Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet another perspective of how the utilities fees are a danger to roof top solar penetration.
Isn't it strange how mentioning removing the free toll or car pool privileges for EVs like the Tesla is met with extreme resistance? The typical comments being that we need to give EVs a chance to evolve and trickle down to the masses.
Then, subsidies are provided to home owners to install roof top solar to do what? Yes, gain acceptance and make it financially easier to put up roof top solar.
Finally comes the big elephant in the room, utility recovery fees for roof top solar installations.
Why, when roof top solar installations are in their infancy, are the utility companies being allowed to impose fees to customers who have roof top solar? Aren't we as a society providing a subsidy? Then is it too much to ask the utilities to ante up as well?
If the answer is no, then why do we allow EVs to use either toll free or reduced fee privileges on toll roads?
Another failure to think through the who roof top solar idea. Either we want roof top solar as much as possible or we don't. If we do, then why at this juncture is it so imperative that utilities start imposing fees on those with roof top solar. Are the costs to the utilities so high they can't manage to run their operations without the fees? Aren't those utilities also getting subsidies from the government (actually taxpayers) and shouldn't they then also be part of the solution instead a barrier to roof top installs?
At least the OP does not dissapoint... he consistently misreads the articles he posts, twists them into a slam of Green initiatives, and creates straw men to attack.
If you notice the article has nothing to do with Tesla, but OP is obsessed with knocking Tesla whenever possible. So he works in a Tesla smacking anyway. Strange...
Also notice he can't quite get his straw man lined up correctly on this issue, and his argument doesn't really make sense. Is he for taxes on solar and wind power or is he opposed... he seems really confused... oh, does it really matter?
For anyone who cares, here's what is going on in Wisconsin... the three biggest power utilities in Wisconsin have introduced proposals to the Wisconsin PUC that would work counter to the state mandate to promote renewable energy resources within the state... currently they are ranked 27th in the country, with approximately .2% of the total market supplied by renewables. Many states have worked out the issues of renewables accessing the power grid by adopting a minimum monthly billing for residential net metering accounts. In Hawai'i it's $20 per month. In Arizona it's proposed to be $4 - $6 per month, depending on number of panels. These certainly seem to be in a reasonable range, to allow the utilities to be paid for their investment, while remaining small enough not to discourage new installations.
What the Wisconsin utilities have proposed, however, are unfairly high taxes and fees that seem intended to actively discourage the expansion of renewable energy resources within the state. In a hearing on October 9, Madison Gas & Electric VP Greg Bollom stunningly admits MGE's billing scheme harms energy efficiency at PSC. MGE VP Greg Bollom admits Madison Gas and Electric billing scheme harms energy efficiency at PSC - YouTube
Here's a fairly straightforward opposition discussion with more details:
If we say it is okay to impose fees on roof top solar installs to recover infrastructure operation and maintenance costs then lets be consistent and impose fees on drivers of EVs who pay no fuel taxes which go to fund road maintenance. Fuel taxes don't have anything to do with the fuel, it is about revenue. Make EV drivers chip in. The licensing fees and registration fees have nothing to do with this. At great cost, roads are being redesigned and reworked to include bike lanes. The people who use them don't pay a dime toward that. Saying they also might have cars has nothing to do with that, the bike rider are getting a special benefit that car drivers can't use.
If we say it is okay to impose fees on roof top solar installs to recover infrastructure operation and maintenance costs then lets be consistent and impose fees on drivers of EVs who pay no fuel taxes which go to fund road maintenance... yadda yadda
Once again, while busily engaged in the smiting of straw men, OP has missed the obvious point that a number of states already have, or are in the process of adding annual highway fees for Electric Vehicles, and very few people seem to have a problem with that. It's only fair that everybody who drives share that cost, right?
I know, the idea that people who are environmentally-minded can also be fair-minded doesn't fit into OP's mythology, but in my experience it is the rule, rather than the exception.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,776 posts, read 81,743,750 times
Reputation: 58179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
If we say it is okay to impose fees on roof top solar installs to recover infrastructure operation and maintenance costs then lets be consistent and impose fees on drivers of EVs who pay no fuel taxes which go to fund road maintenance. Fuel taxes don't have anything to do with the fuel, it is about revenue. Make EV drivers chip in. The licensing fees and registration fees have nothing to do with this. At great cost, roads are being redesigned and reworked to include bike lanes. The people who use them don't pay a dime toward that. Saying they also might have cars has nothing to do with that, the bike rider are getting a special benefit that car drivers can't use.
Follow the green groupie money trail.
We are doing that here with a $100 annual fee paid at car license renewal and it goes to the road fund. I agree fully with a significant bicycle license fee to help pay for infrastructure related to bicyclists, but here in Seattle the city government is never going to do anything to offend bike riders, for some reason.
We are doing that here with a $100 annual fee paid at car license renewal and it goes to the road fund. I agree fully with a significant bicycle license fee to help pay for infrastructure related to bicyclists, but here in Seattle the city government is never going to do anything to offend bike riders, for some reason.
Question: Is everyone paying that $100 fee or just the EV owners?
Yes, the bicycles are another matter but the problem exists there. The retorts are usually about how bicycles don't cause any appreciable wear and tear on the roads. While that is true, when entire roads are modified to put in bike lanes, there is a real cost and much of those costs are paid by car drivers.
Question: Is everyone paying that $100 fee or just the EV owners?
Yes, the bicycles are another matter but the problem exists there. The retorts are usually about how bicycles don't cause any appreciable wear and tear on the roads. While that is true, when entire roads are modified to put in bike lanes, there is a real cost and much of those costs are paid by car drivers.
I'll be happy to pay a fee, unlike so many I don't consider society and my government to be the enemy. For the most part government and government workers do the moral, ethical and correct thing most of the time. Investor owned utilities, oil companies and Wall Street on the other hand are fair game on my opinion. I would rather pay California than San Diego Gas & Electric.
I'll be happy to pay a fee, unlike so many I don't consider society and my government to be the enemy. For the most part government and government workers do the moral, ethical and correct thing most of the time. Investor owned utilities, oil companies and Wall Street on the other hand are fair game on my opinion. I would rather pay California than San Diego Gas & Electric.
San Diego Gas and Electric and California are one and the same. You might want to check the news regarding California's regulatory commission and it's relationship with PG&E. Those aren't isolated incidents, it is a culture problem.
Aside from that, government has a valuable function and civil servants do by and large do their jobs well. The elected officials and appointed ones though, not a day goes by when you don't hear about the corruption, violations of the public trust and so on.
Here is thing. If you have roof top solar, why are you being charged for transport if you have a positive flow into the grid? If a positive flow exists, there should be no fee at all. The utility is selling that energy so at the point you sell it to them, it becomes theirs, not yours.
This is how all business work. The sale considers the buyer owning the item at the point of sale, not delivery. Delivery if remote to the point of sale is paid by the buyer, not the seller. Somehow, people bought into the buyer (the utilities) charging the seller (you) for delivery.
If you have rooftop solar, you become the seller. Energy going into the grid above what you use should be as seller, not buyer and therefore the utility becomes responsible for the costs associated with transport.
San Diego Gas and Electric and California are one and the same. You might want to check the news regarding California's regulatory commission and it's relationship with PG&E. Those aren't isolated incidents, it is a culture problem.
Believe me I'm more than cognizant of the relationship. I live thru the privilege of being deregulated and being "Enroned".
Aside from that, government has a valuable function and civil servants do by and large do their jobs well. The elected officials and appointed ones though, not a day goes by when you don't hear about the corruption, violations of the public trust and so on.
Ok, reasonable observation.
Here is thing. If you have roof top solar, why are you being charged for transport if you have a positive flow into the grid? If a positive flow exists, there should be no fee at all. The utility is selling that energy so at the point you sell it to them, it becomes theirs, not yours.
I think they have a point about providing the grid and being compensated for it. They should be able to cover their fixed cost for that. Unfortunately a significant portion of an IOU comes from building production plants. I'm not interested in paying for that as I produce more than I consume, including charging our car. Whats fair to me is that they pay me for what I produce at the going wholesale rate, not the 4 cents they currently pay and I'll pay a fee for the grid.
This is how all business work. The sale considers the buyer owning the item at the point of sale, not delivery. Delivery if remote to the point of sale is paid by the buyer, not the seller. Somehow, people bought into the buyer (the utilities) charging the seller (you) for delivery.
If you have rooftop solar, you become the seller. Energy going into the grid above what you use should be as seller, not buyer and therefore the utility becomes responsible for the costs associated with transport.
Kind've sorta..... I've done a fair amount of import/export. FOB Hong Kong vs FOB LA. Pick your poison.
Believe me I'm more than cognizant of the relationship. I live thru the privilege of being deregulated and being "Enroned". Ok, reasonable observation.
I think they have a point about providing the grid and being compensated for it. They should be able to cover their fixed cost for that. Unfortunately a significant portion of an IOU comes from building production plants. I'm not interested in paying for that as I produce more than I consume, including charging our car. Whats fair to me is that they pay me for what I produce at the going wholesale rate, not the 4 cents they currently pay and I'll pay a fee for the grid.
Kind've sorta..... I've done a fair amount of import/export. FOB Hong Kong vs FOB LA. Pick your poison.
The retorts are usually about how bicycles don't cause any appreciable wear and tear on the roads. While that is true, when entire roads are modified to put in bike lanes, there is a real cost and much of those costs are paid by car drivers.
How so? City and county street work is not funded from gasoline taxes. It's funded from general tax revenues. Therefore all taxpayers share in the expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
