Solar advocates say industry layoffs due to California’s rule changes

John Ramos reports on layoffs at a Fremont solar equipment company.

[@danielcruz4161]

We don’t want credit we just wanna stop paying for something we already paid for

[@travmanbrett5338]

In other words it is not cost effective to put solar panels on your home unless you have a taxpayer paid subsidy.

[@onekeykey]

It’s not a subsidy. It’s the rate at which the utilities pay you for the energy You generate. Imagine if the government said you could only sell gasoline at your gas station for $.40 instead of four dollars.

[@MaxPower-11]

@@onekeykeyGovernment set the old rate *and* the new rate so under both scenarios government “said” what the amount was. If the old rate was uneconomical to the grid then solar producers might not have been subsidized by government, but they were subsidized by non-solar electric customers.

[@johnanderson8046]

That IS, in effect, a subsidy. If the government is going to mandate a high reimbursement rate, then that cost will be reflected in the utilities' rates for everyone. "There ain't no free lunch." @@onekeykey

[@double_joseph327]

No it’s more like greedy utility companies trying to take more money from the homeowner.

[@MaxPower-11]

@@double_joseph327 you don't know what you're talking about. Electic utility companies' rates are set by the government due to them being a regulated monopoly. They can't charge whatever willy-nilly rate they want to.

[@ericmartin5720]

The CPUC is appointed by the Governor. The governor took a bunch of campaign money from PG&E. Cause meet effect.

[@SupraHornets]

Yes, and what climate change?

[@donleavell]

It is a real shame that California has no governor.

[@DJ-Illuminate]

Exactly. Or I would say a Governor with no vision. and beholden to the entrenched power company. He could have partnered with Tesla in order to come up with a decentralization plan for power using power storage and Tesla's power distribution software. He could have incentivized the decentralization in generating power and provide each home owner with incentives to add solar and create a decentralized grid. But no, instead the power company lies to lower cost incentives to the future of power, solar panel owners tied to the grid. Plus they are losing potential revenue by not becoming the "brains" behind distribution of power using software like Tesla has for power monitoring and distribution. But hey, look at Biden pandering to Chevy and Ford and their EVs. Same thing. The media lies about Tesla all of the time because Tesla doesn't advertise and doesn't have a union that pays off the government. Id the media doesn't get their advertising money they either ignore you or spread FUD about "recalls" and such. Without a real leader we are screwed during this transition. In the meantime the 1% are trying to come up with fusion power in order to keep power centralized. But het they buried Nick Tesla's technology because Morgan couldn't make money on the free distribution of power through the air.

[@devengudinas1649]

It’s a bigger shame that this country doesn’t have a president either

[@washboards]

We do. His name is Satan.

[@washboards]

@@devengudinas1649We do, his name is Obama.

[@TrendyStone]

@@washboards Did you just come out of a long comma?

[@leukybear]

Self-serving Gavin, CPUC, and PG&E are corrupt and need to be held accountable for not serving the public interest

[@alphern]

They're all crooks.. including the solar companies

[@ronblack7870]

this rule change is correct. power companies should never pay more than the wholesale rate for power

[@markmeridian3360]

The reason the net metering rate was reduced is that solar doesn't provide power when it's needed. Look up "Solar Duck Curve". Peak electricity demand is in the early evening when solar produces little (or nothing in the winter). Solar provides nothing at night, and very little in the winter, early morning, or late evening. Solar power is NOT worth what the utilities were paying for it as they must continue to support reliable, dispatchable power generation.

[@johnarnold893]

So who is going to pay for the grid maintenance and power plants when the weather is cloudy and rainy.

[@FrankGallagherr]

California will never listen Newsom and democrats destroyed California

[@beyondfossil]

The biggest problem is the PG&E and their peers huge campaign donations to the governor. The governor is just paying them back.

[@rboz4637]

$227,000 is huge? Over several years?

[@arkerstater8856]

@@rboz4637he is a shut head

[@steveaylor376]

Just wait till they pass a law and regulation forcing solar power system owners to "GIVE" their excess power to the Utils/Grid and then they get to re-sell it to customers for excess profits. Its on the way. Uncle Gavie says thanks for the Gumball Mickey ...

[@SupraHornets]

It's worse than that. The utilities don't want the excess electricity, even if free. They want to build their own solar system and charge you for installation, generation, and transmission. The more they do, the more money they make. That's why they want to shutdown private solar completely. When they don't manage their system and there is wildfire, you pay more. When they are fined for the wildfires, you pay more. When they bury lines, you pay more. Every little thing they do results in you pay more.

[@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403]

For now, there's one solution to this problem, and that's to install a large enough battery array so that when your system is generating excess power during the day, you can store it, then use it at night, so you're not sending power back, but instead using it. Just make sure you get LFP batteries, that can handle a ton of charge/discharge cycles without the batteries dying.

[@SupraHornets]

That won't work. If you don't want to send power back, you must size your system based on summer generation and usage. In the non-summer months, you will not generate enough electricity, so you will have to buy from the utilities. You will either have to sell excess electricity for next to nothing or buy expensive electricity. You cannot win.

[@h2s142]

Its a scam always was

[@SkepticalZack]

I looked into doing that, adding into the in my anticipated increase in consumption of if I switch to electric cars. I only need 400k to install everything

[@davidlloyd8135]

You are in luck then 2024 is the beginning of the years of large battery installation. Lots of rich companies getting tax money for commercial batteries

[@kacornish1]

@@SupraHornets not true… It can work. Check your math.

[@JustaGuy_Gaming]

Not a surprise, stuff like this been happening for years in places that adopted Solar early on. Hawaii I believe was on the first to have issues with selling power back to the grid after nearly every home in the area had solar panels. Simply put no one needed it during the day.

[@WWPlaysHoldem]

Solar demand has plummeted due to installers over charging and killing demand.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Don't forget that they don't train their employees and often do rotten substandard work. I quit the business because I was competing up against a bunch of schmucks and shysters.

[@ajantics]

Severin is crazy! PG&E keeps raising rates, the state takes away incentives for green energy, yet makes and demands we all go EV! California is a lost cause.

[@venussavage]

Seriously, this used to be a great state when UC was low cost and we weren't swamped by stupid overregulation that doesn't actually help the citizenry one bit.

[@ronblack7870]

you think their costs are going down or something? look at what inflation has done and way more for energy sources.they need to pay to generate.

[@FrankGallagherr]

California will never listen Newsom and democrats destroyed California

[@JustaGuy_Gaming]

Any program that isn't a charity that can't exist without Govt subsidies and support is likely not a good program to begin with. These were commercial products, and like many Green Technologies can't break even without massive Govt support even years down the road. It's no longer a "new tech".

[@DiceMaster740]

Solar, at least at utility scale, easily competes with fossil fuels without subsidies. The case for subsidizing it is that we don't have time to wait for aging power plants to close and be replaced over 50 years, we need them replaced now. If we're only talking about rooftop solar, it is inherently more expensive than utility scale solar (lots of smaller contracts vs. a few big ones; plus utility scale is usually right on the ground), but the advantages of putting solar on rooftops are that a) roofs are basically unused space, whereas utility-scale solar has to take space away from something, and b) rooftop solar empowers individuals to make their own energy, instead of requiring the utility company to provide it for them

[@RandA1220]

PGE throwing Gavin Newsom a party at French Laundry during lockdown was one of their few smart investments

[@musoangelo]

So the question revolves around "fair" compensation for energy that PG&E and other state utility providers have to pay for home owner generated power. If your solar panels are supplying energy to a company that is taking that energy and selling to their other customers at the rate for that time of day, that they aren't having to generate themselves, then it is essentially free energy to them. It's reasonable that they get some compensation for owning and maintaining the infrastructure for distribution but for them to compensate that energy at ten cents on the dollar or maybe a penny on the dollar, that is just wrong. A lot of this discussion doesn't discuss just how much the discrepancy(75% less that it was doesn't tell me what it is.) but if you're giving people penny's on the dollar, that's just wrong.

[@SupraHornets]

Let me give you a simple example. You can adjust the rate based on what you see in your utility bill. Let's assume off-peak rate is 5 cents per kwh for generation and 15 cents for transmission for a total of 20 cents per kwh. Under NEM2, I generate 1 kwh to the grid, and you (as my neighbor) consume that 1 kwh. You pay the utility 20 cents, and I get a credit for 20 cents. The utility generated and transmitted nothing. At night, I use 1 kwh and offset that with the 20-cent credit. This is when the utility generated and transmitted 1 kwh. Under NEM3, you still pay 20 cents, but I only get a credit of 5 cents. At night, I need to pay 15 cents for that 1 kwh. The utility still only generated and transmitted 1 kwh, but it gets paid 35 cents under NEM3 instead of 20 cents under NEM2. Nothing has changed, except the utility's profit.

[@JP-gc5in]

⁠@@SupraHornets your example is correct expect Edison is not charging us in CA 20 cents per kwatt. TOU rates are between 36 cents and 53 cents per kwatt. So we are getting screwed royally and they are making massive profits. And they want another rate increase.

[@troyehnisz9907]

It’s not worth it to invest 100k in to a system and not get a decent credit rate maybe in the future it would be better to have a battery backup system and disconnect completely from the grid

[@marinetechknj]

It is illegal in most places to disconnect from the grid.

[@float_sam]

we need laws that allow us to disconnect from the grid - and keep occupancy permits.

[@notyourtypicalwatchreview2563]

No subsidies, no tax breaks. If you want solar, pay for it.

[@markmeridian3360]

VERY POOR "journalism". The reason the net metering rate was reduced is that solar doesn't provide power when it's needed. Look up "Solar Duck Curve". Peak electricity demand is in the early evening when solar produces little (or nothing in the winter). Solar provides nothing at night, and very little in the winter, early morning, or late evening. Solar power is NOT worth what the utilities were paying for it as they must continue to support reliable, dispatchable power generation.

[@luisarteaga9219]

Thanks to Gavin Newsom and his friends in pge

[@mwatercress]

Sadly, it is very difficult to find a company willing to add a battery system to an existing solar install. Given how unreliable the grid is, maybe some could shift their efforts to that.

[@waynewallace2061]

It's hell when the subsidies are cut, how will solar survive?

[@ericinla65]

FACE - Solar installs on homes have dropped by 85%.

[@rogerpicklum1871]

Haas School of Business gets millions from the Investor Owned Utilities, and shows its bought-ness.

[@imzjustplayin]

The more hostile the utility companies get, the more likely people will just disconnect from the grid entirely. It's a misnomer to say that solar customers are forcing others to pay for the grid since it's only reducing their consumption from the grid and sometimes even giving excess to the grid.

[@timg2973]

unfortunately that is illegal.

[@briankenison7995]

​@@timg2973no it's not

[@mintheman7]

@@timg2973 why is it illegal? There are already many off-grid self-generation systems in rural areas. As the greedy utilities continue to hike prices, and battery cost continue to drop, it is only natural for more people to become self-sufficient.

[@timg2973]

@@mintheman7 if i remember correctly Ca has a law where residential homes need to have interconnection pathway. so you still need to pay a utility company for a connection.

[@shaggydawg5419]

@@timg2973 we all must pay the mafia to live in CA.

[@richdobbs6595]

It is really irresponsible that the utility commission didn't phase in the rule, to avoid the boom - bust in the solar installers. But the old rule was irresponsible, since it shifted burden from well-off single family to poorer folks who lived in apartments or couldn't afford to install solar panels.

[@jesseimus976]

This is much more fair to the rate payers.

[@meatpopsicle1567]

California keeps shooting itself in the foot.

[@fixedit8689]

More like in the testicles

[@poetmaggie1]

Having a power source independent of the grid is a good idea if it includes storage and freedom from some of the excessive taxes.

[@tikimandude112]

CA had been subsidizing solar for far too long. I'm glad this is happening

[@SupraHornets]

CA is not subsidizing solar. This is disinformation that the utilities invented. You paid nothing when your neighbor installed solar. You consume the excess electricity that his system generates, but you have to pay both generation and transmission costs to the utility, even when the electricity came from next door. Homeowners have stopped installing solar, but utilities will have to install solar to meet the CA mandate of 100% renewable energy by 2045. Now, you have to pay for that solar installation, but you didn't have to pay for your neighbor's solar. Don't ever believe that the utilities are interested in anything other than profit.

[@promx96]

You are so misinformed there was no subsidies for solar. It’s straight robbery from average working citizens trying to benefit from free electricity stop spewing lies

[@realnapster1522]

@@SupraHornetsbut won’t large solar installations benefit from economies of scale? I don’t think it makes sense to force everyone to install solar on their roofs. It’s much better to have centralized generation stations.

[@SupraHornets]

@@realnapster1522 No one is being forced to install rooftop solar. No one should be forced not to install solar based on punishing rules. Centralized solar installation is cheaper on a per kW basis, but you have to pay for it. You don't pay a penny for my rooftop solar. Centralized solar requires transmission of electricity out of rural or desert areas. Again, you have to pay for it. Finally, centralized solar has negative impact on the environment. After you factor in all the costs, centralized solar is much more costly. And costly to you. Rooftop solar has no transmission cost and environmental impact. And best of all, it costs you nothing. The utility companies want you to believe that you are getting ripped off by rooftop solar owners. The truth is exactly the opposite. Has there ever been a business that is more interest in your financial well being over its profit?

[@computron5824]

@@SupraHornets If you don't think that people payed for your connection, then why do you think they're cutting the generous rates? The utlities were forced to pay out retail prices for the generated solar electricity when they could've bid cheaper for the power from elsewhere. Did you pay for your own solar conversion and connection to the grid?

[@kyleaustin2728]

0:57 That handsome young man is doing great work!

[@dfirth224]

The state changed the rules because they want people to install batteries. In the summer the solar output goes way down after 5:00 pm. But peak use lasts until 9:00 pm. Therefore they want more batteries installed. They should give rebates on batteries.

[@addanametocontinue]

My impression is the subsidies states have been giving to solar companies has only gone directly into the pockets of the business owners, while they all quote you artificially inflated material and labor fees. Even today, with rebates available, I think solar panels are expensive as hell.

[@SupraHornets]

The state is not providing any subsidy. The tax credit for solar installation is from the federal government.

[@rondean2733]

It goes to the corrupt positions that voted for the subsidies!

[@venussavage]

Solar energy isn't a jobs program. And folks w/o solar should not be subsidizing the rich folks who can afford it. Wealthy people can afford to pay their own way. If they don't want to be environmentally friendly, we shouldn't pay them to change their mind,

[@bigdougscommentary5719]

How are the poor people subsidizing the rich? Be specific. Bet you can't.

[@danstenis660]

The costs for solar power is still too high for professional installation.

[@truthseeker4280]

Voters can demand changes otherwise, vote out whom doesn't comply with the voter demands. It has to be what is best for everyone including the environment.

[@mikeo8890]

They should lower the prices, it's hard to commit to a big expense for senior citizens.

[@Electronzap]

Never want to grow a company too fast. Government makes changes quicker than you can pay off your debt.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Meanwhile, I put in my own system and took the 30% tax credit and my return on investment is less than five years.

[@dancemaniac3868]

75% is a lot.

[@ronblack7870]

shows you how much out of line it was. homeowners were making a profit at the expense of non solar users.

[@parkerholden7140]

Just remove your meter and go 100% solar. If you need to fill in for the dark periods get a generator or invest in a bank of batteries or add a wind turbine. The Utility has a legitimate right to charge something for capacity that is seldom used.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Well I specialize in off grid power systems (25 years) and that is a ridiculously dumb idea! There are about 100 reasons why that does not work.

[@dan-imal9985]

Leave it to the professor to theorize the NEM2 won’t affect the industry despite proof in the pudding

[@nathangardner772]

You don’t need a phd in Astro physics to install this stuff either. But get a battery system and don’t expect money back. But you will spend less to pge. You could bring your pge bill to like $1.00 per month, power everything and charge your car.

[@ronblack7870]

yes exactly

[@SupraHornets]

No, not $1.00 per month. There is a minimum of $10.00 charge per month to subsidize low-income folks. Also, if you size your system based on summer generation, it won't generate enough during the other seasons. If you size your system based on winter generation, it would be prohibitively expensive to install enough batteries to last you through a week-long storm. You don't need to Ph.D. in Astro Physics to know that utilities donate to politicians to help utilities make obscene amount of profit at rate payers' expense.

[@chriswomack922]

No. Page charges us a connection fee to the grid of $12/ month. That fee was $9 2 years ago. So they charge is $144 per year while we generate more electricity than we use. Still cheaper than without solar but still insulting nonetheless.

[@gregh7457]

This makes houses with the old net metering agreements worth more than

[@veteranveteran9915]

Don't forget to mention part where the solar sales companies are sometimes tripling the price so that they make 10 to $20,000 in commission per house

[@propblast82nd]

The Solar Energy system only works if you have completely disconnected from the grid

[@danielcarroll3358]

I am connected to the grid and don't have a battery under NEM 2.0. I produced more power than I used and received a check for $240 for 2022 after paying about $40 on by bills during the year. Under NEM 3.0 I would have to have a battery to do the same. Carbon trading credits that all utility customers get almost paid for my connection charges in 2022. In 2023 I produced about 2,400 excess kWh. I expect a check in April of about $200. I should add that during 2022 I also used about 5 units of natural gas that was included in the bills.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Yes, and then run your generator to charge batteries during cloudy weather and see how that goes for you. It is a completely dumb idea and I have seen people try it over the last couple of decades and no one is successful with that idea.

[@bohdanburban5069]

An industry based on solving a non-existent problem. Tricky.

[@Anthony-dj4nd]

Residential Solar never made much sense 😅

[@sblijheid]

Government bait and switch. If you cannot run solar at an affordable cost, that is, on par with energy companies or a lower rate, without subsidies, then don't do it.

[@frankcoffey]

The rule is never let the little guy get ahead. Shameful this applies to the state that should be leading. It's even worse in Florida, someone leaned on the insurance companies and got them to cancel anyone with solar panels. In Texas the registration for my cars when up $200 each because we switched to EVs. You can always tell when some "spokesman" knows what he is saying is BS when he is trying to hold back a smile the entire time.

[@ronblack7870]

200 extra per year for ev is about right for road tax. ev's do more road damage as well as they are heavier but don't buy gas.

[@frankcoffey]

@@ronblack7870 Considering I’m in Texas and half the vehicles on the road are large trucks and SUVs my cars are in the lower half weight wise.

[@IMRROcom]

@@frankcoffey cry me a river pay your fair share.

[@johnanderson8046]

A higher registration fee for EVs is appropriate because they use the roads just like gas vehicles but are not paying the effective road use tax that gas vehicle owners pay at the gas pump.

[@FrankGallagherr]

California will never listen Newsom and democrats destroyed California

[@pierceaero3005]

Sodium batteries may be a key here. Safer less expensive storage lowers the economic and safety costs of lithium. It would be better economically to keep the energy for later use at a lower rate than accept an even lower rate to sell it. Freedom from monarchal control. Independance of power. Sodium batteries are being introduced now. Perhaps just in time. Also, possible groups where neighbors sell power to neighbors at group rates. Perhaps from centralized batteries.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Talk to all the people that already have sodium batteries from years ago and why they have failed and why the companies who manufactured them have claimed bankruptcy. I worked for an inverter manufacturer and we tested sodium batteries and they still have a long ways to go. They cannot deliver current fast enough to meet the demand of residential inductive loads. so far, sodium batteries continue to be hype in magazines but they have not been proven to be cost-effective in the real world.

[@pierceaero3005]

@user-ke9yk5qp3u Your "years ago" language is deceptive. Slippery bias. Current tech looks better. Besides, I said maybe. I just see all the fires.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

@@pierceaero3005 well, give it five years and I guarantee you that lithium will still be the front runner and most people won't know the first thing about sodium because it has not come to market.

[@pierceaero3005]

@@user-ke9yk5qp3u Biased.

[@FrankGallagherr]

California will never listen Newsom and democrats destroyed California

[@homeandbackyard9599]

Shouldn't we sponsor a Solar Proposition to counter that?

[@BradKwfc]

Makes you wonder what's going to happen to EVs when the susidies go away?

[@computron5824]

Well in this case the demand plummeted 80%. Not only did they get tax credits, utilities were also forced to pay retail rates for the solar generated electricity (they can buy cheaper elsewhere), and everyone payed for the solar homeowner's connection to the grid because the power needs to be converted. It was really only a win for the select few who could afford to connect during a certain span of time.

[@JogBird]

just install a battery back up and store excess power

[@heyaisdabomb]

This will be the solution once battery prices drop, but for now, your talking about a $20,000+ battery for the average house. Assuming that battery lasts 10 years, that's another $160 a month to the cost. Even if you get 20 year out of it, that's still $80 a month. And that's before interest if you don't have the money upfront.

[@aptpupil]

"just" spend another $10-20k. Lol. Great solution!

[@danielcarroll3358]

@@glennbeattie6172 But Nphase systems _DO_ use batteries.

[@danielcarroll3358]

Until 2030 you can get a 30% tax credit for installing a home battery. The new NEM 3.0 will encourage more of these as it is now important financially to use the power in the home. I am grandfathered under NEM 2.0 but will eventually get a battery. Like many people I am watching the progress of batteries with interest. For a home battery weight is not relevant. What is important is lifetime and capacity per $ spent.

[@mytravls]

Yup

[@dennislyons3095]

By buying the change the CPUC & governor have "shot the solar industry in the foot." Interest & demand have fallen off a cliff. It was not as easy a sell as thought before & now it is a very, very difficult sell. Only the comfortably wealthy in our society have the resources to wait the 10+ years for the NEM 3 systems to "pay off". The alleged economist in this piece is wrong & anyone can see that by what is happening in the greatest solar market in the country. California HAD the ability to meet nearly all of the power need by promoting solar & now we will see the result of this utility driven policy next summer when we will hear even more about ho there is not enough power produced in Calif. With the NEM 2 rates we had a chance to become over 50% solar powered next summer. Now I suspect we will se only minor growth & the utilities will be back trying to get a tax just for owning a solar system. I've had solar for over 20 years & contributed over 18,000KWH of power back to the system over the time over my usage. No "low income" user has been harmed by my overproduction.

[@jameslee5237]

You realize your overproduction means jack S when it doesn’t happen at the right times, like in the middle of a week of rain?

[@SupraHornets]

@@jameslee5237 Not true. In order to achieve 100% renewable energy, we must have utility-scale batteries. They need to be charged during the day. We really don't have enough solar. We need more solar to meet demand during the day AND to charge these batteries.

[@dennislyons3095]

@@jameslee5237 Have you never heard of batteries? Testing reveals that current generation battery chemistry (Li-ion & Fe) can do 4000-6000 full charge to discharge cycle in a lifetime. No overproduction during a week of rain--DUH!!!! It did not rain over the entire state & not continuously during any of the rains in the state. This is a solvable problem, even with current technology. We HAVE the ability to reverse the damage done by out of control industrialization IF we have the will. Without it this planet will become uninhabitable in less than 100 years.

[@dennislyons3095]

@@SupraHornets I agree our installed solar is not adequate right now. We DO have the ability & technology to meet those needs IF we have the WILL to get it done. It's like public service. If only a small percentage does it, it's very difficult to make a dent. If a lot do it, the opportunities are endless. All I see is people too selfish to do anything that doesn't directly benefit themselves.

[@DiceMaster740]

Quotes of "x number of years to pay for itself" are misleading, because you can generally get solar installed with 100% financing. If your loan payment is lower than your electricity bill, the system is paying for itself right away. With net metering at full price, the loan payment was almost always less than the monthly electric bill it replaced; with this change, we will undoubtedly see more cases where it isn't an immediate savings. However, electricity prices tend to go up and not come back down, so a solar system that appears marginally economical or uneconomical today may turn out to be an exceptional investment 5 years down the line

[@User5_]

The state did the same thing with hybrids in the carpool lanes. lol

[@kevinclws]

The utility argument is like saying building a new power plant increases rates. The utility should pay at least as much as the wholesale rate they would pay for electricity from an independent power plant. This "issue" is already fixed that electricity time-of-use rate is cheaper during peak solar hours, which helps everyone else save money running A/C the hottest sunniest time of day. The most expensive electric rate is right after sundown when solar drops just as everyone gets home from work and turns on appliances & HVAC. Because of time-of-use rates, consumers can actually save money with a battery without solar panels, by charging it when cheapest then draining it in the evening most expensive time.

[@user-op7fu2jz6n]

The battery will not qualify for the 30% ITC unless charged by clean renewable energy.

[@kc6nfv746]

You don't want solar panels on top of your House if your roof ever leaks all those solar panels go to be removed so it add to the cost home owners be better off to install a carport with the solar panel on top they have shelter for their car when it rains

[@marcissobadass]

No actually things just changed to PPA’s which are easy and have no upfront costs and don’t require any collateral, or affect your credit. Yeah the power companies suck but you can still save on your energy costs without having to own the equipment. No need to own the equipment just benefit from the power coming off of your own roof. Super simple save or get jacked by the power companies. Solar is thriving because it is greatly needed. Here in orange county California the rates have gone up 97% in five years.

[@mikemiller659]

The PUC rubber stampede PG&E's request for a 20% rate increase.

[@Just..Me..]

Let’s go Gavin!

[@markmiller8903]

Electricity costs are twice what they should be.

[@beebop9808]

DIY! We have no net metering here and I wouldn't put the wear and tear on my equipment for the pennies they offer for the same power they rip the public off with. My cost will come back to me within 5 years at current cost per kwh without increases sure to come before then. 12kw in PV, 90kwh in storage and emergency generation just in case for under $20k. This is America, take charge of your life!

[@kurt6840]

It's all free just like the EV vehicles except that EV vehicles don't pay road use taxes like fossil fuel vehicles pay on each gallon of fuel purchased.

[@Flisi413selfMastery]

Dam and Elliot was just talking about get in solar power

[@ohiojohn4125]

The rate cut to steep. I have the old. If they had done 30% reduction not 75% as you stated the numbers still work. Then after 3 years add another 15% and three years later 15%. To 60% max. Then as electric rates go up and the lock-in goes back to the first 30% yiu get reasonable situation. Do the math. Set approach. Second. I wrote Enphase with a great idea to stimulate demand tied to auto home charging for EV. But no response. There is a new market. I hope they figure that out. As there converter is key. My bestto those laid off.

[@robertrodriguez8167]

Forced compliance, keep raising rates till it matches the cost of solar, smart?

[@kitcarpo4745]

What goes around comes around. Government involvement, what do you expect?

[@ssmitty415]

Well if it gets it across that solar is not the way to go then so be it.

[@steveb796]

The buyback rate should be whatever the utility’s cost to produce electricity is.

[@computron5824]

Utilities don't produce electricity unless they're vertically integrated. They generally bid for electricity, and in this case they were forced to buy electricity from homeowners at retail rates where they could've bought power for much cheaper elsewhere.

[@steveb796]

@@computron5824 that’s what I’m saying. The cost to produce or to buy wholesale is what the consumer should get back on over production.

[@mysteriouse5891]

The company and the workers should work for the good of the state! :P

[@tdadp]

At the end of the day it all about money and taxes .. the more people pay something the money collected in taxes ..

[@davidclark3304]

Subsidies distort the market in significant ways because it can change in an instant with an act of the legislature. Mainly it's the fact that, in this instance, solar panels, are not cost effective and won't be installed without the subsidies. California spends more and more money on programs that merely make the politicians feel good while the largest taxpayers are moving out of the state. There's a relevant expression here--"eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."

[@computron5824]

100%. This isn't the first time when they subsidized new buyers, and then created a cliff.

[@theotheleo6830]

The state has too much solar, and that's part of the reason why our electricity costs have risen. Without a generous subsidy, it's difficult to market solar panels as a worthwhile investment for consumers. Solar companies will have to find a way to reduce costs, such as lobbying to reduce or eliminate tariff taxes on less expensive imported solar panels.

[@SupraHornets]

1) The state is not providing any subsidy. The federal government is providing the tax credit. 2) The state does not have too much solar. When the sun is shining brightly, there is enough solar capacity to meet electricity needs. But the sun doesn't always shine brightly, and we still need electricity at night. In order to meet the CA mandate of 100% renewable energy by 2045, we must install utility-scale batteries. These batteries need to be charged during the day. That's why we need even more solar.

[@theotheleo6830]

@@SupraHornets Per the video, other electric customers subsidize the extra cost of purchasing solar energy.

[@RashmiSaid]

​@@SupraHornetsYou are correct. Also, PG&E is trying to recoup money from its wildfire lawsuit settlements to victims of their negligence.... $13.5 billion

[@davidlloyd8135]

They need to offer more home incentives and continue old levels of reimbursement until 2031. We need to reach 2030 levels. Billions given to large companies and people income levels accepted need to be raised to $350k

[@computron5824]

Why should they be paying retail rates for the generated solar electricity, handle the connection to the grid, and then top it off with tax credit after tax credit only for the benefit of ONE home owner?

[@savagecub]

California…….love the climate, love the geography…….can’t stand the politics, traffic and real estate costs ! Get the f*ck outta there !

[@georgemaximus694]

This is what happens when you don’t have a free market economy and a centralized government controlled economy. = failure after failure. One simple solution. Just allow free market capitalism to come back and watch the magic happens.

[@mintheman7]

PG&E is the combination of the worst of both systems: capitalist greed and government mandated monopoly inefficiency.

[@dannyn.3539]

@@mintheman7that’s why it need to be open markets capitalism. Capitalism greed only if you provide a product and service people want to buy.

[@ronblack7870]

sure private power companies should just decide to whom they sell electricity. if you are in the mountains no electricity for you.

[@dannyn.3539]

@@ronblack7870 isn’t that already the case? Same with water and sewer. ?? You dont have to be in the mountain. You can be in the middle of the city. If you dont pay your bills. They cut your power off and say, no selling to you anymore.

[@YoutubeTube-kp7py]

Yeah listen to the professor from Beserkly 🤦‍♂️.

[@christhompson6010]

Lol...just talk to the guys outside one of my neighbors houses installing a system talking about how good things are and now they're getting laid off ?

[@joeyhazlett]

This video is about the company making the equipment that gets installed. It's not the ones who are installing in your neighborhood that are getting laid off. It's most likely the first step to Enphase moving out of California to cut their labor costs.

[@christhompson6010]

@@joeyhazlett the guys I spoke to spent 20 minutes talking to me about how Enphase is the only equipment they install. If they move out it will affect them in one way or the other. it's a tough market to be in with the economy the way it is. I was in it for 6 years back in 2014. with solarcity and Tesla during the big Solar Roof movement. worked with a lot of the application engineers for R&D who were at the forefront of the technology.

[@user-ke9yk5qp3u]

Not necessarily. I know all kinds of solar contractors who are doing just fine. A lot of this is just hype. The solar industry is not going anywhere.

[@christhompson6010]

@@user-ke9yk5qp3u the tech is not advanced enough to have a meaningful financial impact on society. whether it stays or doesn't depends on competing alternate forms of energy . production and storage capacity at the consumer level is not there yet maybe in the future. wind and solar still have a long way to go

[@1SAM007]

Lower grid return rebates ………Never saw that coming…….. a typical bait and switch…….ha!

[@n124ac9]

I miss 2022 KPIX

[@JohnMatthew1]

ROFL, another nail for CA

[@drealist]

Yup, EVs are becoming more expensive to charge than ICEs... way to go California

[@promx96]

Gavin Newson‘s corruption is so disgusting

[@sentienthamster]

So what you're saying is people that buy solar aren't doing it for the environment or even for themselves, only to make a profit? This is my shocked face. Same as when the federal tax credits for electric vehicles were going to expire, and the massive contingent of people able to afford $100K cars threatened to stop buying them?

[@computron5824]

Yes, in the current system they were not only getting tax credits for the installation, they were also getting paid A LOT for generation when utilities could've purchased that power elsewhere for cheaper.

[@solomongreatness6391]

power is a commodity that is controlled by the state.

[@FunHaverSD]

I am definitely not putting in solar until a new program comes into place, it will happen.

[@timg2973]

if you do go will batteries do not sell back to the grid. thats the only way to go here.

[@Lion_McLionhead]

Renters & homeless just aren't putting out enough to support solar panel subsidies for home owners. We need to whip the lower class into shape.

[@davidgamajr8814]

They want the extra power for free everyone should get get batterys and disconnect from the grid. And any extra power that we produce go up in the air . So they don't get any free electric power. Then pg&e will customers and go broke.

[@thomasklein4265]

Mortgage companies have stipulations that require a home be connected to the grid to have a mortgage, so unless you are paying cash, that;s not an option

[@scottjohnson7780]

So solar is the greatest thing since The Fab Four as long as someone that can't afford to have it installed is paying four it?

[@dski8097]

Solar is not essential to any energy strategy. It's a nice to have, that's it.

[@kennoble9581]

No solar won't go away for those that already have it. The professor is wrong. For my family, who were looking at solar, the value is gone. So much for being green.

[@spacini]

The professor is just another leftist shill, spouting the green fantasy nonsense.

[@meatpopsicle1567]

Not green at all. The minerals to make your "green" energy must be mined. Have you ever seen an open pit mine?

[@Paul-kd3ui]

​@@meatpopsicle1567...18 wheel big rig diesel burning trucks hauling the litium ore. Green fraud

[@rodrod383]

but he is at berkeley he has to be right!

[@joeyhazlett]

The value is in not paying someone else to provide your household's energy, not in the utility paying you to provide energy for them. Just go with an off grid, battery backed system and tell the utility to go pound sand, if you really are interested in solar.

[@billcarr6289]

Why does solar need government hand outs? I have total solar at my camp i asked for zero help from the government. Yes its expensive and not very reliable but saving the world will be expensive

[@pcatful]

Now get batteries.

[@Ukepa]

solar panels don't produce what they advertise and have to be taken off and on for a new roof. the only way to save on power is to move out of california!

[@Avocado740]

Why should people who haven't yet installed solar foot the bill for paying the credits to those people who have? They should just be content with getting free energy from the sun.

[@yetifive-oh2242]

PG&E owns the CPUC, who unanimously voted in favor of the hike, and The Gavin who is a shareholder. But that's not what's important. Let's talk about those Muppet Sleeves...

[@lHurtYourFeeIings]

Supply and Demand. Everyone has UNLIMITED sun light to sell then it is worthless. LMAO.

[@davidlloyd8135]

Lets start with ending oil tax breaks

[@ani-fail]

If ratepayers dont subsidize wealthy homeowners new solar installs how will we ever decarbonize the grid? :(((((

[@JP-gc5in]

This argument about subsidizing the wealthy homeowners is total BS. I was forced to borrow from my 401k to install solar because my monthly electric bill was between $600 and $900 per month. So having to borrow from my 401k to get rid of killer monthly electric utilities payments doesn’t make me a wealthy homeowner.

[@computron5824]

nuclear

[@GreggK6EGG]

This state is so sideways...

[@brucefrykman8295]

This is so easy; that which cannot work will not work. Like a perpetual motion machine all such nonsense must inevitably spin down and stop. Imagine operating a business employing two different union shops on the same assembly line; One union provides employing workers who show up reliably to do the required work to keep the line running. The other union supplies workers who more often than not don't even show up and even when they do, they do not work fast enough to keep the line moving. Their union is called "the solar boys" and their union bosses paid off the corrupt state kleptocracy to demand the business pay these boys the same wages as "the reliable boys" union. Further, as the business begins to fail, the corrupt state kleptocracy accepts more bribes to from the solar boys union to demand more of their solar boys on the assembly line with each passing year. Finally the business fails and the tax revenues keeping the corrupt state kleptocracy alive are all gone. Trump 2024 - Let's Make Americans Great Again.