This is anti-consumer...
This is anti-business....
This is anti-common sense.
Imagine is ATT were allowed to do this back in the 80's?
There would have been even fewer competition and innovation
Is this retro active? I’m consulting with sunrun for a new install, and the guy says if I sign before this takes effect I’m good and it doesn’t effect me. Anyone know?
If people want rooftop solar, and are willing to pay for it themselves, I’m all for it. If one cares about encouraging renewables, why make people pay for the privilege? Really, California has lost the plot.
Interesting in that, IIRC, California law says all new construction must have solar.
Worse than that...it’s bait and switch! Public hearing today at 3PM local.
What behaviors liberal government considers positive and encourages with tax money today
Become the problem behaviors liberal government punishes with new taxes tomorrow
All those suckers who bought those panels are now going to start paying more and more and more. Just like the electric cars about to get charged by the mile.
CA taxes everything on an ever-increasing scale. So glad I’m out of there.
Do the power companies issue 1099s for the power purchased from consumers?
Actually, there should be hefty fees associated with solar because of the environmental impact of disposal.
This is actually sane. (surprise for CA)
The utilities has to pay for the net (cost a lot to build an maintain) as well as the distribution.
I am not sure about Ca, but here in AZ that was already implemented. Basically homeowners used to get paid retail for the power they delivered to the utility. Now they get paid wholesale - just like the power plants do.
Basically just reduced the subsidies for the solar.
Should be done.
It was OK in the beginning, when there were few installations, now, utilities cannot afford to subsidize these people any more. .
Human: You bit me.
Snake: You knew what I was from the get-go.
Eh. It was a given that no financial losses would be tolerated for the power companies.
Many rooftop solar installations have no local battery. They simply drive power back into the grid during daylight hours with a proportional "backward spin" of the local meter being the "economic battery". The government and utilities want to shortchange these solar energy investors from making a return on their investment. Frankly, if it is legislated into being a poor ROI (will it cease to function before the money saved exceeds the cost of acquisition/cost of operation), that amounts to a "taking" without compensation. Bring on the attorneys. Remove the panels and sell for salvage.
Journalism at its best!
I’ll only go for an off-grid system.
I don’t want to pay twice for electricity.
If this cause economic grid collapse, so be it.
If it sounds too good to be true it usually is.
Planning for economic sustainability is not a Democratic strongpoint.
Solar panels on the roof are like a Gucci handbag on the end of an arm - a fashion statement.
If PGE is going to resell that solar electricity for daytime electric vehicle charging (the optimal solution), it should pay the rooftop generator owners a reasonable share of the charges billed to the owners of the cars recharged.
PGE should not be able to claim that a mere 1kwh of electricity from Southern California Alternative Merchants at 3 cents/kwh justifies paying the rooftop owners the same 3 cents/kwh for many megawatts worth of car charging electricity billed to the car owners at 14 cents/kwh.
In my part of Florida the outside temperature varies from about 72 to 91 degrees in summer.
I like the temperature inside to be about 81 degrees in the day and a few degrees cooler at night.
My air conditioning load is not heavy.