California Rooftop Solar Reckoning
sfstandard.com
sfstandard.com
And with the legislature having full freedom to shift subsidies according to current direction of the political breeze, power charges are effectively integrated into the California tax code, not to be analyzed apart from it:
> The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers.
Its devious. And most reporting doesn't really unearth the details. It's sad that the solar lobby isn't up in arms about this, instead they are still on the radio peddling their wares to consumers that are in for a rude awakening.
If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid.
Now whether these fees should be income-based is another debate, but some sort of flat connection fee makes a lot of sense in the future...
You are starting from the "I don't believe in rooftop solar" position and are contriving arguments to support that position. Your argument could apply to _anything_ with variable consumption. What if someone goes to the store once a week and only buys a bottle of wine? They benefit from the convenience of an on-demand grocery store, but if all their customers did this, the store could not exist. Should the store reject this person as a customer? No, the store's fixed costs exist whether or not this particular customer shops there or not. Nothing is to be gained by keeping them away. The same is true with power delivery, those fixed costs exist even if this solar + batteries customer disappears.
> If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid.
This is not an argument, just a projection of power. You can say this to non-solar users now.
1. Charge a fixed fee to everyone hooked up to cover the cost of maintenance and repair (and servicing any bonds).
2. Don't charge a fixed fee, but increase the electricy rate by 36x (365/10) so the overall income is the same as before. This will bankrupt those few folks who can't afford their own solar-battery system (or don't have sunlight reaching their rooftop).
3. Have the government maintain the grid and generation infrastructure, similar to roads. This is very similar to option 1 (especially the means-tested version of #1), except the money is collected via taxes instead of a bill from the utility.
4. Let the grid fail by not maintaining it. Everyone must maintain their own self-generation infrastructure, with no economies of scale.
I don't think options 2 or 4 are wise...
I don't believe I'm moving any goalposts. From the first paragraph of my original comment:
> Imagine a world where everyone in the state has an overbuilt solar battery system installed, but still relies on the grid those few times a year with extended cloud cover.
NEM 2.0 was a ridiculous transfer of wealth to rich households who could afford panels, and I'm glad it's over.
Poor folks don't have the capital to install solar or upgrade the insulation on their houses, and (in California) typically live in a much more hostile climate. They need to consume significant energy to live and end up paying for a significant portion of the NEM 2.0 "subsidies" as part of their power bill.
Government subsidies could come from the general revenue of the state, which is mostly fed by progressive taxes (poor folks contribute much less money than rich folks). It would be better to subsidize green energy directly from general revenues.
They helped hugely with bringing the cost of installation down and also creating a positive attitude to solar panels.
Sometimes giving free money to the rich means that it’s electorally popular enough that the right wing won’t roll it back when they get in.