The high fixed monthly cost regardless of utilization means that compared to previous, my total costs for solar go up, even if my total costs for PGE supplied power don't. That will cause many fewer people to switch to solar or solar + battery.
It doesn't change the calculus for switching. It's the same fixed cost either way. The price is simply going up for customers who are not poor. I don't see how this makes someone more or less likely to switch to solar, since the dollar amount they can save stays the same.
An analogy: your kid's preschool has an option where you can volunteer once a month and save $50/month. One day, they announce that they are going to institute a new fee that ranges from $10-100, depending on your income.
How does that new fee cause fewer people to decide to volunteer?
Can you explain how the income-based fee results in lower savings? It is a fixed fee that applies whether or not you have solar.
To be clear, I think the income-based fee is a bad idea, but I just don't think it changes the calculus on installing solar. I have also had conversations about this specific question with a friend who has a PhD in urban planning, lives in CA, and is in the process of installing solar panels. It's possible she's wrong, but everything she says lines up with what I have read.
It sounds like you're referring to the net metering changes, which are separate from the income-based fee. That does change the calculus, obviously (which is why they grandfathered existing installs for 20 years).
Income based pricing encourages people to go off grid.
The upfront cost of doing that with a propane generator is about a half that of a battery + solar system (it's about a third if you go with battery + solar + generator, which is more comparable to a grid connection).
However, the maintenance and fuel costs of the generator mean that the solar will be much cheaper (and quieter!) to operate.
If the income based pricing is $100 / month, and the net energy / base connection cost is $0 / month (assuming an exactly sized solar system), then it'll take about 200 months for the generator to pay itself off. That's 16 years, which is a bit longer than the system will last, though replacing a generator costs about half what I've assumed above.
So, there's a pretty low upper limit to the amount they can screw with these fees before it's economically (though not necessarily environmentally) rational thing for individuals to just cut the cord and let the power grid death spiral.
Interesting, are you aware of anyone going off-grid for this reason? Where I live (Menlo), I don't think anyone would have a propane tank installed because of the size and unsightliness. The sound would also be annoying to them (and their neighbors, given how small the plots are). People generally build to the very edge of their property to maximize resale value, and this would take up a decent chunk of space. Maybe out in Woodside people would do this, since it's a bit more rural. Still, I've not heard of anyone saying the new income-based fees (which I disagree with, as noted above) are too high, and I'm going to install a propane tank and genearator. As you point out, this would go against the environmental rationale, which most folks with solar probably care a lot about. It's an interesting thought experiment though!
