Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Science

CA Considers Taxing Solar Power Generation 107

Posted by timothy from the corrupts-absolutely dept.
California is considering a proposal by the state Public Utilities Commission to charge an 'exit tax,' proportional to the amount of power you generate, on electricity generated by means such as solar panels for your own use. I would expect a state like California to try and encourage the adoption of alternative power sources, but this seems a really odd way of doing it. Two groups have started lobbying against this tax. If passed, it sets a precedent that many fear will lead to similar taxes outside CA.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Considers Taxing Solar Power Generation More

CA Considers Taxing Solar Power Generation

Comments Filter:

  • LA LA Land (Score:1, Interesting)

    by fortunato ( 106228 )
    This is the same state that thought it would be a good idea to [conservativenews.org]
    give illegal aliens drivers licenses.

    • And you'd you prefer that they drive around unlicensed and uninsured?
      • If they aren't LEGAL to be here then making it legal for them to drive here is not the answer. I mean if we're going to make it legal for them to drive, I guess we should go ahead and make it legal for them to work here. I mean why have any illegal aliens at all? We can just make them ALL legal. Gee.. THATS a good idea! I don't think so.

  • This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fobside ( 140397 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @02:50AM (#5277527) Homepage
    Since when does any government have the right to place taxes on unrefined, natural resources like the sun? Pretty soon, they'll be trying to charge for the spinning of a pinwheel or the clanging of wind chimes in a front lawn. If an individual were to sell unused power to other people, I could see how a tax might be warranted.

    • Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thinmac ( 98095 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:01AM (#5277845) Homepage
      It's not a totally new idea. I remember being told in Israel that they taxed water as a state resource because it was in such short supply. Even nomadic folks living out in the desert had to carry little water meters, and pour all the water they use through it. That's a little different, though, since they're using a whole lot larger percentage of the water in the country than California is the sunlight that falls in the whole state.

      Actually, if you think about it, taxing real estate is sort of like taxing an 'unrefined, natural resource', and people have done that for a whole lot longer than they've taxed almost anything else.

      Not that I think this new tax is a good idea, just that I don't think it's completely out of left field.

      • Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)

        by anubi ( 640541 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:21AM (#5277916) Journal
        Even nomadic folks living out in the desert had to carry little water meters, and pour all the water they use through it.

        If they pee, do they get credit?

      • Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @10:39AM (#5279268)
        Taxing water and land are different in that they are *limited*. My owning land precludes anyone else from owning that land, but my using sunlight doesn't take away from anyone else potential use. The sunlight was falling on my property so no one else could even get a chance to use it without my permission, and unlike water the sunlight can't "flow" onto someone else's land for their use.

        Air, for all purposes currently, is effectively unlimited. Would we even consider the idea of taxing breathing?
        • Would we even consider the idea of taxing breathing?

          We may not do so, but I think it's a safe bet that the idea has passed or will pass through the mind of more than one idle bureaucrat. Consider the following scenario - which is easy to envision in California:

          Due to the continued degradation of air quality, the state is going to mandate a pollution control tax which will be used as a subsidy to assist polluting industries in fulfilling the cleanup laws passed by the state. This tax can be considered a use tax; the more you use, the more you pay.

          Never overestimate the depths to which a lazy, no account bureaucrat will stoop when searching for ways a) to spend your money, and b) to justify his own salary.

        • ...but my using sunlight doesn't take away from anyone else potential use.

          What, is everything around you transparent? If your building casts a shadow on my solar panel i think it is certainly taking away my potential use.

          Unfortunately, in an urban setting sunlight is a limited resource.
      • Actually, the situations you describe are totally different from the concept of taxing sunlight (or solar power derived from such light). Basically, the main difference is that the water in Israel was taxed because, as you yourself said, "... it was in such short supply." Real estate can reasonably be taxed because after a while you run out of it. What I'm trying to get at here is that the sun does not run out. It shouldn't be taxed, because the amount of sunlight the earth receives is not dependant on the amount of it that is converted into electricity. We will still get all the sunlight that we would anyway, but as an added bonus we would destroy our planet and deplete expendable resources more slowly. California seems to have the exact opposite of the right idea going here...
      • Actually, if you think about it, taxing real estate is sort of like taxing an 'unrefined, natural resource', and people have done that for a whole lot longer than they've taxed almost anything else.

        ...and that's why Libertarians call taxes "slavery". Because they are. Once people allow all these taxes, especially pernicious ones like real estate taxes, to creep into their lives, you can kiss true liberty goodbye. And we have, a long, long time ago.
    • Hmm - well think about it a second.

      Once it's 'lectricity, it's refined!

      Further -you're talking about a state that
      paid 20 billion dollars for what should have
      cost 4-5 billion all brought to you by that same amazying leader that gave us the the 35 billion dollar deficit.

      He has to pay for his mistakes some how -whoops - we have to pay for his mistakes!
      • Hang is it not California where there was the recent electricity shortage and blackouts? Surely its even more ridiculus to propose this given that the population cannot rely on the utilities to provide electricity for them...

        I would hope enough people object that this proposal is totally discreditted along with which ever buffoon suggested it.

        This makes my view that the US government dont give a damn about pollution and the state of the earth even harder - that they want to tax people for generating cleaner energy than the state bother to.
    • They get the right from the same place as they get any other right to charge tax. What's different about this?
    • Here's a test case - the ruling would allow the utilities to put measuring equipment on all my private electrical equipment, right? What if I do well enough to get entirely off grid - meaning I buy NO power from them. Under law, I should be able to tell them to piss off. If I have no business relationship with them, they have no right at all to make me do a damned thing.

      And if they try, I think this would be a great court case. Of course, it would probably only apply to those people who get entirely off-grid, which won't be much. But maybe not - does an existing business relationship make spyware from a private organization legal? Can such an exclusivity agreement be made part of a contract - particularly with a monopoly, and a utility (both of which are usually held to higher standards than typical companies)?

      From a pragmatic point of view, Davis needs to crush this. If he still has ANY hopes of running for Pres in 2004, he better not let it go through - pissing off the Sierra Club crowd would be political suicide.

      • If this goes through, I don't think it is going to get far. It is probably going to get dragged through the courts for years, and I'd imagine a judge somewhere will grant an injunction to keep CA from collecting on this. It will eventually be crushed either as unconstitutional, or just if it comes before a judge/jury with common sense. So mes thinks CA only stands to lose a shit load of money fighting to keep this garbage alive if it makes. And I have to agree, if Davis has ANY future political goals, this is a good way to never accomplish any of them.

  • not to complain but (Score:5, Funny)

    by hswerdfe ( 569925 ) <slashdot.org@nOS ... d.swerdfeger.com> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @03:02AM (#5277551) Homepage Journal
    CA = Canada

    its our top level domain. damit

    I don't care if California has a bigger economy or not.

    we are not giving it up
    • Well, at least sun-based economy should be bigger in California :)
      • To be fair, not only is Canada bigger and thus receives more sun, since it is a northern country there are parts where the sun doesn't set for months at a time...
        • Maybe more sun but not more energy...Think about it, if you got more energy from the sun than California YOU'D be growing citrus, tomatoes, and grapes instead of carribou and glaciers.
        • And that sun is filtered through twice as much atmosphere....

          and those places where the sun doesn set for months at a time? guess what, the other half of the year it doens't rise for months at a time.

          • Shh... don't tell anyone :)

            As to the other commentor, I didn't mean that we got more energy at any one place (all though the southernmost point of Canada is south of Oregon) but that we just get more total energy given it's the 2nd largest country in the world.
            • Debatable.

              The land area of canada is barely larger than the US...

              Total Land Area:

              US - 9,158,960 sq km
              Canada - 9,220,970 sq km

              That's almost insignificant.. and if you consider how much further north a lot of our land is.. the US gets far more energy in total from the sun.

              Even if we go by total area, it's still not that much of a difference...
              US - 9,629,091 sq km
              Canada - 9,976,140 sq km

    • Tell it to the post office, a responsible branch of the US gov.. no, wait. That's Miracle on 34th street. They've been privatized now.
    • So that's what's been preventing you guys from petitioning for statehood - your state abbreviation is already taken!

      I understand and I sympathize.

  • The Sunshine State! (Score:4, Funny)

    by dnahelix ( 598670 ) <slashdotispieceofshit@shithome.com> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @03:13AM (#5277580)
    I guess that slogan actually means that California owns the fawking SUN!!!!

  • Exit Tax vs Incentives? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jsimon12 ( 207119 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @03:34AM (#5277644) Homepage
    "increase the cost of using solar energy in California....by up to 40 percent..."

    This makes no sense? Why offer incentives if they are going to turn around and tax? California offers something on the order of a 50% rebate+tax credit on solar, why turn around and tax the system? If they are really having problems just lower the incentive to 10% rather then give the person 50% then take back 40%? What are they trying Enron accounting here?

  • just when you think the bar is highest... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chriso11 ( 254041 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @03:42AM (#5277661) Journal
    Amazing! Just when you think the most ludicrious proposal comes along, they top it with ease...

    While they're at it, they should count the number of compact florescents I installed and tax me on the amount of electricity I'm not using...
  • Taxing solar power is as ridiculous as taxing job hunting. It's bad enough that you tax the purchase of the hardware, but why should someone pay the government to use solar energy? It makes no sense.

    "You applied for 100 jobs? Okay, that'll be $10 please."

    In other news, children are now required to pay to ride their bikes. They will be charged per Newton & per kilometre. Stationary bikes are included too.

  • Not just solar power... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SchnauzerGuy ( 647948 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @03:43AM (#5277667)
    This proposed tariff doesn't just apply to solar power, but any kind of "off-grid" power generation:
    "Customer Generation" as used in this order, incorporates the definition in the Joint Parties' Settlement Agreement. It refers to cogeneration, renewable technologies, or any other type of generation that (a) is dedicated wholly or in part to serve a specific customer's load; and (b) relies on non-utility or dedicated utility distribution wires rather than the utility grid
    That means wind power, fuel cells, diesel generators, etc. are also covered. And since the settlement covers anything that reduced the customer's load, presumably even geo-thermal heating/cooling systems would be taxed.
    • So do you have to pay more taxes if its cool in August and don't use your air conditioning as much as you should?

      Stupid people.
    • Wording in the second paragraph on the second page (i.e., defining "Departing Load" that they're wanting to tax) makes me wonder if there's an [exceedingly] minor hole: the definition says you either stay at the same location or move to somewhere supplied by the utility. (singular sense). Not being a resident, is it possible to move inside CA where you would have to change utilities to one of the other two (of three listed) utility providers? Then, could you use self-generation without impact?

      Relatedly, what if I was to (shudder!) move to CA? I've never been served by the utility(s) before, so there's no "departing load". ?
    • Reading through the document it looks like this is designed to only add a tax/surcharge to customers generating their own power that actually feed their excess back into the power grid (known as banking).

      So no, a geo-thermal heating/cooling system or turning off your air conditioner on a hot day could not be taxed.

      This proposal appears to hide behind an attempt to say "running+managing the grid costs money, even power producers should pay if they are hooked up." That is only true to a point. Until a significant number of customers start doing consumer power generation (10%, etc) this makes no sense whatsoever except when you realize that the PUC would rather consumers live in completely cold black boxes that need tons of light and heat with no way to generate their own power and efficiently use it.

      The PUC companies would be better served by scrapping this law and adjusting their variable rate schedule power prices at different times of day to recoup their grid operation and management enrichmet costs from consumer generation.

  • Wow, can't be (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:03AM (#5277716)
    Might as well have a Composting Tax and Gardening Tax for producing your own fertilizer and food. I bet it's a bluff, a feint. The commission really wants something slightly less atrocious, and after this they'll get it.

    Old trick. Always works too.

    • Re:Wow, can't be (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zcat_NZ ( 267672 )
      I already suggested that (a garden tool tax) on the RIAA-internet-tax story. This tax is no different to the RIAA's blank media tax or their attempted internet tax.

      The precedent has been set. You missed the chance to stop it back when they started taxing blank casette tapes.

    • Might as well have a Composting Tax and Gardening Tax for producing your own fertilizer and food.
      Indeed. Most jurisdictions already have taxes like that, called "use taxes" or "consumption taxes". Kinda makes me want to buy a couple of miles of wire, make my own paperclips, and file a tax form for each one. Come to think of it, I could use the paperclips on the tax forms, and then file other forms claiming them as a loss. Hey, if the government wants a bunch of convoluted tax laws, I saw bring 'em on...

      Taxing wind and hydro generation will be legally interesting. To keep the generator from running away, they often divert unused power to a so-called dump load. When you draw power for useful loads, the regulator reduces the amount sent to the dump load. If the regulation is written as a tax on production, you'll pay for however much wind happens to blow on a particular day.

  • Cali is very poor right now = Very Greedy. I am seriously looking to relocate out of here. There are no tech jobs down here that I can't do from somewhere else online. Screw it.

    at least Washington State has Seattle to live in and The 'Beast of Redmond' to keep the taxes in line. I guess they are good for something.

    • Re:Desperation move (Score:5, Insightful)

      by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @07:07AM (#5278266)
      Why wait? Go to a "business friently" state and start your own consulting company.
      I moved to a smaller town where the taxes are low, housing / land is cheap, and work can be had for anyone with a little ambition.

      California has lost it completely. With the scools ranked 49th in the country, taxes approaching the highest, Loopy laws and fruitcake bezerkely behavior all over the place, housing prices among the top in the country, no jobs, environmentalist protecting fucking common garden worms, some of the most corrupt government officials (Davis and crew) on the planet, why the HELL would you stay?
  • I don't understand then. If they tax people for not using the electricity from the grid, that must mean there isn't enough demand for what they have (otherwise they would have no basis). How does that work with the "Real Californians don't do their laundry... except after 7" ads ?
    • I recently read an industry report that thanks to deregulation, the United States is in an over-capacity situation now, and will remain so until about 2005.

      Market forces at work: Once the generation was split from the load serving entities, they realized how much money was in gen, so everyone and their neighbor started building cheap units. Result: Over-supply. That drove down the average price of electricity, which is hurting the gen owners in 2003, because they cannot recoup the 2002 investment costs (because the average price of electricity is too low for their margins).

      California is just screwed up. Look at the east coast: you have NEISO, NYISO, PJM... all successful cases of deregulation, because of a diverse fuel type & willingness to invest. Now look at CALISO's f-up: they didn't build generation, relied on northern hydropower, then one hot dry summer wiped it out. Their PUCs locked the consumer rates lower than the economic cost of the gen they had to run, and the LSEs ran out of money. Then the state gets in the mix, and locks in long term rates; two years later, they're trying to get the courts to negate the contracts, because now the spot market price is low... well damn! what the heck is a price-protection contract for then?

      The rest of the country is trying to increase their distributed gen & load management programs, and California is taking two steps back. Kind of dampens that whole myth about how "progressive" they are out there...
  • Let me tell you how it will be
    There's one for you, nineteen for me
    'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    Should five per cent appear too small
    Be thankful I don't take it all
    'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

    If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
    If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
    If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
    If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

    Taxman!
    'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

    Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
    If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
    'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    Now my advice for those who die
    Declare the pennies on your eyes
    'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

    And you're working for no one but me
    Taxman!
  • are not very efficient, and I'm told it takes more energy to manufacture one than they ever generate in their useful life.

    This means solar panel factories are not solar powered, so they must be using something.

    Taxing SOLAR PANELS is not so daft as they are not energy efficient (yet).

    Sam

    • Re:Well solar panels... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @08:18AM (#5278494) Journal
      But the government already collects tax when you purchase the panels. Twice. (One sales tax from you, again as income tax for the company). They also collect tax if you hire a contractor to install them.

      What they're proposing here is basically to put an electric meter on your panels and charge you for the sunlight you collect.

      Sounds to me like the power companies are lobbying this to try and make up for lost revenue, just in case too many people decide solar would be a good investment. (Which is probably would be)

      I didn't see anything about solar thermal heating, though. Hmm...
      =Smidge=

    • That is not true. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ashurbanipal ( 578639 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @02:28PM (#5281390)
      First of all, whoever told you that "it takes more energy to manufacture one than they ever generate in their useful life" was incorrect.

      Perhaps you should try to figure out if it is because that person needs education, or because (s)he has a vested interest in deceiving you.

      Second, the point of solar panels is not always lifetime efficiency anyway, it is often control of power generation by the person(s) needing the power - intelligent people act to secure the resources they need to survive, and the power grid (in California, at least) is not reliable and cannot be secured by consumers.

      There is a wealth of data available online from the IPP and Sandia that will refute your claim. Or you could directly contact a vendor such as Siemens (German) or AstroPower (Delaware, USA).

      The proposed tax is simply the latest move in the long-running war between the centralised dirty energy producers (championed by GWB and Cheney, among others) and the promoters of distributed clean renewable energy production (a grassroots movement championed principally by the Home Power [homepower.com] crew).

      This war is primarily being fought in and around California; mostly because of the high availability of sunshine and engineering talent in that area. The recent fake energy crisis that the Enron crowd purposely created was the most effective offensive in the same war so far.

      Hopefully, the decentralized nature of grassroots opposition will prevent the current administration's attempt to crush distributed renewable energy producers. The "Solar Guerilla" movement was started for just this reason.

  • Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:5, Informative)

    by tunah ( 530328 ) <sam&krayup,com> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:56AM (#5277833) Homepage
    California is considering a proposal by the state Public Utilities Commission

    Proposed by the "Utilities": the power people. "Considering" could just mean they are deciding whether to laugh milk or coke out their nose. Then again, it might not...

    • Re:Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're right; Utilities Commissions worldwide try to chew waay more than they can bite. Normal. My conjecture is that 1) this is only a publicity stunt and will never become law, and 2) it's meant to deflect attention from another issue which is equally or more controversial, but one that the power companies would like to pass through with minimum fuss.

      Of course, I could only be peddling conspiracy theories, but Californians would want to closely read about *everything* they propose.

    • Re:Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The tax also isn't what most people seem to think it is. It only took me a few seconds to click though to the right section and get an idea what this is really about.

      The point is to stop a utility company from setting up a gas powered generator next to a factory and avoiding state taxes by not using the electric grid.

      I don't think anyone here even read the law before going on another anti-tax bender.

  • (shocked expression) (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    lessee if I unnerstan' ....

    (1) White-collar criminals conspire to artificially inflate power rates....

    (2) Incompetent pols lock-in overpriced longterm energy contracts based on 'classic' non-renewable fuel sources.

    (3) Certain individuals/companies go "off-grid",lessening demand on the infrastructure and for non renewable fuels

    (4) Those individuals are charged for the power that they DO NOT buy in order to deal with the longterm effects of (1) and (2)

    (5) PROFIT ... (at least for the prepetrators of (1) and (2) and their "pets"....)

    Duhh.... sounds fair to ??whom??

  • attention stupid people... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:42AM (#5278002) Homepage
    a whole bunch of you idiots are going to blame the government. however, the government is just doing what its constituents want. since most of you are too lazy to vote, never mind really get involved in politics, the real constituents are the ***PRIVATE*** power companies that essentially wrote this proposal.

    just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states. so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want.

    congratulations. go team. ra-ra.

    so i really only have one question - why in the hell are you complaining?

    • Re:attention Sheep (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Gigs ( 127327 )
      "just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states."

      Ah... where did you get that idea??? Liberals wrote the law not the power companies. The supposed deregulation set up a fix rate for the consumer but the distributers still had to pay the whatever the wholesaler wanted. Which is to say that it wasn't deregulated it was infact regulated. As demand rose the wholesalers started to charge more so that they could afford to build new cabling to supple the demand. Only problem was that the distributer was not allowed to raise the rates to cover his increased cost because his fess where, say it with me, REGULATED!

      "so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want."

      If it was truely private the government wouldn't be making all these laws to, say it with me again, REGULATE the market.

      What this is, is an example of QUINN'S FIRST LAW [warroom.com] - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."

      • Re:attention Sheep (Score:3, Informative)

        by cp99 ( 559733 )
        This would be the Enron version of events.

        Another version would go like this; because of high electricty prices, California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation, and market manipulation it ended up with large increases in the cost of power, and blackouts to go with it.

        • Re:attention Sheep (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Gigs ( 127327 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @11:17AM (#5279601) Homepage Journal
          I'm confused on what your point is or if its any different than what I said:

          because of high electricty prices which were caused by an increase in demand.

          California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation which was written into the laws by the liberal government that could not let go, because we all need managed, left to our own we would all perish. (that last part was sarcastic!)

          and market manipulation I assume you mean the fact that the wholesalers didn't lower their prices and the distributers had to layoff their workers that maintain their systems.

          it ended up with large increases in the cost of power caused by the fact that the wholesalers still needed to build new infastructure to supply demand. And the distriubuters now had to replace infastructure that had not been maintained due to lack of a paid work force.

          and blackouts to go with it. caused by the fact that the orginal law did nothing to solve the problem of demand outstepping supply. It just swept it under the carpet for a few years. When the lights started to go out it suddenly became a huge issue.
          • I'm confused on what your point is or if its any different than what I said:
            It's a matter of emphasis. In your world, I suppose everything bad that happens is the fault of these awful liberal conspiracies. For you, I suspect phrases like "reverse discrimination" and "giving in to multiculturalism" and "liberal media" have some meaning.

            But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking. And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION; it means one is unwilling to change things that already work. But that's only the dictionary definition, by those definitions one could easily be strongly in favor of both!

            It seems that for most Americans CONSERVATIVE means "willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing" and LIBERAL means "willing to go along with whatever impractical scheme the bleeding heart do-gooders are currently preaching".

            Both sides put up straw-men for you to fear and hate. Fearful, hateful people are easily manipulated.

            Free your mind.
            • I suppose everything bad that happens is the fault of these awful liberal conspiracies.

              Never said it was a conspiracy! It's more of a socialist agenda, or the belief that people need managed and can not think for themselves.

              For you, I suspect phrases like "reverse discrimination" and "giving in to multiculturalism" and "liberal media" have some meaning.

              Not really the only one that I have ever used is "liberal media". Feel free to disagree but most of the major media outlet's top journalist admit that they are leftist and call themselves liberal.

              But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking.

              So how come only the judges that think like they do get approved? While those that think different are not allowed to proceed? Why are they not open-minded to them? Why is their freedom of thought not allowed?

              And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION.

              Yes, conservation of the ideals and values that this country was founded on. Things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I missed where in the constitution or the declaration of independence it stated that everyone was entitled to be rich and not have to work.

              "willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing"

              Did you know that the average Democrat in congress has more wealth that the average Republican? But believe me I don't agree with every repub on face value... They can and do support and vote for bad laws. It just seems to me that they don't do it as often.

          • As the other poster stated, it's a difference of emphasis.

            This piece [pkarchive.org] by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.

            As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.

            Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?
            • As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.

              The legislature was democrat dominated, but that is beside the point, since I think the vote was unanimous (maybe 1 dissenter).

              Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?

              As for what caused the crisis, it is simple. One of the reactors at San Onofre Nuclear plant was down during the entire so called crisis. From memory I think it was a 1200 Megawatt reactor. Which is something like 5% of all the power used in the state. Initially it was down for refueling, I don't remember the exact timeline, but it was early in the crisis, and I don't think there were any rolling blackouts at the time. It came back online for about two weeks, before a turbine blade was destroyed. This downed the reactor and took about 60 (give or take) days to replace (could have been a lot longer, but the vendor really pulled through on this one.) As I recall all of the blackouts and stage 3 alerts, etc. All occurred after the turbine blade broke.

              What does this suggest... Simple, there was just barely sufficient capacity to keep things going with the reactor down for refueling. Maintenance at other power plants was probably scheduled for after the reactor was refueled in order to guarantee enough power. But, with the turbine failure, the reactor was down longer than needed and the other plants started scheduled maintenance which pushed everything over the edge. This was also exacerbated by reduced hydro-electric available from the Pacfic Northwest due to drought. And, finaly the trader's jumped in to make a killing.

              So, what was the correct way to deal with power short falls.

              1) Tell the truth. San Onofre was down, tell people they need to conserve in order to prevent blackouts. This also makes profiteering traders look really bad, since instead of taking advantage of a bad system they are taking advantage of basically an Act of God failure.

              2) Put up extra money to get the turbine blade done early. i.e. The power company pays the normal cost for the blade. The state puts up $xxxxx per day before a certain date that the reactor comes up.

              One other point, I think that nuclear reactor produced more power than all the plants that came onlien in the next year or two combined. i.e. they kept shwoing Davis celebrating the building of 100-200 megawatt plants. Which is a joke.

              Dastardly
            • This piece [pkarchive.org] by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.

              Doesn't really present anything different, he just attempts to spin all the bad on to the power companies. Hell he starts the article with "unlikely that California would ever get anything back from the energy companies" which is the battle cry of the left. "We are entitled to cheap energy. It doesn't matter if we set up bad rules and they used them to their advantage."

              "the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government"

              I don't know this either... but this is California where even the Repubs are leftist. To explain, I would consider myself a constitutionalist not a repub. I just happen to aggree with more Repubs than Dems.

              How would you explain this observation?

              I would say that the power companies reacted in their best interest. The rules were perverted by the government and then everyone acted surprised when the power companies played by those rules.

              To say it another way they left a kid in a candy store alone and then were surprised when they kid started eating candy.

              Now before you jump on your horse about how this proves that a free market doesn't work allow me to counter that this was not a free market. It was still infact regulated, as very very few new power companies were allowed to enter the area and provide the power. This was due to regulations on both who could provide power as well as green activist who would not allow new power plants to be built. ( As a side note I remember reading about a gold mine that shut down mining gold and sold their power to the distributers. Why? Cause they could make more money selling their power than MINING GOLD!!!)

              To put it another way if your buddy is selling porkbellies and making a 500 percent profit, are you not going to look into doing the same thing and maybe only making a 499 percent profit?

          • and market manipulation I assume you mean the fact that the wholesalers didn't lower their prices and the distributers had to layoff their workers that maintain their systems.

            Wholesale prices were lower. PG&E and SoCal Edison made a killing buying the much lower priced electricity on the open market and selling at the higher fixed price. Right up until the one time when demand outstripped supply because a San Onofre reactor was down and there was drought in the Pacific Northwest. Then they went crying to the government about how they got screwed for a few months after screwing ratepayers for years. And, government turned around and said "Here we will raise rate so you can screw ratepayers some more."

  • Those of us in Washington state already know that California likes to screw up the electrical industry for the rest of us. They already messed it up a few years ago when the government stopped putting any control on their power stations. Now they have to drain a lot of their energy from stations still under government mandate in Washington which makes our rates go up.
    -> Fritz

  • Massachusetts taxes perscription drugs (Score:3, Informative)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @09:49AM (#5278910) Homepage Journal
    Speaking of taxes that fly in the face of logic, Massachusetts has instituted a tax on perscriptions. Each perscription costs you an extra $1.30 or so on top of your insurance co-pay.

    They call taxes on things that government wants to discourage (like tobacco and alcohol) sin taxes. I guess that makes these virtue taxes.
  • What they want to do is tax CA citizens for the amount of power they use. Regardless of where it comes from. Regardless of if you bought it from one of the big 3, or if you generated it yourself.

    What is the incentive for spending thousands of dollars to put solar panels on your roof, to try to help out the state, and then get TAXED for the amount of power you produce for yourself?

    I thought CA was interested in reducing their load. I guess the rolling blackouts were for other reasons.

    Politics as usual.
  • If you think they are actually interrested in solar power or any other environmentally sensitive issues, take a look at any other socialist nation where the people DON'T have the option of complaining (or of joining the opposition) and you will find rampant pollution, and criminal administration.

    This is why they tax whatever moves, without regard for common sense, or empirical logic. When they take away your ability to spend they also take away your right to move freely, to vote with your feet, or your pocketbook.

    I recall when Grey Davis was merely a superintendant of a school system, he was ambitious then, instituting many of the policies which have served to destroy one of the best school systems in the country. Unless you move to Cupertino, your chance of getting a decent school is pretty much nil.

    If you built a solar power system in hopes of avoiding the cost of utilites and the hidden taxes attached to it, think again. Citizen Davis has calculated the exact amount of pain to inflict upon California to push Joe sixpack into the party of the miserable. Using two-faced promises to the power industry, he used them to orchestrate the largest finantial meltdown in American history, as many with mortgages in the silicon valley may already know.

    Citizen Davis does not have the welfare of California or America in mind, but rather is using a cynical minimax scheme to enact as much destructive legislation as possible before his party looses power, knowing that the opposition will not be able to undo the mess without getting their blame as a result.

    I remember when this scoundrel was merely a petty low level opperatchik, but does anyone remember when he was a member of the American Socialist Party?

    These guys know that as long as the opposition plays by the rules, they will always win, since they fully intend to cheat. When they levy a tax on solar panels, they are doing it because they cannot believe you actually trusted them when it came to what you thought to be a sacred cow. Thus internet taxes, solar power taxes, next taxes on clean air.

    If you are kept a margin of misery, you are exactly where they want you, in a position to vote for the guys who "Feel your pain". Hmmm. aren't these the same guys who faught against freeing the slaves, who fought for segregation, and who insist on "no eye contact" when they enter the room? (One of the more persistent traits of the American Democratic "Peoples" Party.

    The California government has become, for all intensive purposes, a socialist one. Socialism at its heart is based opon the principles of active appropriation. Where appropriation is a polite word for legalized theft. Leave it up to the Democratic party hacks in California who have control of the entire state government to create as many taxes as possible before being swept away in the next elections.

    By the time people figure it out, it will be too late, since the strategy they are using engages ignorance and the law of averages to control the population.
    • The California government has become, for all intensive purposes, a socialist one. Socialism at its heart is based opon the principles of active appropriation.

      Uh, no. It's not.

      Socialism is simply the idea that the economy should be based on labor, rather than on property; that the workers - the people who actually do stuff - should control the means of production, rather than a state-designated and backed class of "owners".

      One form of socialism is Marx's communism, which took an authoritarian, command-economy approach towards this goal. But there are also libertarian socialists - indeed "libertarian" originally refered to these libertarian socialists, and was hijacked by followers of the inherently contradictory doctrine of "libertarian capitalism" in the mid-20th century.

    • The California government has become, for all intensive purposes, a socialist one.

      I don't know if I would go quite as far as socialist. But, California Democrats are a bunch of tax and spend morons who don't know the first thing about balancing a budget, planning for the future, or what the average person wants. You know why there is a budget crisis according to them, the wealthy are not making enough money, so they have decided to take a larger proportion from them. I also use the term wealthy loosely, since just about anyone who still has a decent job is going to get raped.

      Of course all their spending increases of the last few years were based on profits from stocks and options, which couldn't possibly last. But, what do they care. They are only in office for 6 or 8 years maximum (term limits). So, there sole priority is to pass as much legislation that will get them publicity and campaign donations so they can run for som eother office. While there are issues with career politicians who lose touch with their constituency, there appears to also be a serious problem with term limited politician whose sole purpose is to get as much publicity, campaign contributions, and/or special interest legislation to get them a job after office.

      On top of this we have an election system whose purpose is to maintain the status quo. There are maybe 1 or 2 contested elections for legislature seats in California. Reapportionment was a collaboration by both parties to solidify party seats. The closed primary system guarantees that only the most liberal democrats and conservative Republicans get on the general election ballot because you win primaries by pandering to the most extreme members of your party, then because of reapportionment it is already decided which party's candidate will win. So, you end up with the most extreme examples of both parties in office.

      Dastardly

  • Recall Gray Davis. (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 )
    This is all about trying to fill in the billions is dollars in debt that Davis managed to hide until after he was re-elected. Combined with the energy boondogles of the last few years, and that there are no new plans for power plants to be built in CA, state residents should be pissed.

    recallgraydavis [recallgraydavis.com]
  • Do you think the government will buy the, 'I never used the calculator outdoors,' argument? Otherwise taxing calculators will either
    1. curb the sale of solar calculators
    2. more tax return errors because people will use paper instead of calculators

  • Read the Full Law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @12:12PM (#5280060)
    Did anyone read this law before posting? The submitted story leaves a lot of important facts out. I only read one seconds (background), but it quickly became clear that this isn't targeted at home solar panels, but things like gas powered generators set up next to factories.

    Every time the word taxes appears in the story, everyone goes crazy flaming the government.

  • Very, very strange, and backwards... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DarkVein ( 5418 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @02:42PM (#5281548) Journal
    Most states give tax incentives to alternative energy. Many require power companies to buy back excess power, not charge for it. Some of those will buy back into the red, so the power company has to pay you at the end of the month.

    In fact, since 2000 [solarexpert.com], California has:
    • Started an incentive program that grants a one-time payment of $4.50-$6.50/watt generated by homes or businesses connected ot the LA DWP power grid, starting 2000/9/1 and ending five years later.
    • The State of California provides an income tax deduction of 15% towards the net cost of installed grid-connected solar electric systems. This new tax credit is retroactive to January 2001.


    If you put solar panels on your roof, Fairfax Virginia county will allow you to deduct the value of the panels from the cost of your roof, for tax purposes. HOAs sometimes prevent this when they're obtrusive, but they [doe.gov] don't have to be [westernsun.org].

    In short, way to backpedal California! I have an idea. Why don't you also give tax breaks for the rich, and support failing business models based on absolute control of copyright? Same mentality involved there, also. Kill your own economy early off for a few extra bucks before your die.
    • I meant to include the RIAA idea of governments collecting taxes on CDR, hard drives, and anything that can be used for recorded digital audio, and sending that tax back to RIAA.

      Doesn't that sound a lot like the idea of governments collecting taxes on solar panels? WE'RE STEALING MONEY/ELECTRICITY FROM LA DWP! WE'RE STEALING FROM THE RIAA.

      There's four kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Valenti-brand Statistics.
  • Disgruntled Californians, dressed as Native Americans, boarded a solar panel-carrying cargo ship in San Francisco Bay last night and dumped all the contents overboard. Shouts of "No taxation without representation!" were heard all across the bay.

  • This tax problem exists with many use taxes. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Above ( 100351 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @06:06PM (#5283662)
    With governments losing all sorts of tax revenue due to basic economic factors, they are looking all types of problems. This one is not unusual:

    * Governments tax electricity, if you generate your own or conserve they loose tax money.

    * Governments tax gasoline. If you use fuel cell cars or more energy efficient cars they loose tax money.

    * Governments tax cigarettes. If you smoke less of them they loose tax money.

    Use taxes and sin taxes often seem like a good idea, but the government quickly get used to the income, and when one activity falls out of favor they must hit up some other activity with a new use or sin tax to pay for it.
  • "We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter."
  • ...since in all likelihood it will put him in the poorhouse?

    In other news, California Public Utilities Commission Chairman C. Montgomery Burns was quoted as saying, "Since the dawn of time man has longed to destroy the sun. We shall do the next best thing, tax the energy it provides."

    Seriously, this is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard. On the other hand, it makes me feel better about living in Philadelphia, PA, where we pay a 4% tax on our income for the apparent "privilege" of having a job.

    This country gets more ass-backwards every day. We're supposed to conserve fossil fuels, but people get a tremendous tax break when they buy gas-guzzling, killing-machine SUVs. And now some shithole state wants to tax the energy people collect from THE SUN??? If you're going to start taxing the use of solar energy, will Californians have to pay tax based on how tan they are? Where will the madness end?

    ~Philly
    • On the other hand, it makes me feel better about living in Philadelphia, PA, where we pay a 4% tax on our income for the apparent "privilege" of having a job.

      Just to make you feel even better we pay 9% in California. Although it is progressive and doesn't start to kick in until $40,000.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close