Comments
FuturologyBot t1_isak5g0 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/manual_tranny:
Due to a combination of subsidies for manufacturing and project tax credits, the United States could see solar and wind PPAs signed at prices below 1¢/kWh. PPAs below $0 have happened before (in Portugal), however, they are still the exception the the rule.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will pay solar panel manufacturers up to 18¢/W to manufacture solar modules. Every part of the panel is subsidized - the poly silicon, wafers, cells, and modules. The Production Tax Credit, worth 2.6¢/kWh, pays out (inflation adjusted!) for 10 years after a project is constructed. And that 2.6¢/kWh will increase ~33% for modules manufactured domestically, and an additional ~33% for projects built in solar energy communities (energy communities are brownfields & other sites where coal/oil/NG were burned after Dec 1, 1999)
When we combine the cheap IRA solar panels with the PTC, that's when we see domestic solar power PPAs signed for $0/kWh or below.
One consequence of the subsidized pricing - Credit Suisse predicts that the United States could become a net exporter of solar modules to the global market.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y3ui5x/free_electricity_credit_suisse_analysis_says/isah247/
CriticalUnit t1_isapyab wrote
> One consequence of the subsidized pricing - Credit Suisse predicts that the United States could become a net exporter of solar modules to the global market.
That bears repeating!
naveronex t1_isasv3a wrote
So it might actually be affordable here soon. The worst part is the “Solar fee” from the power company. They charge a set amount per kWh you have in Solar. Mine would be $90/mo if I install a system to cover my house!
If they want wider solar adoption they need to ban these ridiculous fees.
TotalBismuth t1_isasvw3 wrote
Why is a bank on the brink of collapse giving predictions of the future?
TheCrimsonDagger t1_isavpb7 wrote
Wait, so the power company charges you a fee because you own your own solar panels?
[deleted] t1_isavrd9 wrote
[removed]
JimmyJoeJohnstonJr t1_isavtws wrote
Federal subsidies are peoples money so no there is no free electricity
chowder-san t1_isawybv wrote
Pretty much. They make up excuses that it's covering their costs of maintenance of the grid and maintaining proper specs so the grid doesn't go haywire by increasing voltage and the like but in the end, they just want free money. It's like this everywhere because power companies have been neglecting modernization of the grids so now that customers are installing solar panels at such fast pace, the companies are no longer able to fit all that into an outdated system.
kidenraikou t1_isaybk1 wrote
That we already paid for. At least it's coming back to us to incentivize making the country better, rather than just adding another billion to the military budget.
Correct_Influence450 t1_isayqif wrote
Can you just have a secondary system that you can plug into without tapping into the grid and avoid the charge?
[deleted] t1_isazj3s wrote
[deleted]
JonA3531 t1_isb0fb3 wrote
Yes, some kind of battery storage system. But that's another pricey upfront cost.
mostsocial t1_isb0jl7 wrote
Whether you have solar or not, some electric companies will charge you a standard amount if you don't go over a certain kWh per month.
[deleted] t1_isb0oer wrote
[removed]
naveronex t1_isb0xkk wrote
I don’t and I don’t have the money to install one. So I’m stuck for now. I need to call the power company and discuss it with them. My info came from Solar salespeople when I was getting quotes and entertaining the idea.
naveronex t1_isb118y wrote
Yeah but this is a specific “you have Solar so you have to pay us per kWh installed” not even just the minimum charge.
[deleted] t1_isb1agu wrote
[removed]
mostsocial t1_isb1kga wrote
I agree. I was just responding to the comment that made it seem you can get out of paying electric companies some how. Which you can't.
JebusLives42 t1_isb2fk0 wrote
Credit Suisse produces a lot of very useful reports. The world is better for having this information.
Their solvency issues, and other questionable dealing don't really have any bearing on the value of this specific report.
[deleted] t1_isb31c0 wrote
[removed]
naveronex t1_isb68cr wrote
Yeah it’s a tablet for sure
Thechosunwon t1_isb7kzq wrote
Do you live in coal country?
[deleted] t1_isb7msu wrote
[removed]
naveronex t1_isb7qgs wrote
No, I live in the middle of SC.
pamsfriendred t1_isb7rjl wrote
I'd rather my "people's money" goes to this than to more ICBMs or subsidies for oil.
nsa_reddit_monitor t1_isb8nya wrote
Why do that? Just have an automatic transfer switch like people do with standby backup generators. When the solar stops producing, the panel automatically switches back to the grid. Then you only need enough batteries to last a few seconds at a time.
[deleted] t1_isba47t wrote
[removed]
manual_tranny OP t1_isbalvd wrote
One must understand units and context to differentiate between these two.
¢/kWh is a measure the price of a unit of electrical energy, a "kilowatt-hour". That unit is equivalent to 1000W for one hour, or 500W for two hours, etc.
Pennies per watt is a unit describing the amount of money it takes to build a solar panel. At a (subsidized) 2¢/watt, a "400W solar panel" will cost 800¢ ($8.00). When manufacturers label a solar panel as having a certain number of watts, they are referring to the panel's capacity to produce electricity. A 400W panel in direct sunlight will produce approximately 400W. At night, it will produce 0W.
[deleted] t1_isbbvww wrote
[deleted]
Landmen t1_isbdzvu wrote
Im guessing the consumer price for panels wont go down. This is an incentive to the manufacturer of solar panels. They will just make more profit and bring domestic manufactured prices to match that of Chinese made panels.
vissalyn t1_isbeg0g wrote
It’s not an excuse it’s real. If you want to go ahead and disconnect your home from the grid, go ahead. Utilities can’t continue to support a reliable grid for you to use when your panels aren’t generating without some sort of compensation from the customers to do so. Where are they going to get the money to maintain the grid if everyone did this? All operating and maintenance expenses are passed directly to the customer. Utilities “make money” on capital investments.
Every solar installation at a home requires a model be run for that distribution area to see if it will cause overloading or voltage issues. It’s not an excuse, it’s a very complicated issue that many people around the world are working on.
[deleted] t1_isbeo9d wrote
[deleted]
kidenraikou t1_isbf2hc wrote
I meant in the form of tax incentives for the middle class. Yes, we're technically paying for it. But they are giving us that money back, come tax season.
[deleted] t1_isbf758 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isbfd6m wrote
[removed]
Franklin_le_Tanklin t1_isbfrw1 wrote
Hmm. If you’re 100% self sufficient, what are they going to do if you don’t pay the fee? Disconnect you?
Awesomebox5000 t1_isbftku wrote
My solution to this is that I'm adding solar to my camping trailer and running an extension cord to my house to run some stuff. If I make full use of the power I can shave $30/month off my power bill forever. Plus I'll have power out in the wild and at home when, not if, the power goes out. But I'm only installing 1.25kW of solar capacity which isn't enough to run any but the smallest appliances, it's barely enough to run a standard coffee maker (I know it doesn't really work that way but for sale the laymen who don't understand about battery banks and inverters just go with it...). It is, interestingly, more than enough to run a small window AC (~500W) so I know that in the dead of summer I can at least keep a small space comfortably cool.
Panel costs are going WAY down, it's the installation that's expensive because it's dangerous work. So if you take the time to understand what you're doing and take the appropriate safety precautions, setting up your own solar micro-grid can be pretty cheap. The panels, cabling, mounting hardware, and fuses were about $600 because I bought panels with cosmetic defects that are only rated for off-grid use.
Microgrids are where it's at imo.
mostsocial t1_isbgay5 wrote
They are a business, they can lobby. Heck they may make it legal to send you to collections and ruin your credit. Who knows. The most important part is they do lobby to get laws passed that benefit their profit goals.
chowder-san t1_isbgmcx wrote
my point isn't that they should do that without compensation, but that they are using that as an excuse to cover for their negligence that lasted decades and increase prices much more than they deserve. Over years they cashed profit margins instead of investing in improving the grids, leaving them in a sorry state and now, that they are tested by sudden influx of solar panels, companies need to make rapid changes and maintenance that costs. And customers are being bled to cover those.
If power companies did their job properly and fulfilled the tasks they were supposed to complete and cared for stuff they were supposed to oversee, we wouldn't have issues we do now.
Alt_dimension_visitr t1_isbhqk7 wrote
Yes, disconnect you. That fee is for the processor to remain connected while not using their utility
vissalyn t1_isbi04g wrote
Not sure how you think they cashed profit margins - again they create new wealth from a guaranteed rate of return on invested capital - both of which needs to be approved by the state utility board. All other costs are transferred to the customers on a 1:1 basis. And there is no doubt every company/utility could cut costs in some way, but to say they are intentionally overcharging to make a cash profit is not correct.
If by someway they could see the future, perhaps they would have built the grid in a more robust state, but that would have been more expensive back then and customers at the time would not have been happy about it - costs would have been higher, let alone the utility board approving rate increases for extensive costs to cover what would have seemed to be an imaginary future scenario.
I hope this helps some in understanding how this works, it’s very complicated and has taken me years to understand. Nothing is black and white.
Loeden t1_isbk41n wrote
My hookup fee is eight dollars a month. 90 is an unreasonable fee for work actually being performed, although maintaining the grid and net metering is still a service and should have some sort of fee, I agree. The issue here is with gouging solar customers with a different hookup price that regular customers don't get hit with.
I am not paid for what I generate but instead have banked kwh that I can pull from, which is honestly more beneficial than grids having to pay out. Mind you, my utilities are run by my city and not a corporation.
pitlane17 t1_isbkwwt wrote
Everyone gets charged a customer charge out of the gate. That covers a portion of their cost for maintenance. Whether you use 5kwh or 3000 in a month as residential. The charge is the same. Just because I now add solar and lower my kwh usage now I have to pay fees for the amount of kw I have in solar? That doesn't make since, I contribute more then the person who only has small livestock well, yet they pay the same customer charge, and I still have to pay the customer charge and the kw solar fee.
omegasix321 t1_isblwx8 wrote
Biden(or his administration at least) has mentioned that they wanted to go after this specific issue. Well, maybe not the solar fee specifically, but companies issuing bullshit fees more generally.
Whether this is legally feasible and how they’ll go about it I have no idea.
vissalyn t1_isbm7n5 wrote
Yeah a customer charge vs revenue to cover expenses through the rate case are separate here. If everyone suddenly had solar installed, the utility wouldn’t have enough revenue from customers to maintain the current grid without upping that base charge, so now that base charge would be substantial. Since now you aren’t recovering costs from a kWh basis but instead it’s more of a fixed cost to all customers to just maintain the grid.
Let’s say 50% of the customer base installs solar - now the utility must cover the same costs to maintain the grid, yet their revenue is substantially lowered, so the money has to come from somewhere. Do you just increase the rate cost and now the half of customers not using solar are paying double what they were? Well that doesn’t make much sense since anyone with solar is still benefiting from that entire grid.
Perhaps the best solution is to break out electrical bills to generation costs (fuel, maintenance at power plants, wind sites etc. ) and charge those through a rate structure $/kwh, then take the grid maintenance side and just charge that evenly across all households. Many people wouldn’t think this is fair either, but it’s one option.
manual_tranny OP t1_isbmm8b wrote
LOL what the fuck, first you didn't understand units of measurement, now you don't understand taxes and government funding? G'bye.
[deleted] t1_isbno3s wrote
Future = money, every bank should be doing this.
yiannistheman t1_isbqt4u wrote
Equity research departments are decoupled from the deal and decision makers for the most part. You can have industry leading researchers working in a bank that can't get out of it's own way, as is the case here.
o-Valar-Morghulis-o t1_isbsage wrote
Get a home battery storage system as well and don't send the power back into the grid. This is the way.
The power companies have seen this coming a long time and they refuse to upgrade the grids to smart bidirectional grids. They prefer to mash everyone's power into the old grid and then lobby the government to stop hurting their profits and power. They also lobby for grid upgrades but not the kind of upgrades that support everyone collecting energy. They just want the old grid which keeps them fully with their foot on all the distribution.
Turns out, when they have an abundance of power or power fluctuations..the old grid system does a shitty job of taking advantage of it and we experience some waste at the large power plants. Those wasted are still charged out to all the customers. And the big utilities say "see? New ways no worky derp".
BigPickleKAM t1_isbylpj wrote
Depends on where you live but where I am doing that without approval of the utility is A BAD THING.
You can do it with their approval that is a proforma process provided you use one of their approved switches and it's installed by a certified electrician and a permit is pulled at city hall.
The reason and I agree since my father was an electrician is you don't want to back feed into the grid during an outage that is dangerous for the linesmen working the problem.
These days it's far too easy to buy a product online that has all the right stickers but isn't actually safe to use.
kaminaowner2 t1_isbz4z6 wrote
It actually makes sense, you still are dependent on the grid but pay nexts to nothing a month for its upkeep. A fee of some form is needed to make sure we have power when it’s cloudy. And power lines cost money to fix. 90 bucks sucks but most people pay 200 ish a month so it’s still worth the cost.
TacTurtle t1_isc1a6q wrote
Yeah, that’s coal country
nsa_reddit_monitor t1_isc5pu6 wrote
> you don't want to back feed into the grid during an outage
A transfer switch is designed to prevent this entirely though. Either your house is connected to the grid, or it's connected to your solar/generator/whatever. Never both.
RatmanThomas t1_isc8ll3 wrote
The government doesn’t have to charge a fee for up keep, they tax you for it.
Loeden t1_isc8qs6 wrote
Uh? We're talking about power companies. Many of which are not public utilities, although I wish they were.
JebusLives42 t1_iscahsg wrote
>But they are giving us that money back, come tax season.
No, they're not. They money they spent on solar panels will not be refunded to you.
It's possible they'll print other dollars, and give those to you.. but that also has some interesting consequences.
kidenraikou t1_iscbe0o wrote
Yes it will. It's literally a tax credit. You pay less in taxes at the end of the year, thus receiving a larger tax refund.
JebusLives42 t1_iscd93t wrote
I think you missed my meaning.
You're going to pay a dollar in taxes.
They're going to spend that dollar on solar panels.
Then they're going to give you the dollar back.. but how? They've already spent it.
kidenraikou t1_iscgznf wrote
Yes. On the solar panels that now power your home. That's them giving it back to you. I'm not sure what the problem is in this situation.
Edit: Genuinely, I think I am confused about your point.
BigPickleKAM t1_isch03l wrote
Yes there are many options with as many different functions as you can imagine.
Mine assists solar so on cloudy days and mornings etc it takes what it can from solar and then supplements from the grid if needed.
If I generate more power than I consume it feeds back into the grid and my utility pays me for that power (at a heavily discounted rate).
But mine has to monitor the grid side and open the grid supply breaker if the grid voltage drops below 220 volts for more than 50 milliseconds.
And it won't allow the grid tie breaker to close if there are less than 220 volts on grid side etc.
Since that requires a connection around the tie breaker to monitor grid side it has to be installed by a certified electrician. And the switch has to meet utility requirements for those variables.
The switch you describe would still need to monitor grid voltage and interlock with your solar or generator supply breaker so only one could ever be closed at a time. To meet the code where I live.
There are a couple of physical interlocking designs where one can't close the grid supply breaker if the generator or solar breaker is closed. They even come with a sticker saying it meets code. But when you read the fine print what they meet us that the Interlock doesn't modify your breaker panel in a way that takes it out of code. They specifically do not cover and device or system connected to the panel behind it.
My main point is that you can find some great value when shopping online depending on where the switch sells from. Lots of those switches do not meet requirements. Be very careful as you can hurt someone and or leave yourself open to liabilities if you install some sub standard transfer switch.
grundar t1_iscmpl6 wrote
> > 1¢/kWh
> >
> > pennies per watt
>
> One of these is bullshit.
No; in fact, if you work through the math, you'll see that these are saying essentially the same thing.
There are 8,760 hours in a year; average capacity factor for US solar is ~25%, so that's around 2,000Wh = 2kWh per watt per year. At a typical discount rate, the installation will be expected to pay for itself with 5-10 years of output, or 10-20kWh. At 1¢/kWh, that's only 10-20¢/W which must also include operations&maintenance, meaning an energy cost of 1¢/kWh requires an installation cost in the range of 5-10¢/W.
Similarly, you can run the math from the other direction; if you start with "pennies per watt", you get however many "pennies" that is divided by 5-10kWh (halved to account for O&M), or somewhere in the ballpark of 1¢/kWh.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iscnrk1 wrote
get enough to get a battery bank and cut them out completely.
naveronex t1_iscvpkw wrote
I had no idea, lol
Substantial_City4618 t1_isd28kn wrote
90 dollars to maintain a inefficient system when I have my own power? Fuck that I’ll just buy a generator and disconnect.
kaminaowner2 t1_isd7g8h wrote
If you can go for it, most states it’s illegal to go off grid, that said I know my state Oklahoma has no laws against it so look up your local state laws
UnderstandingSquare7 t1_isdb3jl wrote
That's a utility argument. The counter might be: As society goes increasingly solar, the utility is required to produce less power, which cuts down on their operating costs (they're buying and burning something to move those turbines!). Encouraging more solar with low or no fees, or renewables in general, lowers the stress on utility plant, and in the long run is an investment itself. The solar owners are actually bearing more of the cost of future operations and maintenance, instead of the utility.
the8thbit t1_isdlu1h wrote
It's blatantly anticompetitive. If you need to charge an upkeep fee, then it should be spread across all customers. Upkeep costs the same from the company's perspective whether you generate your power largely from your own panels, or if you depend entirely on the power company. Up charging customers who decide to replace one of your services should be illegal, and in many cases, it is.
Imagine if Microsoft started charging anyone who sets their default browser to anything but Edge $5/mo for service updates. "It actually makes sense, because it costs money to develop and distribute updates!" They'd be laughed right out of court with that defense.
In most cases, what the power companies are doing is even more indefensible. They're generally regional monopolies and an some states you're required to do business with them if you want to not be homeless. At least with Windows there are alternative operating systems.
TikkiTakiTomtom t1_isduwyv wrote
Sounds like death throes by an outdated industry to me
kaminaowner2 t1_isdxi5y wrote
The electric system has to become a subscription service, the grid can’t be replaced, and can’t be repaired for free. Unless we find a magic way to fix the grid their has to be a minimum charge. It’s not anti competition because you aren’t competing with the electric company, your dependent on it. Wake up and recognize we have to work together still in order for this solar thing to work, you charge my house when it’s dark here, I charge yours later.
JimC29 t1_isdxj8u wrote
I only spend over $60 on electricity in July and August. My heat and hot water are gas though. June is usually in the 60s.
kaminaowner2 t1_isdy2m9 wrote
If you pay for gas you have to include that charge to the savings, because us electric folk don’t pay for that. Also I’m guessing you’re in the north (most gas users are) it’s cheaper to hear a house than cool one. You’re fellow southern citizens use more energy in general than you.
JimC29 t1_isdyb7q wrote
Midwest. My heating bills in the winter are are 30-50 a month. I also have insulated my house very well including all new windows.
I know I'm on the very low end of energy use in my area. I'm just saying the fee would be more than I spend on electricity throughout the year.
kaminaowner2 t1_isdyved wrote
In theory the fee would be less their too, idk how your state works (some don’t have any fee yet) but it’ll be different state by state, California is a crazy place compared to the mid west.
chowder-san t1_iseamh9 wrote
Well, yeah. People in Poland had to deal with a lot of bs with coal and wood supply for winter because of government 's nonsense. Many people are now afraid that once those, who failed to secure enough fuel switch on electrical heaters the entire grid will go down. I'm considering getting a generator myself, I have fuel but it will be useless without electricity for pumps lol
Substantial_City4618 t1_iserw3o wrote
The fact it’s illegal to go off the grid in some states, should be a political conversation of a lot more importance.
“If I’m supporting it with a local monopoly and often with tax dollars, do I have support it with my after tax dollars under penalty of the law?”
PuzzledCup4957 t1_iset80s wrote
its affordable when someone else pays for it, basic economics is hard.
Telemere125 t1_iseubrh wrote
That doesn’t make sense at all, especially on grid-tie systems. They’re still charging non-solar customers the normal rate to use my solar-generated energy even tho I’m the one paying for it’s upkeep with my panels. So when solar energy is used by a non-solar customer, it’s been paid for twice and when I, a solar customer, use non-solar energy, im still paying for the normal rate. A “convenience” charge is specifically only there to discourage solar installs
Telemere125 t1_iseumeh wrote
I think that’s more for people that generate a ton of extra and sell to the grid on sunny days but still need grid tie for night/clouds/etc so they can’t just straight disconnect.
[deleted] t1_isex46p wrote
Open-Gazelle-3774 t1_isf28gj wrote
Before we have to pay that $90 fee we should be given the option to go off grid… I have to batteries and a gen. I would rather go off then pay close to half of what my normal electric bill would be. A $10-15 monthly fee I understand but $90?
kaminaowner2 t1_isf5vp4 wrote
I don’t believe it needs to be 90 dollars, but it’s a fact not a opinion solar is becoming both more popular,efficient,cheaper. When the average American is selling energy energy becomes worth less, but the systems in which that energy travels still has value and need. Maybe it would be 8 dollars or less but there is a price minimum we have to create in order to pay real people to take care of infrastructure we all use, it’s no different than the road.
kaminaowner2 t1_isf6e2z wrote
I do believe the amount is to high, it also is different state by state. Going off grid is nice but does cut into the promise of solar, you charge my house when it’s dark here, and I charge yours when it’s dark there, and we both charge the city’s. We need more humans working together not more going our own way, but there is room for some of us to cut ties, just not all or even most.
Telemere125 t1_isf6lad wrote
Yea but if the solar is becoming less valuable per kWh and there’s more of it, then the power company shouldn’t need to generate as much on their own or buy as much from other sources. We’re seeing the exact opposite happen - they just raised rates in the SE US by 60% in May. So their claim is that power is currently costing us more to generate, not less.
kaminaowner2 t1_isf87qe wrote
There is a lot of underhanded deals and agreements that need to stop, I’m not saying there is no corruption because there definitely is, my only point was we need to pay something still to pay for the shiny new grid we need to go with all this space age technology. I personally was gonna buy some land and throw some solar panels on it, but turns out my state’s electric company has a legal agreement to buy most it’s energy from one oil company, so they informed me they’d pay me for 3c for every 17 worth of electricity I made, ya they wanted to make a 82% profit. I understand how unfair they are.
the8thbit t1_isfj7qj wrote
>The electric system has to become a subscription service, the grid can’t be replaced, and can’t be repaired for free.
Of course. So charge everyone the same subscription fee. Why should solar panel owners be forced to bear a larger portion of the cost for the same service that everyone gets?
>It’s not anti competition because you aren’t competing with the electric company, your dependent on it.
You can be both dependent on a company, and competing with them. Chrome is (mostly) dependent on an operating system ecosystem provided by Microsoft. That doesn't mean Google and Microsoft aren't competitors, and if Microsoft instituted fees for installing Chrome, that would be blatantly anticompetitive.
A home solar operator sells power to people (themselves and their other nearby people on the grid) when its more economical to get it from them than from the power company. The home solar operator gets that money, and the power company does not. If the home solar operator didn't exist, the power company would be getting that money as they wouldn't have to compete with the solar operator. Home solar installations take customers away from power companies. That's about as cut and dry competition as it gets.
Telemere125 t1_isfxv5a wrote
That, plus they’re really not upgrading any of the grid. Sure, new developments get new lines but that’s all built into the cost of the neighborhood; and they replace lines when they’re knocked down, but part of the reason we’ve seen all these fires out west is precisely because they aren’t upgrading anything properly. And plenty of people can’t or won’t go solar - even if we get off fossil fuels entirely - so those people can spend on the incoming power they use and support the grid cost. This is also the reason all utilities should be government-run. Yes, government has its own share of problems, but they’re not profit-centered.
kaminaowner2 t1_isg5tj8 wrote
Ya I’d personally make the grid as a government issue, our taxes should cover it the same way we cover the roads, but I don’t buy people against solar will never go solar, they said the same stuff about LED bulbs and now it’s the norm, and here in the American south where I live solar is popping up everywhere on houses. I think in 10-20 years solar will just be common on new houses the way microwaves are.
redingerforcongress t1_iskdkke wrote
Clickbait title, repost with non-editorialized title please.
TaXxER t1_it0q91r wrote
> So it might actually be affordable here soon. The worst part is the “Solar fee” from the power company.
Vote for better politicians that prohibit that, because such fees are not a common thing in a global perspective.
naveronex t1_it225oz wrote
I definitely agree. Sadly I live in a very very corrupt red state, but I try!
manual_tranny OP t1_isah247 wrote
Due to a combination of subsidies for manufacturing and project tax credits, the United States could see solar and wind PPAs signed at prices below 1¢/kWh. PPAs below $0 have happened before (in Portugal), however, they are still the exception the the rule.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will pay solar panel manufacturers up to 18¢/W to manufacture solar modules. Every part of the panel is subsidized - the poly silicon, wafers, cells, and modules. The Production Tax Credit, worth 2.6¢/kWh, pays out (inflation adjusted!) for 10 years after a project is constructed. And that 2.6¢/kWh will increase ~33% for modules manufactured domestically, and an additional ~33% for projects built in solar energy communities (energy communities are brownfields & other sites where coal/oil/NG were burned after Dec 1, 1999)
When we combine the cheap IRA solar panels with the PTC, that's when we see domestic solar power PPAs signed for $0/kWh or below.
One consequence of the subsidized pricing - Credit Suisse predicts that the United States could become a net exporter of solar modules to the global market.