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

[cali8484]

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?

Basic infrastructure can be funded by a general tax. So, if CO2 has significant impact on maintaining fixed basic infrastructure (e.g. CO2 causes more acid rain that erodes road surface faster leading to higher repair/maintenance cost) then the incremental cost will be reflected in general tax and shared by all. EV incentives will offset such cost for people that choose to buy EV's.

 

[nwdiver]

Basic infrastructure can be funded by a general tax. So, if CO2 has significant impact on maintaining fixed basic infrastructure (e.g. CO2 causes more acid rain that erodes road surface faster leading to higher repair/maintenance cost) then the incremental cost will be reflected in general tax and shared by all. EV incentives will offset such cost for people that choose to buy EV's.

So someone that drives 20,000 miles/yr would pay the same as someone that drives 20 miles/yr and someone that has uses 20MWh of grid energy per month offset by solar but with no storage would pay the same as someone that has storage and only uses the grid on rare occasions? Would it not make more sense for the person driving 20k miles/yr to pay more to maintain the roads and the person that uses the grid more to pay more to maintain the grid?

 

[cali8484]

So someone that drives 20,000 miles/yr would pay the same as someone that drives 20 miles/yr and someone that has uses 20MWh of grid energy per month offset by solar but with no storage would pay the same as someone that has storage and only uses the grid on rare occasions? Would it not make more sense for the person driving 20k miles/yr to pay more to maintain the roads and the person that uses the grid more to pay more to maintain the grid?

By the same logic, people who don't drive at all shouldn't pay anything for roads. No single person will likely use every single component in basic infrastructure to a significant extent (back to the people with no kids paying tax to fund schools) so such costs are likely to even out over large number of people.

 

[nwdiver]

By the same logic, people who don't drive at all shouldn't pay anything for roads.

There's a pretty wide gap between paying nothing and the amount you pay being completely disconnected from use.

 

[winfield100]

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?

EZ-Pass transponders, coupled with automatic license plate readers at choke points like bridges 'n such perhaps

 

[winfield100]

By the same logic, people who don't drive at all shouldn't pay anything for roads. No single person will likely use every single component in basic infrastructure to a significant extent (back to the people with no kids paying tax to fund schools) so such costs are likely to even out over large number of people.

somewhat false logic
just because you don't drive a vehicle and use the roads, doesn't mean you don't benefit from goods being transported on roads you use
how did your food get to market?

a similar argument can be used for no children so no school taxes.

do you want armies of disaffected youth, unschooled, uncivilized, many armed, armed, roaming the countryside, quite irritated at their elders who refused to educated and civilize them (see certain countries right now with this scenerio)

basic infrastructure needs basic support,

 

[SageBrush]

This notion of "basic" service is a red herring because it means as many things as there are people -- typically based on what people consume (or not.)

Fair and equitable is consumption based that covers currently externalized costs, but the tricky part is to avoid a corrupt, expensive and inefficient bureaucracy along the way.

One also needs to direct the collected fees/taxes AT the problem. In the case of CO2 e.g., the money should go towards clean generation.

 

[RKCRLR]

somewhat false logic
just because you don't drive a vehicle and use the roads, doesn't mean you don't benefit from goods being transported on roads you use
how did your food get to market?

The trucking company would pay road taxes to get the food to the market. That cost would be included in the price I pay for the food.

 

[Merrill]

One of the problems I have here in California is what ever money that is collected for road repair goes into what is called a transportation fund. It is very generalized and what ends up happening is all the money is gone and very little of that is actually put to road repairs. They keep raising the gas tax and portions of your car registration goes to this fund, just drive around California and you will see how poorly maintained the roads are.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Cars cause very little wear to our highways. Most all degradation is caused by heavy trucks and the weather.

Currently cars are taxed way to high to compensate for the wear they do. Most of the highway fuel taxes are diverted from repairing roads into more politically desirable mass transportation systems. The roads suffer due to this...not the cars.

 

[cali8484]

somewhat false logic
just because you don't drive a vehicle and use the roads, doesn't mean you don't benefit from goods being transported on roads you use
how did your food get to market?

a similar argument can be used for no children so no school taxes.

do you want armies of disaffected youth, unschooled, uncivilized, many armed, armed, roaming the countryside, quite irritated at their elders who refused to educated and civilize them (see certain countries right now with this scenerio)

basic infrastructure needs basic support,

Just to be clear, I don't support the thinking. Now playing devil's advocate, people who don't drive would say the food or delivery companies already pay for the road tax so they shouldn't have to pay again. That would be double taxation.

 

[SageBrush]

The trucking company would pay road taxes to get the food to the market. That cost would be included in the price I pay for the food.

Not even in the same solar system. Road wear is proportional to the 4rth power of the axle load.

Here is some arithmetic:
A Tesla is about 1000 Lbs per tyre

A fully loaded semi is 4,000 lbs per tyre
The semi causes 4*4*4*4 more road wear per mile buy pays ~ 3x fuel taxes per mile

 

[RKCRLR]

Not even in the same solar system. Road wear is proportional to the 4rth power of the axle load.

Here is some arithmetic:
A Tesla is about 2000 lbs per axle

A fully loaded semi is 16,000 lbs per axle
The semi causes 8*8*8*8 more road wear.

As I said in an earlier post, a road tax should be proportional to both mileage and vehicle load characteristics. So if vehicle A creates 8*8*8*8 more wear than vehicle B, then it's tax should be 8*8*8*8 more than vehicle B.

 

[SageBrush]

As I said in an earlier post, a road tax should be proportional to both mileage and vehicle load characteristics. So if vehicle A creates 8*8*8*8 more wear than vehicle B, then it's tax should be 8*8*8*8 more than vehicle B.

Indeed it should.
An interesting detail in this regard is that the present system for truck related road damage does not take this into account AT ALL. The truck stops are only used to divvy up the taxes from gasoline between states

Addendum: I corrected earlier arithmetic. The unpaid road wear by fully laden semi trucks are only about 60x what they pay.

 

[SageBrush]

Regarding the tendency to say "if everybody uses a service," then manage the costs via the general tax fund has a severe achilles heel: it immortalizes externalities by hiding them. Let people PAY, so that they think about the costs and alternative choices

 

[gene]

Hi Everyone
The rumor is that AB1139 will be voted on tomorrow. Over the long weekend, local activists in LA organized a pop-up protest in front of co-author Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo home. There were about 20 people with signs and one referring to her as a puppet. Also over the weekend, 600 people made calls to their Assemblymember. So if you haven't called your Assemblymember now would be the time to do that. The coalition has grown from 60 to over 100 organizations throughout CA.

If the bill does pass, it will move onto the CA state Senate. Starting next Monday or Tuesday of next week, Bob the Monopoly guy will be on tour for the next 3 weeks. He will start in San Diego and work his way north. He will visit each CA senate district, where a small group of people will be protesting at a home with rooftop solar, a Solar Rights member living in that area will make a speech, and media will be asked to attend. Pictures of the event will be posted somewhere, when I have that information, I will let you all know.

While Monopoly Bob is doing his thing, Solar Rights Alliance and CALSSA will be sending out emails to people living in the area that Bob will be visiting.
We will also text people living in the area Bob is visiting asking if they can join the rally.

Thank you to all and any of you who have made calls to your assembly members and/or Governor Newsom.

Don't know who Bob the Monopoly guy is?? See the picture below.
Ladies and Gents!! Introducing Bob the Monopoly guy!!!

 

[TahoeTim]

Texas clearly has problems but I think how they divided up Generation, Transmission and Sales has merit. No single company can control all three. Texas has no net metering law but the parts of the state with choice are friendly to solar since there are several RSPs that offer full net metering. Not because of any PUC mandate but because they've seen the numbers and realize their costs go down if they can buy energy from some of their customers at $10/MWh on a hot summer afternoon. A vertically integrated monopoly would hate this. They ENJOY evening generation and transmission constraints because it gives them ammunition in the next rate case to rate base more infrastructure.

WSJ News Exclusive | Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation

Texas’s deregulated electricity market left millions in the dark last week. For the past 20 years, its consumers have paid more for their electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a WSJ investigation found.

www.wsj.com

 

[nwdiver]

WSJ News Exclusive | Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation

Texas’s deregulated electricity market left millions in the dark last week. For the past 20 years, its consumers have paid more for their electricity than state residents who are served by traditional utilities, a WSJ investigation found.

www.wsj.com

The costs or benefits of Texas' deregulated market vs a traditional regulated market are going to vary depending on where they are in the energy transition phase. What percentage of rate payers have storage, EVs and solar? The primary benefit to what Texas has done isn't that its cheaper (yet) but that market forces are free to encourage the development of different integration strategies for more resources on the customer side of the grid. Even CA is toying with the idea of assessing a $11/kW fee on customers with solar to make up from revenue lost to distributed generation.

 

[h2ofun]

Then costs or benefits of Texas' deregulated market vs a traditional regulated market are going to vary depending on where they are in the energy transition phase. What percentage of rate payers have storage, EVs and solar? The primary benefit to what Texas has done isn't that its cheaper (yet) but that market forces are free to encourage the development of different integration strategies for more resources on the customer side of the grid. Even CA is toying with the idea of assessing a $11/kW fee on customers with solar to make up from revenue lost to distributed generation.

Any fee like that would kill me, and I never should have put any solar or batteries in. I sure hope it will never happen, at least to existing folks

 

[SageBrush]

Even CA is toying with the idea of assessing a $11/kW fee on customers with solar to make up from revenue lost to distributed generation.

The silver lining is that they admit it is lost revenue, and not the "unfair" BS touted before