
The world's dumbest idea: Taxing solar energy - kordless
http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-dumbest-idea-taxing-solar-energy-111300623.html
======
nhebb
Based on the issues Hawaii has had, this may not be as stupid as the Yahoo
writer makes it sound:

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-
su...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-successfull-
its-been-halted/)

~~~
revelation
A quick cursory glance on how Hawaii does energy seems to show some rather
more important issues than stifling solar growth:

[http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=HI#tabs-4](http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=HI#tabs-4)

------
wglb
The core of the issue is _will specifically target those who install power
generation systems on their property and sell the excess energy back to the
grid_

One of the incentives for doing your own power generation is that in most
cases utilities are required to buy back the power under the Net Metering
deal. This is a good thing, in general, but there are some engineering issues.

When this was invented, I don't know if anyone involved did the calculation of
"what if we have tens of thousands of houses generating enough backflow to
rival the amount generated by the rest of our system?"

The movement has been so successful that now we can see the possibility that
on a very sunny day or windy day or both that these local generation sites are
generating enough power that there isn't any where to put it. Voltages rise,
breakers trip, sectors go dark.

If you are a utility company, you likely have several energy sources at your
disposal: hydroelectric, coal-fired plants, nuclear. For each of these
sources, you have at your disposal a knob, generally sitting at 5 or 6 that
you can turn down a notch to move the water past the generators and down the
stream, turn off a couple of burners in the coal fired plant, or move the
quenching rods in a little further to reduce the output of your nuke plant.

If you have a tens of thousand of home pushing energy back up what used to be
exclusively the down pipe. There isn't any centrally-located control knob for
that.

Certainly part of the reluctance of the utilities is a resistance to the new
ways of the world, but it would be imprudent to discount the engineering
issues that this is exposing. Yes, the utilities, who are not known for large
amounts of imagination, should have been ahead of this and embraced this. But
here we are.

So in light of that, if taxation slows this unsustainable growth in home solar
installations pushing current up the down pipe, perhaps it is not all that bad
as the article makes it sound.

------
thedrbrian
will specifically target those who install power generation systems on their
property and sell the excess energy back to the grid.

Misleading title. They want to tax people who want to sell the solar energy
back into the grid , since joe six pack has to rely on other people's
equipment to transmit the energy he captured on his roof. Also there is the
issue of joe synchronising his output with whatever is coming down the line
from the normal generators.

Maybe it shouldn't be a tax, maybe a fee paid to whoever owns the power
infrastructure.

~~~
revelation
Joe Six Pack already pays a basic charge for his access to the grid.

The issue seems to be that PoCos have decided to mix all the infrastructure
costs into the variable price of the energy you consume. When your solar power
makes you a net producer of energy, that scheme no longer works. But I don't
see why we have to institute a new tax to fix their broken pricing model.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem is the more accurate pricing model won't make people happy.
Distribution costs are largely fixed. It matters more how far your house is
from the substation, and what the population density is, than how thick the
wire is or how many KWh are pushed through it. Including the distribution
costs in the price per KWh is a form of price discrimination -- people who
need more energy (which implies "need energy more" or "are price insensitive")
pay more for distribution than others. It makes those people unhappy, but
those people are a minority without the will or political influence necessary
to change it.

Charging a fixed cost for distribution would reduce prices for high energy
users and raise prices for low energy users. The low energy users are, in
general, the most price sensitive. They would become very irate and try to
exert political pressure on the power company.

Of course, that doesn't mean we should let them. But it isn't the power
company who causes this; the power company is just responding to politics and
the market.

------
bowlofpetunias
Selling power back to the grid is a rapidly growing home industry which, like
any other, should be taxed and regulated. (Emphasis on "like any other", since
libertarians will undoubtedly be against the whole principle.)

If you produce something and systematically sell it for profit it's perfectly
normal. It's not your kids' lemonade stand or a garage sale we're talking
about here.

The challenge is to do it in such a way that still stimulates the practice,
not punish it. Simply calling any form of taxation "dumb" is not constructive.

Also, it's not just the simple "Jimmy has a solar panel on his roof" scenario
we're talking about here. Collective solar energy initiatives on residential
properties are becoming a real industry.

~~~
raldi
Your first sentence needs an addendum starting with "because..."

~~~
chc
I think that's how the second sentence is meant to function. It should be
taxed like any other business because it is substantially like a normal
business transaction.

------
angrybits
for the curious, here's the bill itself:
[http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB...](http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1456%20ENR.PDF)

~~~
kordless
I'm hesitating to say collusion is involved, but given the brevity of the act
and speed by which this is being passed, it's probably not far off the mark.
Also, 'emergency' purposes isn't even defined.

------
madospace
How about tax on Angel investment ? yea it happens in India -
[http://www.nextbigwhat.com/funding-startups-could-be-
classif...](http://www.nextbigwhat.com/funding-startups-could-be-classified-
as-income-budget-2012-297/)

