In my town, when a few of us got rooftop solar, some homes reduced their electric bills significantly, in some cases, to less than zero, so the Light Dept said (publically in meetings) we weren't paying our fair share. The real issue was a threat of loss of revenue. It is fair to ask homes that pay nothing, always pay something, but the term "fair share" is inaccurate and emotive.
Why don't you fully cite what they said? The issue is that maintenance of the grid also has costs. So if everyone hovers on net zero(or even pumping electricity back to the grid), who pays the cost for maintaining the electric lines and the salaries of people who work on managing the grid? The grid will go down with no repairs. Money doesn't grow on trees.
That's what they mean by fair share, the homes are still connected to the grid, and can use it with their rooftop solar doesn't generate enough power, but they pay nothing or close to nothing when an electric line needs repair, their nonsolar neighbors pay it for them. I don't know if 'not paying the fair share' or 'freeloading' are the right terms, what would you call that situation? If the distribution fee is bothering people, why don't they disconnect the grid and pay nothing?
I don’t think the implication was they shouldn’t pay a fee, but that the term itself is loaded. An honest accounting would indicate the very few of us pay our fair share of anything
