Most states are doing the exact opposite and trying to roll back rooftop solar by eliminating net metering, meaning you get effectively no return on any power you generate above your own consumption, which completely nukes the economics for most people. There are fairly large fixed installation costs and if you’re going to do it you’d want to cover 120% of your needs so that you are always positive, and sell a little back - but they make sure that can’t happen, so everyone has to undersize their installations which makes the economics even more unfavorable.

They say “they have to maintain the generating and transmission capacity anyway” but there is a mismatch here - they are happy to charge another customer full-price for it, despite the fact that customer will be local and thus they don’t need the transmission capacity during peak when solar is putting out it’s max and everyone is blasting the AC. Also actually they are usually charging the other customer a premium for “green energy”.

Entrenched monopolist uses market and state power to keep competitors out, even if it means reduced quality of service.

Even if, at a federal level, you straight up gave the things away, places like Texas would outright ban them or require contractual terms that made them effectively impossible to install, like different billing rates (large charges for any returned capacity, rather than credit) or just forbidding them in any home that is publicly interconnected (which is usually a requirement for having a mortgage). They straight-up will not allow rooftop solar to succeed under any circumstance, conservatives are politically and emotionally invested in making sure it fails, just like they blamed renewables when the gas power plants froze last year. And they are too entrenched with gerrymandering to ever get out of office, no matter what they do. It is a de-facto one-party state despite democrats consistently returning near 50% in elections.

Samsung moving there is going to be a problem for them, all these disruptions are terrible, not just the outright brownouts but also fabs are extremely sensitive to power quality, small surges or drops will screw up wafers and reduce output quality too. But none of this is a surprise, if you move a business to Texas, and you are some type of commercial or industrial operation that depends on electricity, you really get what you deserve.

I feel bad for the people though.

The hate that conservatives have for solar amazes me. Energy independence should be celebrated by those who believe in "self sufficiency", right?

I can only assume that they hate it only because those dirty hippies love it.

Well said, here in the south we can politicize anything. Trying to save money should override everything for the homeowner. When Texas and other states are finally forced to upgrade their grid, can you imagine who's going to pay for all that? That's right, the consumer. We should all start now finding a why to offset these cost, ASAP.

I don't understand their disdain, but my folks dislike it. One thing that is apparent is the marketing material from co-you-never-heard-of using government subsidies to do rooftop installs makes the whole industry of home solar installs feel scammy.

Government subsidies are everywhere, but some are more indirect (e.g., environmental remediation after companies doing resource extraction take their profits and close up shop leaving a mess behind).

Solar subsidies have paid off in helping build demand and now solar gear is really cheap and the cost is split on the labor to install it (creating local jobs).

I'm going to guess that your folks consume Fox Entertainment programming? They are rather consistent in denigrating renewable energy: https://www.businessinsider.com/fact-check-fox-personalities...

This topic has unfortunately been highly politicized and I can only assume it's because the petro ruling class does not want to let go of their monetary pipeline and buys influence in the political realm to maintain it.

I own a solar array. I heard an argument against solar owners participating in net metering that was interesting. The argument is: net metering doesn't account for the cost of transmission and maintenance of the energy credit that is consumed.

Basically, we mooch off the grid. We're supposedly freeloaders, using the grid as our giant battery - only when we need it, and we're not paying to maintain the grid*.

This argument was new to me. The state I live in doesn't credit me 1:1 per kWh, per se.

Each kWh of power I pay for has 3 components; when added together, consumers pay a rate per kWh anywhere from 7-15cents. Each credit of power I produce can only offset 2 of the 3 components (like 95% of the cost)

Tldr - it sounds like some utility providers do not require solar owners to pay for transmission costs, or break their bill up in such a way that the credit can only be applied toward the power, but not the transmission.

Net metering sounds like a topic that needs to be defined. Some states definition of net metering could be very advantageous to solar owners, while other states have reasonable net metering rules that still incentivize residential solar.

My understanding is that net metering makes life more difficult for the utilities but it seems like the right direction to go to make it more robust.