> I'm surprised CA would allow such a thing as the new NET 3.0 crap. The CA legislature actually required that a change be made with AB 327. The details were

> I'm surprised CA would allow such a thing as the new NET 3.0 crap. The CA legislature actually required that a change be made with AB 327. The details were ultimately up to CPUC, but CPUC was attempting to meet the broad goals of the legislature in making this change. Additional power produced during times of peak solar insolation is not very useful to the grid because of all the existing solar and is most useful during the late afternoon and early evening when demand is high but solar output is low. Maintaining the grid costs money independent of the cost of electricity generation and under the old rules solar customers were effectively subsidized by non-solar customers. Since non-solar customers are on average poorer than solar customers (owning your home is generally a per-requisite after all) this amounted to a regressive transfer. EDIT: Fixed wording in sentence about customer cross-subsidy