No, the power company paid to have it run to the house.
No, the construction company paid to get power run to the development, or the home-owner pays to get it run to an area if they are the only one out that way - the power company doesn't do anything for free.
(I worked with RECs and Municipals for 14 years, and I helped write software for their operations.)
Are you suggesting the first guy on the block should pay for the transformers and the wires, and maintenance and everyone else gets it free since it doesn't cost more for 2 than 1 or 99 than 1?
No, I'm not saying that, are you?
The point is that those costs were factored into the bill before, but because there is a change in the demographics of the users, that cost is no longer being covered.
The cost was covered at the installation. They have insurance to cover line damage due to storms. Damage due to man is covered by the liability insurance of the person who damaged the line. There aren't any *costs* to the power company.
And again, why should the 99% or 50% be subsidizing the 1% or 50%? They shouldn't necessarily, especially in areas in which there may be large amounts of people with alternative power sources that could be straining power companies finances.
No one is being *subsidised* here, if the line needs to be repaired, it is. Either insurance covers it, or the people paying their bills cover it. The costs are built into the rates, and the lower usage you have, the higher your rate per KWH. Solar users in general don't generate the equivelent to 100% of their usage, and even if they did, their minimum usage charge covers that (it's the same as someone who's on the line and turns off the power at the meter - the lines are still there, still need to be maintained, but no usage or draw is done.) This is done for idle rental properties, farmers who turn off power to grain bins during the spring/summer, barns when they aren't in use, etc... There are tons of users who have lines that aren't drawing power, and aren't being charged for not drawing power. Solar users aren't any different.
It's neither pure, nor simple. Whether it's greed or not depends on whether you think that the power companies should be forced to maintain lines to solar users for free and recoup the losses from users who aren't, or if the cost should be paid by those who are incurring the costs.
Yes it's greed, and it's simple. They aren't getting anything for free, there aren't any losses, or no more than the thousands of other users who turn off power to lots, farms, summer-cottages at the lake, etc... This isn't anything new here, it's just the power companies wanting *more* profit.