Hundreds of homes in Joe 笔补迟迟别谤蝉辞苍鈥檚 Northern California Assembly district burned to the ground in the .
In the three years since that devastating summer, many of those rebuilding homeowners have ended up on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars, thanks to state laws that require solar panels on new homes 鈥� even on those that didn鈥檛 have them before they burned down.
鈥淭rust me when I say this: $25,000 to build solar onto a house where people do not have solar is 100% an impediment to rebuilding,鈥� , told the Assembly Natural Resources Committee earlier this week.
笔补迟迟别谤蝉辞苍鈥檚 , which passed the committee unanimously, would give some of those poorly-insured, low- and middle-income homeowners rebuilding after a natural disaster a break from the state鈥檚 solar-panel building requirement.
The bill would exempt homeowners at or below the median income for their county from the state鈥檚 building codes that require new solar on homes if they鈥檙e damaged or destroyed in a natural disaster. The legislation, which would expire in 2028, also would limit the benefit to those who don鈥檛 have an insurance plan that would cover the costs of the upgrade to new solar.
The bill now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it faces an uncertain future. Last year, that committee killed a similar bill by Republican Assemblymember of Fresno.
Joe Patterson, no relation, told CalMatters he expects his bill, which is coauthored by the Fresno Republican, to make it through the committee this time since it doesn鈥檛 contain funding for a study like last year鈥檚 bill.
It鈥檚 another matter whether Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign it if the bill is also approved in the Senate and reaches his desk. In 2022, Newsom vetoed a similar bill, citing the need for solar power to reduce greenhouse gases that are a contributing factor for wildfires.
is a critical part of the to achieve 90% carbon-free electricity by 2035 and 100% by 2045. Large-scale and rooftop solar is projected to prove more than half of the grid鈥檚 power by 2045.
鈥淓xtending this exemption would nullify these positive outcomes and instead would increase homeowner energy costs at a time when many homeowners are facing rising electric rates and bills,鈥� .
Asked about this latest bill, Newsom鈥檚 press office responded that the governor doesn鈥檛 typically comment on pending legislation.
Joe Patterson said he hopes Newsom would support this bill, given that it鈥檚 more narrow than the one he vetoed in 2022, and because some Caldor Fire victims with poor insurance say they never received .
Meanwhile, the insurance crisis in California鈥檚 wildfire country has only gotten worse since.
After the devastating wildfire seasons of 2017 and 2018, private insurance companies have been dropping policies for hundreds of thousands of Californians, forcing many to join the state鈥檚 home insurer of last resort known as FAIR plan or risk going uninsured.
Just last month, State Farm announced it wasn鈥檛 renewing .
In his , Patterson said his district has seen skyrocketing numbers of constituents on the FAIR Plan.
鈥淚n 2019, we had roughly 8,100 households covered by the FAIR Plan in my district,鈥� Joe Patterson told the committee. 鈥淣ow, in 2023, we have 41,000 people covered by the FAIR Plan.鈥�
He said the FAIR plan, at most, will only pay 10% of the costs to upgrade a destroyed home to the most current building codes including mandatory solar panels.
鈥淎nd that 10% coverage really won鈥檛 go very far, especially to cover a solar system that costs about $25,000,鈥� Patterson told the committee.
As Patterson testified, sitting beside him was El Dorado County Supervisor George Turnboo. His district includes Grizzly Flats, which was torched in the Caldor Fire.
鈥淭he costly burden on the Caldor Fire survivors trying to rebuild their lives is not worth the minimal benefit solar technology provides them in a very high snow and forest region,鈥� Turnboo said.
Their arguments resonated with the 11 members of the Natural Resources Committee, including eight Democrats, who voted to pass the bill over objections from the solar industry.
鈥淲e understand the very sympathetic plight that some of these folks are in,鈥� said Kim Stone, a lobbyist for . 鈥淏ut we don鈥檛 exempt them from other building code upgrade requirements.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.