Sun Tax
.
$4.65 today... Big $$$ tomorrow...??? "Sun Tax" To Punish Alternative Energy Users | Survival BackpackSurvival Backpack :rolleyes: > |
I wonder if the utility charges it's wholesale suppliers to use the grid, other than paying them a wholesale price for their electricity.
I'd bet not. regards Mech |
Well they already tax the ground, and in Maryland at least they tax the rain. I'm surprised they haven't tried this sooner, really.
|
VA use to charge you 100 bucks for owning a hybrid and they tax the rain water run off by the sq ft of the property you own. :eek:
|
The power company in Utah is Rocky Mountain power, which is owned by PacifiCorp, which is ultimately owned by Warren Buffett (Billionaire).
Unfortunately Utah is well known for it's corrupt good old boy network, just look at the last two Utah Attorney Generals who were charged with over 30 felonies!!! I seriously doubt Utah will do the right thing here, since Utah is a corrupt, Big Oil state. |
I see I have walked into a religious meeting here...
The "sun tax" wasn't a tax on the sun at all. In fact, it isn't even a tax. The article clearly states that the fee "to help cover the grid’s fixed costs, those associated with transmission and distribution of electricity through a vast network of wires, transformers and substations.". The utility asserts that the cost of maintaining the infrastructure with grid-intertied customers is greater than the cost of a non-producing customer. The utility has the duty to charge customers based on the actual fixed and variable costs associated with delivering power and maintaining infrastructure. This is perfectly reasonable. However, I fail to see how net-metering could cost an extra $4.65/mo to maintain the infrastructure. I'd like to see a non-biased explanation of how grid-intertie costs so much more in fixed costs, with all benefits and detriments accounted for. |
Double-post
|
Hopefully they don't get the idea to tax wind turbines.
That'll be the day, when the "air tax" comes into existence. Lol |
How many taxes do you pay?
regards Mech |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My response was from the perspective of the way I am billed for electricity, which includes a $12 "basic charge" that covers the fixed expenses of the infrastructure and maintaining an account. If a utility recovers fixed costs by incorporating them into the consumption charge, then it's not just the solar people that are shirking their fair portion of paying for infrastructure; it's anyone with less than average power consumption. The proper way to bill a customer is a fixed monthly charge that covers all fixed costs. The usage charge should only include the variable costs of providing power. As you stated, the utility could easily dispense of the complaints if your assumption is correct about fixed charges being paid for by the variable amount of energy consumed. |
Quote:
*At least residential customers. You can have major issues with large industrial users, too. For instance, back when I was doing that sort of thing, there was a company that wanted to build a steel recycling plant that used an electric arc furnace to melt scrap steel. Problem was that it would have browned out about a quarter of the state every time they started it up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
During a major hurricane here recently the local power company repaired NOTHING. They were totally unprepared. We waited two weeks with no power until power companies came from other states to do the repair work. Their overpaid flunkies stood around supervising - collecting fat salaries to look important. The utility was so grossly incompetent (despite receiving continual rate and service increases) that they were recently taken over by a power company from a neighboring state. Quote:
|
.
Rachel Maddow: Oklahoma’s ‘sun tax’ law means it’s a threat to Koch Brothers’ allies Quote:
So, is this where it's all headed...??? The Solar Powered Death Spiral For Utilities Begins – In Hawaii Which, has already lead to this...:eek: Quote:
Google Translate > |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Except it just ain't so. There are two ways you as a homeowner can do solar. You can be connected to the grid, or you can spend a lot of money on batteries, inverters, and other things needed to go off the grid. (Or the third way: just don't use electricity when the sun isn't shining :-))
Now if you choose to be connected to the grid, you need to recognize that it isn't free: there are real costs associated with its operation & maintenance. To date, those costs have usually been collected as a per kWh charge. In retrospect that was probably a mistake, because it created the impression that the grid WAS free, and so people with grid-tied solar, and people like me who just don't use much electricity, arguably got away with paying less than their fair share. Indeed, people whose solar panels generated more than they used were even subsidized, since they got all the benefits of the grid tie for free. So this is what the argument is: not a new 'Sun Tax', but a realization that solar is growing to the point where it no longer needs the subsidy, and should pick up a share of the grid cost. *Note that the same logic applies to paying for roads with a gas tax. Since (at 70+ mpg in the Insight) I use much less gas than the average person to travel the same number of miles, my road use is being subsidized by all the SUV and oversized pickup drivers :-) |
Quote:
Taxation is the art of plucking the goose with the least amount of squawking involved. ;) |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com