Interesting. This Utility Dive article points out that the rate change is to be phased in over four years. It&#x27;s not a cliff.  That should mitigate large-scale sudden incentive changes.<p>Where I live the electric energy company has separate rates for energy and for distribution.  I think it&#x27;s like that everywhere.<p>In the most naive pricing model net metering ignores that distinction and simply run the meter backwards when local production exceeds local consumption.<p>In the second most naive pricing model, the local customer would credit for energy cost, but not distribution, when local production exceeds consumption.<p>Neither of those are completely fair: the first doesn&#x27;t gain the utility a return on their distribution infrastructure investment, and the second pays the utility too much. Why too much?  Around here we pay a level distribution fee that covers both the long-haul lines from Georgian Bay and the shorter haul from the local coal plant.  Locally generated electricity doesn&#x27;t use the long-haul distribution system.<p>What&#x27;s needed is a pricing model that ...<p><pre><code>  a) maintains incentives to build out new generation (rooftop, etc.)
  b) makes incentives to create a new &quot;smart grid&quot; distribution system.
</code></pre>
I fear that loud political posturing (Jobs!!!  Monopolists!!!) isn&#x27;t helping get this right.<p>But naive models, in a world that can have companies like Enron disrupting those models, are also not good enough.<p>For example, naive net metering -- backward running meters -- is not as favorable to Tesla&#x27;s battery business as a dual-rate system. The return on a battery investment needs to come from that margin.