Hacker News Reader

> Meh. Aren't there industrial, agricultural and public customers for electricity?

Yes, but someone has to pay for transmission and distribution into (and out of) residential areas.

So the solution is to charge more the people who already pay for their solar? Who now only get 8$ for 300$ for any additional electricity they produce(NEM 2.0, best case, or get 4c worth of electricity for every 1$ of electricity they produce in NEM 3.0)

I don't think you're understanding my comments. I didn't defend current policy. I merely pointed out there's a big set of tradeoffs to be made and in the end it's a normative choice.

Someone has to pay for transmission and distribution in residential areas. If the choice is "residential users without solar panels bear the full cost," you end up with apartment dwellers and the poor paying for all the infrastructure. Hence, IMO you have to do something and think carefully about policy to have reasonable outcomes and avoid unnecessary complexity.

It's not zero sum, but it is a complicated social, technical, and economic problem. If we reach a good compromise, we should expect that few will be happy with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com