Interesting. This Utility Dive article points out that the rate change is to be phased in over four years. It's not a cliff. That should mitigate large-scale sudden incentive changes.
Where I live the electric energy company has separate rates for energy and for distribution. I think it's like that everywhere.
In the most naive pricing model net metering ignores that distinction and simply run the meter backwards when local production exceeds local consumption.
In the second most naive pricing model, the local customer would credit for energy cost, but not distribution, when local production exceeds consumption.
Neither of those are completely fair: the first doesn't gain the utility a return on their distribution infrastructure investment, and the second pays the utility too much. Why too much? Around here we pay a level distribution fee that covers both the long-haul lines from Georgian Bay and the shorter haul from the local coal plant. Locally generated electricity doesn't use the long-haul distribution system.
What's needed is a pricing model that ...
a) maintains incentives to build out new generation (rooftop, etc.)
b) makes incentives to create a new "smart grid" distribution system.
I fear that loud political posturing (Jobs!!! Monopolists!!!) isn't helping get this right.
But naive models, in a world that can have companies like Enron disrupting those models, are also not good enough.
For example, naive net metering -- backward running meters -- is not as favorable to Tesla's battery business as a dual-rate system. The return on a battery investment needs to come from that margin.