Political Cartoons

Today's buzz phrase: grid maintenance surcharge

I posted a longer comment below on this issue, just to centralize the debate a bit.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Edit: I stand corrected. I like that you shared a real world based experience.

Edited Date: 2014-05-30 10:15 pm (UTC)

From:

trog.livejournal.com

This cartoon misses the reason they're pushing for these taxes: they're heavily invested in solar's competition. So, like all plutocrats, they're trying to use the government to squash their competition. The solution? We need even bigger, more powerful government, right? Because, of course, "the people" will control this gigantic government rather than the politically connected plutocrats who have always controlled government since its inception.

Fucking liberals lol.

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

But if we were to see the light and go libertarian,
wouldn't that just slick the track for plutocrats,
giving them a completely free hand.

Though, I admit that these days there doesn't
seem to be any difference. The plutocrats
seem to have won complete control of our
government, but I don't see how libertarianism
helps us, since that would mean, even in principle,
we have no right to regulate the plutocrats.

From:

trog.livejournal.com

So how will the plutocrats put their competition out of business without using the government to tax and regulate their competition? The only other way besides using government is to provide superior value to consumers so that consumers buy your product and not your competitions'. How is that bad for consumers...? It forces the plutocrats to be better stewards of resources or to lose business. Without government to bail them out/subsidize them/give them advantages, how does this hurt the rest of us???

From:

The solution? We need even bigger, more powerful government, right?

I am genuinely curious what other solution to this situation is available in any way.

From:

trog.livejournal.com

Let me explain it like this: the more powerful the government gets, that is, the more it is allowed to control in our lives, the harder people will fight to gain control of the government. Do you see how this makes sense? It's why people raise $10s of millions or more campaigning for a job that pays less than $200,000 in Congress. And then they're beholden to the ones who bought them the jobs. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Edited Date: 2014-06-01 12:42 am (UTC)

From:

So I put solar panels on my house last year. It's one of those leasing programs, I get something like $75/mo worth of electricity out of them (in 2013 dollars) for a $25/mo flat rate for the next 20 years. I paid nothing up front (and I've gotten enough referrals for them that I actually have yet to pay a dime and won't for a few more years) and they take on 100% of the risk, from insurance to whether the tax laws change or not. I could have never paid for them outright, and a loan wouldn't have made a lot of sense, especially if the tax incentives were to change, so why not hand that risk off to someone else?

A lot of times the conservative position is described in various profane ways as "screw you, got mine," but that's exactly how I feel in a sense with this program. All of you paying taxes are helping pay for my electricity, I've gotten credits from my electric company for the last two months, and I'm actively hurting the grid in the process because the grid isn't set up for this kind of thing, and since I'm not paying the electric company much, if anything some months, I'm probably doing more harm than good. I'm benefiting from the grid without paying anything into it at this point. It's a ridiculous scheme.

To say that they're advocating a "solar tax" is 100% misleading. There is no tax to be put in place, simply a removal of the incentives for programs like this that financially benefit a few people (like myself) over the many (like the rest of you), and trying to get those of us who are still using the grid via net metering to help pay for its infrastructure. I don't see anything unreasonable with that at all.

From:

Good onya for getting the panels. Still. . . .

. . . I'm actively hurting the grid in the process because the grid isn't set up for this kind of thing. . . .

Let's be more specific. Are you hurting the grid? No, probably not. If more were on like you (as will happen, given time), cumulatively there might be some disruption in money flows. But harm to the grid itself? Not likely. The closer to the consumption point any power is created, the more efficiently that power is utilized. You won't be blowing out transformers any time soon.

Still; . . . since I'm not paying the electric company much, if anything some months, I'm probably doing more harm than good.

That's the real problem, the business model for the electric utility. Originally, the only way to safely deliver electricity to people was for professionals to create it and deliver it; doing any thing else would cause too many fluctuations to the power supply and likely blow stuff up. Motors and computers really don't like it when the voltage or wave form changes, sometimes ever for a second.

Now? Computers can provide a power stream of better quality than any utility. Seriously, an article I read years ago noted just this, that a small grid-intertie inverter supplying either wind or solar (or both) to the local grid had to shut down too often because the grid required the owner to adhere to voltage and wave form specs the utility itself could not deliver. And that was at least 20 years ago.

We are seeing a decentralization of utility power, just as we are seeing a similar decentralization of media, of work, of just about everything. Defending old business models is just plain silly, if you ask me.

From:

But harm to the grid itself? Not likely. The closer to the consumption point any power is created, the more efficiently that power is utilized. You won't be blowing out transformers any time soon.

They have a tendency to overload the grid (which isn't designed for net metering) and there's the fact that I'm using it disproportionately to what I'm paying. My impact is minimal, yes, but it's still an impact.

We are seeing a decentralization of utility power, just as we are seeing a similar decentralization of media, of work, of just about everything. Defending old business models is just plain silly, if you ask me.

You'll find no bigger advocate of decentralization than myself, but it doesn't mean that this is the type of disruption we're looking for, either.

From:

They have a tendency to overload the grid (which isn't designed for net metering) . . .

I'm aware of what they could do. This happens in Germany and Denmark, where there is quite a bit more installed.

It's a few years away from hitting us here, though. Use is still heavy and solar intertie so light that most installations impact the grid less than someone drying laundry or cooking a turkey.

Give it a few years and there will be other applications that will solve this so-far not-problem, such as home power storage.

You'll find no bigger advocate of decentralization than myself, but it doesn't mean that this is the type of disruption we're looking for, either.

Why defend the old business models, then?

From:

the-rukh.livejournal.com

He's not defending the old business models, he's defending the Koch Bros. If he says things that defend the old business models in the course of that, well so be it.

From:

Why defend the old business models, then?

Not defending the models as much as noting how this model that the OP is defending hurts more than it helps.

From:

. . . this model that the OP is defending hurts more than it helps.

No, it doesn't. There isn't enough solar out there to make an impact on the current grid. Having a cloud bank pass by a fully solar neighborhood, for example, would be the same as having each house in that neighborhood start dinner preparations at the same time, at the same time that someone in each house turns on the big screen for telly time. If the grid can handle Thanksgiving, it can handle solar.

And here we have the chicken and egg. For the Koch Bros. to outlaw profitable home installations by insisting on costs that make these installations far from cost effective, they are simply buttressing their business model and doing nothing for the resilience of the grid overall. Without these growing number of home installs, there would be no future need for load management; without the need for distributed load management (battery storage and release, for example), there will be no opportunity to wind down the coal plants and avoid the CO2 emission and supply line situation attendant to these plants.

As long as solar installations as a predictable percentage of generation capacity grows a predictable rate, there is no problem for the grid, only for the legacy business models.

From:

There isn't enough solar out there to make an impact on the current grid.

So we should jsut keep pushing until.... oops, grid overloaded!

And it's still less about grid overload and more about the model creating a lot of free ridership.

It's kind of stunning to see you defending it, actually. Talk about what ends up being a nice little handout to the richer folks who can afford solar.

For the Koch Bros. to outlaw profitable home installations by insisting on costs that make these installations far from cost effective, they are simply buttressing their business model and doing nothing for the resilience of the grid overall.

The goal is not to outlaw profitable home installations. The goal is to outlaw preferential treatment. Yes, it benefits their bottom line, as they don't get that treatment for a segment of their energy investments, but they could just as easily reap those benefits for themselves and make themselves richer at the expense of the rest of us. Which one do you prefer?

From:

And it's still less about grid overload and more about the model creating a lot of free ridership.

When put in immediate terms, perhaps. When put into longer term goals, it is quite prudent. There will never be a market for solar (other than remote installations) as long as power is cheap. Without a market for solar, the technology would never develop as fast as it has.

By creating a market, we increase the improvement of the tech to the point where it becomes on par with other fuels. Given that my view on power is pretty agnostic other than the ABCs—Anything But Coal—the ABCs are answered, not today, but in the nearer future.

Therefore, I'd say the "free ridership" is only a temporary expedient.

Talk about what ends up being a nice little handout to the richer folks who can afford solar.

Just like computers, and cell phones, and cars, and refridgerators, and all the conveniences we now call ubiquitous. The rich have always enjoyed the better things before the rest.

That said, I know plenty of working-class folks within walking distance of this computer who are hardly rich, and who have solar. If it were an exclusive enclave, perhaps my opinion would be different.

The goal is to outlaw preferential treatment.

The stated goal, yes. And again, we are looking at a temporary situation.

. . . but they could just as easily reap those benefits for themselves and make themselves richer at the expense of the rest of us.

Which isn't happening, so the point is kinda moot. And if it were—if the wealthy were investing in solar—I can't see why I would object. It's a wealthy person just deciding to do something in the long-term best interests of just about everyone involved. What's to object?

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

im not going to defend the busness model, but i do think there are issues. for example, most peple havent invested in home battrys. im not sure if battry tech is up to it. this means most people dump there extra power on to the grid, and, when its dark, suck it off it.

even if there were a local decetilised structer, you would still need to maintain, for example, a power plant (lets say a large desiel genrator, like a shipping conter one, which is not the most effiecent form of power genration, compaired to oil or coal or gas plants that domainte the skyline) and the lines, and some battrys, prahapse. you would still need to find the upkeep of these. i dont wish to be harsh, but the fact of the matter is these things need to be paid for.

as it happens, im not sure that this is the best soultion. but it dose need a soulstion. prahapse make power a state (local state) or county owned utlity. with the profit motive lost, then it might be in a better positon to work with this stuff. also, int he fassion of things that are importent to socity but cant pay for themselfs resonble, it might be the best soultion. is it? i dont know, im no think tank, but its one idea, amoung the meny posble.

but the point is, you need something.

From:

but the point is, you need something.

Actually, no, you don't, not right now. This is my point. There is currently not enough solar on line to have more of an impact than, say, everyone turning on their heat when it gets cold at the same time (especially when a certain percentage of the heat turned on is baseboard electric or a similar form of electric).

Wind is in enough concentration in enough areas to have an impact, but the solution is simple, and it's done: the turbines "feather" their blades, and stop generating power after the grid is "full".

No, batteries are not yet up to snuff financially to be viable. Batteries store direct current; the grid is alternating current. They are not cheap enough to make storage banks (in all but a few select areas, but that's a long story); the inverters—gizmos that convert the solar dc power into grid ac—are also not cheap enough to be used to manage such battery banks. This is changing. See, for example, Donald Saddoway's TED talk. If this works out, it will change everything.

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

when you say selected areas are you talking about clever tech, or things like the use of hydro electric plants as a form of power storage?

and mabey im being silly, but i think, untill we have battry tech for the home that is feasble, people will still need to be conncted to the grid, and as long as people are connected to the grid the infratstructer will need to be mainted. and, tbh, i worry about the burden of such things being pushed on to pople who cant aford it, and dont own there own homes, and dont have a place to put solar panals. and mabey your write, but when i talk about it it being needed, i mean for the house with the solar panal, who may pay nothing (and i get why they do) but get the advantage of on demand power. and if that didnt effect the grid, it would be diffrent, but it dose, and i think its worth examning.

when battry tech gets to the point you can unhook from the grid, and you dont need it to provide power, then i will think diffrently, but in the mean time, i realy do worry about people who can ill aford it being made to pick up the tab.

From:

when you say selected areas. . . .

I'm talking about physically selected areas. Juneau, AK, for example, is isolated. They have a small power plant and a battery bank. They run the power plant full-bore. During the night, the batteries charge. During the day, both the power plant and the batteries power the town. Rather than over-build the capacity of the plant, they went with a distributed load system, quite similar to a solar/wind model. More expensive, but doable given the fluxuation in fuel prices.

. . . untill we have battry tech for the home that is feasble, people will still need to be conncted to the grid. . . .

And after, even. The system I envision would allow people to own small battery systems that would charge by night and discharge by day. The cost savings would come from different prices during peak times. That way, they don't even need solar or wind to help smooth out the power demand. Their solar, hydro and wind owing neighbors will make extra power, and they will store it for them.

This would depend upon a bunch of things. I cover many of them under a tag in my personal LJ called "distributed generation," if you're interested.

From:

red-pill.livejournal.com

thats pritty intresting. i'll go give it a look as this is something im kinda intrested in. i hope ive not embrassed my self now.

but on your evisioned, you would still need some money paid to maintin the infrastructer outside your house, which is mainly what i was refereing too. im not sure if there trying to get this tax for this reson genunily (which, you know, i can quite envision not being the case, tbh) but i can see there at some point needing some sort of payment along these lines to maintain infrastructer. which is mainly what i was stabbing for, even if my technical points were limited.

From:

. . . you would still need some money paid to maintin the infrastructer outside your house, which is mainly what i was refereing too.

Absolutely. I have no problem with that. For me, though, the priority will be to retire the carbon sources of power as quickly as possible and deal with the details of running a post-carbon grid later. There are enough emerging technologies that could easily help that I'm not worrying much about load mitigation.

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

A lot of times the conservative position is described in various profane ways as "screw you, got mine," but that's exactly how I feel in a sense with this program.

Hm? You're just responding to the incentives designed to get you to install and rely on power sources that cut down on emissions and reduce the overall load on the system. You're doing what it is that those paying the taxes want you to do. It's not a "ridiculous scheme," it's just - y'know, welfare.

I'm not going to call you out on any apparent hypocrisy, though I will note that maybe you should take these subsidies into account, when you talk about what is or isn't possible for, say, a family relying on foodstamps, drawing as you do on your personal experience.

From:

There is no tax to be put in place, simply a removal of the incentives for programs like this

I thought you said that removing tax cuts has no impact on a budget.

From:

On a federal budget, yes.

From:

Oh I didn't realize one particular budget is magical compared to all the others, creating an exception that works perfectly for your mindset.

So increasing some taxes/removing some tax cuts cost money, but not on a federal level?

From:

I'm not sure what the relevance of federal or state budgets are to this.

From:

I'm trying to figure out when tax cuts don't have an impact on a budget. It appears that the federal budget is some magical being that uses a different rule/logic set than any other kind of budget, including state ones.

From:

Well, when a topic like that comes up again, we'll take a look.

From: