Solar Panel Taxes?

[bcredeur97]

Ok first I want to start off with a disclaimer: I only know this to be occurring where I live, I am not sure that it occurs anywhere else. But I want to encourage other's to research this for themselves.

Source: http://theind.com/article-24174-lus-quietly-clouds-solar’s-future.html

 

So apparently, the local electricity company in my town is going to be taxing solar panel users, making their bill high enough that it's actually higher in certain months than if they didn't have solar panels, due to these extra fees.  Perhaps, due to the abundance of houses with panels in my area, the electric company is beginning to lose money over this problem, or perhaps it's just another case of coorperate greed. Whatever it is, this really isn't funny in terms of making these systems, that people spend $1000's on in hopes to save over many years, completely and utterly useless! 

 

Let me know what you guys think about this. And yes, the fees specifically target homes with solar panels installed, one's without panels are unaffected. The charge itself is deemed a "wiring fee" (wha?)

[ivan134]

It's a Southern state. This doesn't surprise me one bit. I heard of another state a while back that did this and it was also a southern state (can't remember which one).

[suchamoneypit]

"Lets tax our resident's use of the sun"

[Electronics Wizardy]

If they keep doing this, people will buy batteries instead of using the grid. This will just cause them to lose more money.

[ARikozuM]

Local energy co-op in my area tried to do the same thing so that neighborhoods couldn't upgrade to solar panels unless they were the ones to install and supply the power.

[AresKrieger]

12 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

It's a Southern state. This doesn't surprise me one bit. I heard of another state a while back that did this and it was also a southern state (can't remember which one).

It is actually illegal in Colorado to collect the rain that falls on your home, so stupidity isn't just a southern thing

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

It is actually illegal in Colorado to collect the rain that falls on your home, so stupidity isn't a southern thing

In NJ you're not allowed to use a stream/river running through your property to create power either. So it's not just southern/western thing. 

[jools]

is it an American right to breath air , soak in the sun and drink rain water. e=mc^2. everything is energy or perhaps it is not the land of the free....

[ARikozuM]

Just now, jools said:

is it an American right to breath air , soak in the sun and drink rain water. e=mc^2. everything is energy or perhaps it is not the land of the free....

It's the land of the free and "no taxation without representation". There just happens to be someone representing us at the voting poll...

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

"no taxation without representation". 

Unless you live in D.C. (or one of the territories).

[SansVarnic]

Wow.

Liberals - continuing to ruin everything...

 

 

Glad I live in Iowa... the electric company has to pay you for any current you put back on the grid...

[ARikozuM]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Unless you live in D.C. (or one of the territories).

Formerly NJ, now Florida. We can't have solar panels after Proposition #? went through due to the companies not advertising it.

[AresKrieger]

11 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

It's the land of the free and "no taxation without representation". There just happens to be someone representing us at the voting poll...

This is why I like my state, when they try to introduce a tax we either boycott NH liquor stores the lottery or we simply never allow anyone who tried to introduce said tax from entering office again

Edited November 5, 2016 by AresKrieger
It quoted the wrong person

[jools]

I would consider myself a red-green or a green-red depending upon ideology....... and give every man the right to buy solar panels, wind turbine or a nuclear power plant. I am really that liberal

[Curufinwe_wins]

29 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

In NJ you're not allowed to use a stream/river running through your property to create power either. So it's not just southern/western thing. 

I mean you say that, but hydro power has ludicrously large ecological damage (WHEN NOT DONE ALMOST PERFECTLY) and small scale installations are hilariously inefficient.

 

It honestly makes 100% sense for 99.99999% of applicable cases in a state like NJ.

 

The solar panel thing though is just pure greed.

[SurvivorNVL]

Meanwhile I'm getting a home, and disconnecting from the grid with a solar roof, powerwall, few acres for farming, and my own creek.  The, "no collecting rain water" stuff is bollocks, and should be majorly disputable in court as well, and if not - Sovereign pseudo-legal system to get out of it.  Federal taxes?  Sovereign pseudo-legal system. Solar tax?  Sovereign pseudo-legal system. You can dispute and get out of nearly any and all taxes.

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

ludicrously large ecological damage

Hydro power is one of the least damaging power generation methods to the environment, the only things really affected are migrating fish and it is fairly simple to build around that issue

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I mean you say that, but hydro power has ludicrously large ecological damage and small scale installations are hilariously inefficient.

 

It honestly makes 100% sense for 99.99999% of applicable cases in a state like NJ.

 

The solar panel thing though is just pure greed.

The Great Falls in Paterson, NJ (I used to lived in Woodland Park) would have been a grand location for a few of those turbines thanks to the wide portions and strong currents along most of the river. F#ck, the Great Falls were the only beauty to be found in Paterson until you get to the mountains and forests of Woodland Park.

[SurvivorNVL]

5 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Hydro power is one of the least damaging power generation methods to the environment, the only things really affected are migrating fish and it is fairly simple to build around that issue

Or do what China does - build a near trillion dollar Dam, and also build a new coal factory every week.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

Hydro power is one of the least damaging power generation methods to the environment, the only things really affected are migrating fish and it is fairly simple to build around that issue

Paragraph 2 http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=hydropower_environment

 

Not just fish. Damming waterways (for any purpose) causes massive damage to all the flora and fauna of the water basin (similar in reverse to reclaiming wetlands).

 

And we both know, no random consumer is going to give jack shit of a care about properly abating the negative consequences of hydro-power use.

 

So sure you can regulate the shit out of it (probably more expensive than just banning), or you can assume that people are dumbasses and shouldn't fuck with shit they don't understand.

 

For the record, Hydropower arguably creates the single largest per unit-energy LOCAL ecosystem damage. It does quite well compared to fossile fuels when looking at GLOBAL ecosystem damage (although again small installations of hydropower are highly inefficient).

[jools]

It's the land of the free and "no taxation without representation". There just happens to be someone representing us at the voting poll...

 

meaning....

 

It's the land of the free CAVEAT no taxation without representation ERGO I give my freedom to the representative at the poll...

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Or do what China does - build a near trillion dollar Dam, and also build a new coal factory every week.

Speaking of which....

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster/

 

This is why you don't let random people build dams....

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The Great Falls in Paterson, NJ (I used to lived in Woodland Park) would have been a grand location for a few of those turbines thanks to the wide portions and strong currents along most of the river. F#ck, the Great Falls were the only beauty to be found in Paterson until you get to the mountains and forests of Woodland Park.

Again, you'd really need to do some ecological surveys to see exactly what the damage might be and the potential power tradeoff you can get from it, but that is something that should be done on a community/industry scale at the least. Not by any individual homeowner.

 

And for the love of god. Not in a national park.

[AresKrieger]

4 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Not just fish. Damming waterways (for any purpose) causes massive damage to all the flora and fauna of the water basin (similar in reverse to reclaiming wetlands).

By that logic building any man made structure creates massive localized ecological damage, hence the argument is pointless as any power generation facility will take a large area, look just how much land mass solar arrays take as an example.

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

By that logic building any man made structure creates massive localized ecological damage, hence the argument is pointless as any power generation facility will take a large area, look just how much land mass solar arrays take as an example.

 

 

 

Hydropower's energy specific land use is actually far worse than solar power, although better than Wind. Both against solar panels (voltaic) and against CSP (concentrated solar power/thermal arrays).

 

Furthermore, you need to consider the type of land being used for each. Solar voltaic systems for consumers use already active land (rooftops), and thus the ecological impact is less than other equivalent land-uses. Concentrated solar power is almost always proposed in deserts, where biosphere diversity and density is far far lower than normal, and thus their ecological impact is less than land-use might suggest. By it's very nature, hydropower effects mainly highly diverse and bioactive land basins and thus has a HIGHER ecological impact than even it's land use might suggest (this is a trait shared with biofuels which take up only farmable land).

 

(By comparison fossil fuels, and nuclear plants are land type neutral. They really don't care where they are placed and thus comparing their land use is quite easy.)

 

Obviously though while fossil fuel plants do quite well at land-use, they tend to have just a few bad side effects. Hahahaha.

[gamerking]

3 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

Ok first I want to start off with a disclaimer: I only know this to be occurring where I live, I am not sure that it occurs anywhere else. But I want to encourage other's to research this for themselves.

Source: http://theind.com/article-24174-lus-quietly-clouds-solar’s-future.html

 

So apparently, the local electricity company in my town is going to be taxing solar panel users, making their bill high enough that it's actually higher in certain months than if they didn't have solar panels, due to these extra fees.  Perhaps, due to the abundance of houses with panels in my area, the electric company is beginning to lose money over this problem, or perhaps it's just another case of coorperate greed. Whatever it is, this really isn't funny in terms of making these systems, that people spend $1000's on in hopes to save over many years, completely and utterly useless! 

 

Let me know what you guys think about this. And yes, the fees specifically target homes with solar panels installed, one's without panels are unaffected. The charge itself is deemed a "wiring fee" (wha?)

we have a fee since day 1 of home solar panels and we DONT even have solar panels . im not talking about a few pennies on a bill its 1/4 or more sometimes for renewable energy charges . so 600$ bill 150 is all crap windmills solar geothermal ect   i hate pseg . also solar panels are mostly useless if no rebates are usable .