Recently the Public Utilities Commission rebuffed the utility companies’ attempt to impose higher fees on rooftop solar, referred to as NEM 2.0. Had the utilities prevailed, it would have had a chilling impact on the burgeoning solar industry in California.

The utilities wanted to impose monthly fees on consumers who had solar on their homes or businesses. They also asked the PUC if they could pay consumers less for the electricity the consumers generated than they charged the consumers for the electricity the utilities generated.

The utilities’ argued that the increase in solar installations is unfairly shifting the cost of their electricity to the non-solar customers.

I believe consumers who use relatively more electricity than others should pay relatively more.

We should send price signals to people who choose not to generate their own electricity or otherwise conserve. It is a good thing that these consumers pay more, not a bad thing.

Almost all distributed generators (solar, wind, etc.) are producing less electricity than they consume.

So what is the difference between having a solar or wind system on one’s house and simply turning down the thermostat or adding insulation? When the utility company reads a meter they have no idea why one house uses less than its neighbor. Are the utilities now going to demand higher rates for conservation?

The utilities position on NEM 2.0 is not about fairness to consumers who choose not to conserve. It is about competition. Until recently the utilities were not too concerned about distributed generation. With the recent large scale adoption of solar, that has all changed.

Solar, wind, and distributed generation represent a very real challenge to the utilities’ monopolies and ultimately their profits. This is the reason they are fighting to add fees to solar producers and pay less for the electricity they generate.

Finally, some argue that renewables get an unfair subsidy through the investment tax credit.

However, this argument disregards the subsidies the utilities have received over the years. Particularly, the public has allowed the utilities to discharge their waste products into our rivers, streams and air at no cost to them.

There is no comparison as to who has benefitted more. If the utilities had to pay for this privilege, as opposed to passing it along to all of us in the form of dirtier air, dirtier water, and climate change, they would not be competitive with renewables — with or without an investment tax credit.

Rick Kooi lives in Auburn.