>Basically they become a free power storage and backup facility only paid for any extra usage) for the customers, which is great for adoption, but means that non solar customers are adding further subsidy to the solar customers (over and above the common subside via taxation/government grants).
Not here in California. We get to pay a monthly fee to be hooked up to the grid that is independent of our net power generated or consumed.
Even still, PG&E has lobbied (and is still lobbying) to not have to pay customers for net power generated. Why? Because, hey, free money, I guess. I don't imagine any other reason they could justify that.
I got into an argument with a guy on Reddit who claimed solar only saved utilities on fuel costs for generation, but fuel is the lion's share of power costs involved in natural gas plants. So rooftop solar really does save them money on generation.
There's no excuse for them to be able to charge for net watts I generate and not even reimburse me the pittance they do now.