"their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost." Agreed, they want to maximize profit in an environment where they

"their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost." Agreed, they want to maximize profit in an environment where they don't pay for externalizes like carbon emissions, pollution, global warming, etc. "Your neighborhood needs to be connected to the grid because of weather and winter, So the infrastructure needs are fixed. Rooftop solar doesn't help reduce this need for infrastructure." Actually it does. Grids are designed for the worst case, typically the hottest day of the year where AC use is the highest. Typically in the 3-6pm range which is usually the hottest part of the day. Measures include starting up peaker plants, scheduling hydro for peak output, dropping voltages, and consumer programs where they raise the thermostat so the AC goes on less. Exactly the kind of thing that solar helps with. With battery programs (like SGIP in California) the solar benefit is even extended a few hours into the evening. The dreaded "duck" curve caused by solar could provide significant incentives for batteries and non-solar, which also decreases the cost of grid. > Sourcing expensive power locally when available doesn't save PGE or the neighbor anything. It is purely a financial waste for both of them. It shouldn't be about saving money, it should be about doing whats right for the environment. Sure PGE won't have as much money for executive bonuses and stock dividends. But cleaner air, less carbon emissions, and a more resilient grid are worthy goals. It also means the neighbors pay quite a bit less, at least if they are willing to shift their usages. If half the homes in California had solar the day time power would be nearly free, and some batteries and time shifted power use would mean that the average home would pay less than today.