All electricity generation throughout the US is subsidized in various ways already - eg low interest loans for new generation capacity, programs for low income earners, not (or not effectively) charging for carbon and methane emissions, low fuel taxes on sources used for electricity generation. The "subsidies" you list help make a desirable energy source compete on a more level playing field - matching benefits that competing energy sources already receive.
My understanding is that when utilities buy energy from solar farms, they do so based on the demand and available supply, meaning that solar farms get paid more or less depending on these factors. But with net metering for residential solar installations, utilities are buying independent of supply/demand, which gives the residents a subsidy even vis-a-vis other solar producers.
I understand that all kinds of energy production methods are subsidized, but if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
Most US solar farms have a power purchase agreement that’s independent of real time market prices. Solar farms agree because being paid 2c/kWh or whatever for the first X years guarantees they can repay all loans. Utilities agree because it’s guaranteed to save them money.
Those power purchase agreements then makes it really easy to get loans.
There are all kinds of complications - commercial solar isn't dispatchable so it does tend to get lower rates than most other sources. In my jurisdiction residential (net metering) customers are only allowed to install a certain numbers of panels - corresponding with household energy consumption and assumed production levels (i.e. your monthly bill will never be negative - at lowest you'll be paying distribution charges and 0 for consumption). With low levels of residential solar installation, locally installed panels can help balance the grid as it is consumed on distribution lines and doesnt need transmission lines (conversely, high levels can unbalance the grid).
> if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
> Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
I wasn't suggesting this. The phased rollback of net metering in California (the state mentioned in my original parent comment as "attacking" solar installation) means that solar owners will still get paid, just not as much as before. I'm sorry that you live somewhere that this middle option isn't available — the two extremes are indeed less fair!
Thank you for this clarification - I thought the discussion about changes to net metering was general, not California specific. Reading [1] about the changes to net metering in California, it seems reasonable, especially as it has high solar penetration. Hopefully it will (like many things) lead the way so that load shifting becomes simpler/more economical throughout North America.
I have heard of income-based billing, but that will apply regardless of whether you own solar panels. Also, some legislators are trying to repeal it before it goes into effect. [1-2]
