Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw) Weekend Contributor
When I think of places that would be ideally suited for taking advantage of solar power, Arizona is high on the list. There are approximately 20,000 Arizona buildings utilizing solar collection technology to replace or supplement normal power sources. However, that number may soon decrease if a new “solar tax” is implemented.
“A new interpretation of state law in Arizona could force customers to pay property taxes on leased solar panels. In a state with an estimated 20,000 solar customers and 85 percent of new solar installations being leased systems, the implications of an extra charge are tremendous. The new tax could result in an additional $152 per year for a residential solar array and even more for larger installations, the Arizona Republic reported. What’s more, the tax would apply to both new and existing customers.” Think Progress
At first glance, I guess it should not surprise anyone that a new tax may be initiated. However, when that tax is a tax on solar panels on commercial and residential buildings and includes solar panel arrays that are leased, it raised some eyes in Arizona. Why would the State of Arizona decide on a tax on the collection of power of the sun? The answer may surprise you.
“So, who would support the effort to charge solar customers more money? Solar advocates in Arizona point to the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service Company (APS).
Leasing solar panels is often the only option for middle class customers who want to go solar but can’t afford the cost of purchasing the array. And as rooftop solar in particular booms across the U.S., it’s middle class families that are leading the way — posing a real threat to utilities like APS. In fact, “solar technology is being overwhelmingly adopted in middle-class neighborhoods in the U.S., as more than 60 percent of solar installations are occurring in zip codes with median incomes ranging from $40,000 to $90,000,” according to a recent analysis by Mari Hernandez of the Center for American Progress. This trend has utility companies “worried that rooftop solar may undermine their business models as more of their customers go solar and buy less power from them,” Hernandez explained.” Think Progress
I guess maybe I should not be surprised that the APS may be against technology that allows its customers to buy less energy from the utility. I guess I should also not be surprised who APS has teamed up with in order to fight the use of solar power in Arizona.
The public utility has ties with ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the state regulatory body also has very strong connections to ALEC. “In the ongoing fight over whether Arizona will continue its remarkable expansion of solar energy, a ThinkProgress analysis reveals four of five members of the state’s energy regulator are tied to the conservative anti-clean energy group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
The fight centers on Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), the state’s largest utility, versus solar energy companies over how much customers should be compensated for the energy produced by solar panels installed on their homes and businesses. APS believes customers receive too much credit for the excess energy produced by their panels while the industry maintains changing the policy, known as net-metering, would devastate their promising and rapidly expanding industry.
The state’s energy regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), is expected to begin hearings on the net-metering proposal in November. Four of the five commissioners are members of ALEC, the group backed by fossil fuel interests, major corporations and the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. In 2012, ALEC dedicated its efforts to dismantling renewable energy laws around the country and though they failed completely in that effort, leaked documents from their recent annual meeting indicates they have no intention of backing down from the fight against clean energy.” Think Progress 2
Doesn’t it seem that the Koch Brothers have their dirty energy fingers in just about everything? As we have seen in the linked articles, the new tax would benefit the public energy utility to the detriment of many middle class consumers who are trying to save a few dollars in energy cost, while at the same time supporting the goal of using cleaner energy sources. It is interesting that the idea of a new tax is proposed by the same organization and its backers that are against other clean energy supporting taxes that would negatively impact their corporate interests.
According to the free market proponents like ALEC and the Koch Brothers, the market is only free when it benefits their interests. Everyone else, including the planet be damned. The fact that many of the consumers who would be disadvantaged by this solar tax would be middle class homeowners is just icing on the cake for ALEC.
It bears repeating that the additional cost of the tax would range from approximately $152.00 per year for a residential array and $9867.00 per year for a large commercial installation. Is the Arizona Public Service Company trying to destroy the solar industry?
Will the ALEC packed state regulatory commission find in favor of the ALEC proposal or will it back the solar energy industry and residential and commercial consumers? What do you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Author of Forbes article is from Heritage. All partisan propaganda.
Love your description of the plan which reads as if “let’s do a little bit of expanding Medicaid, but in order to do that we must first cut Medicaid’.
Fear-mongering…. the scary National Debt. Does no one talk to Cheney anymore? He’ll explain about the national debt. Deficits coming down, BTW. Pretty fast, too.
I can’t find anything on the web about a major hospital that is refusing Exchange patients. Do you recall the name of that hospital?
This is an interesting excerpt you posted:
Finally, it should be based on principles utilized in the private market. The plan should emphasize cost sharing, health and wellness, and competition. These principles keep costs down and improve the quality of care
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even though that reads as if written by a second rate pr firm, I do believe that many of those goals are shared by ACA. I get a little scared when I read “principles utilized in the private market’ because that means somebody is about to get screwed, but other than that it is acceptable pr.
When you look at the actual NBC poll that produced that 49% figure, Feynman, the question was, “Overall, do you support or oppose the federal law making changes to the health care system?” So, basically, it is asking do you think the feds should do something, anything, about health care?
What that laughable question, obviously not posed by any statistician, they came out with the headline that support was surging.
I’m sorry, but it is too funny. Maybe this is an experiment whereby creating a false headline might actually make it so. It certainly fooled some people, and obviously not enough people actually navigate to the poll questions. They just accepted it on face value from the mainstream media. Could they actually change public opinion when they keep paying a $6,000 deductible, like me? I don’t know. We’ll have to see.
I see you have not addressed any of the facts that I have provided.
When stuck, bring up Sandra Fluke, who went to a Christian school and then complained about its rules.
That poll was debunked, Feynman, because of the way it was conducted.
The majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, either in full or in part:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/27/fox-news-poll-majorities-understand-oppose-obamacare-1122817668/
Here is an actual poll and its methodology:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/03/27/fox-news-poll-voters-oppose-obamacare-see-worsening-job-situation/
Polls that show overwhelming support for Obamacare are typically worded like, “Do you think we should do something to improve healthcare for the poor.” Would have gotten an “F” in statistics class with that, but it satisfies journalists.
Here is a debate on the pros and cons of expanding Medicaid in the states:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-medicaid-expansion-good-for-the-states
Karen, the number in favor of Obamacare is rising. It is now 49 – 49.
You decry political hyberbole? Me too.
Obama is not a Kenyan muslim Marxist Fascist terrorist who is not eligible for the Presidency. There are no Fema camps. Obama does not want to take away all your guns. Obama is not the ‘Abortion President’. There are no death panels (thanks, Mrs. Palin). There is no War on Christmas. Sandra Fluke is not a slut.
From the above article, “The Speaker of the House in Virginia Bill Howell (R-VA) has been public in his support for some expanded coverage if it follows some key concepts laid out in a recent op-ed:
‘First, it shouldn’t rely on federal dollars. Any plan that relies on federal money not only leaves Virginia taxpayers on the hook once that money goes away, it also contributes to the national debt. An alternative plan should and can be paid for using the savings from reforms and a comprehensive, independent audit of Medicaid.
Second, it should provide targeted coverage to those who truly need it without growing the size of government. Medicaid is meant to serve the truly needy—the working poor, single moms and children. An alternative plan should help those who need it the most.
Finally, it should be based on principles utilized in the private market. The plan should emphasize cost sharing, health and wellness, and competition. These principles keep costs down and improve the quality of care.'”
But, I guess I could see how worrying about how we are going to pay for something, and the Medicaid cuts proposed by Obama, Ryan, and Sebelius, could be grounds to think that Republicans want people to die. I mean, it’s only logical to equate responsibility with murder.
Karen,
You said we had an ‘opportunity to help the poor….and the shiny new cards are worthless’. I’m confused.
Was there a Republican Healthcare Reform (other than the Heritage Plan which is Obamacare) that we missed? Do you mean ‘Hillarycare’? What other plan was there that was missed. I thought NOBODY wanted to tackle healthcare reform (except Clinton and Obama). What opportunity was missed?
“Republicans just want you to die.”
That is exactly the kind of prejudice against millions of people that I decry.
“Democrats are losing the debate on Medicaid expansion.” The more people learn about it, the more they oppose it. It is not a panacea, it is not free, and it does not fix the problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/05/05/the-more-you-know-why-virginians-are-souring-on-medicaid-expansion-lessons-for-other-states/
A brief musical interlude for our socialist brothers and sisters:
Karen, just one last thought on this.
Years ago when Social Security was passed, the hue and cry from the right was that it would bring down the country. We’re still here.
Years ago when Medicare was passed, the hue and cry from the right was that it would bring down the country. We’re still here.
When the ACA was passed, the hue and cry from the right is that it is going to bring down the country. (And you add that it is useless because it is not quality care and docs won’t accept it.) Maybe we should just wait a bit.
Entitlements, including Social Security take up the major portion of the budget. There is getting to be less and less discretionary spending in the budget. Since various Congresses used SS income to balance their budgets or make them seem to be spending less money than they really were, we are now paying for it.
Karen, nobody here is using the racism card. Your pro-active move is unnecessary and only muddies the waters.
You’ve made it clear that your docs / ‘quality docs’ in your part of the country will not accept Exchange insurance. That is too bad. But the good news is you won’t be inconvenienced by having too long a wait for an appointment.
Any thoughts as to that major hospital that also won’t accept exchange patients?
Also, just a follow up on your thoughts about the other social safety net programs for single moms and their children. SNAP? Extended Head Start? Planned Parenthood?
Karen,
Insurance companies are optimistic about early results.
Instead of this endless exchange of he said – she said, venture out of that “narrow media rigidity ” and read the Steven Brill Time article. It’s from Time, for goodness sake. Not exactly a hotbed of liberal socialist ideologies.
Read what Jeremy Lazarus of the AMA said in the July 2012 WSJ letter to the
editor.
I read the Merrill Matthews. I read the Heritage. I read the Forbes. Can you please read Brill?
The healthcare blog link made suggestions that has merit regarding patients who use the ER inappropriately. When Congress stops ‘repealing’ ACA, maybe his suggestion could be debated. Democrats are open for improvements. Republicans not so much.
Feynman:
I am well aware of the problems the poor face in trying to get medical care. That is why I have been so upset at the lost opportunity to help them. Now they have a worthless, shiny new Exchange card that isn’t accepted by most quality doctors.
Hi Feynman:
No, you have not accused the doctors of being racist.
But you must acknowledge that the most common thread among the media, blogs, and other communications is that anyone who opposes Obama, Obamacare, or belong to the Taxed Enough Already (Tea Party) are racists. That is how the argument gets deflected from the issues at hand. Want to reform Welfare – racist, and you don’t care about the poor. Oppose Obama’s policies – racist. Oppose Obamacare – racist. Heck, there was an effort by a journalist to declare the very common term “Obamacare” was racist.
You have not made that assertion here, but I am trying to head it off in advance from anyone who might think about traveling the well-worn path of conservative are racists.
I just made an appointment with my doctor. They asked me for my insurance card. No problem. I’m sorry your docs won’t take people who carry subsidized insurance. I’m sure they, in turn, refuse to take advantage of any government subsidies that are available to them. Right?
My daughter just made an appointment with her doc. She is a cancer patient with subsidized health insurance. No problem. She has a child who had to see his pediatrician last week. He is on subsidized insurance. No problem.
I don’t know what’s with your docs out there. Their position makes no sense to me..
I think my daughter said there is even some dental coverage. That’s pretty terrific!
Karen,
Doc and hospital reimbursement rates have been negotiated for years. Some negotiators have power, some do not. Lovely Level Playing Field, eh? The billing method is called Charge Master and it is the worst damn system ever devised by man. Really screwed the poor if they had no insurance. Drove many into medical bankruptcy. Please read the Steve Brill article. It explains a lot. I can’t link it, Time has paywalled it.
Feynman:
Here is a great article from 2005 by a NC medical group:
http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/wp-content/uploads/NCMJ/mar-apr-05/Yarbrough.pdf
The cost of the uninsured is passed along to the paying patients. Medicare and Medicaid do not reimburse enough to cover the cost of care (which I have stated many times before), so they also produce a negative. That is all dumped onto the remaining payers, the insurance companies. They also discuss the fear of malpractice, extra regulation, etc. Good article.
Since Exchange policies pay like Medicaid, and they do not pay enough to cover costs, it has not solved the problem. And now insurance companies have deeply cut reimbursements, because with all the extra mandated coverage and “free stuff” they have to try to reign in exponentially rising premiums and costs. So now the problem is worse. We had an opportunity to fix things and we made them worse.
Karen,
I haven’t used race in any of these posts. Why do you bring up race?
Karen said:
Please note that Obamacare cuts payments to hospitals for the uninsured. They are trying to get everyone insured, but if you can’t afford it and take the fine, now they are making it harder for you to get treated at a hospital.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. The bill is designed to encourage people to get insurance so hospitals can be paid for practicing medicine. It would be enormously helpful if Republican Red states would expand Medicaid. Millions more would be insured and able to pay hospital bills. But it appears Grayson was right. Republicans just want you to die. (understood – it’s politicial hyberbole)
And yes, the hospitals ARE going to pressure those Governors to expand Medicaid. That’s exactly what they should do. They understand the economics of the reform. Governors just understand the right wing base.