Posted on 04/12/2024 9:18:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
About 2 1/2 years ago I wrote a post titled "California plans to kill the residential solar industry." At the time, I had just had solar panels installed on my roof to save money and within months California announced a new plan (Net Metering 3.0) that would have taxed me and anyone else who owned a rooftop solar system for owning the panels. I predicted that if this plan passed, California's rooftop solar industry would fall off a cliff.
The result of Net Metering 3.0 is likely going to be the end of the residential solar industry in California. I have a neighbor who was interested in possibly getting a system after I had mine installed. Like me, he figured that after 10 years he’d break even on the cost and would still get years of free power. But under the new system his break even point would be 18 years or more so now he doesn’t see the point. A lot of other people are going to run the numbers and reach the same conclusion. Solar installers are about to see their orders drop off a cliff which doesn’t make much sense if the goal was to shift people to green energy. Earlier this week, Elon Musk (who owns one of the major solar installers) called the new plan “insane.”
The backlash to the initial plan was strong enough that Net Metering 3.0 was revised but eventually it did pass and went into effect on April 15, 2023. Since then, rooftop solar installations in California have indeed fallen off a cliff. The NY Times wrote about it in January of this year.
California has long championed renewable energy, but a change in the state’s policies last year has led to a sharp decline in the installation of residential rooftop solar in the state.
Thousands of companies — including installers, manufacturers and distributors — are reeling from the new policy, which took effect in April and greatly reduced incentives that had encouraged homeowners to install solar panels. Since the change, sales of rooftop solar installations in California dropped as much as 85 percent in some months of 2023 from a year earlier, according to a report by Ohm Analytics, a research firm that tracks the solar marketplace. Industry groups project that installations in the state will drop more than 40 percent this year and continue to decline through 2028...
Construct Sun, a solar installation company that is based in Reno, Nev., stopped doing business in California after its sales dried up four months after the policy began; executives said the company was now focusing its efforts on Florida, North Carolina and Ohio...
The nation’s largest residential solar company, Sunrun, which is based in San Francisco, cut about 2,000 jobs after California regulators reduced the rooftop incentives.
There is a caveat here which I have to mention. Solar installation was up slightly in 2023 compared to 2022. Supporters of the new policy point to this as proof that the industry is fine. But the truth is that the vast majority of those installs happened in the first three months of 2023 before the policy went into effect. There was a rush of buyers trying to get in on the good rates but since then the entire industry is down sharply.
But that may not be the end of the story. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about Net Metering 3.0.
The court agreed on Wednesday to hear a challenge to a disastrous decision by the California public utilities commission, or CPUC, to decimate the state’s once-thriving rooftop solar program. The appeal was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation...
“The Supreme Court’s decision is a ray of hope for rooftop solar at a time when plummeting installations and massive layoffs are wrecking this vital industry and jeopardizing California’s climate goals,” said Roger Lin, a senior attorney at CBD.
We'll have to wait and see what happens but there's still a chance this decision could be reversed or dialed back. More recently, California Democrats have come up with an even worse plan which amounts to an income tax paid to your utility company.
Under the proposal, households will see a fixed rate covering basic electricity services and the utility company’s operating costs on a scale based on their household income.
- Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month in Edison territory, $34 a month in SDG&E territory and $30 a month in PG&E territory.
- Households earning from $69,000 – $180,000 would pay $51 a month in Edison and PG&E territories and $73 a month in SDG&E territory.
- Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory.
In California Karl Marx is now apparently running the utilities. Those rates aren't based on usage, just on income and this new plan could take effect as soon as this summer. If it goes through I will be paying about $1,000 a year to Southern California Edison even though I literally generate more electricity than I use on an annual basis. It's stuff like this that makes people decide to pack up and leave the state of California for good.
The elites are trying to ration electricity. That’s why they want electric cars and green energy. They will have ultimate control
There’s nothing about that in the legislation.
Also, nothing that I could find in the legislation that would prohibit double dipping.
IOW, nothing to prevent someone already receiving LIHEAP assistance from getting a better deal on their utility rates.
I believe that happens only if you "make" more money from selling to the grid than you pay. In other words, if the utility gives you money it's taxable income.
What little I've been selling to the grid in Alabama since September of last year, at a much lower rate than I pay when I buy power from the grid, hasn't generated a 1099. It's treated as a reduction in my expense (lower power bill, not negative power bill where the utility sends me money).
Kalifornia uses tax returns to keep tabs on who to flag to the companies...
don’t ask don’t tell
but, the government uses drones/satellite photos to watch our properties
(my work is tangled by building permits)
Yes, the “Rain Tax” of Maryland...
I’m not going to let them forget THAT!
Outlaw solar panels.
Then only outlaws will have solar panels.
Why not just disconnect from the utility.
These would not sell very well in Tornado Alley, where we get golf ball hail and tornadoes. No insurance company would cover them.
Will the serfs in Kalifornia ever get enough of being destroyed by their political decisions? Why anybody would vote for a dimocRAT is beyond comprehension. Unless you are government dependent. Insane.
I recall reading somewhere that not one solar company has stayed in business for the magic 25 years.
If it moves tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Regan
Even without Big Brother taking his cut, how’s that working out for you long term? Had to replace your battery pack yet?
= = =
Typical residential installation does not have batteries.
Ties into the grid.
A stand-alone off the grid, say up in the hills, has batteries and panels only. No tie to the grid. Power company has no connection. Probably permitted by the county, so may not be ‘under the radar’.
I believe that CA requires all new houses to have solar panels.
Factor that in.
Sunpower has been in business since 1985 but last I heard they are scrambling to get financial backing to avoid bankruptcy.
Bookmark
As Predicted
Indeed if it sounds to good to be true well you know the rest of the story.
A “self-cleaning” oven worked by going WAAAAY UP in the temp until every smidgeon of any spill in the oven was turned to ash-—
SORTA like cremation of a body.
IT took A LOT of electricity to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.