As more go solar, grid users forced to pay up

[Jesus Malverde]

Solar power's surging popularity in California is forcing non-solar homeowners to pay a larger share of maintaining the electricity grid, according to a long-awaited state study released Thursday.

That additional cost could range from $75 million to $254 million per year, depending on how it's calculated. By 2020, it could range from $359 million to $1.1 billion per year, according to the study from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The study analyzes a question at the heart of an ongoing fight between utility companies and the solar industry. And it could help reshape the way solar homeowners get paid for the excess electricity they send to the grid.

Businesses and homeowners who install solar panels not only slash their monthly utility bills, they also receive compensation for any extra electricity they place on the grid under a system known as "net energy metering."

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/As-more-go-solar-grid-users-forced-to-pay-up-4847318.php

[TransitJohn]

1. Oh no! Corporations whining about declining profits they assumed were eternal.

Sorry, fuckers! Go figure out another scam.


Thanks for posting.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I think both types of consumers win, in the end.

It's not perfect, but it's not particularly unfair, either.

[A Little Weird]

3. The article is confusing.

The headline makes it seem like solar customers are "moochers" but the text seems to says something else.

But the study also finds that, despite the shift, net metering customers still pay roughly enough on their monthly bills to cover the utilities' costs of providing service - essentially paying their fair share.

A typical business with its own solar panels is still paying 113 percent of the cost that the utilities face to keep that business hooked to the grid and supplied with electricity at night, along with other expenses. An average solar homeowner, meanwhile, pays about 88 percent of those costs. When all net metering customers are considered, the average is 106 percent.

Seems like it is not calculating indirect environmental and health benefits or the reduced need for development of new power plants to the cost equation either.

[Jesus Malverde]

4. Those are key benefits thats are not even mentioned.

Seems like it is not calculating indirect environmental and health benefits or the reduced need for development of new power plants to the cost equation either.