attorney for California Solar & Storage Association, after a brief hearing in San Diego Superior Court, adding that the passage of the rule happened without the board properly analyzing the effects it would have on solar power contractors, their workers, their consumers, the environment, and the state’s electrical grid.
“For the reasons set forth above, petitioners have established that the interim harm they are likely to suffer if an injunction is denied is greater than respondents or the public are likely to suffer if the injunction is granted,” Freestone said.
Freestone clarified upon questioning from the defense that he wasn’t ruling on the license itself, and that the state of the law still has to be decided. A case management conference is set for Dec. 6.
To support their request for an injunction, the plaintiffs submitted declarations from contractors about how the rule would hurt their finances, their professional relationships, and their reputations, as well as a declaration from a UC Berkeley professor about how the rule would undermine the state’s renewable energy policies.
The contractors say that the rule doesn’t just put 481 previously licensed solar contractors with specialized knowledge of the complexities of solar utilities out of a job, but it will also force consumers to hire more inexperienced — and more expensive — electricians.
The association claims that means people will be less motivated to install batteries or solar power on their homes, which will ultimately force the state to fall back on carbon-based fossil fuels that will increase greenhouse gas emissions.
In their complaint, the association points out that battery storage is an essential part of the return on investment for people installing solar panels, especially since the California Public Utilities Commission made recent changes to the state’s net energy metering program.
The board argues says the changes will encourage people to use electricity when it’s most beneficial for grid reliability, while critics claim it will slash what rooftop solar owners get from sharing their excess energy by 75% to 80%, making solar less financially beneficial.
“It’s a huge relief that this regressive rule is on hold because it would further handcuff California’s rooftop solar industry and put livelihoods, the environment and the climate at risk,” wrote Roger Lin, a attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs in the case, in a statement. “Instead of following the law, California’s contracting board is trying to undermine our state’s climate goals, prop up a brittle electricity grid and put clean energy further out of reach for working-class families. We’re looking forward to defeating this disastrous regulation for good.”
The California Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.