The world's dumbest idea: Taxing solar and wind energy

[dmcowen674]

4-18-2014

http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-dumbest-idea-taxing-solar-energy-111300623.html

The world's dumbest idea: Taxing solar and wind energy



In a setback for the renewable energy movement, the state House in Oklahoma this week passed a bill that would levy a new fee on those who generate their own energy through solar equipment or wind turbines on their property.

The measure, which sailed to passage on a near unanimous vote after no debate, is likely to be signed into law by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin.

Oklahoma is not alone. Last year, Arizona enacted a similar law. Legislators in Spain tried to do the same thing. The pushback against renewable energy, it seems, is already here.

That there is a pushback should not come as a shock. Technological innovations are often resisted by those who have a stake in the old system, and energy companies are deeply invested in fossil fuels and nuclear power.

 

[dmcowen674]

Of course look who is passing these insane laws against renewable energy.

Republicans with interests in fossil fuel Corporations

 

[Double Trouble]

That is one horribly written one sided article.

I don't think discouraging the use of renewable energy is a good idea in general, but the linked piece fails to mention what the specifics of the bill are, what the arguments for/against are, what the breakdown of the votes for/against were among the legislators and on and on. A good example of an opinion piece loosely veiled as "news". Reporting fail.

 

[cabri]

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1456%20ENR.PDF

From Section B:

required to recover the full costs necessary to serve customers who install distributed generation on the customer side of the meter

A. As used in this section:

B. No public utility retail electric supplier shall increase rates charged or enforce a surcharge on the basis of the use or installation of a solar energy device by a consumer above that required to recover the full costs necessary to serve customers who install distributed generation on the customer side of the meter after the effective date of this act.

C. No retail electric supplier shall allow customers with distributed generation installed after the effective date of this act to be subsidized by customers in the same class of service who do not have distributed generation.

D. A higher fixed charge for customers within the same class of service that have distributed generation installed after the effective date of this act, as compared to the fixed charges of those customers who do not have distributed generation, is a means to avoid subsidization between customers within that class of service and shall be deemed in the public interest.

E. Retail electric suppliers shall implement tariffs in compliance with this act no later than December 31, 2015.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet another frothing at mouth thread by McOwned.

 

[Kadarin]

The measure, which sailed to passage on a near unanimous vote after no debate, is likely to be signed into law by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin.

Regardless of the merits of the bill... When something like the above happens I have to wonder if government is even bothering to pay lip service to serving the interests of the people.

 

[brycejones]

AFP and ALEC for the win.....

 

[frowertr]

Does the OP actually engage in discussion of his threads or does he just post headlines/articles in order to stir the pot and then vanish?

I have a mind simply refrain from posting in any future threads from this guy. He is only looking to stir the pot as far as I can tell.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Regardless of the merits of the bill... When something like the above happens I have to wonder if government is even bothering to pay lip service to serving the interests of the people.

The answer is obviously no. Both parties are working against the people. Why anyone would support either one is beyond me.

 

[Thebobo]

We had a booming solar industry in the 80s untill Ronald Raygun removed the solar tax credit.

 

[Mani]

More proof that republicans don't truly care about lower taxes unless it benefits them economically or politically.

 

[PokerGuy]

We had a booming solar industry in the 80s untill Ronald Raygun removed the solar tax credit.

Yeah, I'm sure that the solar industry problems have absolutely nothing to do with the much cheaper chinese competition right? It's of course the fault of a lack of government handouts.

 

[QuantumPion]

OP why are you in favor of tax cuts for the rich? Raising everyone's taxes to pay for solar subsidies through higher electricity prices, which regressively hurt the poor the most, but then take away direct taxes on solar users, whom are pretty much exclusively upper class white people.

 

[QuantumPion]

More proof that republicans don't truly care about lower taxes unless it benefits them economically or politically.

More proof that democrats like to tax poor minorities to give benefits to rich white liberals.

 

[Keeper]

As an owner of a 7000 KW system I am exposed to this and really, I support it at some level.
During the spring and fall, my bill is just the daily fee and taxes. Last April May and June my Bills were 9, 11 and 12 USD. So I was creating bank. Now, presently the bank is not settled till a year cycle and that is FINE.
The logic behind that is I would rather NOT have a surplus that I get paid WHOLESALE rate. I would rather use it and save my household the retail rate costs.
But, lets presume my wife DIDNT now run every electric device that can create heat in the winter, and COLD in the summer and at the end of the year, I had a bank to sell back.
So basically, I enjoy the luxury of running a business with NO monthly overhead. I don't pay for the lines, the transformers etc., all those things that PSEG maintain on an ongoing basis. I paid a ONE TIME fee upfront.
Do I like it? No. Do I support it? Yes. STUFF COSTS.
Its similar to the plan being floated in NJ... It appears that NJ has a HIGH amount of electric cars and hybrids and couple that with the lowest per gallon price of gasoline... They have a shortfall. . A LOT of those gasoline taxes go for infrastructure upkeep. So basically hybrid and Electric car owners are using a service (Roads and Bridges) for free. SO NJ wants to create a per mile of use tax.... Sorta like commercial truckers do....

Look, We could stand here and say well government needs to be more frugal and spendthrift... I GET THAT. But till that happens, your taxes pay for services we enjoy. And ANY loss of ANY revenue stream, creates shortages and stresses elsewhere that has to be made up.
You think that when those "X" number of property tax grievances that a town loses in a given year they go back and go WHOA.... we need to cut spending..... They back fill it elsewhere.

 

[dmcowen674]

Does the OP actually engage in discussion of his threads or does he just post headlines/articles in order to stir the pot and then vanish?

I have a mind simply refrain from posting in any future threads from this guy. He is only looking to stir the pot as far as I can tell.

I've been here since the site started. You have 660 posts going back to 2010.

Who is the cut and run here? :hmm:

This site features an ignore list.

Simply add my name and you won't have to see anything I post.

 

[Kadarin]

I understand the need to maintain infrastructure with taxes, that's one of the reasons why we have government. So I'm all for a fair taxation structure that does just that, and if electric cars need to be added into the mix somehow, that's fine. For rooftop solar plants, I can imagine a reasonable monthly "grid connection and maintenance" fee coupled with the power company buying power from you at whatever appropriate rate.

I do NOT want to see one side or another passing legislation that quashes the other side as a means to artificially promote their business.

 

[werepossum]

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1456%20ENR.PDF

From Section B:

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

I was set to agree with Dave until I read this. Thanks for the info, that's one less time I'll be wrong. Sadly that might not be a statistically significant drop, but every little bit helps.

As an owner of a 7000 KW system I am exposed to this and really, I support it at some level.
During the spring and fall, my bill is just the daily fee and taxes. Last April May and June my Bills were 9, 11 and 12 USD. So I was creating bank. Now, presently the bank is not settled till a year cycle and that is FINE.
The logic behind that is I would rather NOT have a surplus that I get paid WHOLESALE rate. I would rather use it and save my household the retail rate costs.
But, lets presume my wife DIDNT now run every electric device that can create heat in the winter, and COLD in the summer and at the end of the year, I had a bank to sell back.
So basically, I enjoy the luxury of running a business with NO monthly overhead. I don't pay for the lines, the transformers etc., all those things that PSEG maintain on an ongoing basis. I paid a ONE TIME fee upfront.
Do I like it? No. Do I support it? Yes. STUFF COSTS.
Its similar to the plan being floated in NJ... It appears that NJ has a HIGH amount of electric cars and hybrids and couple that with the lowest per gallon price of gasoline... They have a shortfall. . A LOT of those gasoline taxes go for infrastructure upkeep. So basically hybrid and Electric car owners are using a service (Roads and Bridges) for free. SO NJ wants to create a per mile of use tax.... Sorta like commercial truckers do....

Look, We could stand here and say well government needs to be more frugal and spendthrift... I GET THAT. But till that happens, your taxes pay for services we enjoy. And ANY loss of ANY revenue stream, creates shortages and stresses elsewhere that has to be made up.
You think that when those "X" number of property tax grievances that a town loses in a given year they go back and go WHOA.... we need to cut spending..... They back fill it elsewhere.

I commend you on your honesty, good attitude, and ability to look beyond your own immediate personal advantage. Thou art made of win.

This could easily be post of the year, if we had such a thing.

 

[mrjminer]

I don't have solar or any type of alternative energy.

I don't see where taxing for being connected infrastructure would be a problem. The question is how much the taxes will be and how they will calculate them. The question will be how much is too much, and how it is actually being used because, let's be realistic, they are going to fuck people out of as much money as humanly possible and do little to nothing in return for said money.

If they did it fairly and reasonably, sure I'm for it, but people need to learn their lesson from the FCC internet debacle and go against any increased taxes/subsidies on utilities for any reason, forcing them to choose the option of having the company raise rates to compensate or have a separate regulated plan for people using solar/alternatives which reduces the sellback rate or has a slightly higher usage rate to accommodates for the infrastructure usage.

All these taxes are is preparation for screwing everyone when solar/other alternatives become more affordable options. We all know that we will be at the point where power companies operating on fossil fuels will be a thing of the past in a relatively short time (not like 5 years or something, but 50-100 seems more likely). Once they get this tax on the board, it's going to be damn near impossible to get it removed, and everyone will be fucked in the future. Rates, on the other hand, are much more highly regulated and subject to profit caps, preventing them from fucking you in the ass nearly as bad as you will be from an increase guised as a tax or subsidy.

I don't have anything against power companies, in fact, I think they do a damn good job. However, if you are for them taxing you, I challenge you to instead be for accountability and make them charge for it.

 

[cabri]

No matter what the OP insinuates, this is not a tax. Reading/comprehending has been demonstrated over the years to not be his strong suit.

Shock therapy along with twisting and or ignoring the truth has become his strong point, not debating or analysis of them. :thumbown:

From the PDF posted, the utilities are allowed to charge a fee to those that install electrical generation that feeds back onto the grid. That fee is to cover the costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure that the customer still requires as long as they are hooked to the grid.

 

[mrjminer]

No matter what the OP insinuates, this is not a tax. Reading/comprehending has been demonstrated over the years to not be his strong suit.

Shock therapy along with twisting and or ignoring the truth has become his strong point, not debating or analysis of them. :thumbown:

From the PDF posted, the utilities are allowed to charge a fee to those that install electrical generation that feeds back onto the grid. That fee is to cover the costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure that the customer still requires as long as they are hooked to the grid.

Yea, it's not a tax. It's a subsidy. I mean a fee. I mean a surcharge.

I'm sure you'll be included in their full public disclosure of what constitutes their calculation of the "full costs," and exactly where that money will go. You probably don't have anything to worry about since this exhaustive 1-page bill (sans definitions / introduction) is enough to cover whatever comes up.

 

[theeedude]

Then they should charge that fee to everyone, not just people who have solar panels, like that bill does. Have a fixed fee for having a connection plus a separate charge for energy used or refund for energy put on the grid.
A guy who uses 200KWh, generates 150KWh using solar and buys 50KWh from utility should pay what a guy who only uses 50KWh and buys it all from the utility. Under this bill, the first guy will have to pay more, even though he buys same amount of electricity from the utility as the second guy.

 

[Zorba]

No matter what the OP insinuates, this is not a tax. Reading/comprehending has been demonstrated over the years to not be his strong suit.

Shock therapy along with twisting and or ignoring the truth has become his strong point, not debating or analysis of them. :thumbown:

From the PDF posted, the utilities are allowed to charge a fee to those that install electrical generation that feeds back onto the grid. That fee is to cover the costs incurred to maintain the infrastructure that the customer still requires as long as they are hooked to the grid.

What I don't get, is everyone is already charged a monthly service fee, even if you don't use a single kw-hr. It seems like that fee should already be inclusive of the hook-up and infrastructure fee. Since the other fees are per kw-hr charges.

 

[IGBT]

will also happen in california / oregon and washington. already being discussed at the legislative level. Why do you think contractor installed systems are required to hook up to existing grid meter?? It was the plan all along.

 

[Thebobo]

Yeah, I'm sure that the solar industry problems have absolutely nothing to do with the much cheaper chinese competition right? It's of course the fault of a lack of government handouts.

Nope, back in the 80s there was no Chinese competition.