4 ms·

This is Tesla trying to get the tax payers to fund the rich: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/mohit-chhabra/debunking-myths-surrounding-californias-net-metering-ref

This is Tesla trying to get the tax payers to fund the rich: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/mohit-chhabra/debunking-myths-surrounding-californias-net-metering-reform https://www.nrdc.org/experts/mohit-chhabra/debunking-myths-s... The fact is that this tax will help solar and help poorer families make money from it. Instead of subsidies going to the rich.

sliken 5y ago
There's a long history of hiding costs resulting in poor outcomes. Seems insane to charge folks $8 per Kw, when the power company is buying power at commodity rates (typically a few cents per KwH), and reselling it at full price (typically $0.14 to $0.30 per KwH depending on ToU (Time of Use)). There used to be a large subsidy, where solar users would get the full price for each KwH generated and returned to the grid. This did damage the grid, was not sustainable, and put additional costs to non-solar users. However that's gone, so now solar production gets paid a small fraction of the value of the power, but can still decrease their power bill, decrease their grid usage, and help out everyone else on the grid by providing carbon free power. There should be (and is) a charge for connecting to the grid, that should be paid for by all grid users (with and without solar) and those funds should help maintain the grid. I don't get what is trying to be "fixed" by this tax. Doubly so with PG&E, which has a history of asking for billions to improve the grid, then not spending it on improving the grid.
colordrops 5y ago
How does this help solar? I've got an 11kW system that makes about 7kW mid-summer due to shade and angle of the sun. The tax would be over $100 a month for my installation, negating any value of it, subsidy or not. And considering the trillions of subsidies going to the war machine, oil, corn syrup and other corrupt industries, we should be putting MORE, not less money into something that addresses climate change. Our civilization is in a dire situation. We shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. If poor people aren't able to participate, then we should put even more money into it so they can. This proposal is plain stupid.

sliken 5y ago

There's a long history of hiding costs resulting in poor outcomes. Seems insane to charge folks $8 per Kw, when the power company is buying power at commodity rates (typically a few cents per KwH), and reselling it at full price (typically $0.14 to $0.30 per KwH depending on ToU (Time of Use)). There used to be a large subsidy, where solar users would get the full price for each KwH generated and returned to the grid. This did damage the grid, was not sustainable, and put additional costs to non-solar users. However that's gone, so now solar production gets paid a small fraction of the value of the power, but can still decrease their power bill, decrease their grid usage, and help out everyone else on the grid by providing carbon free power. There should be (and is) a charge for connecting to the grid, that should be paid for by all grid users (with and without solar) and those funds should help maintain the grid. I don't get what is trying to be "fixed" by this tax. Doubly so with PG&E, which has a history of asking for billions to improve the grid, then not spending it on improving the grid.

colordrops 5y ago

How does this help solar? I've got an 11kW system that makes about 7kW mid-summer due to shade and angle of the sun. The tax would be over $100 a month for my installation, negating any value of it, subsidy or not. And considering the trillions of subsidies going to the war machine, oil, corn syrup and other corrupt industries, we should be putting MORE, not less money into something that addresses climate change. Our civilization is in a dire situation. We shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. If poor people aren't able to participate, then we should put even more money into it so they can. This proposal is plain stupid.