The Sun Shines on Rich and Poor Alike

But only the rich can take economic advantage of it.

At least, that's the interesting conclusion raised by Diane Cardwell's article in today's New York Times on "solar fairness."

Here's the situation: in most communities, utility customers who have installed solar panels on their roofs can sell back excess energy to the local power company, thereby further lowering their own bills and reducing the power company's reliance on electricity generated by less-clean fuels like coal or gas. Sounds like a win-win, right?

But -- and it's a big "but" -- generated electricity itself is not the sole cost for an electrical utility: there's the whole cost of maintaining the grid, of moving the electricity from where it's generated (your roof) to where it's needed (my business, tens or even hundreds of miles away). That maintenance cost is pretty much fixed, but with more people becoming "generators", and being paid for it, there are fewer people among whom to share the cost of maintaining the system. Which means that each of them is going to end up paying more. (Sounds sort of like health-insurance pools, doesn't it? OK, I'm not going to go there. At least not today.)

So, as more people make the decision to switch to solar, whether for cost or for environmental friendliness, "the utilities not only lose valuable customers that help support the costs of the power grid but also have to pay them for the power they generate. Ultimately, the utilities say, the combination will lead to higher rate increases for everyone left on the traditional electric system."

Cardwell quotes one executive of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), "Low-income customers can't put on solar panels -- let's be blunt. So why should a low-income customer have their rates go up for the benefit of someone who puts on a solar panel and wants to be credited the retail rate?"

The right to sell power back to the utility at near-retail rates dates from the time when solar installations were a lot more expensive than they are now, and consumer advocates, renewable energy proponents, and others were looking for ways to reduce the long payback period.

I generally look for the fine print in anything that the utility companies tell me. I certainly don't want to see us rely even more heavily on non-renewable energy sources. And I don't think that solar generators shouldn't be reimbursed for the energy they provide to the utility. But this is another of those interesting "unintended consequences" dilemmas.

We can all agree that access to electricity is an essential public good. We can generally agree that those who use the most should pay the most. But what happens when some of those big users essentially opt out? Is there some way to guarantee that we don't create another regressive burden on those least able to afford it?

I don't have good answers to my questions. But we need to come up with some, and soon.