Professor Borenstein's 'PV is ..waste of money...' conclusion

This is a response to the subject announcement by Professor Borenstein's
report findings, --http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp176.pdf

I have to agree Prof. Borenstein may have a publicity motive in publicizing his report.
His result/conclusion actually contradic demonstrated returns for Californian PV owners.
He recommends putting money into research instead of incentive programs.
He neglects the fact that oil and gas industries have been subsidized by all tax payers, probalbly over the past century.
He only acknowledges that utilities may pay to continue their GHG emissions by paying the minimal $20/ton or less under a permitting system; while $100/ton or higher should be reasonable. Again, his conclusion also contrast with two leading PV countries in the world --Germany and Japan; implying that these countries must not have been rational in their decision to go solar in a big way.
I think he had done a dis-service to the society, by expressing opinion based on
partial analysis. He talks about social return and 'externalities', yet uses numbers and factors strictly based on conjectured return on investment dollars. What is the cost of mercury poisoning?, devastated environment?

That's what I've got to get off my chest.
Steve