5 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - Kon5ole 1y ago
    >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. It's not a subsidy to be allowed to sell a thing you produce at market price. If taxes were used to pay a guaranteed price above market rate to solar panel owners sure, but that's not the case (generally speaking, local political absurdities may exist of course). >Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, There is no additional infrastructure needed to cover rooftop solar though. It's just electricity being added to an existing grid. If someone is increasing your power bill and blaming it on some one else's solar panels, I'd say you are being scammed and I would not take such claims at face value! "Yeah you have to pay cause Jim got solar panels, so we had to uhm, you know, we had to, err, well you have to pay more anyway". ;-) >a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. But this is a choice that doesn't exist. We are not talking about a bunch of money that has been collected and is being spent on people's rooftop solar instead of being spent on utility solar. There is no money except the homeowner's money that is being spent here, and they can only choose to get rooftop solar. >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. Rooftop solar decarbonizes the grid faster than anything else at the moment, since lots of people get to decide for themselves instead of waiting for politicians. It transfers no money from anyone but from the homeowners to makers of solar panels. It also lowers the production price of electricity, which should lower the purchase price too, unless you are in the hands of corrupt politicans and utility cos.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      > It's not a subsidy to be allowed to sell a thing you produce at market price. It certainly is in this case. The market price includes transmission and distribution costs, as well as fixed costs of the generators. Domestic PV is really gaming the rate system, avoiding costs while still benefiting from the things those costs support. If enough people do it the grid falls apart. See Pakistan where they may be getting close to this.

by opo 1y ago

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.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  >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. It's not a subsidy to be allowed to sell a thing you produce at market price. If taxes were used to pay a guaranteed price above market rate to solar panel owners sure, but that's not the case (generally speaking, local political absurdities may exist of course). >Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, There is no additional infrastructure needed to cover rooftop solar though. It's just electricity being added to an existing grid. If someone is increasing your power bill and blaming it on some one else's solar panels, I'd say you are being scammed and I would not take such claims at face value! "Yeah you have to pay cause Jim got solar panels, so we had to uhm, you know, we had to, err, well you have to pay more anyway". ;-) >a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. But this is a choice that doesn't exist. We are not talking about a bunch of money that has been collected and is being spent on people's rooftop solar instead of being spent on utility solar. There is no money except the homeowner's money that is being spent here, and they can only choose to get rooftop solar. >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. Rooftop solar decarbonizes the grid faster than anything else at the moment, since lots of people get to decide for themselves instead of waiting for politicians. It transfers no money from anyone but from the homeowners to makers of solar panels. It also lowers the production price of electricity, which should lower the purchase price too, unless you are in the hands of corrupt politicans and utility cos.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    > It's not a subsidy to be allowed to sell a thing you produce at market price. It certainly is in this case. The market price includes transmission and distribution costs, as well as fixed costs of the generators. Domestic PV is really gaming the rate system, avoiding costs while still benefiting from the things those costs support. If enough people do it the grid falls apart. See Pakistan where they may be getting close to this.