Do you think it doesn't cost the utilities more money to compensate solar producers at the same rate that they purchase the power for vs the utilities getting power from other sources?
No. This is because under NEM the utilities do
not compensate solar producers at retail for power produced. This is enforced by the NEM rules and implementations.
Unlike commercial generators of power,
residential NEM customers are
not a source of power, sorry. Here is why: Over the year long NEM "relevant period" customers are net
consumers of power, for which they pay retail prices. NEM does let them export power at times when their production exceeds their consumption, and then re-import that same power at other times. These temporary exports and re-imports are billed and credited respectively at retail rates, and so cancel each other out. There is no
net purchase of power from these customers over the course of the year. The utilities do not, in net total, purchase
any power from solar NEM customers at retail.
So, since there is no net purchase from NEM customers at retail, my answer to your question is "no".
In cases where an occasional NEM customer does, over the year, export more than they import, they are paid a low wholesale price, which is less than the average price they pay commercial producers.
Your question in effect assumes that NEM customers are only exporters, which is counterfactual. The entire point of the design of NEM is to allow import during darkness of power produced during daylight, but doing so in a way that incurs NO EXTRA COST to the utilities or customer. Because export and import are done at different times, it is tempting to look only at the export transaction, as you have done. But doing so you ignore the very nature of NEM and ask questions which serve to illuminate your misunderstanding.
Utilities promote these obfuscations because it helps them lobby for plans which would kill solar. That would increase their profits - even if utilities go with renewable sources, they get to take a profit slice from the revenue and capital investment. If instead, consumers make the investment, utilities loose that slice. They like their monopoly, and prefer not to let their customers become competitors, even if it is only for their customers' own consumption.
If it does cost more money, do you think the utilities don't increase their rates to cover it?
Because NEM does not cost more for any exported NEM solar, this question is moot.
In total, the utility pays less for power purchased from solar customers than it does from commercial produces. The difference is that solar uses no fossil or fissile fuel, which is yet another net benefit for all utility customers.
Solar customer's bills are lower because they use less of what utilities sell. Clearly there are pricing distortions, but NEM is not one of them. Time-of-use rates, and the "progressive" volume pricing are examples. But like all customers, NEM customers are subject to the same monthly minimum charges which reduce and limit those distortions.
As a case in point, I have solar and a PowerWall battery and especially with an EV I am a net consumer of kWh annually. But last year I drew almost no power at all during peak periods. With the new Export Everthing PW option, during this years peak grid load periods I exported a bunch. So, not only does my system let me eliminate my own peak period consumption from the grid, but it lets me help cover my non-solar neighbors usage. This reduces utility net peak load, and hence generation and transmission capacity requirements. The aggregate result of many folks doing this is to reduce, not increase, bills for non-solar customers. Solar reduces utilities' fuel expenses, and batteries reduce capital requirements.
The world's global standard of living has been raised tremendously by using fossil fuels for energy - coal, then oil and gas. We now realize that this is not sustainable. We will eventually either see our standards fall, or we will transition to solar, wind, hydro and other renewable energy sources to reverse the damaging effects of releasing fossil fuel exhaust. NEM has and is helping encourage homeowners to invest in renewables. Killing solar though "revising" NEM would leave us only the utilities to make those investments.
