3 ms·

As a European, I have to ask the obvious question: What? People are being charged for having solar panels? I understand there needs to be a fee for hooking up

As a European, I have to ask the obvious question: What? People are being charged for having solar panels? I understand there needs to be a fee for hooking up to the grid etc., but I think here you get that and more back by feeding excess energy to it. Could residence of those states get off the grid and instead install many large batteries? I don't know a lot about this stuff :)

cinntaile 5y ago
The problem is not unique to California and exists in Europe as well. The problem is that you use the infrastructure but essentially don't pay to invest and maintain it, to fix this you need to see solar that feeds back to the grid as a producer (because that's the case) and pay some sort of producer fee when you feed back.
- colordrops 5y ago
  That's not true. If you are connected to the grid you absolutely pay fees already. Even if the fees aren't enough, they should be increased and equal per customer with or without solar. Questions: Why is it tied to installation sized rather than per installation? Why is the tax so crazy high per kW (it negates the entire value proposition for solar installations)? Why aren't we putting more money and doing more to encourage solar rather than the opposite considering the climate change cliff we are about to drive off of and California's budget surplus? Why is PG&E allowed to lobby politicians at all? Why isn't PG&E being challenged for not upgrading infrastructure with the billions they receive? Are they just expecting home owners to buy solar installations out of the goodness of their hearts to save the planet, considering that it will make no financial sense to buy them anymore?
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Why would people without solar have to pay for the extra expenses that arise from people with solar? That doesn't make sense. If you have more solar it costs more so you pay more.

cinntaile 5y ago

The problem is not unique to California and exists in Europe as well. The problem is that you use the infrastructure but essentially don't pay to invest and maintain it, to fix this you need to see solar that feeds back to the grid as a producer (because that's the case) and pay some sort of producer fee when you feed back.

colordrops 5y ago
That's not true. If you are connected to the grid you absolutely pay fees already. Even if the fees aren't enough, they should be increased and equal per customer with or without solar. Questions: Why is it tied to installation sized rather than per installation? Why is the tax so crazy high per kW (it negates the entire value proposition for solar installations)? Why aren't we putting more money and doing more to encourage solar rather than the opposite considering the climate change cliff we are about to drive off of and California's budget surplus? Why is PG&E allowed to lobby politicians at all? Why isn't PG&E being challenged for not upgrading infrastructure with the billions they receive? Are they just expecting home owners to buy solar installations out of the goodness of their hearts to save the planet, considering that it will make no financial sense to buy them anymore?
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Why would people without solar have to pay for the extra expenses that arise from people with solar? That doesn't make sense. If you have more solar it costs more so you pay more.