Dear Girlmark: Who would receive the monies from the solar tax? Would the collected Solar tax monies go to the utilities company, or the State of California? Who is going to profit from the proposed tax?
Harley -----Original Message----- From: girl mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 1:14 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: California solar penalty Re: [biofuel] understatement On the topic of bald-faced, there was a post here a few days ago by solar installer (I think) Len Walde about the proposed California penalty against homeowners who installed grid-tied solar (which most of them did with a state-sponsored rebate!) . I think this is one of the most recently outrageous energy issues I've heard aobut in a while- and like Len says, it's imperative that this be stopped. The proposal, backed by the same utility companies who brought you the California energy crisis, allows for the utilities to install a meter on a homeowners' property to meter how much electricity they have generated with their PV system, and to then charge the homeowner what they euphemistically call an 'exit fee'- and what we are calling a solar tax- a penalty for not buying overpriced dirty fossil or nuke-produced electricity from the utilities. This is so outrageous, and it sets a terrible precedent in the fight for renewable energy use- if they can get away with this I imagine that someday Big Oil will push for some similar proposal for those of us not using their product (of course Big Oil already gets massive subsidies in the form of the financial and social costs of fossil fuels, taxation to fund war brought on by oil politics, environmental damage, and healthcare costs due to pollution which keep the fossil energy economy rolling. And we pay these taxes (they aren't coming from your 'fuel' tax) regardless of whether we use gasoline or not) . See Len's post from a few days ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/20683 or the website of one group working to stop this proposal: http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/cpuc2003.html -Mark At 10:30 AM 2/9/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >>burden. But then I'd have to assume they really mean their preaching about > >>principles and so forth, and I'm not sure they do, consistently. > > > >I think there may be some here who'll be after nominating you for the > >Nobel Prize for Understatement for that last bit, MM. > > > >:-) > >I'll take it, but seriously I want to make a follow-on point: > >I think this is one of the most underexploited intellectual points of >vulnerability of the folks who are presently attempting to write U.S. Energy >Policy: This is Hypocrisy with a capital H. > >They say they are pro-free-market but in fact they seem to be pro-free-market >generally when it is expedient for them. Recently I made the case to someone >privately that I think there are two specific examples of this that bother me >and that are insulting: the 2 year old case of the proposed tax breaks for >drilling in ANWR (something like just under $30 billion, I know I've mentioned >it many times, but it is as insulting now as it was then) and the more recent >attempt to *raise* the already massive tax breaks for purchase of the largest >(over 6000 pounds I believe) civilian SUVs such as the Cadillac >Escalade. These >tax breaks, in selectively forgiving the tax debt of some Americans, mean that >others will have to make up those government revenues. They seem to be the >preferred method of favoritism of "Conservatives". It is as though they >want to >believe that we are not intelligent enough to grasp that they are an indirect >form of subsidy. > >If there is such as thing as Conservativism that some of us admire (for me >there >is), then I think perhaps this brand of massive tax breaks for some while >adding >burden to others might not sit well with "the better" Conservatives, but they >don't seem to be speaking up about it. So far as I'm concerned, it's still >statism, and if it's not direct socialism (direct subsidization) then it's >indirect socialism and arguably all that much more slimy and hypocritcal, >coming >from folks who gladly beat the drum of "free markets" when it suits >them... when >the noise levels suits their own sleeping habits but not their neighbors'. > >Anyway, I think if there's an understatement here, it's to some extent >that this >area of vulnerability needs to be exploited more in public discourse >worldwide. >As a free market advocate myself, I am not against compromise or discourse or >the difficulties of defining a real political system for a real >world. But that >isn't really what the present in-power advocates seem to be doing. They >seem to >be trying such a bald-faced give-away to their cronies, under guise of >advocacy >of principles in a time of claimed dire national circumstance, that many >otherwise consistent critics seem struck dumb not entirely from inability to >grasp, but also perhaps from being taken aback at the brazen-ness and >shamelessness and unprincipled nature of it. > >Although it's skipping topics I want to add that a frequent criticism of >President Bush is that he's not very bright. I almost always disagree >with this >criticism, as I think it's often leveled by folks who don't get that they are >seriously underestimating someone who seems capable of delegating >authority and >research, etc., someone who has consistently proven that he makes use of this >reputation for stupidity to his own advantage. (Some succesful >Politicians get >their foes to underestimate them, apparently, judging also by President >Clinton.) > >But when it comes to his recent energy policy proposals, I think this is >one of >the few times where in fact his lack of intelligence is a serious problem. I >believe that President Bush seriously believes some of what he is saying about >Energy Policy. I also think that the H2 Advocacy thing has come about in part >specifically because it's relatively easy to grasp and discuss. (i.e., it's >somehow "simpler" than talking about using CH2CH3OH in a fuel >cell). Whether or >not it is a good or bad policy, on any number of points, is not really covered >very well by his Administration, in my view. Despite his advocacy of a >Hydrogen >Economy, that doesn't make me dismiss Hydrogen discussion out of hand, I just >simply don't think that his Administration has added to or contributed >anything >sufficiently subtle or sophisticated or worthwhile to our thinking on Energy >Policy. We're all out here doing this work to try to understand things, >even if >it's only to wonder or discuss whether the markets are working properly in >many >ways, and I'm not sure we can respond that well to the proposals. Since there >was something in his speech about "if you're like me and tired of all the >arguing over energy policy" I do think we have to be insulted because I don't >think he's really tried hard enough to get what's going on or come up with >really excellent energy policy proposals, but to me it's not just about >whether >I like or dislike the job he's doing. In this area, it's one of the few >times I >think maybe the "low intelligence" criticism might have some merit. He may >seriously believe, to some slight extent, that he's delegated the task of >defining energy policy to hardcore people who will give him real answers, >and he >may not be capable of detecting the sheer stupidity and oversimplified >nature of >some of those answers. And I think we can be sure that for at least >another two >years he'll be protected from hearing much different answers. With handlers >like Vice President Cheney and Andrew Card and the like, .... If the only >chance >a mis-advised President has is to sense seriously duplicitous advice and fix >that problem, then I'm not seeing him do that here, perhaps in part >because he's >intellectually incapable of understanding how bad the advice has been. > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: ><http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html>http://journeytoforever.org/biofu el.html > >Biofuels list archives: ><http://archive.nnytech.net/>http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
