California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

[Redhill_qik]

I agree. But if we're going to internalize external costs we shouldn't cherrypick external costs. We also need a carbon tax on ICE. Without a carbon tax ICE is still FAR more heavily subsidized than EVs even if EVs don't pay for road wear. Maybe that can be the compromise. EVs pay ~$0.005/mile road tax and ICE pays ~$0.50/gallon carbon tax.

Of the $1.19/gallon that are taxes and fees in California, $0.389 are already carbon taxes leaving $0.801 in road infrastructure. At 25 mpg that would mean EVs would need to pay $0.032/mile and add another $0.111/gallon to get to your $0.50/gallon carbon tax.

I can't believe the taxes and fees in CA were this high.

How much are you paying in taxes and fees for gasoline in California?

Irvine-based firm says the amount comes to $1.19 per gallon and some of those costs are associated with state programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

 

[nwdiver]

Of the $1.19/gallon that are taxes and fees in California, $0.389 are already carbon taxes leaving $0.801 in road infrastructure. At 25 mpg that would mean EVs would need to pay $0.032/mile and add another $0.111/gallon to get to your $0.50/gallon carbon tax.

I can't believe the taxes and fees in CA were this high.

How much are you paying in taxes and fees for gasoline in California?

Irvine-based firm says the amount comes to $1.19 per gallon and some of those costs are associated with state programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

~$0.005/mile for EVs or ~$0.50/gallon would just be the federal portion.

But the key point is that if we're going to reduce cost shifts then lets reduce ALL cost shifts and not just specific cost shifts...

 

[Merrill]

California is still completing the Road Charge program, I did contribute to a portion of this a few years ago. Not sure when it will be implemented and which form of road charge they will use.

 

[cali8484]

~$0.005/mile for EVs or ~$0.50/gallon would just be the federal portion.

But the key point is that if we're going to reduce cost shifts then lets reduce ALL cost shifts and not just specific cost shifts...

I just think the fixed costs for some basic infrastructure like electricity, roads, water, etc. should be shared equally by all without breaking it down into so many divisive buckets based on things like solar/non-solar or ICE/EV distinctions. I have a relative who complains all the time about having to pay for property tax that has a large portion for funding schools because she has no kids so she thinks she's getting unfair cost shift. This type of thinking only leads to endless divisions and ever more complex rules/fees/taxes and bureaucracy which has enormous associated costs that we all end up paying for.

 

[nwdiver]

I just think the fixed costs for some basic infrastructure like electricity, roads, water, etc. should be shared equally by all without breaking it down into so many divisive buckets based on things like solar/non-solar or ICE/EV distinctions. I have a relative who complains all the time about having to pay for property tax that has a large portion for funding schools because she has no kids so she thinks she's getting unfair cost shift. This type of thinking only leads to endless divisions and ever more complex rules/fees/taxes and bureaucracy which has enormous associated costs that we all end up paying for.

I'm not disagreeing or being 'divisive'. I'm simply advocating for internalizing ALL external costs instead of cherrypicking which external costs to internalize to more 'equally share' costs. I would argue that the external costs of CO2 are actually more clear than the cost shift of solar to non-solar customers. Seems a bit insane to focus on one while ignoring the other. I'm 100% on board with a fee for solar customers using the grid as a battery if we also have a fee for non-solar customers for using the atmosphere as a dumping ground.

We all pay for schools because we all benefit from a trained workforce regardless of whether we have kids going to those schools or not. When my neighbor burns 100# of coal and 100 gallons of gasoline because.... 'reasons'... instead of going the rational route of EV + PV..... there is no external benefit like when I help pay for their kids to be educated... only an external cost shift to our detriment.

 

[cali8484]

I'm not disagreeing or being 'divisive'. I'm simply advocating for internalizing ALL external costs instead of cherrypicking which external costs to internalize to more 'equally share' costs. I would argue that the external costs of CO2 are actually more clear than the cost shift of solar to non-solar customers. Seems a bit insane to focus on one while ignoring the other. I'm 100% on board with a fee for solar customers using the grid as a battery if we also have a fee for non-solar customers for using the atmosphere as a dumping ground.

I agree it's totally insane to shaft solar owners but I don't see carbon tax on non-solar or ICE drivers as a good remedy. Electricity grid and roads are basic infrastructure so the fixed costs should be shared equally by all including people who don't even drive or use electricity from the grid much less the kind of energy used.

 

[nwdiver]

I agree it's totally insane to shaft solar owners but I don't see carbon tax on non-solar or ICE drivers as a good remedy. Electricity grid and roads are basic infrastructure so the fixed costs should be shared equally by all including people who don't even drive or use electricity from the grid much less the kind of energy used.

??? So why spread one cost and not the other?

 

[cali8484]

??? So why spread one cost and not the other?

You mean CO2 cost? It would be covered by the basic infrastructure costs one way or another and shared by all. Solar and EV incentives can be viewed as offsets against those costs for people that choose buy solar or EV.

 

[nwdiver]

You mean CO2 cost? It would be covered by the basic infrastructure costs one way or another and shared by all. Solar and EV incentives can be viewed as offsets against those costs for people that choose buy solar or EV.

.... solar fees are only paid by those that use solar since they're not paying as much for their grid use.... shouldn't CO2 fees only be paid by those that use energy that emits more CO2? If CO2 fees should be shared by all then why not just rate base the revenue lost to solar across everyone?

Wouldn't they be more effective as user fees? User fee for how much you use the grid as a battery, user fee for how much you use the atmosphere as a dumping ground, user fee for how many miles you drive. If someone is using a higher percentage of the infrastructure shouldn't they shoulder a higher percentage of the fixed cost?

 

[Redhill_qik]

I have a relative who complains all the time about having to pay for property tax that has a large portion for funding schools because she has no kids so she thinks she's getting unfair cost shift.

Ugh, so sorry sighted. Other property owners paid taxes that supported their schooling, but they don't want to do the same and to ensure that they next generation had sufficient income to continue to fund refer fund social security for them.

That isn't to say that all school bond proposals are right, but there are very few that I have voted against.

 

[mspohr]

Biden budget aims to raise $35B from cutting fossil fuel tax benefits

President Biden’s budget proposal released Friday takes aim at specific tax provisions that benefit the fossil fuel industry and projects that eliminating these measures will generate $35 billion o…

thehill.com

 

[cali8484]

.... solar fees are only paid by those that use solar since they're not paying as much for their grid use.... shouldn't CO2 fees only be paid by those that use energy that emits more CO2? If CO2 fees should be shared by all then why not just rate base the revenue lost to solar across everyone?

Wouldn't they be more effective as user fees? User fee for how much you use the grid as a battery, user fee for how much you use the atmosphere as a dumping ground, user fee for how many miles you drive. If someone is using a higher percentage of the infrastructure shouldn't they shoulder a higher percentage of the fixed cost?

I think we agree on the same goals but not how to get there. For targeted fees for solar and CO2 are both wrong to me and 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's a direction that logically leads to things like CH4 tax on meat eaters. Things are always evolving. 100 years ago electricity grid and paved roads were relatively new and weren't part of essential basic infrastructure so they were appropriately supported by selective funding mechanisms but now they are critical parts of basic infrastructure and they should be generally funded.

 

[nwdiver]

I think we agree on the same goals but not how to get there. For targeted fees for solar and CO2 are both wrong to me and 2 wrongs don't make a right. It's a direction that logically leads to things like CH4 tax on meat eaters.

??? Having people pay to cover the cost of using a resource in proportion to how much they use that resource is..... ‘wrong’? Um.... how?

 

[cali8484]

??? Having people pay to cover the cost of using a resource in proportion to how much they use that resource is..... ‘wrong’? Um.... how?

Sorry, I should clarify that it's only wrong to me in the context of selective fees/taxes for basic infrastructure. So, as example, I would not support CH4 electricity grid or road fees on only meat eaters but I might support such fees in other contexts.

 

[RKCRLR]

As far as I can tell, AB 1139 has been amended to remove the retroactive clause for existing residential customers that purchased their solar equipment:

AB 1139 "Utility Profit Grab" Fact sheet

6.7.21: Hello! AB 1139 has been defeated for now. Thank you for your help! We are now focused back to our original fight -- defend rooftop solar from utility attacks at the CA Public Utilities Commission. See fact sheet and campaign website to get plugged in! Fact Sheet: AB 1139 (Gonzalez) is a...

docs.google.com

 

[nwdiver]

Sorry, I should clarify that it's only wrong to me in the context of selective fees/taxes for basic infrastructure. So, as example, I would not support CH4 electricity grid or road fees on only meat eaters but I might support such fees in other contexts.

I got that. I'm asking why it's wrong to have people pay to cover the cost of using a resource in proportion to how much they use that resource. Why are you in favor of cherry picking which external costs to shift? Why discriminate?

 

[cali8484]

I got that. I'm asking why it's wrong to have people pay to cover the cost of using a resource in proportion to how much they use that resource. Why are you in favor of cherry picking which external costs to shift? Why discriminate?

What do you mean? I don't support special fees/taxes targeting solar or CO2 for basic infrastructure so no cherry picking.

 

[cali8484]

As far as I can tell, AB 1139 has been amended to remove the retroactive clause for existing residential customers that purchased their solar equipment:

AB 1139 "Utility Profit Grab" Fact sheet

6.7.21: Hello! AB 1139 has been defeated for now. Thank you for your help! We are now focused back to our original fight -- defend rooftop solar from utility attacks at the CA Public Utilities Commission. See fact sheet and campaign website to get plugged in! Fact Sheet: AB 1139 (Gonzalez) is a...

docs.google.com

Yep, they added exception for existing NEM customers (Bill Text - AB-1139 Net energy metering.):

(ii) A residential eligible customer-generator who owns or is a tenant of the owner of the renewable electrical generation facility shall be permitted to continue to take service under the prior tariff for up to 20 years from the date that customer first received net energy metering. For these purposes, a renewable electrical generation facility is not owned if it is subject to a lease or electricity purchase agreement.

 

[RKCRLR]

Yep, they added exception for existing NEM customers (Bill Text - AB-1139 Net energy metering.):

(ii) A residential eligible customer-generator who owns or is a tenant of the owner of the renewable electrical generation facility shall be permitted to continue to take service under the prior tariff for up to 20 years from the date that customer first received net energy metering. For these purposes, a renewable electrical generation facility is not owned if it is subject to a lease or electricity purchase agreement.

Still screwing people/entities that entered contracts but don't own the equipment.

The whole mindset that it is OK to renege on contracts as long as you are the government just frustrates me. Things like this just chip away at what little trust I have left in government every day.

 

[nwdiver]

What do you mean? I don't support special fees/taxes targeting solar or CO2 for basic infrastructure so no cherry picking.

Ah... I had another post confused for yours. So what's the solution to fund the roads when EVs comprise too many cars and to fund the grid when too many people with solar don't pay into it due to NEM and are using the grid as a battery? The the grid is funded by kWh sales, and the roads are funded by a tax on gasoline. What funds the roads and grid when those sources are gone or too diminished?