The companies are regulated. Roughly speaking what happens is that the regulator guarantees the company a 5% return on investment. Each year the regulator sets the electric rates in order for that return to happen.
Consequently it is the company interest to build as much stuff as possible (aka "investments"). People making their own "investments" like panels on their roofs detract from that.
The people most wanting to do solar are those who pay the most for electricity. Once they have solar they reduce the amount of revenue available, which means that 5% return has to come out of the remaining customers, which would need to push their rates up. That is why the regulators even entertain the bans.
Grid tying is more complicated. There are two components to electrical supply - the wiring and maintenance to the property (infrastructure), and then the electricity that is actually supplied. Electrical bills charge very little for the former and almost all for the latter. Say for example the infrastructure really costs $10 per month and the electricity costs $40. You get a $50 bill but it says $3 is for infrastructure and $47 is for electricity. If you use solar for all electricity your bill will now be for $3, but the infrastructure cost is really $10. That really means other customers are now paying for your infrastructure costs. This is where minimum monthly charge proposals come from. In our example $10 per month would be appropriate. Changing the underlying pricing to be more realistic will hit the poorest the most since their effective infrastructure costs will go up.
Some places are banning putting solar back into the grid because there is no use for the electricity at the time it is put back in.
In Las Vegas, most of the big casino companies are off or getting off NV Energy's grid. They've built their own solar farms and solar furnaces, or are contracting with other companies that have them.
You mention the set percentage of return. Having a massive customer like Caesar's jump ship hurts NV Energy enough that the hotels have to pay huge "exit fees," and if they don't NV Energy threatens to pass the loss on to the customers.
In the case of MGM, it had to pay $87 million to go solar[1]. Otherwise, NV Energy would have charged each of its residential customers $200 to make up the difference.
>Some places are banning putting solar back into the grid because there is no use for the electricity at the time it is put back in.
May be in the northern countries. Cue rolling midday blackouts in CA :) US is a pretty Southern country with a lot of AC running midday - exactly when you have the most solar.
I think the issue here is that midday electricity is the most expensive, ie. the most profitable for the utilities, and solar eats right into it.
>Peak AC consumption is in the afternoon as people get home from work.
not really. The "duck" curve you're referring to is "net" load - ie. actual demand minus solar. The solar smooths/removes the midday peak (which in summer is significantly higher than the evening demand).
Consequently it is the company interest to build as much stuff as possible (aka "investments"). People making their own "investments" like panels on their roofs detract from that.
The people most wanting to do solar are those who pay the most for electricity. Once they have solar they reduce the amount of revenue available, which means that 5% return has to come out of the remaining customers, which would need to push their rates up. That is why the regulators even entertain the bans.
Grid tying is more complicated. There are two components to electrical supply - the wiring and maintenance to the property (infrastructure), and then the electricity that is actually supplied. Electrical bills charge very little for the former and almost all for the latter. Say for example the infrastructure really costs $10 per month and the electricity costs $40. You get a $50 bill but it says $3 is for infrastructure and $47 is for electricity. If you use solar for all electricity your bill will now be for $3, but the infrastructure cost is really $10. That really means other customers are now paying for your infrastructure costs. This is where minimum monthly charge proposals come from. In our example $10 per month would be appropriate. Changing the underlying pricing to be more realistic will hit the poorest the most since their effective infrastructure costs will go up.
Some places are banning putting solar back into the grid because there is no use for the electricity at the time it is put back in.