That's an increasingly frequent subject for discussion in our neck of the woods, and I think a real issue, though it isn't clear to me that there is a single solution.
If you ever want grid power, and I personally do because we can't realistically self generate enough power over a winter storm or during bad fires, then it seems to me that some sort of fee is in order for a grid interconnection. Commercially, it comes under the category of a "demand reservation charge", which is the maximum allowable amount of power that can be drawn ever. Basically, the company pays to reserve enough power "just in case". We pay one currently on an ag meter. My experience is that commercially it is priced up around the cost of leasing a standby generator, so it can get to be something of a toss up budget wise for a company.
The trend here is to raise the fixed fees, aka monthly meter charge, to pay for the costs of the transmission and distribution of electricity. So solar owners pay something towards the grid costs. Whether it is the right number is beyond what I know. An unintended consequence of raising the fixed electrical costs is that the power cost as a fraction of the bill goes down, reducing the incentive to conserve electricity. Historically, California has a trend of steadily reduced kWh/person/yr since the mid-seventies, but that has to end sooner or later. A fixed fee is also somewhat of a regressive tax, so complaints on that front are being vocalized.
If we were to add any additional solar would likely to be set up to maximize winter production, with panels much closer to the vertical than a typical roof mount solar. TBD at the moment as the utility doesn't seem to know its own mind about solar and batteries at the moment and what is or not permissible. Such is life, at least with this utility.
All the best,
Peter
