[jtc331]

I don’t find the quotes shared actually proof of the claims made. Of course rooftop solar messes with utility profits, but the operative question is how. The article seems assume simple 1:1 demand reduction as the driver of lowering profits, but, for example, a larger driver could be a shift from base load generation (cheaper) to peaker generation (more expensive). Another possibility could be net metering laws creating demand for services (usage of utility at night as if it were a giant battery) without actually paying for the cost of utility infrastructure and the services provided by incorrectly equating a kWh as the same no matter when it’s generated.

Full disclosure: I have rooftop solar and also benefit from net metering, so I am not speaking as one who can’t see why the consumer desires those things.

[dubcanada]

It's quite obvious how solar messes with utility profits. If you generate 1kw of energy, the utility company loses profits on 1kw. And if you feed back to the grid it's even worse, that means you've completely removed them from the equation (temporarily) and instead have excess for them to buy from you.

There is no way power companies and solar rooftop can coexist with one of those seeking to gain additional profits every quarter.

So while I may be incorrect I do believe that power companies should be own by the state/what ever. As it is impossible to have coexistence between a future of renewable energies and microgrids and a company seeking profitability quarter after quarter.

If we don't they'll do exactly what they are doing, increase rates everytime possible, increase level of certification required (new UL codes every year, new weird requirements for wall mounted batteries, building code requirements, etc etc). They'll get new laws passed making it nearly impossible to add solar panels to your house. Taking years to get permits, etc. What ever they need to do.

[kwhitefoot]

Surely this is because utilities don't separate the costs of the infrastructure from the cost of the energy. In market based systems like Norway we pay for three distinct items: the energy, the fixed costs of the infrastructure, the cost of transporting the energy (the losses in the infrastructure). So I pay the first item to one company and the second and third to the local company that owns an maintains the infrastructure. The infrastructure owning company will still charge me for the cost of maintaining the infrastructure regardless of how much energy I buy from the energy supplier.

[anovikov]

Of course, net metering is a GIANT implicit subsidy for solar.

Even simply allowing to use the grid to co-consume electricity from it while ALSO using rooftop solar for self-consumption, without ability to feed solar power back into the grid, is a small-time subsidy now, and will be a huge subsidy a few years down the road. Because it means rejecting all the cheap energy which utility can produce with solar (which will become nearly free very soon, and is already quite cheap), and consume only the most expensive electricity the utility produces.

Net metering was always meant to be a temporary perk, it will cease to exist soon. Then crackdowns on rooftop solar will follow (people will be allowed to either have an off-grid solar+batteries setups, or use the grid, but not both at same time).

[oezi]

Peaker generation isn't that expensive. Because you have almost no fuel cost.