The other group has been trying to tax solar for years: https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/
Why no outcry on HN?
The fundamental problem with net metering is that it is obviously unsustainable and unfair. People who are hooked up to the grid benefit from more than just the energy they consume, but the hookup costs and maintenance of the grid is a real cost that power companies need to pay for. Perhaps even more obviously, any company that is in a retail business can only survive if they buy a product at a (cheaper) wholesale rate and sell it at a (more expensive) retail rate. Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable.
As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. I'm also not saying this is the only way to do things (e.g. you could have a monthly connection fee and a separate monthly power charge), but this "solar rights" group is just spinning bullshit because their sweet deal is about to come to an end.
Yes, that is exactly my point. And yes, I'd love it if I got paid more as a homeowner. But Austin is basically paying me wholesale rates for my power I send to the grid, which fundamentally makes sense from an economics perspective. Again, net metering is inherently infeasible for the power company without a vast reconfiguring of how grid electricity is charged.
Solar should be saving the homeowner money and not risking increased taxes in the future, especially if the homeowner has to foot the bill for thousands of dollars it takes to install the panels/system.
"Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable."
Why prop up power companies if the business model is unsustainable? Especially if you want to convert to something like solar? Why should I, as a homeowner, be forced to pay the power companies just because they can't change with the times?
The problem lies when you need the power company 'some of the time'.
The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution. Traditionally those costs were bundled together, those who used more paid more (for both generation and Distribution. )
If I generate my own solar, say 65% of the time, then I'm paying 65% less for generation (which is fair, I'm using 65% less) but I'm also paying 65% less for distribution (which is unfair because the cost of distribution is fixed, not variable. )
The power company can solve this by billing the two parts separately. Indeed in some places in the world utilities are formally splitting the two parts into different companies. Generation has variable cost depending on consumption- Distribution has fixed cost if you are connected at all.
Of course people without solar want this split (it fairly distributes Distribution), folks with solar want the old way to continue (less for me to pay, cost to everyone else goes up.)
Power companies are trying to change with the times, by separately billing. Some homeowners are the ones trying to straddle the best of both words, and effectively get "100% availability" for no cost.
It makes perfect sense and I don't see why/how it should be different. Asking to pay just for electricity generation is crazy because it is the "easier" step, creating, maintaining and equilibrating the network is by far the more complicated endeavor.
That's not a fair argument.
> The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution
That's the real issue. How, in most places in the us that I know of, these 2 are combined. Which leads to this problem becoming a thing.
We all pay taxes for roads. Whether we use them or not. Being connected to the grid should make everyone pay an equal share based on their connection size. Who delivers power over that connection? Pick your provider, make it a free market where power is a true commodity. Generation prices will drop significantly, distribution prices will probably go up.
You can apply the above reasoning to the ISPs of the world too. Like roads, and electric connections, I think we can all consider an internet connection as vital to our daily lives as roads are
> That's not a fair argument.
Why not? Plenty of people do it.
It's like saying we should all use helicopters if we don't like traffic.
Smaller grids are harder to get right and more expensive to run because you need more surplus capacity to be able to deal with peak demand.
But then the reverse is true - if you are enjoying the benefits that the grid bestows then you need to pay for that. Yes, in the past the "variable benefits" and the "fixed benefits" were all rolled into a single payment, which was based on variable use. It was "simple" and "mostly fair".
Now that a single payment is no longer fair, it makes sense that the benefit-cost needs to be split into a variable, and fixed, component. That's not some sort of new tax, or penalty for solar users. It's simply costing benefits correctly.
So we return to the point - if you want the benefits, then these are the costs of that. If you don't need the benefits then you can disconnect. (Personally I like the benefits, and hence pay my share of the fixed costs.)
The interesting bit is that the distribution charge is a mix of fixed-fees and per-kWh fees. Obviously the fixed fees will remain if I added solar, but I'm not certain what would happen to the per-kWh fees if I started exporting power to the grid.
Proposals have included fees as high as $700 per year for the average solar consumer. These efforts, backed by Governor Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission, were defeated in 2021, 2022, and 2024 due to public outcry but remain under consideration."
Just admit that the the Democrats in charge of California don't care about the environmental benefits of solar.
You keep making this disingenuous argument all over this thread.
If you have solar and use their grid to distribute it you pay to use their grid. If you want solar off the grid and want no distribution you pay nothing to them.
It's really that simple. There is production and distribution. If you are using their distribution you pay them for it. Not to mention for the stability of still getting power when your solar is insufficient...
My city recently enacted a tax on solar called a generation fee or something like that. That is, if you put up solar panels, generate all your own power, and export ZERO back to the grid you need to pay them "fee" for every kWh generated because they are making less back in distribution costs to their subscribers since you stopped buying their power.
Sounds to me like their broken business model is their problem. After doing the math in some places it make sense to disconnect completely, avoid the interconnect fees, and run a standby generator for the edge cases where solar doesn't work. I've heard this is becoming popular in places like Australia and California more recently (Of course, then the government tries to make living off grid illegal to protect electric company profits)
Sorry, what other group. Power companies?
"They unsuccessfully tried again in 2024, working with Governor Newsom to try and slip a Solar Tax in his proposed budget."
NM-just perused your HN comments and they are littered with dog whistles and talking points. Gymnastics seems too generous.
We are specifically talking about the increase costs in solar. Taxing is definitely one of them.
"dog whistles and talking point"
You have 3 comments. You also keep using that phrase 'gymnastics'. Do you even know what it means? It doesn't appear so.