Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
But it would also include a new monthly “grid participation charge” that would average an estimated $57 a month for solar customers. People who power their homes with fossil fuels wouldn’t pay this. So let’s call it what it is: a solar tax.

This solar tax would also apply to customers who invested in batteries to store that solar energy. Battery storage is critical for the transition to clean energy and grid resilience. But this tax will only discourage that progression.

Moreover, the commission would cut credits to new solar customers (and some older ones) as much as 80 percent for the electricity they don’t use and send to the grid under the net metering program. Those credits in turn can lower their utility bills.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/opinion/schwarzenegger-so...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As a net-metering customer in another state, I'm concerned about all this. Here, everyone is billed supply for electricity supply and for delivery, so there is sort of a grid-participation charge already -- often my supply charge is -0- but the delivery charge is not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I like the headline:

OPINION--GUEST ESSAY

Schwarzenegger: We Put Solar Panels on 1 Million Roofs in California. That Win Is Now Under Threat.

When I was California’s governor, we set a goal in 2006 of putting solar panels on one million roofs across the state. Skeptics said it couldn’t be done, but with bipartisan support in the State Legislature, California met its goal in 2019.

The state now has 1.3 million solar rooftops generating roughly 10,000 megawatts of electricity — enough to power three million homes. And more are being added every week. Roughly two-thirds of those rooftops are on houses and businesses; the rest are on government buildings.

But this hard-earned and vitally important accomplishment is now under threat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was in the energy saving and alternative energy field in its early days from the late 70s to the turn of the century. We pretty much came to the conclusion that PG&E collaborated with us because the less energy used, the fewer new (very expensive) power plants they would have to build. The "grid participation" charge is a gouge. PG&E already profits from excess energy produced by some grid tie customers with solar that produce more than they use. I suspect they are just looking for any source of revenue they can come up with to meet the burden of the lawsuits they lost when their poorly maintained equipment caught large swaths of the state on fire.
Print the post Back To Top