Last year they got twice as much electricity from gas as they got from solar.
They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.
If you need the hookup at any point during the year, you have to pay for the hookup for the whole year. That's just fair to everyone else that didn't have $20,000 (or didn't own property) and don't want to subsidize your solar upgrade with their own rates.
I'm confused; which one is it? The property owner pays 20k, or the ratepayers are subsidizing it?
Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?
It's one or the other. Under NEM 2, ratepayers are subsidizing. Under NEM 3, the property owner is paying (more of) their fair share of transmission costs, and are being subsidized less, which people complain "kills" rooftop solar.
NEM 3 makes rooftop solar worse than NEM 2, but it's not common to say it kills it. It's the new flat fees they have been trying to implement that would kill rooftop solar. For example, if 50% of an average bill was a flat fee and then energy was half off, that would kill rooftop solar + batteries on NEM 3.
They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.