Oklahoma House passes solar surcharge bill

a reply to: halfmask

This utility company is part of the Oligarchy that does not want cheap power for american citizens. They could have gotten in on the solar with subsidies.

And we pay for all their constructions, and taxes.

You must be part of the Oligarchy to think we still feel sorry for them.

To preserve the status quo of those who do not wish to find answers to the societal reality we face.

It's the perpetual bailing out of the government sector (tax funded beneficiaries) and the energy sector beneficiaries who do not wish to face the uncertainty our economy poses on an individual.

This isn't private vs govt sector. This is rich vs not rich.

We must continue being servants to afford heating our homes and we must continue paying up portions of our crumbs to those who wish to keep it that way.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: halfmask

This utility company is part of the Oligarchy that does not want cheap power for american citizens. They could have gotten in on the solar with subsidies.

And we pay for all their constructions, and taxes.

You must be part of the Oligarchy to think we still feel sorry for them.

I couldn't agree more, the big energy companies could have been clean energy leaders, but they made the conscious choice not to.

With respect to their infrastructure cost, I'm not convinced that taxpayers pay "all" the construction cost but I do know that we pay for a large portion. If I'm not mistaken, the stimulus package signed into law by President Obama included some 11 billion dollars for infrastructure upgrades to the nations electric grid. Go figure.

a reply to: Flatfish

I guess what I mean about corp not paying the construction is they have a set of profits in mind. Now, I am not a money person, so this is my conclusion from my own reading. If they don't meet those profit expectations, someone loses a job or rates go up. Is any of that correct?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Flatfish

I guess what I mean about corp not paying the construction is they have a set of profits in mind. Now, I am not a money person, so this is my conclusion from my own reading. If they don't meet those profit expectations, someone loses a job or rates go up. Is any of that correct?

Without a doubt! When it comes to corporations and the mentality they hold dear, the one thing that's not allowed to suffer, (no matter what) is their profit margins.

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Sounds like the answer is to NOT hook your Solar System up to the grid. There issue with distributed generation seems to be when the solar power is predominantly hooked to the grid.

Any smart person would TRY to design and install a solar system that IS NOT hooked to the grid. I realize for many that is a pipe dream and there are component issues (batteries for one), but WE THE PEOPLE need to work together to make stuff like this happen.

I agree, people should be working together to get us all energy independent... It should be our main collective goal... But we don't... Too busy getting the new car/bigger house/bigger tv blah blah...

BUT we could do something like a lottery. Each ticket is £1/$1 and if you get drawn you get a full on off the grid makeover! The amount of winners drawn will depend on the amount of tickets sold!

You could also do a side project of filming the installations to show the technology and get people into it. Get them to see the benefits...

Someone needs to do it... I would but I'm too disorganised lol... But surely not that hard to do?

Enough is enough.. first they claim the draw on the power grid is too much and needs to be decreased and then they try to penalize those that try to reduce their own usage. I won't be taking this lying down.

Great! Now how long until it costs extra to have your own garden, vineyard, or *GASP!* I would like to grow a few flowers around my house so my yard doesn't look barren? What about those darn trees on your property? Do those cost extra as well?

a reply to: beezzer

I think that this holds true for the opposite side of the political spectrum as well;

after-all we see so much about how obama has a personal agenda to spite each and every one of us for some vague and ill-defined reason... and how bad those "poor rich folk" have it. (www.southparkstudios.com...)

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: halfmask

This utility company is part of the Oligarchy that does not want cheap power for american citizens. They could have gotten in on the solar with subsidies.

And we pay for all their constructions, and taxes.

You must be part of the Oligarchy to think we still feel sorry for them.

Show me proof of what percentage of the grid is paid for in taxes and I will come around to your side. Until then you are just pushing an opinion based on assumptions.

To some of those who are still not clear on this, if you set up your solar panel and you don't hook it up to the grid, you do not pay the tax. The tax is only for those who sell their energy back into the grid.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well, seeing how the Republican party holds a super-majority in both, the Oklahoma state Senate and House of Representatives and coupled with the fact that they also have a Republican Governor, (whom I'm sure will proudly sign this bill) it has become abundantly clear that this is the GOP's idea of liberty & freedom. Who'd a thunk it?

I've come to expect nothing less from states with Republican controlled state houses and legislatures which by the way, are also the same ones advocating for all the new voter suppression initiatives.

Just a happy-go-lucky bunch of freedom loving Americans.

Yea. This simply looks like republicans working on behalf of the stock holders of the electric and gas power firms. The Dems are different you suggest? The Libs are the big rain gathering taxers and now the republicans are sunlight taxers. And they have ideas floating around about taxing home grown food by way of a garden permit.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Flatfish

I find it interesting in that when poor legislation comes from republicans, everyone slams them.

As should be the case.

But when poor legislation comes from democrats, many slam them, but the leftists defend them.

(aren't you allowed to disagree with your party leadership?)

I don't know, Chuck mutha bleepin Schumer has put out some pretty scary and oppressive bills and last time I checked he wasn't a Republican.

We're definitely allowed to disagree and we do, when we think the legislation or the individual is bad.

Personally, I have no problem opposing legislation that originates from my party and/or those who propose it, when I believe them to be wrong. It's just that more often than not, I happen to agree with them.

On the other hand, some of the most oppressive legislation I've seen in my lifetime is currently coming exclusively from states who's legislatures are controlled by Republicans. Go figure!

I don't Know. . . Chuck Mutha Bleepin Schumer has put out some pretty scary and oppresive bills over the years, and the last time I checked he wasn't a Republican

a reply to: halfmask


"Show me proof of what percentage of the grid is paid for in taxes and I will come around to your side. Until then you are just pushing an opinion based on assumptions."

I don't know how to answer that question. I don't know if I have access to that accounting information. I only know businesses do not pay taxes and you never make up lost or stolen money, and old business man told me that.

What if individuals started selling it to neighbors instead?

a reply to: halfmask

There are two major points I need to make here against your argument:

Firstly, our taxes already go towards maintaining the grid so people are already paying their fair share. Secondly, there's a difference between an individual family using solar panels to provide for their own and utility businesses who use the grid to make profit. You see where I'm coming from here? One side already pays towards the grid and uses it to be self reliant, not for profit, another is a business that uses it for profit.

Why do you wish to put more unnecessary tax on families that are already paying for the grid? hmm? Why do you support legislation that only serves to put a financial burden on families merely choosing to be self reliant? The utility companies are angry that they are losing profit, they can't deal with self reliance and that's that. It's got little to do with "fairness" unless you're one to feel that government must protect the profits of business.

There's an article below as well in the case of what costs utility businesses incur from the grid:

Last October, the California Public Utility Commission issued its own findings on net metering, declaring that utilities generally benefit because the power companies have less traffic and are thus able to avoid certain costs associated with grid upkeep.

spectrum.ieee.org...

One final point here, solar generation accounts for less than 1% of total power/electricity generation in the United States, so interms of their use of the grid, it is minimal compared to other energy generators:
www.eia.gov...

For serious lack of anything better to say due to the sheer amount of bull# legislation being passed everyday just to ream middle America even more at every turn: # everyone involved for voting for this crap. The Federal Gov. wants to make it illegal for people to live off the grid, and charge way more than necessary for us to utilize alternative energy sources just to keep us by the balls (or breasts) while most politicians earn double the average FAMILY income while working about 1/2 less.

originally posted by: Kevinquisitor
The Federal Gov. wants to make it illegal for people to live off the grid, and charge way more than necessary for us to utilize alternative energy sources just to keep us by the balls

This is not the federal government, just State governments passing these kinds of legislation. Oklahoma and Arizona are two examples of this and they have Republican majorities.

This is garbage, plain and simple, and any one supporting this ought to be voted out.
Period.
That being said, plenty on the right are against this as well.

Seems the only thing that matters is who has taken money, and who hasn't.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


And the republicans are forever patronizing the rhetoric of individual freedom and rugged individualism not to mention lower taxes so we have more of our own money to spend as we see fit. And then shove a 2x4 like this up our azz while we were bent over working on the d*m thing.

I am surprised this thread has gotten so far before it was pointed out other states do this.

Let me say I hate the idea of being taxed or charged to feed the grid "but" it really depends on how much that fee or tax is IMO as to how outraged I am. I think it was California that also had the fee for using the grid. Originally they were going to charge or were charging $50 a month to do so but that fee was reduced to $5 in which case wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The last home I had I bought with solar already installed so I am not sure how much the previous owners paid to instal them but with my setup I didn't have any battery banks. In the daytime my meter ran backwards and at night it ran forwards now since then everything has gone digital and I have a different house now. Back then I was coming out pretty far ahead in getting money back from FPL. Look I can understand paying a fee or whatnot for the setup I had because I used the power grid as my battery bank in a way. With power costs being what they are on and off peak I can see the same type of legislation passing here. I understand the reason but it doesn't mean I like it.

Anyway I am waiting to see what the new incentives or rebates will be this or next year then I am buying panels myself. I loved getting a check in the mail each moth from the power company. You do have a year feeding into the grid before you start seeing checks. Like for the month of January you get paid the following January.

A typical 5kw setup is about 20K and last year they had 10K in rebates plus you could write off the full amount of the 20K on your taxes. Not taxable 20K but 20K worth of taxes. I tell you now with the advance of LED lighting and such it really makes sense to go solar if you have the upfront cash because you recoup it all pretty fast.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I am not from the USA, so I don't know what you are already taxed for or where your taxes go. As was the case with this bill, people where assuming you where charged just for setting up and using solar panels, which is not true, the tax was for selling energy back to the grid specifically. Since so many people where assuming that the tax was on solar in general, which was a wrong assumption, I am now not trusting when people are saying that they are already being taxed to maintain the gird, hence why I am asking for proof. There will be a bill somewhere stating to implement the tax, and there should be public records somewhere showing what amount of said tax is paying for the grid.

For families setting up solar to power their own house they are not taxed, so I don't get how this bill hurts people being self reliant.

From what I understand the grid is being paid for like this:

The power companies pay to maintain the grid, they get their money from their customers (the public) + potential government subsidy (amount I don't know, could be too much, could be nothing).

The idea behind this bill is to charge people a tax for when they sell energy back into the grid. This is to even out the increased maintenance cost from solar panel users selling surplus energy, this tax is for them to pay their share into the grid maintenance.

However, if indeed there already is a tax from somewhere else, like included in income tax or something else that is already paying for the grid that the solar panel users are already paying for, then depending on how much this difference is compared to the actual maintenance cost of the grid maintenance will change my stance. However to make a fully informed stance I would need to see the actual bills, the actual tax amounts and the actual maintenance cost. Only from there can you make an informed opinion or stance on this bill.

My problem with most people in this thread is that they are simply assuming what the bill says and are going off making tangent arguments when the bill doesn't do what they are assuming it does.