It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ALEC calls for penalties on 'freerider' homeowners in assault on clean energy

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Thank you for posting this. ALEC is crony capitalism on steroids. And this in particular further reveals the lie of global warming... climate change... whatever you want to call it. We've been told since at least the early 70's that we must conserve energy, that we're destroying our planet, that we must find alternative fuels. My dad was an engineer who specialized in alternative energy research and development. He favored solar. He was constantly vexed by the obstacles thrown in his way. He said back in the 70's that nothing would change because the ones with power didn't want it to change. He was the first to tell me about Tesla, and that If Tesla had his way, no one would pay for electricity. We would all generate our own from the earth. We still could. And those who have possession of Tesla's works know this. But the PTB can't have that. The earth's resources are to be harnessed and rationed by the power brokers for greed. Pure and simple.

Another natural resource criminalized by the PTB is growing wild all over the world that could literally replace all petroleum products we now use... this simple weed that once produced the toughest jeans for miners can also produce the finest silky fabrics or the coarsest burlap and everything in between, easily replacing the cotton and linen crops that require so many chemicals to grow and process... we could replace all paper products with the high-content cellulose stems, and save our forests... this simple plant with the perfect balance of omega 3's, 6's, and 9's can replace many toxic pharmaceuticals for pain, nausea, even cancer... But it's illegal, not because of it's toxicity (it's not), but because (at least in theory) some people might smoke it and get lazy and stupid.

In the meantime, the corporate pollution of our air, water, and earth is ignored, excused, covered up, and otherwise protected. We have plenty of pollution to clean up, but it starts at the source. And we little guys are not it.

The lies change... the target changes... but the greed and power grabs remains the same. Years ago, when my kids were teenagers, they asked us why we make fun of global warming... in perfect unison, we replied, "We're still waiting for nuclear winter!" (Altho the joke may be on us now as I sit here freezing in record cold temps!!!)




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I live in the woods. I can hide solar panels by the trees.


I doubt if the Feds would allow this if challenged, they are trying to make a reliable diverse grid system so that if the power goes out in Washington, they will be able to steal ours.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


If you are too loud, people will think you are crazy and avoid you like the plague. I suppose that could be good if you want everyone to stay away.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Didn't you guys know?!?! The government owns the sun and spends millions of dollars working tirelessly on the infrastructure that gets those sun rays across the millions of miles between the sun and earth.

People that use solar panels are reaping the benefit of all of this without paying a dime! Dang freeloaders, what do they think the Sun just popped up one day? NO! Our glorious government built the sun! Do they think all that heat and UV rays from the sun travel through all that empty space to get to earth on its own? NO! there is a highly specialized infrastructure that facilitates the transfer of sun rays from the sun to earth!

I think people who use solar panels should help pay for it. I also think people who get natural sun tans (from the sun) Should also have to pay similar rates to those you would find at a tanning salon. People should also have to pay taxes in the summer time because all of the sun's heat keeps them warm so they don't need their heaters. Heck, while we are at it, they should also test people monthly for their vitamin D levels and tax them accordingly! They wouldn't have any vitamin D if it wasn't for the government's SUN Project!

DC

PS. for those that didn't pick up the heavy sarcasm here, i am being 100% sarcastic. The government has no right to penalize people for utilizing THE SUN. They do not own the sun, they do not have any claim in the rays that come from the sun and its asinine to even consider penalizing people who choose to use the sun's clean energy over the standard power grid. If the ability to use the sun as an energy source is causing the power company hardship, then the power company needs to evolve. They can't force people to change to fit the needs of the corporation, its supposed to work the other way around.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
When the utility companies are run by organized crime this is the result. This is no difference than mobsters shaking people and businesses for 'protection.'

I know a few people who work for solar heating companies in Florida. So far they haven't found a way to tax those who use the sun for their water heating needs, however FPL and the other power companies have made it very difficult for the anyone to go green and make their own power with solar and wind. Not only that, many homeowner associations, local ordinances, condo, and apartment leases require one to have an active account with the power companies, so in most areas a person or business can not be off the grid and produce their own power.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
This is not as unbelievable as you think. They are going on Obama's policy of Europenizing the US.

Germany taxes people based on how much rain falls on their lawns. The size of lawns is calculated and then the rainfall measured and people are billed for the water that fell on their lawn because they don't have to water it. True, true, true, I lived in Germany 6 years.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
While I can understand the main idea behind this bill being as what you'd expect;
People not paying for electricity but using the grid as a means of stable power, should pay a tariff to help maintain that grids infrastructure.

However, isn't the whole purpose behind the grid is that there is a producer of electricity offering its services to customers?
And they have this grid as a selling point that "hey, we can offer you electricity".
Meaning you are under no obligation to take up their offer.

Therefor, if you have a means to power your home independently of the grid without using the grid, then no tariff should be taxed.

But hey, that is logical thinking and here in Australia... Even if you don't USE electricity and you have a power pole and lines running past your property, you pay a fee.
So much for a voluntary service eh?



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Install solar panels. Get off the grid. Problem solved.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

groingrinder
Install solar panels. Get off the grid. Problem solved.


That is not possible in some areas. Homeowner associations, local ordinances, condo, and apartment leases often require the residents to have an active account with the power company. Going off the grid can get you fined or evicted in many places.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


They will know when your power bill is ZERO month after month.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Southern Guardian
Yes, the American Legislative Exchange Council have set a number of legislative goals in time for 2014 and among them is a new law to penalize homeowners who install their own solar panels. Why on earth would anybody support this? It's beyond me.


An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels – casting them as "freeriders" – in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy, the Guardian has learned.

Over the coming year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) will promote legislation with goals ranging from penalising individual homeowners and weakening state clean energy regulations, to blocking the Environmental Protection Agency, which is Barack Obama's main channel for climate action.

www.theguardian.com...

Frankly if this group wishes to continue targeting such laws as Obama's ACA, it's really indifferent to me, but when it comes to laws hindering the rights of home owners to invest in solar panels, it baffles me. I'm not sure why some people are set against the use of solar panels? Solar power has no ideology, alternative energy has no side. A family who learns to cut down costs and become more energy independent by investing in solar power and other energies is to me something everybody should embrace.

Further on this:

Further details of Alec's strategy were provided by John Eick, the legislative analyst for Alec's energy, environment and agriculture program.

Eick told the Guardian the group would be looking closely in the coming year at how individual homeowners with solar panels are compensated for feeding surplus electricity back into the grid.

"This is an issue we are going to be exploring," Eick said. He said Alec wanted to lower the rate electricity companies pay homeowners for direct power generation – and maybe even charge homeowners for feeding power into the grid.

"As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.


Unbelievable. The lengths people will go to protect corporate profits and political group interests?


I would ask this iggit what infrastructures the home own is using. If they are generating all their own electricity and saleing the excess back to the electric company how are they using the companies infrastructure.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

rickymouse
So just don't tell them you have solar panels. If the circuitry is separate from the grid who would know. Still keep the meter hooked up and pay the minimum and maybe keep the fridge on it.


It's rather difficult not to notice them. The neighbor across the street from my parents house has solar panels. They just look like someone pulled off the solar panels off a satellite and stuck them on top of their roof.

But all they need is 7- 14 square meters of solar panels: Sunlight = 2 Kilowatts per square meter on a sunny day. A home needs 14 Kilowatts peak demand (washing machine + cooker + TV/PC's/consoles). Even at 50% efficiency, a home only need 14 square meters of solar panels plus storage batteries to power your home off grid.

The utility companies are freaking out because they've been spending all the money on dividends on their shareholders. And now that customers are going off-grid, the gas and oil companies are freaking out.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Duplicate.
edit on 10-12-2013 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   


As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.


liejunkie01
I guess it's just me but this statement seems silly.
Does anyone else see the problem?

You guys are going to hate this, but I can see his point, and I think most of you are misunderstanding him.

When he is talking about infrastructure he is talking about the lines, transformers, etc...
When you are selling energy back to the electric company, you're not paying for any of the maintenance on the lines that you use to transmit that back to them. In effect everyone else who isn't running solar has to pick up that tab. So when you sell electricity back to the power company you should be getting paid the amount you transmit back to them minus an amount for line maintenance and repair. I guess right now there are no provisions in place to cover the expense of those lines for customers running solar.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

defcon5
You guys are going to hate this, but I can see his point, and I think most of you are misunderstanding him.

When he is talking about infrastructure he is talking about the lines, transformers, etc...
When you are selling energy back to the electric company, you're not paying for any of the maintenance on the lines that you use to transmit that back to them. In effect everyone else who isn't running solar has to pick up that tab. So when you sell electricity back to the power company you should be getting paid the amount you transmit back to them minus an amount for line maintenance and repair. I guess right now there are no provisions in place to cover the expense of those lines for customers running solar.


That's where you are wrong.
When you sell back to the Electric companies from a Solar or Wind output, the Feed-in Tariff is calculated off the Wholesale Cost of Energy supplied less the cost incurred for the transmission.
Which is the maintenance for the infrastructure and its why people don't get the maximum tariff for their feed in.
It's also why the feed-in tariffs drop off the more people take up alternate energy.

That being said... It's not the burden of the consumer to pay for the infrastructure of the company.
If they wish to supply a service for consumers, then they have to do what every other company must do.
Factor in the cost of running the business with the cost of the services they provide.

In this scenario, the more and more people that don't take up alternate energy, will then foot a higher per kWh cost for grid feed electricity.
This is the cost of business.
The resulting effect will be that more and more people will buy alternate energy.

This is an inevitability of the rise of alternate energy and the operation of an archaic company.
If these electric companies want to make up the difference in loss of consumers, then they should start selling off their infrastructure or start offering alternate services.

For example, if they want to maintain their current infrastructure and want to accommodate people that feed-in to the grid... Then they should offer services like grid supplied energy storage at a cost.
Which the major cost in going completely off grid is the cost and maintenance of power storage.

Hence why this idea is brought forth... People are using the Grid for a stable source of power storage as their Solar Power supply system has no independent power storage system.
Since they are feeding in more then they are using, they are potentially costing the electric company.

That being said, the electric company is selling on their supplied power to others still reliant 100% on the grid.
Since the grid infrastructure is already in place and the electric companies have done nothing to gain this extra source of free energy that they get to sell at a premium (green energy), what do they have to really complain about?
Outside of paying the person for their feed-in of electricity, I can guarantee the companies are still making a profit.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You're right on that. The power companies cannot afford to provide the service if they are running in the negative. If your power lines get knocked down, they still have to put them back up for you even though you did not pay for it. When selling power to the power company, you only get about 7 cents a KW yet you pay about 12 cents or more for the power you pull from the grid. This means at night your use is charged and in day you are selling. You usually use more power at night though. Your bill never goes away unless you give them almost double of what you use.

That is the way it works here from what I have heard. It is not a simple subtraction of energy used.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


not that I support the government infringing on property rights, but most solar panels only get installed because the government gives grants and tax write offs. in fact, if it wasn't for the incentives, the entire solar industry would collapse.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Sovaka
That being said... It's not the burden of the consumer to pay for the infrastructure of the company.
If they wish to supply a service for consumers, then they have to do what every other company must do. Factor in the cost of running the business with the cost of the services they provide.

A utility company is a “mandatory” company, they cannot just say, “hey we're going out of business, sorry but no utilities until someone else takes over”. Infrastructure to maintain those utilities are also considered mandatory, and everyone is expected to maintain them just like your expressways. I can't say that I understand all the details of how that works, but your utilities are considered part of the infrastructure of a country, even though they are privately operated and maintained. So it NOT "just like any other company".
edit on 12/10/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That being said, it doesnt mean that you have to pay anything for power if you are obtaining it the smart and clean way. It means something a little different. That the (pardon me I'm a really bad mood and I can't think of a non swearing word to express the fury I have at slavers, and the slimy toads running this world), that the (fill in the blank) asshats, who are ripping people off for horrendous fossil fuel energies, and running a scarsity system, would have to stop and pull out the real alternative clean energies and maybe the cavitation cold fusion ones they sit on.

Opting out is the best way to force some real changes. But we aint going to pay for those who refuse to opt out.

The precedence here is that they own energy creation and the elements. FAIL! They don't and can't do this legally. I would buy guns before I would give up freedom and I'm a Canadian.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

If we removed oil from the market as a traded commodity, you'd see a lot of this price gouging stopped. For example the yearly increase in the cost of fuel during spring/summer is very much due to speculators knowing that demand goes up at that time of the year.



new topics




 
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join