The first link is a judicial decision on the interpretation of the law, and the second a diatribe with nothing backing it up. The third actually makes some arg

The first link is a judicial decision on the interpretation of the law, and the second a diatribe with nothing backing it up. The third actually makes some arguments and links to data, which is great, so I went and read the reports they're linking to, to see if they back up the claims made. 1) The Nevada study > They contend that, far from shifting costs, NEM customers create net value to the grid and all grid users. One only need look to a study commissioned by the neutral Nevada Public Utility Commission that shows NEM customers provide a net present value benefit of $36M to non-NEM customers in Nevada. The Nevada study does not tackle net metering in a vacuum. It's comparing it as an alternative to legislated renewable energy quotas and finds it a wash, i.e. the utility builds solar or buys it from customers. This isn't surprising, and doesn't support the claims the article makes. 2) CPUC Study > But critics (as well as NEM advocates) overlooked that the same CPUC report also found that NEM customers as a whole “appear to be paying slightly more than their full cost of service” – 103% of their costs, to be precise. The link was broken, but I hunted it down. The full table looks like this: [Customer Type] [Without DG] [With DG] Residential: 154% 81% Non Residential: 122% 112% Combined: 133% 103% In other words, a residential customer that installs solar under net metering will go from paying their cost and providing a profit margin for the utility, to paying far less than their cost, raising the price for other customers (as we have been saying). The benefits to non residential customers under net metering laws are lower, because it doesn't necessarily help with the demand charge (because the power is actually paid for in a more fair way). Pointing to a combined number in a table and discounting the need for a profit margin is basically an outright fabrication. The table explicitly supports the fact that net metering is a regressive transfer of wealth, and the author used it to argue the opposite. So while the first two links were obviously rubbish, I had to waste half an hour of my life digging in to the reports behind the third link to find out that it, in turn, also turns out to be rubbish. The author was clearly just mining reports for data points that would fit their narrative.