you can't have an unlimited subsidy..
But.. But.. But..
It's for the children..
California Energy Commission spokeswoman Claudia Chandler is also optimistic about the future of solar power in California.
"I think everybody's very aware of how costly conventional energy is," Chandler said, citing the high natural gas prices right now. "When you look at the options out there, what are the alternatives?"
--
Oh Claudia,, sweetie!
It's called
Nuclear ..
But Roger Denault, owner of Solar Technologies, ... said the fact that nonsolar users subsidize solar power is not an issue because around 85 percent of people in California approve the use of solar power.
"If that's a real concern, then let some public interest group, some citizen group, raise that argument. Given the public good, our opinion is that they ought not to have a limit at all" ...
SAVE THE SUN!!!
Just raise the cap and let the utility pay for what it purchases.
Typical govt welfare program. Too many folks sign up for the freebies so what's the answer? More freebies! Meanwhile, market distortions take place and somewhere down the road when Kali doesn't have a reliable electric grid because real energy companies aren't willing to invest, then have the state interfere, the sheeple will rise up and blame---The energy companies!
So have the meter run "backwards" at wholesale rate, and "forwards" at retail rate. It's not rocket science.
Adelman and his wife looked into putting solar panels on their home in the mid-1990s but found it too expensive. The net metering law, which passed in 1995, helped photovoltaic systems become practical.
Practical? PRACTICAL? NO, Idiot! It isn't practical or YOU would pay for it. Instead you expect NON-users to subsidize your folly.
Another expert at spending OPM (Other People's Money)
That is actually a very good point that they cannot buy your power at retail. So change the way you measure the total energy flow and credit the outgoing at wholesale and keep the incoming retail retail the same. Just redesign the flow meter, it can't be that hard.
In other words, as long as solar power is paid for by someone else, it's affordable.
For an idea on presepective, 136 MW represents one mid sized gas turbine that could be set up on a lot no bigger than the average home lot and probably costs less than $30 million installed. If the average home system costs $25,000, the investment for the same amount of solar electricity is over $3 billion.
This ignores the obvious solution of having PG&E buy larger quantities of power back, but only at wholesale costs rather than retail (i.e., at a lower cost than they charge the same customer when the meter is going the other way). This would closer reflect the true economics, while still giving customers a chance to recoup their costs sooner. Sounds like a win-win to me. Oh, well, I wouldn't expect common sense to prevail.
Ping!
Wait.....Something bad happened when the state interved with supply and demand.
Laissez Faire--Come on the french have only came up with one good idea.
New York (at least in my region) won't buy electricity. You get back what you put in at cost. If you put in more than you use, too bad. So it's important to size your system proportionately to what you use in a year.
Who needs a subsidy when you can run your meter backwards? Let the market work, I say! ... :)
This doesn't make sense to me. It's not a 1 to 1 swap, they have a service charge, transport charge, charge for this, that and every other thing.
It's not going to any rate payer for at least 8 years, solar or conventional.
It's not going to the utilities.
Whether stick framing or installing solar, the pay is the same. No goldmine there.
So where is the tax payer's money going? Since this transfer of wealth scheme is regulatory, I'd start looking within an arms length of public officials in Sacramento. In fact, since the regulators are in the executive, that's probably the best place to start snooping.
Cash is the mother's milk of politics and $3B is sweet cream, so a good bet is to start with campaign fund raising or friends/partners of the candidate.