Workgroup Seeks Compromises to Move Solar Forward
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
4 responses to “Workgroup Seeks Compromises to Move Solar Forward”
-
Readers of this blog should be unanimous in condemning net metering. It is pure and simple a sizeable subsidy of homeowner solar, imposed at the expense of every other utility ratepayer as a hidden tax. By “running the meter backwards” to give credit for the solar electricity generated on-site when the sun is shining, the customer ends up making no contribution in those hours for the grid facilities that provide all customers with power when the sun isn’t shining. The grid has to be sized to carry the customer’s load even when he isn’t drawing from it.
The solar lobby argues, this economic subsidy is needed to help boost the number of solar customers so we can more quickly reach a critical mass of homeowner solar (distributed solar) generation out there to create publicity for and familiarity with the concept of rooftop solar installations, as well as achieve economies of scale for the equipment manufacturers. Not so any longer. Solar power is commercially viable today WITHOUT a rate subsidy. Who believes those homeowner subsidies through net metering would ever cease, if they were implemented? Indeed, in California, where solar is popular and net metering has been mandated for higher levels of solar generation for years, they have a serious problem with too much distributed solar generation and underfunded grid backup costs.
If you want to subsidized solar for startup purposes, do it transparently, through taxes, with a sunset provision built in. The hidden subsidy of net metering is bad policy.
-
Acbar – good argument. Once you build in a subsidy, it’s damn hard to eliminate it. Add to this the need for some level of standby charges. If someone wants to pretend they are off-grid, but have quick access to commercial power, they need to pay something fair for that access or everyone else must pay the subsidy.
-
The 10 kW residential program could be nice for some. I am not interested for my current house, but if I was, that would be a possibility.
-
Roof-top solar is probably better than NA3 right now. So Dominion and Virginia need to think about cost avoidance, and if we are going to pay mega-bucks for new nuclear plant, try to make sure solar has a chance to compete (ie; Virginia should not overly subsidize and promote NA3 over the solar alternative, if solar has more merit.)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.