So, yesterday, we talked about major alternative energy projects and how they are being blocked from joining our grid system.   Which, of course, means we are not converting sources to more climate friendly means as we should.

That process is  different, however, when it’s a single (or lots of single) solar powered homes attempting to hook up to the grid system (as it applies in California).  Solar hook-ups to the California grid system has been happening  for a long time.  But, the rules (and rates) have just radically changed- and,  if adopted, go into effect the ides of April (2023).

The state (Public Utilities Commission, PUC) has revised a key subsidy, as well as compensation to the owners who sell electricity back to the grid. At the same time, the $ 8 monthly connection fee  that was also proposed at the time of these changes has not included in the final ruling.  The net metering fee was considered to induce the owner of the solar home to add battery storage to their system, storing the excess power and not immediately selling it back to the utility.   (Nevertheless, proponents of alternative energy systems are loudly complaining about these changes.)

The issue is that the rapid (and expansive) growth in California’s home solar units was powered by the net metering regulations.  These rules meant that homeowners get to sell electricity they can’t use to the grid at the same rate at which one could purchase electricity from the power vendors.  Which means, of course,  the homeowners not only purchase a lower amount of energy, but they get to offset the costs of the power they do purchase.

Sounds great, right?  Well, not to the power companies  (which are Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric (part of Sempra Energy). These folks complain that the 1.5 million homes, businesses, and other utility customers in the state are not paying their fair share of maintaining the transmission grid- which means those customers who don’t have solar units are subject to escalating costs and are subsidizing those with home solar.

(Interestingly, about 12% of those with solar homes have family incomes below $ 50K, with another 28% having family incomes ranging from $ 50K to $ 100K- an increase from the 9% and 24% that obtained in 2010.  Also, the PUC has proposed higher incentives for lower income households. That’s pretty amazing to me, since the average rooftop system requires a capital investment of some $16K- after including the federal credits.)

So, the new California rules now alter the rate to be paid to solar homes from the retail electric prices (only for those power companies listed above- those supplied by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, plus other city-run electric companies would still have the same solar incentives as before) to those more attuned to the transmission grid needs.  If the solar home customer adopts a battery storage system, then  they would earn electric bill credits. But, this change also means that the payback period  for the solar installation has just been extended a lot from 5 years to about 9 years.  (If the home adopts battery storage, the payback period is not as drastically altered.   (Before this change, solar homeowners were receiving about 30 cents a kilowatt hour for their power input- and, now, that payment has dropped to 8 cents!)

But, these new rational laws can help a lot.  Maybe we can get a bunch of other states to adopt such solar incentives and systems.