I will repeat my answer in more detail...
Self generation approaches today are basically for the well to do. Any private installation that has surplus power (taken over a year) is not going to be small or low cost. They are mostly for those with money based on price alone.
Generally the current consumer billings are based on total monthly usage, regardless of time of day. Those with local generation capability trade KWH for KWH, regardless of when it was generated or used with an annual balancing of the books.
Your contention that PV generated power at peak times is always traded against off peak power is also an overly broad assumption. Assuming a typical usage profile, KWH generated during the summer are often "used" during peak times in the winter under the current approach. I admit it is not perfect, but it is a step forward and compatible with the rest of the billing approaches authorized by the PUC
Some current smart meters can break down usage to TOD, but they are not widely installed. In fact the CA PUC just approved a scheme so those who really want the old analog style meters can retain them (for a price). A utility could install meters that tracked usage vs TOD and consumers could be billed on that basis. However, those without private generation capacity would scream at the cost.
If the PUC adopts the scheme you champion, the well to do would most likely pay even less for power and the rest of the utilities customers would have to pay more. Somehow taking money from the rest of us to pay the well off does not seem real progressive to me and that will be the effect of what you champion. I believe the social cost of such a scheme needs to be looked at broadly, and hopefully the CA PUC will do that.
That answers your question (for the second or third time)
Now to my questions:
Why are you not considering the broader social implication while pushing a rate scheme that benefits the rich over the broader population?
Why are you so set on adding to my pocketbook?
= new reply since forum marked as read