Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

Redhill_qik

Member
Aug 16, 2020
303
210
South SF Bay, California
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.

 
  • Informative
Reactions: FlatSix911

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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.


~$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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

Merrill

Merrill
Jan 23, 2013
3,912
1,381
Sonoma, California
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

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
~$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

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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.
 
Last edited:

cali8484

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
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

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

Redhill_qik

Member
Aug 16, 2020
303
210
South SF Bay, California
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.
 

cali8484

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
.... 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

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

cali8484

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
??? 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlatSix911

RKCRLR

Member
Apr 13, 2020
426
167
Garden Valley, CA
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:
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
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

Member
Jul 8, 2018
231
137
California
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:


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

Member
Apr 13, 2020
426
167
Garden Valley, CA
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

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
8,114
10,578
United States
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?
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top