4 ms·

"Sadly, the US is hitting a hiccup as the current administration is going out of their way to make solar installs harder and more expensive" The other group ha

"Sadly, the US is hitting a hiccup as the current administration is going out of their way to make solar installs harder and more expensive" The other group has been trying to tax solar for years: https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ Why no outcry on HN?

empath75 1y ago
> The other group has been trying to tax solar for years: https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ Sorry, what other group. Power companies?
- billy99k 1y ago
  HEH "They unsuccessfully tried again in 2024, working with Governor Newsom to try and slip a Solar Tax in his proposed budget."
  - empath75 1y ago
    Remind me again who is in charge of the California state legislature, and who voted against this 'tax'.
    - billy99k 1y ago
      So you aren't going to blame the governor, but some how will blame the Republicans for all of these issues and more? If you were at least a little more honest, I might be able to have a discussion with you.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
As someone who greatly supports solar power and the rights of homeowners to install solar, I think your link is total bullshit and calling it a "solar tax" is disingenuous by people that want something for free The fundamental problem with net metering is that it is obviously unsustainable and unfair. People who are hooked up to the grid benefit from more than just the energy they consume, but the hookup costs and maintenance of the grid is a real cost that power companies need to pay for. Perhaps even more obviously, any company that is in a retail business can only survive if they buy a product at a (cheaper) wholesale rate and sell it at a (more expensive) retail rate. Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable. As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. I'm also not saying this is the only way to do things (e.g. you could have a monthly connection fee and a separate monthly power charge), but this "solar rights" group is just spinning bullshit because their sweet deal is about to come to an end.
- megaman821 1y ago
  Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. 100% of the solar you produce goes back into the grid, which is bought at some cheap rate, and then you buy back your own electricity at retail rates. You litterally lose more money at tier 3 rates than you get paid.
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    > Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. Yes, that is exactly my point. And yes, I'd love it if I got paid more as a homeowner. But Austin is basically paying me wholesale rates for my power I send to the grid, which fundamentally makes sense from an economics perspective. Again, net metering is inherently infeasible for the power company without a vast reconfiguring of how grid electricity is charged.
- oceanplexian 1y ago
  The electric company isn't "entitled" to their subscribers either. My city recently enacted a tax on solar called a generation fee or something like that. That is, if you put up solar panels, generate all your own power, and export ZERO back to the grid you need to pay them "fee" for every kWh generated because they are making less back in distribution costs to their subscribers since you stopped buying their power. Sounds to me like their broken business model is their problem. After doing the math in some places it make sense to disconnect completely, avoid the interconnect fees, and run a standby generator for the edge cases where solar doesn't work. I've heard this is becoming popular in places like Australia and California more recently (Of course, then the government tries to make living off grid illegal to protect electric company profits)
  - beAbU 1y ago
    Someone needs to pay to maintain the connection to your house, even if you don't draw any electricity from it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    Like you point out, it's totally viable for you to disconnect from the grid if you so desire, and then you don't pay the power company anything. So what's your beef?
behole 1y ago
Ah more mental gymnastics in chat. Trying to tax solar and flinging around tariffs backed by extreme climate change denial are not exactly the same thing. NM-just perused your HN comments and they are littered with dog whistles and talking points. Gymnastics seems too generous.
- billy99k 1y ago
  "Trying to tax solar" We are specifically talking about the increase costs in solar. Taxing is definitely one of them. "dog whistles and talking point" You have 3 comments. You also keep using that phrase 'gymnastics'. Do you even know what it means? It doesn't appear so.
  - behole 1y ago
    I use it only for folks like you and other proxy red hats. I know what it means. Sorry I haven’t dedicated my days to pumping internet points on hn. I mostly lurk. I also know what that means. You and your ilk turn yourselves inside out to prove to ONLY YOU that you are righteous in your dogma. Always with the most vague and suspect “sources”. Your fear driven ethos and enlarged frontal lobe will hopefully be the end of you and yours eventually in public discourse. Until then, good luck.

empath75 1y ago

> The other group has been trying to tax solar for years: https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ https://solarrights.org/blog/2025/05/06/solartax2024/ Sorry, what other group. Power companies?

billy99k 1y ago
HEH "They unsuccessfully tried again in 2024, working with Governor Newsom to try and slip a Solar Tax in his proposed budget."
- empath75 1y ago
  Remind me again who is in charge of the California state legislature, and who voted against this 'tax'.
  - billy99k 1y ago
    So you aren't going to blame the governor, but some how will blame the Republicans for all of these issues and more? If you were at least a little more honest, I might be able to have a discussion with you.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

As someone who greatly supports solar power and the rights of homeowners to install solar, I think your link is total bullshit and calling it a "solar tax" is disingenuous by people that want something for free The fundamental problem with net metering is that it is obviously unsustainable and unfair. People who are hooked up to the grid benefit from more than just the energy they consume, but the hookup costs and maintenance of the grid is a real cost that power companies need to pay for. Perhaps even more obviously, any company that is in a retail business can only survive if they buy a product at a (cheaper) wholesale rate and sell it at a (more expensive) retail rate. Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable. As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. I'm also not saying this is the only way to do things (e.g. you could have a monthly connection fee and a separate monthly power charge), but this "solar rights" group is just spinning bullshit because their sweet deal is about to come to an end.

megaman821 1y ago
Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. 100% of the solar you produce goes back into the grid, which is bought at some cheap rate, and then you buy back your own electricity at retail rates. You litterally lose more money at tier 3 rates than you get paid.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. Yes, that is exactly my point. And yes, I'd love it if I got paid more as a homeowner. But Austin is basically paying me wholesale rates for my power I send to the grid, which fundamentally makes sense from an economics perspective. Again, net metering is inherently infeasible for the power company without a vast reconfiguring of how grid electricity is charged.
oceanplexian 1y ago
The electric company isn't "entitled" to their subscribers either. My city recently enacted a tax on solar called a generation fee or something like that. That is, if you put up solar panels, generate all your own power, and export ZERO back to the grid you need to pay them "fee" for every kWh generated because they are making less back in distribution costs to their subscribers since you stopped buying their power. Sounds to me like their broken business model is their problem. After doing the math in some places it make sense to disconnect completely, avoid the interconnect fees, and run a standby generator for the edge cases where solar doesn't work. I've heard this is becoming popular in places like Australia and California more recently (Of course, then the government tries to make living off grid illegal to protect electric company profits)
- beAbU 1y ago
  Someone needs to pay to maintain the connection to your house, even if you don't draw any electricity from it.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  Like you point out, it's totally viable for you to disconnect from the grid if you so desire, and then you don't pay the power company anything. So what's your beef?

behole 1y ago

Ah more mental gymnastics in chat. Trying to tax solar and flinging around tariffs backed by extreme climate change denial are not exactly the same thing. NM-just perused your HN comments and they are littered with dog whistles and talking points. Gymnastics seems too generous.

billy99k 1y ago
"Trying to tax solar" We are specifically talking about the increase costs in solar. Taxing is definitely one of them. "dog whistles and talking point" You have 3 comments. You also keep using that phrase 'gymnastics'. Do you even know what it means? It doesn't appear so.
- behole 1y ago
  I use it only for folks like you and other proxy red hats. I know what it means. Sorry I haven’t dedicated my days to pumping internet points on hn. I mostly lurk. I also know what that means. You and your ilk turn yourselves inside out to prove to ONLY YOU that you are righteous in your dogma. Always with the most vague and suspect “sources”. Your fear driven ethos and enlarged frontal lobe will hopefully be the end of you and yours eventually in public discourse. Until then, good luck.