October 17, 2024

"Researchers argue that home solar panels are raising the price of electricity and reducing the need for cheaper large solar farms — making the entire transition to clean energy more expensive...."

"Researchers say that... many states and utilities provide very lucrative deals for users of rooftop solar — often compensating owners of home panels more than the value of their solar to the grid. In states like California and Arizona... in the middle of the day homeowners might get 20 cents back for each kilowatt-hour they send to the grid. But for a grid already flooded with solar, the value of that extra energy is close to zero. The result is that richer homeowners who can afford solar get cheap electricity bills — while poorer residents see higher bills to compensate. In California alone, researchers at UC Berkeley and the California Public Advocates Office estimated that rooftop solar will add between $4 billion and $6.5 billion to customers’ bills in 2024...."

From "Everyone loves rooftop solar panels. But there’s a problem. One of the most popular methods to cut your household’s carbon footprint may be a mixed bag" (WaPo).

75 comments:

n.n said...

Obamacares deals Green with intermittent, unreliable transenergy policies and environmental blight.

Howard said...

Progressive policies by their nature are regressive.

Rusty said...

Everyone like getting paid retail for the electricity they put into the grid. Giant solar farms are a waste of real estate and silicon.

Dave Begley said...

I'm deeply involved in all things solar and wind. This article is completely wrong. The reason why electricity is going up in places like California is because there is too much solar and wind in the grid. And without clicking through, I am confident that WaPo doesn't disclose that Big Wind and Big Solar expect to collect $1.2 trillion in free money from taxpayers by 2023.

Full disclosure. I am the Special Knox County Attorney who is fighting Big Wind in federal court. I am also the leading - and perhaps only - public critic of OPPD's net zero carbon policy.

RideSpaceMountain said...

"The entire transition to clean energy more expensive..."

Get right out of town!

RideSpaceMountain said...

Progressive policies by their nature are expensive.

Creola Soul said...

All solar installations should be first on rooftops. Put the panels on all the warehouses, parking garages, commercial stores, etc before clearing forests or taking farmland for sites. These massive solar farms (and wind farms) are visual pollution and we are, as Joni Mitchell sang, “paving paradise to put up a parking lot “.

Dave Begley said...

And we don't need to reach the Left's climate goals or decarbonize the grid.

The notion that people should produce their own electricity is nearly the same as people should live on farms and grow their own food.

The Green New Deal is all about the federal income tax credits.

Leland said...

I think this is a problem for those centrally controlled states that create artificial economies. $.60 kWh is absurd. Before Biden/Harris, I was paying $.08 kWh in Texas. Now, it is up to $.12 kWh. If I wanted to pay for the most expensive plan in Texas, it is $.22 kWh. It is California that is creating a value of energy as much as $.60 kWh. And yeah, that is likely there to subsidize the rich that can afford the entry cost to become generators of electricity.

All attempts to force a transition to clean energy by manipulating market prices will make it more expensive. And it is already more expensive than not transitioning, which is why the market never moved that direction on its own. In short, this was what they wanted and they are getting it good and hard.

tim in vermont said...

It's like the public paid healthcare they have in in Canada, and all good liberals want it for the US. It is paid for with extremely regressive taxes, sales taxes on just about everything, sales taxes that even those working under the table can't avoid, sales taxes that take a far higher share of the income of the poor.

How many people living in apartment blocks in sketchy neighborhoods can practically own an EV? That number is somewhere hovering around zero.

Most liberal policies direct resources toward stuff the affluent want for themselves, and well, just as Freder "Ayn Rand" Frederson, the poor have to take the brunt of it because there is no other way.

Dixcus said...

The best part of rooftop solar is that only the rich can afford the solar panels. In this way, the poor are required to pay for ALL electricity grid costs. The rich are getting PAID to supply the electricity and the poor are stuck with the transmission costs. It's great, since we're importing an entire nation of poors who are going to pay for us.

Cloud Minders was supposed to be a cautionary tale; instead it's an instruction manual.

The rich will shortly be able to acquire Elon-bots to do all their work, while the poor must root around in our waste doing manual labor and if they resist, we can just set our Elon-bots to eliminate the resistors.

Should they somehow succeed against all odds, we rich can motor off to our new Mars colony, which of course, the poor cannot afford a ticket to.

Jersey Fled said...

When you pretend that the money that pays for subsidies grows on trees, this is what you get.

rhhardin said...

You have to pay for distribution (it's 2/3 of my Ohio electricity bill). If more people avoid buying kwH from the grid, more of distribution has to be loaded on other people. Distribution is a fixed cost, not depending on usage.

Oh Yea said...

Who would have ever thought that Government economic incentives would distort markets?

gilbar said...

often compensating owners of home panels more than the value of their solar to the grid..

and by "often", they mean: ALWAYS
if you have to buy electricity at the retail price..
and you have to buy it at times of peak production..
and you have to sell electricity at the retail price during low production..
This is a recipe for failure.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

"The problem is the government is overpaying for something; there's just no solution!" I'm no policy genius but maybe try paying the actual market rate?

I assumed the angle was going to be that large-scale production is more efficient and cheaper leading to a tension between encouraging people to invest in their own production and channeling resources to the most-efficient means of energy production--that's an actual difficult balancing problem with tradeoffs and competing values at play. If the core of the problem is you're overpaying for something, just stop! There are plenty of utilities that don't pay for home generation that goes back to the grid.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Stop it!

doctrev said...

Regressive policies "work" if only property holders can vote. If the poor realize how oligarchial policies disadvantage them, they rebel in numbers. It's why the working class is flocking to Trump, despite previous demographic trends. And the rich are finding it difficult to credibly fix elections.

The problem isn't "can we keep this scan going," but "what happens when we win?" Mutinous proles aren't going to be supportive of foreign wars or austerity policy.

Democratic Paychecks for Perks/ Dems for Demolition of Democracy/ fake-cares 4-U said...

an - another unintended consequence of White Left Elite know-it-all-ism.

n.n said...

We need a new DST deal to manage people and resources through a Green-forced rationing regime.

n.n said...

Progressive affordability and availability for the majority is very democratic.

n.n said...

Rooftop rationed energy is preferable to spreading the new Green blight over land, sea, and blocking blue skies. The environmentalists should be apoplectic about forcing climate change with their progressive footprint.

Leland said...

More bad luck for California: Phillips 66 provides notice of its plan to cease operations at Los Angeles-area refinery

Butkus51 said...

I heard they handle tornadoes well.

But ya better duck.

Kate said...

I live in a lower-middle class neighborhood and we all have solar rooftop panels. This isn't a rich person problem.

R C Belaire said...

HoodlumDoodlum : "... If the core of the problem is you're overpaying for something, just stop! There are plenty of utilities that don't pay for home generation that goes back to the grid."
Exactly. One chooses to install rooftop solar? Fine. Power your home and be happy, but leave everyone else out of the equation.

reader said...

I remember when the State of California used to tell us we had to conserve energy use during the day. We weren’t supposed to run our dishwasher/washing machine/air conditioner during the day. The threat of rolling blackouts was during the day.

California pushed home solar hard (on the middle class). It felt like harassment and shaming if you used electricity during the day and didn’t have solar.

What’s changed? Why has peak usage switched from the day to the night. At night when it’s cooler (meaning below 90 and not running your AC).

California wants a porous border and to be a sanctuary state to a limitless number of people who will all consume water and electricity while also deciding to push electric vehicles that are being charged at night.

We played by the rules California set, California can suck it up and deal with it.

wendybar said...

Doesn't surprise me one bit. The left works for the elite who decide who gets what.

Dude1394 said...

Some animals are more equal than others.

Curious George said...

And hurricanes. Like Milton. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/drone-footage-shows-destruction-left-by-tornado-ripping-through-florida-solar-farm-before-milton/ar-AA1sjWwt?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Limited blogger said...

An unintended consequence? Say it ain't so!

tim in vermont said...

Not to worry, we are only $35 trillion in debt, or is it $36? What day is it? That doesn't count our unfunded obligations, which are maybe an order of magnitude larger. Not to worry, most voters don't even know what "unfunded obligations" and "order of magnitude" means. If they did, the Democrats couldn't win an election for dogcatcher.

Scott Gustafson said...

Electricity is a service. Services are produced and consumed simultaneously. The value of additional electric power in the middle of a sunny day is now zero. Producers of such power should be paid for the value of what they produce - zero.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I know we have discussed this here before but perhaps in a slightly different context. This issue was a big one in California because Newsome broke a compact with ratepayers who had invested in solar panels. Actually he broke two. The first one was a tax break that offset some of the amortized payments. The second was the rate SoCal Edison and other utilities paid the homeowner for selling excess power back to the grid at peak usage times. Under the original compact the “investment in solar panels” made financial sense even given the short 10- to 20-year lifespan of the panels. But after Newsome waved his “fuck y’all” wand many homeowners were upside down on their solar payments just as Bidenflation started to take off and impose more unforeseen expenses. Progressive “offers” are always schemes that have an unknown (to the consumer) expiration date.

Aggie said...

Wow, just last week Chevron - originally Standard Oil of California - announced that it will no longer invest in California (they've moved to Texas). I dream of the fast-approaching day that California's arrogant economic regulation will stop being forced on the rest of the country. Since it's expensive to manufacture two different versions of the same thing, manufacturers have been incentivized to make their goods to California's regulatory standards. It's a hidden tax to the rest of the us. Thanks California!

Mr Spam Box is Hungry Hungry Hungry today ! A lot of my posts disappearing.

Wince said...

So, as it turns out, when it comes to energy, the Greens are Mr. Burns and Democrats are Smithers?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Well put Howard. Quite pithy as well.

Dude1394 said...

I despise those wind turbines while acknowledging how easy it is for farmers to slow their install.

Narr said...

Like Saxony in 2019, only worse: Belgium and northeastern France are overrun with wind turbines. My lefty traveling companions didn't appreciate it when I referred to them as "Pollution Somewhere Else" devices, even though they agreed that they are ugly.

Jupiter said...

Let's look on the bright side (Heh). One or more cabals of cynical, parasitic bastards are getting rich(er) off this idiotic Californification. What's not to like?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

You are correct and California is an extreme example as I detail below. There’s so much solar feeding the grid at peak times the state sells power to other states at a loss.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

My west coast tale below is mostly about middle class families suckered into a bad deal by the state and panel providers, neither of which stood behind their side of the deal.

Dave Begley said...

MJB Wolf: The Left never mentions negative pricing.

reader said...

California pushed this on the middle class with okish credit. The scheme California pushed was 1. A homeowner was supposed to take out a loan for solar 2. Homeowner was supposed to pay for the loan using the savings from his electric bill 3. In about 5 years the loan was supposed to be paid off and the homeowner gets to enjoy the future savings.

Then California decides to promote electric cars (I think you still get rebates for their purchase? I could be wrong) that are dirty to make, dirty to dispose of, combust occasionally, and are almost impossible to extinguish when they catch on fire.

This has also created a problem with road maintenance. Electric vehicles don’t pay gas tax (a point that California used to entice ev buyers -kinda like the solar loan enticement) which funds road maintenance. California roads are awful now cuz not enough money.

California creates many of its own problems.

Democratic Paychecks for Perks/ Dems for Demolition of Democracy/ fake-cares 4-U said...

One Party State CA - getting it good and hard. The Wealthy Getty-class do NOT care. They got theirs.

The Drill SGT said...

and retail solar makes the grid significantly more unstable

Gregory said...

I'm a lifetime green energy skeptic, and I yield to no one in my disdain for any technology where government is picking the winners and losers. But Elon is on a track to solve this problem in a bigly way. Tesla is rapidly iterating on their own solar panels embedded within roof tiles, and they will in a few years achieve 10x efficiency vs current solar panels. The Tesla solar panels will then feed energy into your Tesla Powerwall, which is refrigerator-sized battery in your garage. The Powerwall will have 10x storage capacity vs current generation Tesla batteries. When those two technology streams (solar panels + Powerwall) mature, your roof will provide 100% of your electricity needs (rain or shine), including your Tesla EV, and still have excess electricity to feed back to the grid. Here is the analogy to follow: Current solar panel tech = NASA, Tesla solar/battery tech = SpaceX.

Mason G said...

"If the core of the problem is..."

The core of the problem is that solar (and wind) is not reliable 24/7/365. A backup source is needed that *is* reliable for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing making it necessary to maintain two power generation systems, with the one progressives insist on depending on not being dependable.

Candide said...

In defense of the purported "rich" solar panel owners, they did not not just glom onto the grid and started sucking profits from it. They made significant investments into purchase and installation of solar panels. And when Energy companies increase the rates to upkeep the grid, these rate increases affect all the grid users; thus even if you still profit by selling energy into the grid, your return on investment is reduced. Also, those "poor" users that continue to buy power from the grid often work either in power grid service or solar panel installation or in some other related capacity.

In short, Economics is complicated...

Another old lawyer said...

Do Powerwalls use the same battery type that can't be easily extinguished if they start to burn? Are insurance companies taking their presence into account in premiums yet?

Mason G said...

"Tesla is rapidly iterating on their own solar panels embedded within roof tiles, and they will in a few years achieve 10x efficiency vs current solar panels."

I've also heard cold fusion is about ten years off. I don't have anything against Elon's attempt, but perhaps it would be best to wait until the tech is available and proven functional before making plans based on its availability.

"The Tesla solar panels will then feed energy into your Tesla Powerwall, which is refrigerator-sized battery in your garage. The Powerwall will have 10x storage capacity vs current generation Tesla batteries."

Aside from the fact that not everybody has a garage, there will surely be complications once everybody starts storing large amounts of energy (with that storage system maintained in various states of repair depending on the individual homeowner) in their homes.

Hassayamper said...

You can't be a leftist without open contempt for the Laws of Physics, not to mention the Law of Unintended Consequences, the Law of Diminishing Returns, statistical significance, and cost-vs.-benefit analysis. It is the ideology of the selfish child and spoiled teenager and pampered, squandering trophy wife.

TJ said...

To those advocating for rooftop solar, please remember that that is generating electrical power and there is risk associated with that.

Remember, no solutions, only tradeoffs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/01/amazon-took-solar-rooftops-offline-last-year-after-fires-explosions.html

Mason G said...

"They made significant investments into purchase and installation of solar panels."

How many people made a significant investment with no government subsidies or tax breaks?

Bryant said...

I've seen they have been pushing this idea lately and it is a bunch of BS. I live in SoCal and I have solar panels. The only reason we got them was because SoCal Edison kept raising our rates to the point where it could be up to $1k/month during the summer. Switching to solar means we are only paying for the cost of the panels which is not only cheaper but also is the same price every month. SoCal also has tons of programs for the "poorer customers" so that they don't have to pay as much or anything in some cases. I think the only reason you're hearing about this is because they are losing a ton of money on all the giant solar farms they built because those are what compete directly with home solar.

TJ said...

And batteries have their own risks that are still being worked out even by utilities:

https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2024/09/06/escondido-lithium-battery-fire-continues-to-burn-as-county-mulls-over-moratorium

TJ said...

And, here in the state of Wisconsin...

https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/021624evsticker.aspx

Leland said...

Imagine if Democrats did hold an open convention and Newsom became the candidate.

Ampersand said...

Rich people in Los Angeles have highly subsidized solar installations with huge batteries that give them a cushion of 3 days if the grid goes down. The whole scheme is a system to tax the middle class to give money and comfort to the rich. Peak progressivism. Harris voters applaud.

n.n said...

It's a niche solution in a basket of solutions to address diverse issues. All of which increase your environmental footprint and thereby your anthropogenic climate change forcing. The problem is that diverse distortions by special, peculiar, liberal, and corporate interests undermine proper assessment of fitness.

Mr. Sheufelt said...

As someone who owns a condo with solar panels in Southern California, that “might get $.20 per kWh should read” get $.08 per kWh, while paying a retail rate of $.40 for electricity used. We send, depending on time of year 300-500 kWh per month more into the grid than we use, and pay every month. (Essentially for storage?) If batteries continue to improve, at some point we’ll just drop off the grid.
And if the utilities are so solar flooded, why did ours build a large solar farm a couple of miles away a few years ago?

n.n said...

The drivers are affordable, renewable, and green, but the converters have progressive costs in a subsidized climate.

Yancey Ward said...

Exactly.

Lazarus said...

I thought it would be a good idea to turn the bankrupt malls into solar farms, but if you leave the building standing, you still have to pay taxes on it and find tenants (which can be hard nowadays) and if you tear the building down you've just got another ugly solar array. But yes, we shouldn't be wasting our farmland, forests, and open spaces on solar and wind generation.

Yancey Ward said...

+1.

Yancey Ward said...

I am in the process of having a new home built and will look into the possibility of adding home solar. I don't know that I want the panels on the roof and I don't yet know about insuring them properly (this is in an area where tornados and hail are fairly common over 20 year span of time.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Drink more cadmium!
https://www.americanexperiment.org/the-environmental-disaster-of-solar-energy/

Joe Smith said...

If you're getting your solar power from a 'farm' the power is owned by someone else. If you own your own panels you own the energy. Unless, of course, the state/government rigs it so it goes back to the grid.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Seems we had to "conserve" so the invasion could work.

Hey Skipper said...

Actually, less than zero. On sunny and windy days, CA pays neighboring states to take its excess power.

rehajm said...

The result is that richer homeowners who can afford solar get cheap electricity bills — while poorer residents see higher bills to compensate.

Gosh, what a fuck up. It’s almost like liberals are stupid or something…

chuck said...

They just need to figure out a way to tax the power.

Yancey Ward said...

This is exactly what is going to happen eventually. You will be expected to pay a special tax monthly/yearly for the panels themselves.

Hassayamper said...

I've also heard cold fusion is about ten years off.

That's been true for at least 40 years.

I was a physics major at the time of the first round of cold fusion hype of the late 80's. Boy, were we students excited. Thought we were all going to be working lucrative jobs in cold fusion power plants.

Big Mike said...

@Rusty, not only are giant solar farms a waste of real estate, they’re also very vulnerable to hail, tornadoes, and other weather events.