Perhaps you and I are reading this differently. In my opinion, the author clearly delineates the two to be able to make this claim: > In other words, the direc

Perhaps you and I are reading this differently. In my opinion, the author clearly delineates the two to be able to make this claim: > In other words, the direct cost of providing an additional unit of electricity or natural gas is only 23% of overall operating expenses. The way I read it, the author is not claiming the subsidy is the misleading part, just that, once there is mass adoption, the price of everything will actually go up to something very close to the current costs being paid by non-solar panel households. That is, at some point, homeowners who build solar panels right before this subsidy ends will get burnt very badly.