6 ms·

It's not as bad as all that. Solar "subsidies" are almost universally tax credits, meaning the only money involved is the money paid by the homeowners. So, for

It's not as bad as all that. Solar "subsidies" are almost universally tax credits, meaning the only money involved is the money paid by the homeowners. So, for society, rooftop solar is by far the cheapest option. It costs the rest of us nothing, the homeowners pay for it. Money is also not limited, it is in fact created by the banks when someone takes a loan, for example to put solar on their roofs. Meaning there is no money lost from society that could instead be used to build utility solar, just because someone puts solar on their roofs. If your county borrows money to make utility solar, that money is also created by the bank then and there. Also note that you are quoting last years Lazard report. Solar is way cheaper in this year's report. It will probably be even cheaper in the next one.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
A tax credit does mean that other taxpayers somewhere are paying for it, though
- omikun 1y ago
  That only works if the budget is balanced or the debt is paid off.
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    It is either today's or tomorrow's taxpayer.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  No it just means the person paying gets a discount on the tax, nobody else pays anything extra for that. If the tax credit results in an increase of solar panel installations it’s still a net gain for society, even just financially.
  - Huppie 1y ago
    While technically correct, assuming a balanced budget means less tax revenue will have to be offset either by reducing government expenses or raising taxes for everyone, so in practice all taxpayers 'pay for' a tax credit.
    - Kon5ole 1y ago
      But you assume that 100% of homeowners will buy solar at full price no matter what, with such certainty that it can even be included as a given in the budget before it happens. That's an unreasonable assumption IMO. Solar is not food, homeowners can choose to skip it.
opo 1y ago
>Solar "subsidies" are almost universally tax credits, meaning the only money involved is the money paid by the homeowners. Well, it means that the government will have less available money to spend on other priorities. Often there are also state and utility subsidies, but those subsidies are often not the largest subsidy. Besides the direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. As I said before, the whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme. >...Solar is way cheaper in this year's report. No it is not. I used last year's numbers since the 2025 report for reasons, does not include consumer rooftop solar. The closest comparison would likely be the category of Solar PV—Community & C&I. In 2024, the cost estimate was $54 - $191 in 2025, the price range was $81 - $217.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  >Well, it means that the government will have less available money to spend on other priorities. That assumes people have to buy solar at any price, but they don't. The money the gov gets from people choosing solar because of the tax credit is extra money that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So it's likely they get more money, not less money. If everyone scrambled to buy all available solar at full price already, then yes, of course nobody should give tax credits. But that's not where we are, tax credits cause an increase in installations. I am convinced everyone benefits from wealthy homeowners installing solar, not just the homeowners. Solar panels make electricity cheaper from base principles, despite any political schemes that are employed right now. Once installed, the panels generate electricity for free. I think that's often overlooked - all talk about subsidies for solar is just for the installations. Once they are done, solar electricity costs nothing. >No it is not. I used last year's numbers since the 2025 report for reasons, does not include consumer rooftop solar. You're right, I made a mistake and didn't notice the rooftop category was gone. My bad.
  - opo 1y ago
    >…I think that's often overlooked - all talk about subsidies for solar is just for the installations. Once they are done, solar electricity costs nothing. No, the subsidies don’t stop at installation - they often just really begin. Often wealthier households have been able to sell back their electricity to the grid at the retail rate. Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, so there is a huge difference between the wholesale costs and retail rates for delivered electricity. In CA, it was estimated that all non-solar households in CA paid an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It was estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost would grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030. Ignoring all the subsidies given to install the system, that $115 per household per year adds up to a great deal of money. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying a great deal more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone MUCH further if spent on other solar projects) - it isn’t hard to imagine that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels. This sort of wealth transfer to the more wealthy actually hurts everyone in the long run. The goal is to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme. >…You're right, I made a mistake and didn't notice the rooftop category was gone. My bad. Yea it is unfortunate they removed that category - hopefully it will return in future versions.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

A tax credit does mean that other taxpayers somewhere are paying for it, though

omikun 1y ago
That only works if the budget is balanced or the debt is paid off.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  It is either today's or tomorrow's taxpayer.
Kon5ole 1y ago
No it just means the person paying gets a discount on the tax, nobody else pays anything extra for that. If the tax credit results in an increase of solar panel installations it’s still a net gain for society, even just financially.
- Huppie 1y ago
  While technically correct, assuming a balanced budget means less tax revenue will have to be offset either by reducing government expenses or raising taxes for everyone, so in practice all taxpayers 'pay for' a tax credit.
  - Kon5ole 1y ago
    But you assume that 100% of homeowners will buy solar at full price no matter what, with such certainty that it can even be included as a given in the budget before it happens. That's an unreasonable assumption IMO. Solar is not food, homeowners can choose to skip it.

opo 1y ago

>Solar "subsidies" are almost universally tax credits, meaning the only money involved is the money paid by the homeowners. Well, it means that the government will have less available money to spend on other priorities. Often there are also state and utility subsidies, but those subsidies are often not the largest subsidy. Besides the direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. As I said before, the whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme. >...Solar is way cheaper in this year's report. No it is not. I used last year's numbers since the 2025 report for reasons, does not include consumer rooftop solar. The closest comparison would likely be the category of Solar PV—Community & C&I. In 2024, the cost estimate was $54 - $191 in 2025, the price range was $81 - $217.

Kon5ole 1y ago
>Well, it means that the government will have less available money to spend on other priorities. That assumes people have to buy solar at any price, but they don't. The money the gov gets from people choosing solar because of the tax credit is extra money that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So it's likely they get more money, not less money. If everyone scrambled to buy all available solar at full price already, then yes, of course nobody should give tax credits. But that's not where we are, tax credits cause an increase in installations. I am convinced everyone benefits from wealthy homeowners installing solar, not just the homeowners. Solar panels make electricity cheaper from base principles, despite any political schemes that are employed right now. Once installed, the panels generate electricity for free. I think that's often overlooked - all talk about subsidies for solar is just for the installations. Once they are done, solar electricity costs nothing. >No it is not. I used last year's numbers since the 2025 report for reasons, does not include consumer rooftop solar. You're right, I made a mistake and didn't notice the rooftop category was gone. My bad.
- opo 1y ago
  >…I think that's often overlooked - all talk about subsidies for solar is just for the installations. Once they are done, solar electricity costs nothing. No, the subsidies don’t stop at installation - they often just really begin. Often wealthier households have been able to sell back their electricity to the grid at the retail rate. Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, so there is a huge difference between the wholesale costs and retail rates for delivered electricity. In CA, it was estimated that all non-solar households in CA paid an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It was estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost would grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030. Ignoring all the subsidies given to install the system, that $115 per household per year adds up to a great deal of money. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying a great deal more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone MUCH further if spent on other solar projects) - it isn’t hard to imagine that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels. This sort of wealth transfer to the more wealthy actually hurts everyone in the long run. The goal is to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme. >…You're right, I made a mistake and didn't notice the rooftop category was gone. My bad. Yea it is unfortunate they removed that category - hopefully it will return in future versions.