Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 01, 2022

CHICO, Calif. " California utility officials want to tax those with solar energy installed on their homes or businesses. The proposal is not sitting well with consumers across the state, including Chico.


Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Makes a lot of sense?


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

On the surface it does not make sense to me.

But reading the article, there seems tobe more to digest...

From the cited article...

...James Mikles, executive team member for Alternative Energy Systems in Chico, joins other protestors in their fear that the changes are an attempt by traditional utilities, like PG&E, to limit the growing competition of solar energy. Henceforth, the once lesser costs of solar power that traditional electricity-only may not be as attractive to prospective building owners, says Mikles, and disrupt the nationwide attempt to address climate change.

"The argument that the utilities are making, that solar is a burden on the grid, it's false on its face. Solar is good for the grid. Solar produces excess energy when rates are highest, demand is highest," says Mikles during the protest Friday morning. "Everybody would lose except for the utility. The only entity that would benefit is the utility in terms of increased profit."

Other clean energy advocates do not have the same take. Kathy Fairbanks, the spokesperson for the Affordable Clean Energy for All Coalition, says the "modest" changes are meant to ensure everyone who uses the state's power grid does so equitably. In a statement to KRCR, she writes:

There is no difference of opinion about whether there should be more rooftop solar in California: it's about who should pay for it. The current NEM program is paid for by electricity customers who don't have rooftop solar. These Californians are disproportionately lower income residents who are being forced to pay hundreds more each year in higher electricity bills to subsidize solar panels for primarily wealthy Californians. That's wrong and should be changed.

It is grossly misleading for the solar industry to call proposed reforms a penalty on rooftop solar customers, when in reality the goal of reform is simply to ensure that everyone who uses the electric grid pays their fair share toward its maintenance and upkeep. Today that isn't the case and non-solar customers, especially those from disadvantaged communities, are paying more than they should to cover costs that used to be shared equitably among all customers."


Without detailed knowledge of the various costs and taxes involved, it is difficult to wade through the words to find out the real costs being talked about.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-08-01 11:52 AM | Reply

The solution would be for solar to be completely self-contained (hence no grid needed), but then everyone would need a battery.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-08-01 03:24 PM | Reply

#2 That was the hope for cold fusion as well.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-01 03:32 PM | Reply

Essentially screwing all those who.adopted green energy.

#4 | Posted by fresno500 at 2022-08-01 10:26 PM | Reply

That's some backwards progressive logic, are they going to put an extra "fuel" tax on electric cars, to make sure they are paying their fair share for use of roadways?

#5 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-01 10:54 PM | Reply

it is difficult to wade through the words to find out the real costs being talked about.

I am sure it is for you, but do you think the people protesting don't know the "real" costs? OR is that just your lame excuse for a lame proposal?

#6 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-08-01 11:12 PM | Reply

@#6 ... I am sure it is for you, but do you think the people protesting don't know the "real" costs? ...

I think the people protesting are opposed to taxes on their solar installations.

One thing I did see that I did not think was appropriate was that the tax was on solar installations, and the tax is said to be needed because those solar installations place a burden on the grid.

If that is the reason for the tax, then it should be changed such that the tax actually does what its proponents say it does, i.e., it should tax the burden the solar installations place on the grid, not the installations themselves.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-08-02 01:55 PM | Reply

if solar in it's current incarnation causes costs to the overall system it should be absorbed by the state. I'd rather they cut a service or energy initiative to cover the cost, and not de-incentivise the adoption of solar. It has to go through the growing pains to be viable.

#8 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-08-04 11:19 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort