This article completely fails to mention several other potential factors:
- some states have reduced or removed subsidies to home owners for new solar installations
- solar installations are expensive and take years to pay themselves back (and ultimately become a net gain); but homeowners are staying in one home for shorter periods than in the past, making long-term planning less attractive
- some utilities have pressured local governments to block or make difficult new solar installations because of (real or perceived) problems with pushing a lot of power back into the grid from the endpoints (homes)
- political misinformation campaigns have convinced some simple folk that solar is bad (or is un-patriotic since some regions, such as Texas, are so deeply connected to oil and gas)
How much of a role these other factors have played is up for debate, but I think it's rather disingenuous of Reuters to not even mention some of these.
- some states have reduced or removed subsidies to home owners for new solar installations
- solar installations are expensive and take years to pay themselves back (and ultimately become a net gain); but homeowners are staying in one home for shorter periods than in the past, making long-term planning less attractive
- some utilities have pressured local governments to block or make difficult new solar installations because of (real or perceived) problems with pushing a lot of power back into the grid from the endpoints (homes)
- political misinformation campaigns have convinced some simple folk that solar is bad (or is un-patriotic since some regions, such as Texas, are so deeply connected to oil and gas)
How much of a role these other factors have played is up for debate, but I think it's rather disingenuous of Reuters to not even mention some of these.