EZZ

This is a good point. The energy company basically takes my surplus and doesn't give me credit. Look deeper and I bet this is sponsored by the electric company.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

so you guys resent pg&e making a profit, but not a certain ev company?

AMIRZA786

I have no issues with companies making profits, but companies like PG&E, Comcast etc. are monopolies that have no competition and gouge their customers. They have no competition because no other companies are allowed to compete, at least at the same level playing field. So no, they can go to hell

https://www.projectcensored.org/pge/

bostonsnow

Yeah I'm not so thrilled about this. We are in California, my wife just bought a Tesla, and were seriously planning to put solar panels on the roof in 2022. but might delay a few months and see how this all pans out now....

people are saying cost to recoup a purchase of panels may rise from 5-6 years up to about 10.....

EZZ

The story is one-sided. Sure the incentives are there for people to build solar on rooftops but PG&E takes that energy and doesn't give you credit (pennies maybe). They take that energy and use it in their grid and only offsets what you use. The surplus is theirs to do as they wish. They benefit from this transactions and I don't fault them for it but if the regulators are arbitrary going to give them power to jack up my connection costs, I want credit for my surplus (and I have a HUGE SURPLUS). I could charge at least 2 more Teslas on my system as I built it to futureproof myself. If economics dictate, I would just buy battery packs and have an additional 4 years before breakeven as would many others.

Och

iTrader: (3)

These solar subsidies, ev credits, are amongst a myriad of write offs that benefit those who are well off, while the poorer folks get shoved to the side.

JeffKeryk

Of course not. That's not the point.
PG&E is saying my solar panels are subsidized by people who do not have solar because their revenue is down.
If anything I am subsidizing PG&E because I am generating excess energy that goes directly to them.

AMIRZA786

The poor are always pushed to the side. That's capitalism, take it or leave it

JeffKeryk

The point is, the poor are not subsidizing my solar panels, as this thread is saying. PG&E has lost revenue because of the solar installations in CA.
That is not a subsidy. I generate more than I use; PG&E could give the extra away to poor customers if they wanted to, right?

ST430

Pg&e is also a public utility company. When the San Bruno has leak happened and they got sued, guess who bailed them out? Their customers aka everyone. When the Cali fires started due to their negligence, guess who bailed them out again? Us again, in the form of higher electricity prices.

I'm all for capitalism , but at what point will they take accountability and pay all of their screwups with their own dime?

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

the only way any company can 'pay' 'with their own dime' is through revenue from customers, loans (which have to be repaid) or govt bailouts.

JeffKeryk

Please. Most companies would be outta business, but PG&E has a monopoly.
All the while giving huge bonuses to execs and enjoying insane profits. While burning down our forrests... That's PG&E.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

not sure why you're singling out a utility for huge bonuses, you're in silicon valley, right?

as for burning down forests, a huge part of the problem is the insanely bad 'forest management' of california, where they planted zillions of trees and protects zillions more than NATURALLY would have been burned away by lightning, etc. not to mention allowing endless new home development right among and around massive forested areas. what could possibly go wrong? since pg&e gets blamed for forest fires now, they've decided turning off the power when it's windy is a better option. they can't win.

swajames

Not every fire is down to PG&E, of course, but of those that were the cause was often preventable.That's really the point. It's not a stretch for those of us who live here to hold PG&E (and others) accountable when we see clear and obvious underinvestment in infrastructure and maintenance and we know that these failings have contributed directly to some of the fires. To the point on turning power off, that's something locals understand is better than the alternative. But you have to be open to the legitimate counter-argument that we'd need fewer of those proactive shutdowns if we had fewer instances of under-investment and neglect.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

problem is, if a utility is very aggressively regulated, particularly on rates, then corners are going to be cut.
in europe there's a giant problem right now where natural gas utilities' rates were highly controlled and now that there's all kinds of supply and cost issues, and those utilities can't raise rates, they're just going out of business, leaving people with few options or often, BIG surprises (double, triple, or more rate increases as they switch to the surviving companies).

i am absolutely not saying utilities are always virtuous or blameless, but it's complex, plus there's a lot of 'payoff' going on (utilities 'supporting' politicians, etc).

my understanding is that texas is the only state whose power grid is not connected to any other state, clearly had all kinds of underinvestment problems, leading to major power outages during unprecedented snow/ice storms, what, a year ago? they're trying to make sure that can't happen again, but again, it's complicated and who's going to pay for all that preparation for a once in a century weather event?

but given the inevitability or forest fires in california, much planning must be done and if the state has let pg&e get away with not doing enough, plus other factors that are the state's responsibilities, then there's plenty of blame to go around.

anyway, back to thread topic... i certainly hope residential solar can continue to grow strongly, and that people aren't punished for doing so.