3 ms·

smart -- this appears to be a good initiative. I have to mention that in California, a non-profit Foundation based at Stanford already made a close legal deal

smart -- this appears to be a good initiative. I have to mention that in California, a non-profit Foundation based at Stanford already made a close legal deal with PG&E, to identify sites and install very high quality equipment at deep discounts, in exchange for long-term binding agreements. The consumer is not paid enough to eliminate the bill, just "close". The quality of the siting, equipment, strictness and result of the legal agreement, all indicate to me a very carefully built system, not necessarily to the full benefit of the consumer. It may be that a) ad-hoc and disperse efforts like yourself may still be attractive, and b) the market forces are still changing, so better deals for consumers might be possible. I take the time to write because this is important IMHO.

yieldcrv 3y ago
there's a perspective where the consumer is not much of a factor at this stage, this is just a push to get modernized renewable infrastructure, and much more of it. its still very likely that the owners of each site will unilaterally price their power at higher rates over time, based on demand growth and competition in that area.
beembeem 3y ago
If the CPUC is going to establish statewide policy on the claim that solar is taking from the poor and giving to the rich... incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea. Granted, the CPUC's position is untenable. I think any entity should be incentivized to invest in distributed energy generation. But let's not kid ourselves that churches need special carveouts versus residential in the current climate of CA politics.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea what you're missing is that the federal law allows non-profits to receive direct pay benefits. it is not possible for the federal government to distinguish between types of non-profits, or congress simply didn't even attempt to this time. the entire 500-section tax code is eligible, 501(c)3, 4, 5, 6, 7, private operating foundations, private non-operating/grantmaking foundations, public charities, labor groups, fraternities, religious institutions everything how we got here: the prior "tax credit" approach was not useful for builders and producers, because organizations in the renewables energy spend so much on operations that there typically isn't a net profit any given year to reduce by a tax credit. simultaneously, Congress and the IRS do a lot to try to reduce fungibility of tax credits. So now the tax credits are useless and the behavior they are intended to incentivize is not done. so finally, they've come to the conclusion that fungibility is okay but to non-profits, but non-profits also don't have any tax liability to reduce, so they are just going to pay them cash equivalents at rates set by the department of energy. but churches! okay. we're about to have the greenest megachurches the world has ever seen. and the CPUC? state level predilections aren't really a factor here

yieldcrv 3y ago

there's a perspective where the consumer is not much of a factor at this stage, this is just a push to get modernized renewable infrastructure, and much more of it. its still very likely that the owners of each site will unilaterally price their power at higher rates over time, based on demand growth and competition in that area.

beembeem 3y ago

If the CPUC is going to establish statewide policy on the claim that solar is taking from the poor and giving to the rich... incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea. Granted, the CPUC's position is untenable. I think any entity should be incentivized to invest in distributed energy generation. But let's not kid ourselves that churches need special carveouts versus residential in the current climate of CA politics.

yieldcrv 3y ago
> incentivizing non-tax-paying churches is a really bad idea what you're missing is that the federal law allows non-profits to receive direct pay benefits. it is not possible for the federal government to distinguish between types of non-profits, or congress simply didn't even attempt to this time. the entire 500-section tax code is eligible, 501(c)3, 4, 5, 6, 7, private operating foundations, private non-operating/grantmaking foundations, public charities, labor groups, fraternities, religious institutions everything how we got here: the prior "tax credit" approach was not useful for builders and producers, because organizations in the renewables energy spend so much on operations that there typically isn't a net profit any given year to reduce by a tax credit. simultaneously, Congress and the IRS do a lot to try to reduce fungibility of tax credits. So now the tax credits are useless and the behavior they are intended to incentivize is not done. so finally, they've come to the conclusion that fungibility is okay but to non-profits, but non-profits also don't have any tax liability to reduce, so they are just going to pay them cash equivalents at rates set by the department of energy. but churches! okay. we're about to have the greenest megachurches the world has ever seen. and the CPUC? state level predilections aren't really a factor here