What was actually approved by PUC earlier this year was a plan to charge us cash for the power we deliver, but there was enough uproar they backed off to something more reasonable. It probably still doesn't reflect the avoided cost of infrastructure, however.
I guess it's different there. Here there is little to no avoided cost of transmission (the big high voltage transmission network) and distribution (poles and wires) infrastructure by having rooftops full of PV. Those infrastructure costs are driven by the peak system load (early weekday evenings when solar PV has all but disappeared) and the general growth of towns and cities.
The rules are changing here, where power distribution companies will be permitted to begin introducing wholesale tariff structures which do place a charge on exported rooftop PV energy. In general these wholesale tariffs won't result in actually being charged to export at retail level, but rather there will be retailer adjustments to feed-in tariffs.
And it's a good thing because the distributors who do introduce such tariffs will be required to:
(i) invest more to ensure the grid can accept more rooftop PV energy, and
(ii) reduce the tariffs charged for energy we import from the grid.
Here the distributors are pretty tightly regulated, and their incomes are a set level over five year periods. IOW it's a zero sum game for them, so by removing impediments for them to invest to enable more distributed energy supply is a good move as our ageing coal power fleet retires.
It is also fairer because at present the cost burden for the distribution network's development and maintenance is being unfairly shifted from those with solar PV to those without it, even though they all use the same infrastructure. 99%+ of solar PV here is grid-tied and they all need the same poles and wires as the non-solar homes and businesses. Off-grid is very niche, as are grid tied batteries (far too expensive).