> Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how any of that translates to a defense of the utilities' overall behavior.

It's not a defense of utilities, it's more about shining a light on regulatory actions.

I referenced the regulatory parts several times because that's the largest factor of what they can and cannot do. For example, in most states, an electric utility must first seek regulatory approval to raise prices even for emergency infrastructure repairs.

> Why can't they like, suggest to the relevant authorities, that it be refactored along more logical lines, where solar power generators have the appropriate checks for safety (before feeding into the grid), and are paid a significant fraction of the value their power adds to the network?

The resulting Kafka-esque bits were what regional grid operators and regulators jointly required _a long time ago_ as part of the transition to a "deregulated" electricity market (e.g. this was not enacted in response to solar).

Those bits effectively add up to "make sure your power source(s) meet these bullet points before connecting them to the grid because we don't want unreliable power... or we'll fine you heavily for non-compliance and/or revoke your authority to operate in our territory".

If you, as a private commercial entity wanted to build a large-scale solar farm (or what's more typical nowadays: a cogeneration plant), you would probably go through the exact same process you went through with maybe a handful of extra steps, but not many more.

> But if they recognize that there are perverse incentives, why aren't they pushing, however gently and tepidly, for natural fixes to the misalignment of incentives?

For a more detailed example that's relevant to your area, take a look at ERCOT's interconnection guide[1] and a review document from UT Law about the current status and legal barriers to greater adoption of renewable energy in ERCOT territory[2].

Yes, it would be ideal if the the regulators could make a carve out for non-commercial, small-scale generators and allow it at cost or a state fund to draw from (e.g. if you're the only one in your neighborhood doing net metering, then someone has to bear the cost of say, pole-mounted capacitor banks: you, the state, the utility, or some combination thereof).

> If you were in a startup that had fundamentally screwed up incentives that prevented the optimal solution, you (like most here) would probably at least start writing the document that outlines what the system should look like, and push a little towards its implementation.

There are a slew of investors who want things relaxed so they can enter these markets.

Currently, that battle is being fought (and won) by entities known as distributed generators. These tend to comprise of the folks who are selling PV systems to homeowners for $0 down in turn for you leasing it to them but the giant caveat is they keep 100% of the credits/revenue from net metering. (Think of SolarCity, etc)

And to address the primary hurdles with the startup approach are:

1. Regulators like large entities to deal with and enforce regulations, not several entities. They will push back to make their lives easier.

2. If you ask a large company (or group of investors) to fight on your behalf, they are going to fight for what benefits them not necessarily you.

There are consequences to going rogue in a regulated industry. Specifically, going against the grain is what caused Uber to be disallowed from operating its ride share services in Austin for some time.

1: https://www.ercot.com/services/rq/integration

2: https://utcle.org/elibrary/download/practice_area_id/32/a/51...