At least, they got nothing in return until last month. In September, they received a negative bill with a credit of $22.82 from Pacific Gas & Electricity and shared their surprise on Reddit.
“I saw a negative bill for the FIRST time ever,” the Reddit user, who goes by the name Usual-Network 3295, wrote. “Something to celebrate before I pay through my nose for the winter heating.”
The Redditor believes the credit is due to the power they fed back to the grid in August, when their solar panels produced an average 40 kilowatts an hour. Their home only consumes an average of 14 kilowatts an hour, so the excess went back to the grid. But according to Usual-Network 3295, they only received credit for the energy they fed back between 6 and 8 p.m.
“My daytime solar exports get me nothing,” they wrote.
One expert says different solar compensation structures at different utilities are to blame.
Municipal utilities pay more for power fed back to the grid
Taylor Crouse, founder of Helios Energy Global in California, oversees solar installations in 94 cities in Southern California. He’s noticed a big disparity in the payouts between municipal utilities and privately owned utilities in the state.
For example, he writes that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a municipal utility, pays customers 28 cents a kilowatt hour for power fed back to the grid. That’s in contrast with the five-to-eight cents per kilowatt hour that private utilities pay.
This is part of the NEM 3.0 compensation structure at private utilities like PG&E, Southern California Edison (owned by Edison International) and San Diego Gas & Electric (owned by Sempra). It reflects the wholesale rate they would pay for power. In contrast, the same utilities charge customers a retail rate of 34 cents or more per kilowatt hour depending on the time of day, with the peak rate between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.
“The math is uncomfortable,” Crouse writes. “You export $1 worth of solar and get back a nickel or dime in credit. Then at 7 p.m. you buy that same type of electricity back for 34 cents.”
Crouse notes that the math makes it relatively worthwhile to send solar power back to municipal utilities in California, but that may not be the case for private utilities. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth having solar power at all, even if the federal government axed the 30% residential tax credit for residential solar panels in 2025.
