Steeles Royal
Toronto Escorts

Koch Bros Behind Solar Power Fines

yung_dood

Banned
Jul 2, 2011
1,698
1
0
http://www.alternet.org/environment/now-kochs-are-coming-after-your-solar-panels

December 18, 2013


Now the Koch brothers are coming after my solar panels.

I had solar panels installed on the roof of our Washington, D.C. home this year. My household took advantage of a generous tax incentive from the District government and a creative leasing deal offered by the solar panel seller.

Our electric bills fell by at least a third. When people make this choice, the regional electric company grows less pressured to spend money to expand generating capacity and the installation business creates good local jobs. Customers who use solar energy also reduce carbon emissions.

What’s not to love?

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative network better known as ALEC, our solar panels make us “free riders.” What?

Yes, according to ALEC, an organization that specializes in getting the right-wing agenda written into state laws, people like me who invest in energy-efficiency and shrinking our carbon footprints ought to be penalized.

Why does ALEC want us punished? Since it’s bankrolled by, among others, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, it’s hard not to surmise that they’re worried about a threat to fossil fuels businesses. Koch Industries’ operations include refineries, oil and natural gas pipelines, and petrochemicals

That’s no conspiracy theory. Recently the British newspaper The Guardian wrote about the assault on solar panels as part of a broader exposé on ALEC.

John Eick, the legislative analyst for ALEC’s energy, environment and agriculture program, confirmed to The Guardian that the organization would support making solar panel users pay extra for the electricity they generate. That’s already about to happen in Arizona, where homeowners who use solar panels will pay an average of about $5 extra a month for the privilege, starting in January.

The solar power industry called the new rule a victory only because power companies in the state were demanding assessments of as much as $100 a month — more than high enough to deter families from considering switching to solar.

Making solar energy cost-prohibitive for homeowners and businesses is part of a larger ALEC objective, affirmed at its recent annual meeting, to continue its effort to eliminate state renewable energy mandates.

According to meeting minutes, ALEC has already succeeded in getting legislation introduced in 15 states to “reform, freeze, or repeal their state’s renewable mandate.” ALEC lobbyists are pushing policies through states that will speed up climate change and increase pollution. They’re threatening the renewable energy industry, which is already creating new jobs and saving money for homeowners and businesses.

Without the current policy paralysis in Washington and a lack of bold, creative thinking about how to build a new, green economy at the national level, they wouldn’t be making so much headway.

My organization, Institute for America’s Future — together with the Center for American Progress and the BlueGreen Alliance — recently published a report that shows what’s at stake with ALEC’s destructive agenda.

Our “green industrial revolution” report recommends tying together a series of regional solutions that take advantage of the unique assets of each part of the country, such as the abundance of sun in the West and the wind off the Atlantic coast, into a cohesive whole.

These regional strategies would be supported by smart federal policies, such as establishing a price for carbon emissions and a national clean energy standard, creating certainty and stability in the alternative energy tax credit market, and providing strong support for advanced energy manufacturing.

This is the way to unleash the kind of innovation and job creation our economy — and our rapidly warming planet— desperately needs.
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,569
4
38
In fact, it does make total sense to think of solar-people as moochers and scroungers.

Say the typical electricity bill is $1000 a year. And let's say, of that, $400 pays for the capital cost of the power station and grid, and $600 for the coal, executive salaries, etc.

Of course, the 40/60 ratio (or whatever it is), and the per kw-hr rate, are arrived at on the basis that we all get all our electricity from the power station.

What about solar-people, who are connected to the grid, but get most of their electricity from somewhere else? Keeping it simple, let's say the solar-users don't buy any power-station electricity at all, so their electricity bill is $0. But they still wanna be connected to the grid -- just in case.

So now, the solar-people are getting access to the power station and the grid for nothing - something the rest of us simpletons are paying $400 for. The more solar-people there are, the more the rest of us have to pay to pick up the cost of building the power stations.

If we were all solar-people, who would pay for the power stations?

The only thing that would justify the solar-people claiming to live a moral life is if they are not connected to the grid at all.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Buttercup, in that case the solution is to charge a connection fee that everyone pays, plus variable usage fees, rather than singling out solar users.
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,753
2
0
I get around.
If we were all solar-people, who would pay for the power stations?
Wha...?!
If we were all solar-people we wouldn't NEED more power stations and the costs would come down for all consumers. Maybe the people who generate power (ie Koch Industries) would not make as much profit but that's not the consumers problem or concern at all.

buttercup said:
The only thing that would justify the solar-people claiming to live a moral life is if they are not connected to the grid at all.
Huh? The article writer says nothing about morals so this is a very odd argument to make, esp as a way to defend the completely amoral Koch Industries lobbying.

It shouldn't matter if people lower their generated power consumption through solar panels - or turning off some lights and lowering the thermostat. There's really no justification for penalizing them for using less.
Seems like quite a bit. I stopped reading by that point. Moochers who don't even see it.

Kinda reminds me of a comedic bit from John Lajoie where he complains that someone called him a racist just because he thinks some races are genetically superior to others. Well yeah.
I don't get the humour there.
But that's not what this is like.
This is like charging an extra tax on fuel-efficient cars because it's not fair to oil companies that they're selling less gas.
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,569
4
38
Wha...?!
If we were all solar-people we wouldn't NEED more power stations and the costs would come down for all consumers.
You can't be thinking there's a move afoot among solar-people to eliminate power stations and the grid? I'm sure there's a lunatic fringe that advocates that, but it's not a commonly-held view.

But yes, if we all voted to ban power stations and ban the grid, the huge cost of getting electricity into our homes could be saved. Equally, if the solar-people vowed never to connect to the grid, then there is an argument that it would be unfair to make them pay for providing the grid, saving up for new power stations, and all the rest of the capital costs.

But the fact is that the solar-people do want access to the grid. They do want power stations to exist, and they do want to be connected to them. (The fact that there might be one or even two exceptions does not take away from the general point.) It's perfectly fair for the solar-people to pay zero for the coal they don't require to be burned in the power station -- but they should still pay, like the rest of us, for the power station to be there.


Maybe the people who generate power (ie Koch Industries) would not make as much profit but that's not the consumers problem or concern at all.
Can't argue with that.


Huh? The article writer says nothing about morals so this is a very odd argument to make, esp as a way to defend the completely amoral Koch Industries lobbying.
Didn't mean to comment about KI morals. I was commenting that solar-users are sponging on the rest of us, insofar as they are connected to the grid, but they don't pay their share of the capital costs.


It shouldn't matter if people lower their generated power consumption through solar panels - or turning off some lights and lowering the thermostat. There's really no justification for penalizing them for using less.
You are right: do not penalize solar people for using less. So, yes, it's fair to drop the part of their electricity bill that pays for the coal (if they use zero). But, if the solar people are connected to the grid, they should still - like the rest of us - pay the part of the electricity bill that pays for the power station,


This is like charging an extra tax on fuel-efficient cars because it's not fair to oil companies that they're selling less gas.
No, this is like a situation where the capital costs of the roads happened to be recovered by adding a percentage to the price of gas -- then, someone invents cars that don't need gas -- now, the people who drive those new cars are not paying their share of the capital costs of the roads they are driving on.
 

MRBJX

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2013
1,155
109
48
Buttercup, in that case the solution is to charge a connection fee that everyone pays, plus variable usage fees, rather than singling out solar users.

No it isn't.

The solution is leaving it as it is. If you partly switch to solar, then you use less from the grid and you pay only for what you use.

IF the grid is having financial difficulty because of poor consumption, it can cut itself back like any other business, find new markets like any other business, or go defunct like any other business.

Next some fool will be saying "you have LED bulbs, you're using less, but you're mooching so you should pay a fine"

The world has gone mad.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I don't know, if you became energy self sufficient to the point of being able to disconnect from the grid, why shouldn't you get a break? I see merit in the claim that a grid connection, even if unused, costs money to maintain. I don't see any merit in taxing solar power though.
 

MRBJX

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2013
1,155
109
48
Hydro and most govt forked off "businesses" have always had really bad pricing models, they don't now what anything really costs and when they do, they never disclose it, ending up with a problelm like this.

The ONLY things I could see them charging for and its really a one time thing is the meter on your house and the piece of wire that connects your breaker box to their main supply where your property ends and the labor to install it which isn't much. This is not a monthly or recurrent cost at all, neither the meter or the wire will breakdown anytime soon.

The rest of the infrastructure in the subdivision has already been paid for in the cost of your house that the developer passed on to you, and the fees developers are charged and some portion of municipal taxes.

Taxing solar power should be completely illegal.
 

Lovehobby

Banned
Sep 25, 2013
5,807
0
0
I always love all the hype about how much capitalists like the Koch bros LOVE competition except when competition really hits their bottom line they run to the government to make illegal or uncompetitive.
 

thirdcup

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2005
1,333
110
63
Directly above the center of the earth
One thing about solar panels, or wind, or anything else that allows you to grow your own, is that you are no longer just a consumer, but also a producer of electricity. This means that on days when you produce more than you consume, you become a seller of electricity to the electric company, and your electricity meter moves in the reverse direction, and your electric bill is adjusted accordingly. This has been going on Europe for years.

It would also be very good at times like this, when an ice storm cuts people off, or when a heat wave causes brown outs to avoid overloading generators. Think about it- solar panels on your roof to power your air conditioner. It's a virtuous circle.

Even if your own limited production only allows you to have keep minimal heat on in the winter, or to keep your fridge running, it would still be a huge improvement over what some poor folks are still being forced to put up with.

Soon after Toronto Hydro introduced time of use pricing, to motivate people to run their dishwasher etc during off peak times, it worked too well. Total revenues went down, and they had trouble paying their costs. So rather than shrinking their operations, they jacked up their prices.

Being off grid, even partially, means a more competitive market, and more realistic prices. It also means not being forced to be dependent on one source of supply.

And speaking of free riders, who paid for the expansion and who pays for the ongoing operation of Pearson airport? Is it the airlines who use it or the taxpayers? - which would include those who never set foot inside an airplane? This is not a rhetorical question. Am I subsidizing the airlines when I don't use them?
 

Blue-Spheroid

A little underutilized
Jun 30, 2007
3,438
3
0
Bloor and Sleazy
There is a base cost to Electrical infrastructure that is shared amongst all subscribers. Even if we didn't use any power, the costs of the stations, the power lines, the repair crews (especially valid locally these last few days), and all the administration should all be shared amongst all those connected to the grid.

If you think you can go without a connection to the grid, go for it. Otherwise, you pay your share.

Changing the billing structure could help but it's regressive and difficult for the economically disadvantaged to charge a flat rate.
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
22,447
1,331
113
They are so powerful they forced the media to call them the Coke brothers when in fact they are the cock brother. COCKS!!!
 

Clear History

New member
Mar 15, 2004
445
0
0
To bend the topic slightly, if you were having an operation at a hospital completely serviced by wind and solar, would you check the weather forecast the night before?
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,753
2
0
I get around.
To bend the topic slightly, if you were having an operation at a hospital completely serviced by wind and solar, would you check the weather forecast the night before?
Power went out at Sunnybrook hospital due to the ice storm.
So relying on conventional power is no guarantee.
 

MattRoxx

Call me anti-fascist
Nov 13, 2011
6,753
2
0
I get around.
Unless they come up with a cheap and affordable energy storage system all those plants will have to be in place. Also it is a bit much to sugges that the cost for the rest of us will go down if people will switch to solar. Even with increased production I doubt price per watt will be less than the current methods.
It is odd to read someone supporting ancient tech like burning coal over modern advancements provided by clean renewable energy sources. It seems obvious to me that solar and wind are better than destroying the land by mining coal, transporting it, burning it, and spewing tons of soot in the air.
The facts on the ground tell a different story. Despite the Koch juggernaut's scare tactics, some evidence is already in, and so far the impact of renewable electricity standards on rates has been, for the most part, negligible. In late October, Steve Clemmer, UCS's director of energy research, surveyed rates in three Midwestern states. This is what he found:

• Wind and other renewable technologies have reduced wholesale electricity prices in Illinois by displacing coal and other energy sources that have higher operating costs, saving ratepayers an estimated $177 million in 2011 alone, according to the Illinois Power Agency.
 

thirdcup

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2005
1,333
110
63
Directly above the center of the earth
To bend the topic slightly, if you were having an operation at a hospital completely serviced by wind and solar, would you check the weather forecast the night before?
Yes, I would, but only to find out if I should take an umbrella.
It's not an either/or choice. Using one source does not mean you are forbidden to use another (unless the Kochs get their way). Do you own a bicycle? Do you use it 100% of the time or do you sometimes pay extra for taxis and subway?

For people with solar & wind power, perhaps the cost could be structured like membership in a private club like golf or tennis or whatever.
You pay a large-ish amount to join and set up your account. You pay a nominal amount each year to keep your membership active. And you pay per use for each time you actually use the tennis court.

Problem solved. Now I'm going to become head of OPG so I can rake in all the money they pay those guys.
But don't worry. It won't be legalized theft. My compensation will be used on projects designed to Ontario's economy- one hour at a time.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts