That’s when I learned about a state law that requires Colorado utilities to credit homeowners who send power back to the grid at the same rate they would pay to buy power from the power company. This “net metering” policy made adding solar to my home a good investment. Even though we didn’t add batteries, which would have doubled our costs, our solar panels will offset a significant portion of our utility bills.

I’m a fan of net metering because it forces Xcel Energy, which enjoys a monopoly in my area, to discount our bill for any energy our solar panels produce. They do this even though it cuts into their profits. Net metering made the economics of solar power work in my instance, and we save money when the sun shines brightly and spring days stay cold.

But after watching hurricanes knock out power across large regions of the country, I have a brand-new perspective on net metering. Rather than viewing it as a policy that lets homeowners save on utility bills, I’m thinking of net metering as a way to make where I live more resilient to natural disasters.

My parents live in Asheville, North Carolina which was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024. They were out of town visiting family when the storm struck, but water and power outages kept them from getting home for weeks.

Until 2023, North Carolina had used net metering requirements to encourage solar installation, contributing to its status as the fourth-largest solar power-producing state in the country. But in recent years, power companies successfully persuaded legislators in North Carolina, as well as California, Nevada and Arizona, to switch from net metering to “net billing.” That change and other policies now pay solar producers at significantly lower rates.

In those states, utilities argued that net metering hurts homeowners who don’t have solar by increasing costs for non-solar power. But analyses, notably those conducted by public power consultant Richard McCann of mcubedecon.com, show that increased solar production saves billions for non-solar producers in California.

When states move away from net metering—despite the dubious arguments justifying the shift—the pace of solar installations slows dramatically. In California, new solar installations dropped by 56% from 2022 to 2024.

For those of us with solar panels, I think it’s time to think about adding storage batteries right from the start, using that extra electricity for battery charging. Batteries make any home more independent from the grid, but here’s the catch: The cost can be prohibitive. I’m saving up as solar batteries cost between $12,000 and $20,000 for a typical home according to solarreviews.com. 

The advantages to battery support, however, are significant. If homeowners use their net metering savings to add batteries to disconnect from the grid during outages, they could still pump water out of domestic wells, run refrigerators, or charge their phones until power is restored during natural disasters.

Normally, I wouldn’t advocate for state governments to step in and regulate businesses. But in the case of power companies, I support net metering because there usually isn’t a competitive free market for power.

Customers are at the mercy of electric companies that raised power prices 11% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s state electricity profiles. As the same companies were raising prices, they were also fighting to reduce the amount rebated to solar-producing homeowners.

Now that I’m aware of net metering and invested in providing solar power back to the grid, I’m keeping tabs on any proposal that would reduce net metering in my state.

It’s such a wonderful concept—thousands of homeowners selling power back to the electric company—while also reducing their vulnerability to natural disasters such as wildfire.

What’s even better: Residential solar power mimics a stand-alone power plant, one that need never be built.

Andrew Carpenter is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Colorado.

The post Solar panels have more than proven themselves appeared first on Writers On The Range.

Yet one of the first comments we received was from a famous energy guru: “Nice building. But why do you have a heating system at all?” Or more simply put: “Why didn’t you build a perfect building, instead of just a really good one?”

Solving climate change could depend on how we answer that question. My answer: Society needs the Prius of buildings, not the Tesla X.

The green building movement didn’t originate only from a desire to protect the environment. It often had elements of the bizarre ego gratification that trumped practicality.

Recall “Earthships” that used old tires and aluminum cans in the walls. Geodesic domes were interesting looking but produced inordinate waste to build. They also leaked. Rudolf Steiner’s weirdly wonderful Goetheanum was an all-concrete structure designed to unite “what is spiritual in the human being to what is spiritual in the universe.”

Early practitioners such as Steiner, Buckminster Fuller, and Bill McDonough, among others, were often building monuments, whose ultimate goal became the concept of “net zero.” Net zero was a building that released no carbon dioxide emissions at all.

Designers achieved that goal by constructing well-sealed, heavily insulated, properly oriented and controlled buildings—but then they did something wasteful. They added solar panels to make up for carbon dioxide emissions from heating with natural gas. The approach zeroed out emissions, but at extraordinary cost that came in the form of added labor, expense and lost opportunity.

While net zero wasn’t a good idea even when most buildings were heated with natural gas, the rapid decarbonization of utility grids— happening almost everywhere—and advances in electrification make the idea downright pointless.

Instead, all you need to build an eventual net zero building is to go all-electric. It won’t be net zero today, but it will be net zero when the grid reaches 100% carbon-free power. So, all that really matters is that building codes require 100% electrification. 

Yet many communities remain focused on that sexy goal of net zero, and therefore include requirements for solar panels, or “solar ready” wiring. Even apart from the issue of cost, many utilities don’t need rooftop solar because they increasingly have access to huge solar arrays, giving them more electricity than they need in peak times.

What utilities really need is energy storage and smart management.

That means home batteries and grid integration that allows utilities to “talk” to buildings and turn off appliances during peak times. The problem is that environmentalists haven’t evolved: Just like we can’t retire our tie-dyes, we think “green” means rooftop solar panels.

My company’s Buttermilk building passes the only test that matters: “If everyone built this kind of structure, would it solve the built environment’s portion of the climate problem?” The answer for our building is “yes.”

Still, aspirational monuments matter. We need the Lincoln Memorial, the Empire State Building. But if we’re going to solve climate change in buildings, which is about a third of the total problem, new structures will have to reconceive what we consider efficient and beautiful. And it doesn’t have to break the bank.

Electrification, for example, is getting cheaper every year. Years ago, I served on an environmental board for the town of Carbondale in western Colorado. The overwhelming interest there was ending dandelion spraying in the town park. But at one point, we worked on a building.

After a long conversation about the technical tricks and feats we could pull off, a Rudolf Steiner disciple named Farmer Jack Reed said: “We should also plant bulbs in the fall so colorful flowers blossom in the spring.” “Why?” I asked, stuck in my own technocratic hole. He said: “Because flowers are beautiful and they make people happy.” 

So, too, are realistic solutions as we adapt to climate change.

Auden Schendler is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He is senior vice president of sustainability at Aspen One. His book, Terrible Beauty: Reckoning with Climate Complicity and Rediscovering our Soul, comes out in November.

The post Go all-electric—and help change the world appeared first on Writers On The Range.