[HN Gopher] California strikes another blow against rooftop solar
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       California strikes another blow against rooftop solar
        
       Author : miguelazo
       Score  : 30 points
       Date   : 2023-11-17 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
        
       | someonehere wrote:
       | I was on the previous incentive for solar generation and my bill
       | last month was $0 (I only look at the summary emailed to me and
       | let autopay handle it).
       | 
       | I assume I generated more than I consumed and that offset my gas
       | consumption.
       | 
       | CPUC is full of cronies tied to Sacramento and Newsom. Guarantee
       | the solar changes in this article are being pushed by the energy
       | companies.
       | 
       | PG&E is putting all this money into preventing the next wave of
       | wildfires caused by their negligence and passing it on to
       | consumers.
       | 
       | This feels like the power companies getting in front of shrinking
       | revenue to stop backlash from raising rates for non-solar
       | customers. I can't imagine power companies continuing to pay
       | outrageous executive salaries while everyone switches to solar
       | and lowering revenue.
        
       | Night_Thastus wrote:
       | To me this situation has always seemed backwards.
       | 
       | Instead of charging per KW/hr, charge based on the _actual_ costs
       | to the electric provider. A fixed monthly cost representing the
       | cost of upkeep and being connected to the grid, and a variable
       | cost portion that _actually_ reflects usage.
       | 
       | Yes, this doesn't encourage reducing electricity usage, which
       | isn't as great for the environment.
       | 
       | But if solar is getting large enough that this is becoming a
       | problem for the utilities, then the answer is to fix the pricing
       | issue - not to stop putting up solar.
        
         | ender341341 wrote:
         | There's a similar issue with water usage, lots of locales have
         | been so successful in lowering water usage in their communities
         | that previous usage based fees don't cover the minimum
         | operating cost of the utilities.
        
         | sowbug wrote:
         | If the money earmarked for upkeep goes to upkeep, that sounds
         | like a nice plan. Unfortunately, PG&E has a history of
         | collecting upkeep fees and paying them out as shareholder
         | dividends.
        
         | dixie_land wrote:
         | The situation is backwards because instead of taxing the sh*t
         | out of everyone (including non solar homeowners) and give
         | incentives to select few, people can simply afford solar (or
         | whatever solution they want) if the government hasn't robbed
         | them.
        
         | lazide wrote:
         | FYI, this creates a perverse incentive for the utility to
         | create as high costs as they can plausibly get away with.
         | 
         | It's a big issue with military contracts too, or any 'cost
         | plus' arrangement.
         | 
         | They are not incentivized to be efficient anymore, rather the
         | opposite.
        
         | mike_d wrote:
         | > based on the actual costs to the electric provider
         | 
         | They tried this in Texas. During the 2021 winter storms
         | consumers who opted for cheaper rates tied to the actual
         | generation costs ended up with $20k+ power bills.
        
         | ThatPlayer wrote:
         | I think it makes sense for peak electricity usage to have to
         | pay more for upkeep and infrastructure. Building everything out
         | for peak usage is where the higher costs come from. If my usage
         | during peak is 1kw and my neighbor's is 10kw, our local grid
         | will have to be able to support 11kw. Why should the costs be
         | split evenly?
        
       | spa3thyb wrote:
       | It's the article's title, for sure, but it feels misleading to
       | call a reduction in incentives from a successful program (rooftop
       | solar generating 11% of California's power is amazing) a strike
       | against the goals of that program.
       | 
       | LEDs/CCFLs being subsidized until consumers switched over to them
       | (I know the story is more complex than this) made sense too.
        
         | ThatPlayer wrote:
         | California's grid already has so much power during peak solar
         | that energy is exported to other grids. So adding more solar is
         | diminishing returns.
         | 
         | https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...
        
       | 1letterunixname wrote:
       | Brought to you by CPUC/CAISO (was CAL-ISO) who brought you Enron
       | rolling blackouts.
       | 
       | Note: There is no mention of Enron on CAISO's revisionist history
       | Wikipedia page.
        
       | solardev wrote:
       | Why didn't California dissolve PG&E and turn it into a public
       | utility?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-11-17 23:01 UTC)