[s1artibartfast]

That isnt an point for california because distributed solar is an economically inefficient solution.

It is only attractive in California due to a combination absurd electricity prices from State sanctioned monopolies and red tape preventing grid development.

[ZeroGravitas]

Coal is economically inefficient compared with distributed solar.

Nuclear is broadly on par in cost.

The health impact costs of running existing coal plants in Texas are higher than the cost of installing new rooftop solar. That's ignoring carbon costs, which could be the same again.

And that's at Texas install costs. While low for America they are double Australian costs mostly due to poor permitting regulations and lack of competition.

This artificially makes the gap between utility and rooftop solar wider.

So you're being weirdly specific in your desire for economic efficiency.

[s1artibartfast]

Followup: This article [1] and this website [2] contain some information about grid connection statistics by region.

California grid connections approval times are pushing 9 years, nearly doubling that of nearby western states. In comparison, Texas ERCOT operates on a connect and manage framework, which lets people buildout generation without stagegate approval, and then works out the interconnection issues in parallel or after the fact.

ERCOT process is 18 to 30 months.[3]

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/inside-the-interconne... https://www.interconnection.fyi/?market=CAISO https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2024/10/30/0940-AM-ERCOT-In...

[s1artibartfast]

What is oddly specific about it?

We should cut red tape and permitting processes to enable low cost green energy from the cheapest sources.

The California model is one of the last states should look to as an example of how to run an energy market and roll out solar.