4 ms·

>Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Utilities are generally considered natural monopolies and their rates are regulated. If

by opo 4y ago

>Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Utilities are generally considered natural monopolies and their rates are regulated. If there are higher costs because they have to literally buy power at the retail rate from a consumer with rooftop solar, they will have to raise the rates for those who can't afford to put in solar. >...Every single person with whom I've discussed rooftop solar has not regretted getting it, and complete ROI is measured in years, not decades. Yes, they haven't regretted it because the costs are being subsidized by tax payers and the less well off rate payers. It isn't very surprising that those who receive money are happy to receive it. In CA, the PUC was going to lower the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy. https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-folks-await-new-plan-for-rooftop-solar-but-get-silence/ https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-fol...

r00fus 4y ago
You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. This is not the case. States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. The utilities are not non-profits, they don't behave like them and have their plants on PUC boards everywhere.
- opo 4y ago
  >You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. Consumer rooftop solar is the most expensive way ever thought of to provide electrical power. Money is fungible. A dollar tied up in building a one-off consumer solar is exactly a dollar unavailable for building out utility grade solar which can be done at a fraction of the cost. >States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. There is no need to change the subject. We are talking about utility grade solar and consumer rooftop solar. >…PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. All states have a public utility commission. The fact that states heavily subsidize power generation by consumers means that those without solar have to have increased rates. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. That "energy independence" that you say means a great deal to you is totally dependent on the grid to provide electricity to you at night or when the sun doesn't happen to be shining. In many places the costs to maintain that grid are comparable to the costs of providing the actual electricity. Why is it fair for consumer solar households to use the grid but not pay their fair share of the costs? Why should the utility have to electricity from them at up to 10 times the price paid to commercial providers of electricity?

by opo 4y ago

r00fus 4y ago

You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. This is not the case. States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. The utilities are not non-profits, they don't behave like them and have their plants on PUC boards everywhere.

opo 4y ago
>You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. Consumer rooftop solar is the most expensive way ever thought of to provide electrical power. Money is fungible. A dollar tied up in building a one-off consumer solar is exactly a dollar unavailable for building out utility grade solar which can be done at a fraction of the cost. >States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. There is no need to change the subject. We are talking about utility grade solar and consumer rooftop solar. >…PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. All states have a public utility commission. The fact that states heavily subsidize power generation by consumers means that those without solar have to have increased rates. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. That "energy independence" that you say means a great deal to you is totally dependent on the grid to provide electricity to you at night or when the sun doesn't happen to be shining. In many places the costs to maintain that grid are comparable to the costs of providing the actual electricity. Why is it fair for consumer solar households to use the grid but not pay their fair share of the costs? Why should the utility have to electricity from them at up to 10 times the price paid to commercial providers of electricity?