More rooftop solar, not less

David - one of my first lessons when I was enrolled in an MBA program was titled, "there is no such thing as a free lunch". Someone is paying for your incentives. Also, most of your arguments in favor of more solar fall flat. Solar systems do not enhance reliability and only serve the persons who own them, and even then on a part time basis. The proposed change in regulation simply makes sure that you pay for the utility infrastructure that is there when you need it, which is most of the time. Right now, I am paying for your incentives and why should I?

Mr. Mautner – perhaps no wildfire has been started by rooftop solar because homeowners in wildfire areas aren’t exposed enough to the sun to install rooftop solar?

All good points but the bottom line is the need for a new incentivized model for PG&E. Not selling power but providing a safe reliable grid and providing backup and storage capacity. Ed Kahl mentions (in another letter) using excess capacity to make hydrogen as a 'battery' mechanism. Smart and creative I'd say.. Naturally the tough part is reworking how the utility gets paid for all this. I a combination of flat tax and user fees might be the trick.

The cost of roof top solar with inverters and batteries is far more than the cost of adding the same amount of solar power to existing solar farms. Since the transmission costs are negligible and most transmission lines from solar farms don't run through forests, why invest $20,000 in roof top solar ($30,000 with batteries) when you can elect to buy 100% solar through PG&E? The idea that PG&E needs to buy solar power from roof tops is absurd because when the sun shines here, it shines on the solar farms in the valley that produce excess solar power that has to be given away to Nevada and Arizona to balance the grid. The added advantage of solar farms is they can produce hydrogen to generate electricity when the sun doesn’t shine.