Maybe I’m too stupid, but how was the baseline actually set? The article implies the 2024 consumption sets the baseline, but we probably don’t know that value yet and they just talk about how the baseline is higher than 2023 (and “current”) usage. Obviously Kigali timelines are slower than we all want, but at the same time having global agreement (mostly, US will probably reneg) and achievable targets may be better than everyone failing (cough Paris). Remember the Montreal protocol is an incredible success story in international cooperation, even if in hindsight it seems like the most basic bare minimum to us today. The problem is the chemical industry is pushing HFOs as HFC replacements, but these are also dogshit because they break down into PFAS.
We need to go straight to natural refrigeratonts. There are many passionate individuals, companies, and policies driving us towarda this and we’ll get there. For anyone buying refrigerant containing things, look for R290, R744, R600a if you have a choice when you buy refrigerators, heat pump dryers, heat pumps, cars, etc. This is a big deal!
What a mess. It seems like the fundamental issue here is allowing the grandfathering of old NEM rate structures, much like CA allows folks to grandfather in their old property taxes while screwing over new purchasers. Nobody should expect rate certainty for 20 years into the future, that’s just an absurdly long time period to expect guaranteed rate structures.
It’s not that complicated at a high level really - when nobody has solar, full net metering is reasonably fair. When everyone has solar, the whole scheme collapses because production doesn’t align with usage exactly. So every few years during a rate case, they should all work together and shift the value of solar generation accordingly (likely downward). Folks need to take on a little risk with their major purchases because anything else is even more unfair to early and later adopters. The time value of solar production varies year to year and solar owners should be compensated accordingly. Batteries will bring value back to solar by allowing for load shifting, and much like solar, can be done by individuals or utilities.
Obviously the specific details are muddy as hell and will be contentious, but that’s normal and reasonable compromises usually prevail.
The reality is some east facing panels in LA aren’t that valuable these days. And the person with east facing panels from 5 years ago shouldn’t get massive long term benefits locked in because they did the install earlier.
I live in Colorado, have solar, and fully expect the value of my generation to reduce over time. Expecting full retail value of my excess June production to offset power I badly need in Jan to run my heat pump simply isn’t fair.