Slashdot Mirror
CA Considers Taxing Solar Power Generation
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 is the same state that thought it would be a good idea to
give illegal aliens drivers licenses.
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 ?
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.
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
Spooooon!!!!!
"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 - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
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?
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.
In fact, since 2000, California has:
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 don't have to be.
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'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Rest assured i think it's as ridiculous as do you. But not because of any reasoning that taxation has or ever will consistently follow a logical principle. Governments have never had a problem taxing relatively arbitrary practices; there's perhaps a bias towards taxing wealth (at least in name) and transactive behaviour, but counter-examples certainly exist to fungibility as any guiding principle (eg television receiver taxes in parts of europe).
Casting shadows over other people's land does raise some legal problems, but these people aren't building giant towers on their property lines in order to "steal" the light from neighbors. They have solar collectors on their roofs and gather light that wasn't going, nor could potentially go, anywhere else.
Well, no. But just because it's not being fully exploited doesn't mean its a permanently unconstrained resource. Even going with the theory that no one but you can use it (ie ignoring consideration of shadows, which makes for a very big caveat) it doesn't seem to me that this sort of taxation is in contradiction to past or present practices. The differences you're emphasizing just do not seem like a valid basis for evaluating a potential tax source.