And right after they got (literally) up in arms over grazing fees.

There are three types of solar photovoltaic systems an owner might own (and more types if you include leases or power purchase agreements).

One: You own the system and are off the grid. You better invest in some energy storage scheme for night time and stormy days.

Two: You own the system and it's tied to the grid with net-metering.

Three: you won the system, tied to the grid, and you can sell excess production back to the utility.


In Two and Three, you are tied to the utility, whether it's a shared entity, or municipality, or investor-owned, it provides a valuable service and infrastructure to you. It's there if your power goes down, it's there at night, and in the case of number three, you have a means of selling excess power.

It seems absolutely reasonable that one pays for the services and security provided by being tied to a dependable grid.


I don't know why people are surprised by having to pay for a valuable service that essentially makes their solar installation work 24/7 and gives them a market to sell excess power.

property owners do not own the solar rights on their property. In the west, it is very common for property owners not to own the mineral rights below the surface. I suspect it's just a matter of time before the solar rights thing happens.