California home solar subsidies may go away soon
12-26-21, 09:37 PM
#16
welcome to bizarro world where there is a perverse incentive setup for CA utility companies where laws GUARANTEE utility companies a fixed rate of return for building a power plant (regardless if its needed or not) that is greater than the rate of return of generating electricity. Guess who pays for that? Also they are closing down CAs last nuclear power plant, a truly carbon free power generation source that amounts to 10% of total state production, what is offsetting that?
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...city-capacity/
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 12-26-21 at 09:42 PM.
12-26-21, 09:52 PM
#17
Lexus Champion
much of the "oil and gas subsidies" are being able to write off capital investments, which every company has access to in the tax code. Should a company not be able to write off the cost of building a new refinery or opening a new factory?
welcome to bizarro world where there is a perverse incentive setup for CA utility companies where laws GUARANTEE utility companies a fixed rate of return for building a power plant (regardless if its needed or not) that is greater than the rate of return of generating electricity. Guess who pays for that? Also they are closing down CAs last nuclear power plant, a truly carbon free power generation source that amounts to 10% of total state production, what is offsetting that?
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...city-capacity/
welcome to bizarro world where there is a perverse incentive setup for CA utility companies where laws GUARANTEE utility companies a fixed rate of return for building a power plant (regardless if its needed or not) that is greater than the rate of return of generating electricity. Guess who pays for that? Also they are closing down CAs last nuclear power plant, a truly carbon free power generation source that amounts to 10% of total state production, what is offsetting that?
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...city-capacity/
12-26-21, 10:59 PM
#18
Pole Position
What do you think? That oil and gas companies would go out of business? I don't think that. I think the price of gasoline and natural gas would increase, which would be bad across the board, but especially to lower income people.
I'm all for corporate tax rates across the board to be ZERO. Nothing but another indirect tax on consumers.
I'm all for corporate tax rates across the board to be ZERO. Nothing but another indirect tax on consumers.
12-26-21, 11:17 PM
#19
Lexus Champion
I’m going to level with you, Bob. The net result of reducing the corporate rate to zero would be a direct reduction in your take home pay. Don’t fall for these surgically-targeted talking points. They are specifically designed to make the hard of thinking believe they are sticking it to the libs, all the while actually picking your pockets. They are assuming, correctly it appears, that you and myriad others don’t understand how things actually are. There is but one immutable rule. When corporations pay less, you pay more. In other posts, with discussions on oil subsidies and so on, an intelligent poster might reasonably conclude that you don’t really understand how tax systems actually work. With this one, at least they now know that for certain.
12-27-21, 03:11 AM
#21
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
ok folks let's not go deep into the weeds on tax policy and philosophy or the oil/gas industry.
will california enact these solar cost changes?
will california enact these solar cost changes?
12-27-21, 06:10 AM
#22
[deleted]
off topic
off topic
Last edited by bitkahuna; 12-27-21 at 06:24 AM.
12-27-21, 07:02 AM
#24
I think it will depend on what happens at the federal level. If these type of incentives go nation wide with the Feds, they will likely end these incentives and spend the tax revenue on something else.
12-27-21, 08:35 AM
#25
Lexus Test Driver
Originally Posted by bitkahuna
ok folks let's not go deep into the weeds on tax policy and philosophy or the oil/gas industry.
will california enact these solar cost changes?
will california enact these solar cost changes?
12-27-21, 09:04 AM
#26
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
). and since solar reduces revenue to the utility companies, they have to make that up by stiffing (most) people who don't and likely can't have solar.re-posting key points...
“The CPUC’s proposed decision recognizes we can grow rooftop solar in California while taking steps to reduce inflated subsidies that have put an unfair cost burden on renters, seniors, disadvantaged communities and other working Californians who don’t have the ability or means to install rooftop solar systems,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for Affordable Clean Energy for All, in a statement.
“The solar industry will tell you the ‘sky is falling,’ but what they won’t say is that the cost of rooftop solar has dropped 70% while the subsidies have continued to increase over the past 25 years. They won’t say that current … subsidies make rooftop solar the most expensive source of clean energy – 8 times costlier than the market value of solar energy.”
The proposed changes would not eliminate the cost shift, but take steps toward modernizing it so the price of maintaining the electric grid and other mandated programs is more equitably shared. “It’s time to update this 25-year-old program so we can more affordably accomplish our clean energy goals,” Fairbanks said.
The PUC’s public advocate — a quasi-independent, in-house Solomon the Wise, charged with protecting consumers — agrees.
“California ratepayers are currently paying too much toward incentives for (rooftop solar) generation,” it said in a filing. The cost of those incentives “unfairly raises electricity rates for those customers without (rooftop solar) generation. These nonparticipating customers are paying unreasonable amounts of money … to subsidize the customers who can afford to install (them).”
... The proposal before the PUC would credit solar owners for what their power is really worth on the market — a fraction of the full retail rate they now receive — and would increase what they pay to use the grid itself.
[/quote]
this actually sounds pretty logical.
12-27-21, 09:05 AM
#27
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
i posted this in car chat because it seemed related to EV charging, but maybe it should be in clubhouse since a) obviously not all EVs are in california, and b) this affects more than EVs.
12-27-21, 09:20 AM
#28
Lexus Fanatic
Big G should stay out of it completely we'd all be better off.
12-27-21, 09:45 AM
#29
Lexus Champion
12-27-21, 11:49 AM
#30
we'll see. solar shouldn't just be for more affluent types (like you ). and since solar reduces revenue to the utility companies, they have to make that up by stiffing (most) people who don't and likely can't have solar.
re-posting key points...
this actually sounds pretty logical.
). and since solar reduces revenue to the utility companies, they have to make that up by stiffing (most) people who don't and likely can't have solar.re-posting key points...
“The CPUC’s proposed decision recognizes we can grow rooftop solar in California while taking steps to reduce inflated subsidies that have put an unfair cost burden on renters, seniors, disadvantaged communities and other working Californians who don’t have the ability or means to install rooftop solar systems,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for Affordable Clean Energy for All, in a statement.
“The solar industry will tell you the ‘sky is falling,’ but what they won’t say is that the cost of rooftop solar has dropped 70% while the subsidies have continued to increase over the past 25 years. They won’t say that current … subsidies make rooftop solar the most expensive source of clean energy – 8 times costlier than the market value of solar energy.”
The proposed changes would not eliminate the cost shift, but take steps toward modernizing it so the price of maintaining the electric grid and other mandated programs is more equitably shared. “It’s time to update this 25-year-old program so we can more affordably accomplish our clean energy goals,” Fairbanks said.
The PUC’s public advocate — a quasi-independent, in-house Solomon the Wise, charged with protecting consumers — agrees.
“California ratepayers are currently paying too much toward incentives for (rooftop solar) generation,” it said in a filing. The cost of those incentives “unfairly raises electricity rates for those customers without (rooftop solar) generation. These nonparticipating customers are paying unreasonable amounts of money … to subsidize the customers who can afford to install (them).”
... The proposal before the PUC would credit solar owners for what their power is really worth on the market — a fraction of the full retail rate they now receive — and would increase what they pay to use the grid itself.
“The solar industry will tell you the ‘sky is falling,’ but what they won’t say is that the cost of rooftop solar has dropped 70% while the subsidies have continued to increase over the past 25 years. They won’t say that current … subsidies make rooftop solar the most expensive source of clean energy – 8 times costlier than the market value of solar energy.”
The proposed changes would not eliminate the cost shift, but take steps toward modernizing it so the price of maintaining the electric grid and other mandated programs is more equitably shared. “It’s time to update this 25-year-old program so we can more affordably accomplish our clean energy goals,” Fairbanks said.
The PUC’s public advocate — a quasi-independent, in-house Solomon the Wise, charged with protecting consumers — agrees.
“California ratepayers are currently paying too much toward incentives for (rooftop solar) generation,” it said in a filing. The cost of those incentives “unfairly raises electricity rates for those customers without (rooftop solar) generation. These nonparticipating customers are paying unreasonable amounts of money … to subsidize the customers who can afford to install (them).”
... The proposal before the PUC would credit solar owners for what their power is really worth on the market — a fraction of the full retail rate they now receive — and would increase what they pay to use the grid itself.
Did they mention this:
By 2024, PG&E expects to post a full-year profit of nearly $2.4 billion.
Last edited by bitkahuna; 12-27-21 at 01:03 PM.