Even as I was writing parts 1 and 2 of this series, and thus reviewing the original ruling (issued about a year ago), there was no doubt in my mind that the chances of this ruling standing intact were slim to none. This perception was mainly because the solar industry felt that this ruling was highly unfair to them and was likely to seriously hurt future rooftop solar energy deployments. Also, the solar industry is strongly viewed as a positive environmental influence in our state, is financially very powerful, and thus strongly influences many political leaders. Thus, this decision was set aside last summer, and the CPUC (on Nov 10) issued a new proposed decision.
On December 15, the CPUC approved the proposed decision that the above review is based on, but with mark-ups. I downloaded the decision, and skimmed through it, and although nothing looks like a major change, there are significant changes. This paper is a detailed review of the approved decision.