yep, conservatives everywhere the 99% everywhere to protect/enrich/enable the 1%.
BLUE STATE smarts!!
California property tax exemptions for PV systems extended to 2025
A property tax exemption for solar power systems in California has been extended to 2025, following the passing of a bill as part of the annual state budget.
Senate Bill 871 (SB871) was approved during the signing of the budget by governor Jerry Brown, which took place last week. The wording of SB871 extends the period during which property taxes will not be applied to "active solar energy systems", which includes PV and solar water heaters.
Reacting to the news from California, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) head Rhone Resch commended Governor Brown’s actions. He praised the governor “and his lawmakers” for their foresight and for their “commitment to a clean environment”.
“The extension of the exclusion does not take funds away from any jurisdictions where taxes are currently being collected, nor does it have an impact on the General Fund. But the exclusion will reduce wholesale solar electricity costs for utility customers, and it reduces barriers to accessing solar for customer-sited projects. Simply put, many homeowners would not choose to install solar if faced with a property tax reassessment,” Resch said.
Governor Brown is widely acknowledged to have made numerous efforts to promote solar power in his years in US politics. Another recent piece of legislation, the proposed Assembly Bill 2188 (AB2188), would cut so-called 'soft costs' for solar by streamlining the permitting process required to gain approval for a residential solar power system in California. Walker Wright, director of public policy at SunRun said earlier this month that AB2188 could help end the "bureaucratic nightmare" that the approval process could often become.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/californ...tended_to_2025
how much energy/fossil fuels does america import?
shouldnt u clowns be moving to renewable energy to be less reliant on import supplies?
i dont fkn get it, why does arab oil states who produced and charge its citizens below market rate, while western society who also do the same dont give its citizens a discount yet charge them market rate....
boutons_deux how much energy does ur setup make a day?..so how much energy do you consume a day?
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move...n_mbblpd_m.htm
"u clowns": America doesn't make its national energy policy, there isn't an national energy or industrial policy. BigOil makes national energy policy (and $Bs in anti-renewable LIES, propaganda) for its benefit, not for America's benefit.
America didn't invade Iraq, BigOil did.
While USA will never produce enough oil for its needs (at current consumption levels), BigOil already is pushing hard to EXPORT oil and gas treasures with give-away royalty payments to taxpayers.
LNG exports to the world market, where price is 3 or 4 times US domestic price, will pull US domestic prices towards world price, probably until its equal to world market, just like oil is. Why should BigOil give US consumers a price break on US oil and gas?
As the conservatives love to repeat, "free market solutions" are the best (way to screw consumers).
http://www.theage.com.au/national/th...706-zsy76.html
lol these fkn energy companies are privatised, they only have shareholders to answer, why does the govt keep on regulating and protecting these fckheads who do nothing but increase costs. yet you dont see them improving their own infrastructure...''The risk for the companies is that when people get the option of putting solar panels on their roofs and installing batteries and cutting the cord, demand will fall sharply. The people who end up left on the network will be the only ones left paying.'' They will be stuck with extremely high network charges, forcing even more people off the network, pushing network charges higher still. It is what Ms Carter calls ''your death spiral scenario''.
She says it is not upon us yet, but if battery storage improves and network costs keep rising, it will be.
When BigCorps and the 1% lay "creative destruction" on small companies and citizens, it's wonderful, it's how the magical (but mythical) "free market" ALWAYS provides the optimum solution (for the BigCorps and 1%).
When the citizens and small companies lay "creative destruction" on BigCorps and the 1%, there's raging panic to stop it.
So you want the tax payers to subsidize them?
To my knowledge, commercial power users are charged by peak and non peak hours used. Residents are charged a sliding scale rater for what they use. What solution do you have that's fair?
In all reality, less infrastructure increase is needed as people build their own power generation. I see the article as an excuse to create even more unnecessary regulations.
not sure if you clowns can watch this
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori...07/4038488.htm
apparently this is the they want to introduced to protect their revenue stream
any fkn mutt who has a 2kw system and lower can put their excess back into the providers system, they will get a rebate
while clowns who have systems higher then 2kw are not allowed to feed excess back into the system, in other words those with larger systems might as well cut themselves off from the grid...
so boutons_deux have u cut urself from the grid yet?
no, I have very low electricity bill. have trouble justifying solar panels, so adding the cost of battery storage is even less justifiable.
CPS is playing the old (disallowed) ATT "Carterphone" game, erecting technical barriers to joining the network: can't connect "foreign" stuff to our network unless a CPS-approved equipment and CPS-approved installer doing 100% of the work. no DIY, which I could do totally, then have an installer do the final step, if I can find an installer to play along
yeh down here they wont allow cheap invertors connected to the grid, cause it fcks up the system.. << a bunch of made up bull by the grid providers, i havnt yet to read any fck ups or incompatible equipment fcking up any grid ...
read that battery storage is still expensive even with recent news out from tesla...
Two damned Repug states doing their damndest to kill renewables
SolarCity and SunRun vs Arizona Department Of Revenue
Another obstacle to the growth of rooftop solar has arisen in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) claims that solar energy equipment is taxable if it is owned by a solar company and installed on another person’s property. They have assigned a value for property tax purposes at 20% of its depreciated cost, which amounts to about $152 a year for an average solar customer. This has prompted a lawsuit: SolarCity and SunRun vs the Arizona Department of Revenue.
As 85-90% of the state’s rooftop solar installations are leased, rather than owned, this new tax could have a strong negative impact.
The Arizona state department seems to perceive solar panels as small power plants providing electricity to homeowners or businesses.
In their writ, the solar companies lawyers pointed out that their clients are not in the business of “generating, transmitting or distributing electricity to customers.” They lease equipment that allows the customer to generate their own electricity.
“ … The Arizona Legislature has made it clear that the Subject Property, when used “primarily for on-site consumption” of the electricity generated by such property, is “considered to have no value and to add no value” to the property on which it is installed, and thus it should not be separately assessed for property tax purposes. Specifically, A.R.S. §42-11054(C)(2) provides:
“Solar energy devices, as defined in section 44-1761, grid-tied photovoltaic systems and any other device or system designed for the production of solar energy primarily for on-site consumption are considered to have no value and to add no value to the property on which such device or system is installed.”
A spokesperson for SunRun said she believes “the Arizona Department of Revenue’s interpretation is illegal.”
“As with any additional cost, it would reduce Arizonans’ ability to turn to an alternative to Arizona Public Service in order to save money on monthly electricity bills, and would reduce rooftop solar’s addressable market,” SolarCity Director of Public Affairs Will Craven told pv magazine.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/...eanTechnica%29
==============================
Utah Utility’s Recent Push To Impose New Fee On Residential Solar Customers Angers Many
Utah’s largest utility, Rocky Mountain Power, recently began mulling the idea of imposing a new fee on its residential solar customers — an idea that since being proposed has been generating intense debate.
Given that the utility doesn’t actually have that many solar customers — only around 2000 — the move may seem a bit strange. Especially when you consider that the fee would be rather substantial — $4.25 a month. Why so high? Supposedly to “to help pay some of the fixed costs of supplying and receiving electricity.” Hmmm.
Utah’s fight is indicative of a rapidly escalating tension: As rooftop solar becomes more and more mainstream, driven largely by middle class customers, utility companies across the country are looking to soften the blow to their business model by charging solar customers a monthly fee.
“Depending on the size of their system, it could be 10% or even more because some people only put in four or five panels and this is a flat fee,” Rossetti noted. “As a result, the additional charge could really impact lower income or elderly people who just want to put their foot into renewable investment.”
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/...eanTechnica%29
I disagree.
When you are maintaining a system, you have certain reliability standards that must be met. You may not like their reasoning, but they are likely valid.
What's your point?
lmao have a read of this, no beneficial monetary gain for ppl who go solar down here
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/au...enerate-power/
a normal system 2.5kw with .08cents rebate equates to about 50bucks a year, yet they want to charge you 50bucks for feeding the grid? ROFLMAO wankers
another area where red states SUCK
The World Is Going Solar
According to new data released by the Fraunhofer Ins ute, in the first half of 2014, renewable energy, like solar power, accounted for almost 31 percent of allelectricity produced in Germany. In fact, solar power generation was up 28 percent during the first half of 2014, compared to the same time last year.
The solar sunship is in the solar village Vauban in Freiburg, Black Forest, Germany. Photo credit: Shutterstock
For the first time ever in Germany—the cloudiest country in western Europe—solar power and other forms of renewable energy created more energy and electricity production than dirty coal. And, in June, Germany set a solar power record, using solar power to generate 50 percent of overall electricity demand for part of a day.
While Germany is relying heavily on renewable energy today to help fight global warming andclimate change, it has had a pretty standard energy evolution. In the 18th century, Germany was burning wood. In the 19th century, it was burning coal. In the 20th century, it was burning oil. Today it’s getting electricity from solar and renewables.
That’s a typical evolution for a developed country (that’s not controlled by the financial interests of Big Oil)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/15/the-w...21a80-85879165
what can be done by a national energy policy set by an uncaptured govt, rather than set by BigCarbon
btw, China is responding dramatically to its air pollution and energy import costs by going solar and wind in a huge way. India is trying but its (corrupt) democracy is having a harder time.
You BigCarbon suckers will lose your talking point that US shouldn't bother to reduce GHG because China and India will Keep On Smokin it up.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-17-2014 at 05:59 AM.
makes sense for most of europe to go solar then rely on russian imported gas for energy
brazil a 3rd world country already using excess corn process ethanol oil to fund its industry
yet ry like aus, america trying to protect utility companys makes no sense when they own no obligation to protect their revenue windfalls when most of these utility companies have already been privatized into foreign ownership...
You conservatives are really screwing up the planet.
Environmentalists Decry Repeal of Australia’s Carbon Tax
Opposition politicians and environmentalists in Australia reacted with dismay Thursday to the country’s repeal of laws requiring large companies to pay for carbon emissions, saying that it made Australia the first country to reverse progress on fighting climate change.
The tax was devised to penalize hundreds of Australia’s biggest producers of carbon emissions, setting a price of 23 Australian dollars, or $21.50, per metric ton of carbon dioxide when it was put into effect in 2012 under then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard of the Labor Party, which is now in the opposition. The price rose to 25 Australian dollars this month.
“Today, Tony Abbott has made Australia the first country in the world to reverse action on climate change,”
“no one else in the world has repealed a working, functioning carbon pricing mechanism.”
“We are taking a monumentally reckless backward leap even as other countries are stepping up to climate action,”
Australia is the highest per capita emitter of carbon in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the group of developed countries, and that it ranks in the top 20 globally, emitting around 25 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person every year. “Australia’s economy is much more carbon-intensive than the U.S. economy,”
estimated that the tax cost the mining industry 1.2 billion dollars per year.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/18...-tax.html?_r=1
Scientists Confirm Burning Fossil Fuels Significantly Worsens Australian Drought
American scientists have just confirmed that parts of Australia are being slowly parchedbecause of greenhouse gas emissions, which means that the long-term decline in rainfall over south and south-west Australia is a consequence of fossil fuel burning and depletion of the ozone layer by human activity.
Such a finding is significant for two reasons. One remains contentious: it is one thing to make generalized predictions about the consequences overall of greenhouse gas levels, but it is quite another to pin a measured regional climatic shift directly on human causes, rather than some possible as-yet-unidentified natural cycle of climatic change.
The other is contentiously political. Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, has in the past dismissed climate science as “crap,” and more recently has cut back on Australian research spending.
Australia has already experienced a pattern of heat waves and drought—punctuated by catastrophic flooding—and even now, in the Australian winter, New South Wales is being hit by bush fires.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/17/burni...f41b9-85879165
another Repug state attacking environmentalism, energy efficiency, renewables, to the benefit of Repug benefactors the energy sector
Florida Utilities Move To Slash Energy Conservation Programs
Over 100 people are expected to join a protest rally in Tallahassee on Monday ahead of hearings before Florida’s Public Service Commission (PSC) that could see the state’senergy conservation programs slashed by up to 93 percent.
The rally is being organized by the Sierra Club and the Sunshine State Clean Energy Coalition — groups which say that the cuts put forward by some of Florida’s largest utilities will hurt ratepayers and the environment.
“In the long term, peoples’ power bills are going to go up… there won’t be any relief to prevent them from going up,” Sierra Club spokeswoman Jenna Garland told theBradenton Herald. “The utilities are proposing cutbacks to these energy-saving programs. This is a huge problem because these programs help save people money on their power bills.”
Protesters are also upset because the hearings have been closed to the public, after the PSC declared them too “technical” for public participation. If ratepayers want to object to proposed changes, they will have to submit written comments.
For years, ratepayers in Florida have paid a few extra dollars a month on their power bills to support utility programs that offer customer rebates for installing better insulation, efficient windows and energy-efficient appliances.
These programs cost Duke Energy residential customers about $4.02/month. Florida Power & Light (FPL) adds a monthly charge of $3.37/month to power bills to fund the programs.
But now, as these programs and others are up for a five year review, utilities are arguing that the programs are not necessary and not cost effective
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Duke Energy is proposing to slash energy conservation from 333 gigawatt hours (GW/h) in 2019 to just 21 GW/h. Tampa Electric’s proposal would take the utility from conserving 39 GW/h to 17 and Florida Power & Light would slash the energy it saves from 229 GW/h to 4 GW/h.
Also on the chopping block at the hearings — which will go through Wednesday — are programs that provide subsidies to homeowners to install rooftop solar arrays.
Florida’s big utilities are arguing that given the abundance and low cost of natural gas, it is cheaper for them to build new power plants than to support energy conservation.
They also say that energy is already being conserved thanks to government efficiency rules for building construction, appliances, and light bulbs.
“There is no economic justification for reducing conservation goals,” Martin Kushler, senior fellow with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, told the Tampa Bay Times. “The argument that efficiency is not cost effective is blatantly false.”
Kushler said that these sort of energy conservation programs generally cost about 2.8 cents to save a kilowatt hour. In contrast, a new natural gas plant costs 7 to 8 cents to generate a kilowatt hour. The U.S. Department of Energy has reported similar numbers.
Back in April, Indiana ended its state-wide energy efficiency program and in June, Ohio decided to freeze its renewable energy and energy efficiency standards at their current levels for two years.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...tion-programs/
very simple: higher energy bills for consumers is higher revenues for the energy suppliers.
University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College Study: Most Americans Support Carbon Tax if Revenue Supports Renewable Energy
While some U.S. are lukewarm on the idea of taxing fossil fuel companies for emitting carbon, more are willing to support a tax if the funds support cleaner energy.
According to the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College’s Spring 2014 National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), most Americans—56 percent—support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, in which all tax revenue would be returned to the public as a rebate check. However, that amount rises to 60 percent if revenues would be used to fund research and development for renewable energy programs.
“Conventional wisdom holds that a carbon tax, while attractive on economic grounds, is a political non-starter. The survey results reported here suggest that this conclusion may be premature.”
http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/21/unive...a384c-85879165
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
