The state's are protecting the fossil fuel industry despite Climate Change.

The question is the nature of the end product. Are we going to a) move to a distributed grid through adaptation of the existing ownership of the wires, or are we b) going to sow the stand-alone microgrids first and then network them through the new ownership of the wires that comes about as the utilities collapse from customer flight?

Those are the only choices.

Crazy when you think of Capitolism holding us back, I thought the free market should decide everything. Oh yea, the market has not been "free" for a long time!

that they've subsidized fossil fuels for many decades. Until then, I'll take their criticisms as being simply an attempt to keep fossil fuels in pride of place.

It would be interesting to see how much solar has been subsidized vs oil, coal, etc.

That’s a good thing™ in my book, but…

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

On the surface, from the 2013 committee report by the CBO, renewables get the largest percentage of direct subsidies, but dig deeper and the fossil industry gets a ton more through depletion credits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

ALEC is busily working in individual states to make it as difficult as possible to use, so IMO the marketing is sparse. The power companies now want to charge extra for solar customers to use the grid (like they were not already paying) and don't want to reimburse for the power they receive. Solar is a game-changer, and those who make big bucks from the grid are really not going to let go unless forced.

Let's take subsidies away from EVERYTHING and see how that goes - and, I notice that not using fossil fuels doesn't even matter, evidently.

Solar energy comes right to your home in many cases and that cuts out the $$$$
for energy companies and so they are working to stop it but in the long run they
will not succeed.


Nevada’s Solar Bait-and-Switch

In late December, the state’s Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Nevada’s energy market, announced a rate change drastic enough to kill Nevada’s booming rooftop solar market and drive providers out of the state. Effective Jan. 1, the new tariffs will gradually increase until they triple monthly fees that solar users pay to use the electric grid and cut by three-quarters users’ reimbursements for feeding electricity into it.

More startlingly, the commission made its decision retroactive. That means that the 17,000 Nevada residents who were lured into solar purchases by state-mandated one-time rebates of up to $23,000 suddenly discovered that they were victims of a bait-and-switch. They made the deals assuming that, allowing for inflation, their rates would stay constant over their contracts’ 20- to 30-year lifetimes; instead, they face the prospect of paying much more for electricity than if they had never made the change, even though they’re generating almost all their electricity themselves.

The commission justified its decision by citing grid construction and maintenance costs that rooftop solar users haven’t been charged for, but circumstantial evidence suggests that other factors played a role. All three commission members were appointed or reappointed by Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, whose two election campaigns have received a total of $20,000, the maximum allowed donation under Nevada law, from NV Energy, the Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility that is a major beneficiary of the rate changes. Two of Mr. Sandoval’s closest informal advisers, Pete Ernaut and Gregory W. Ferraro, are NV Energy lobbyists.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts model bills for right-wing state legislators and receives financial support from fossil fuel interests, has campaigned for rates like those the commission adopted, and, according to Greenpeace, NV Energy was at one time an ALEC member.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/nevadas-solar-bait-and-switch.html

so sad