If somebody is off-grid and not using the electric utility, they aren't paying any electric bill, so the variable rate is irrelevant?
That's the problem they're trying to fix with this change. As the wealthy, higher consumption customers move off grid, they system as a whole is loosing the subsidies for the poor. Even if you have solar, they power company still have to maintain transmission lines to your house and to the houses of poor people, which was being subsidized by they rich's usage.
So they are trying to stem the tide of the rich leaving by making them continue to bear the cost of subsidizing the poor.
Instead of playing games with those on solar, they should just straight up call it what it is so it is more explicit.
Re:A battle over solar power in Nevada
by crdoconnor on Monday February 08, 2016 @12:50PM
(#11059604)
>So they are trying to stem the tide of the rich leaving by making them continue to bear the cost of subsidizing the poor.
No, they're trying to prevent competition. They run power plants too, and they'd rather you bought electricity from them rather than sold it to them.
That's why none of the power companies are advocating just removing the implicit environmental subsidy and allowing power to be sold back to them at wholesale rate.
They just want solar panels gone, period.
Re:A battle over solar power in Nevada
by prostoalex on Monday February 08, 2016 @02:56PM
(#11060468)
How would this work in practice? Let's say I have a piece of land with a shed / cabin / old RV on it that's currently not using electricity, so there's no ongoing relationship with the utility company. If I were to place a solar panel on top of (or a diesel generator, or some kind of car battery hookup), there's a sudden requirement to start sending monthly checks to some entity?
Which is amusing, because you already pay the tax in the form of variable rate usage pricing that is higher than it needs to be. This is the problem with making hidden subsidies explicit -- people suddenly don't like the subsidy anymore.