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.”
Karen,
I haven’t seen the MSNBC poll. I tried to locate it earlier today to no avail. The poll I saw this morning was by the Christian Science Monitor as indicated in my comment. Sorry. I guess we don’t visit the same sites.
I read Shah’s bio. I’m funny that way. I always want to know a little about a source. Karen, I can’t read an article by a man who is selling a subscription to his SERVICE (it’s not a book – you will be getting information daily on market moves in order to get the 1000% return) that will teach me how to make the Easiest Money Ever Made. (that’s his title – not something I made up.) With returns greater than 1000%. He might as well go on QVC or make ads for the Veg-A-Matic. Are you, a fiscal conservative, not the least bit skeptical of a man that promises returns like that and that those returns can be made daily?
I’m afraid it’s no use to send similar opinions. They are second choices and I found your first choice to be seriously, seriously deficient. I wouldn’t let my kid use him for a high school book report.
Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective on the design of our government and the history and motivations of the Obama administration.
You’ve cleared up some questions and I have a better idea where we both fall on the political spectrum.
But if you happen to think of the name of that major hospital who won’t accept any Exchange patients, please send it along.
Thanks
I do know that Obamacare, cut off some of the top hospitals, like the Mayo Clinic as providers.
Shah Gilani: “Shah ran his first hedge fund in 1982 from his seat on the floor of the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. When the OEX (options on the Standard & Poor’s 100) began trading on March 11, 1983, Shah was working in the pit as a market maker. And along with other traders, he popularized what later became known as the VIX (volatility index). He left Chicago to run the futures and options division of the British banking giant Lloyd’s TSB.
Shah went on to originate and run a packaged fixed-income trading desk for Roosevelt & Cross Inc., an old-line New York boutique bond firm, and established that company’s listed and OTC trading desks. Shah started another hedge fund in 1999, which he ran until 2003, when he retired to develop land holdings with partners.”
I know, it’s weird why a retired trader and investment manager, who is now an editor for several publications, would write a book on investment strategies for the general public.
You still have not addressed any of his points.
I don’t know much about Shah. So I can supply a similar opinion from 250 other authors, if you like, as Krugman is in the minority. Then will you address the problems that have been, very reasonable, pointed out with Krugman’s theory?
Feynman – everyone is referencing the MSNBC poll. Please navigate to the poll and read the polling questions. Any reputable article should link to the actual poll.
It is quite common for Congress to have different majorities, and for one or the other to have a different political majority than that of the White House. Presidents managed just fine up until now. Only Obama refuses to negotiate, as all of his predecessors had to do. Maybe he thinks it’s unfair that he can’t make Congress give him his way? Who knows.
Feynman:
The Founders created the separation of powers so that no one branch of government could get too much control.
The House represents the will of the people, as it is directly elected by citizens. The Senate used to be appointed by each state until 1913, when they, too became directly elected. Since each term is only 2 years, Representatives typically vote according to the concerns of the districts they represent, instead of just strictly along party lines.
The job of the House is to originate spending bills. It is in the Constitution. The Separation of Powers was designed so that each branch acts independently, according to its own opinions of the right thing to do.
Having run on platforms to repeal Obamacare, based on the predictions, which proved true, that people would lose their existing insurance and pay much higher premiums, the House created a spending bill that funded every single aspect of government . . . except Obamacare.
The House actually did not shut down the government, at all. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consult the Constitutional Record, as well as the Constitution. Everything was funded except for Obamacare. According to the Separation of Powers, the government should have kept right on running while the Branches wrangled over Obamacare.
The Democratic-controlled Senate chose not to vote to authorize this spending bill, because it did not fund Obamacare, too.
Senator Reid and Obama refused to accept the money to keep the government running while they worked on Obamacare. That was their responsibility. And yet, they claimed the House shut down the government. That is not constitutionally true. But the media seems to have neither consulted the Constitutional Record, nor taken an 8th grade civics class. They just copied the talking points and ran with it.
The House is not required to do the bidding of the President. That would mean that there is no separation of powers. (The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.) If a branch is no longer allowed to act independently of the Executive branch, then the separation of powers has failed.
This brings me to another point. When Obama and Reid decided (not the House, because the House cannot do this) to shut down the government, they specifically directed that the shutdown should cause the most discomfort to the population, the very people they were sworn to represent. They decreed that WWII veterans in wheelchairs would be barricaded out of an open air WWII memorial. They decided to close bathrooms. He kept his Camp David, WH chefs, and his golf course, but he shut down the NIH, preventing them from treating pediatric cancer patients. He stated that furloughed military chaplains would be punished if they tried to work for free and celebrate Mass or give the sacrament of Baptism. (Punishing people for exercising their religion.) He blacked out the network that provides sports and entertainment to the troops he sent in harm’s way overseas. He closed privately run parks that actually pay the government rent, rather than taking money to run. He closed a privately-run hotel that operated on government owned land. He told park rangers to make it hurt as much as they could.
When the House offered to specifically fund NIH, again, separately, the WH said it would veto it. Did you hear that? They would veto a bill that would have kept the NIH open to help kids with cancer? And Republicans in the House are not fit to lead? How can anyone say that with a straight face? For me, Obama will always be images of wheelchair bound WWII vets tearing down a barricade, and kids with cancer being told Obama would veto a bill to help them. Don’t believe me? Check the Congressional Record.
Obama’s name has been mud to me ever since his stunt with the kids with cancer. Ill children fighting for their lives are not political pawns. I don’t care how smooth his speeches are. He chose politics over kids’ lives, and I won’t forget it.
And if the debt ceiling is not raised, that only means we cannot increase our debt. It does not mean we cannot continue to pay for our existing interest-only payments on our current debt. Because that’s all we’re doing, interest-only.
Gosh darn.
Turns out I didn’t see that 47% number on MSNBC. It was a Christian Science Monitor article and poll…..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
‘Public support for Obama’s health-care reform law jumped seven percentage points from late March to late April, a Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll finds. It shows Americans now split down the middle on Obamacare.
Christian Science Monitor
By Mark Trumbull May 5, 2014 2:07 PM
The American public is now evenly split in its opinion of the Affordable Care Act, an improvement in the law’s standing, according to a new Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll.
Some 47 percent of American adults support the law known as Obamacare, and 47 percent are opposed, finds the poll, conducted between April 26 and May 1.’
pete,
Is it too late to make a revision? I didn’t mean Dominionists. I meant the good sisters, the Dominicans.
Karen,
I took a look at your link about Paul Krugman. The author was Shah Gilani.
I had never heard of him so I took a look around ‘Capitol Wave’. Well that was one huge surprise!! The guy is a marketer. He is selling a subscription to “The Easiest Money Ever Made’. Talks of returns of OVER 1000% in a single day!! That’s not an extra zero. That is One Thousand. It’s called Fast Market Flipping.
And this is the guy who is telling us that Paul Krugman is Dead Wrong? That you want me to be sure to read? A marketer who is selling fast, easy money – returns of many thousands percents in a single day?
I sooner guzzle Prestone.
Why do you recommend this guy?
Karen,
There are a million numbers that must be sorted in order to answer your question about Bush’s share of debt vs Obama’s. As you know, it is a complicated inquiry. I’m not going to spend any time on it since I think I’m talking to myself over here.
What I would offer is that I think Obama was handed one god-awful mess by Bush for which he was responsible – wars, tax cuts, financial collapse, Medicare Part D. That 18% is a fun little nugget to toss out – but ultimately – it requires a discussion of what numbers are being used, what is included, and consensus of who handed over what as a result of their policies.
Plus, I can’t locate where you found the 18% figure. There are piles of info on the net – full of numbers. And my head hurts.
forgeddaboutit.
feynman
just so you know, Dominionists, is a wirty dord.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Dominionists&go=Go
civility clause, doncha know
Annie – and you know that how?
Karen,
More on the credit downgrade from Wiki.
On August 5, 2011, after Congress 2011 U.S. debt-ceiling crisis of the United States federal government, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States federal government from AAA to AA+. It was the first time the US had been downgraded since it was originally given a AAA rating on its debt by Moody’s in 1917.[44] According to the BBC, Standard & Poor’s had “lost confidence” in the ability of the United States government to make decisions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think that is pretty much what I said. It was the yahoos in the House.
Karen,
I don’t think Sarah can take credit for much.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund was established in 1976.
The oil lands are mostly federal:
Federal Land
The federal government is still the largest landowner in Alaska with 60% of the total area (222 million
acres). This acreage includes national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, military reservations
and the North Slope National Petroleum Reserve.
then there is this:
Some states, including Alaska and Virginia, received more than $15,000 per person from the federal government, even after subtracting the billions the state spent on income tax
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on details. I’m pretty satisfied that Sarah was not responsible for all that federal money that goes to Alaska. People have been muttering for years about the checks Alaskan citizens get each year for resources that belong to the federal government – in other words – to every American citizen.
China and human rights.
Thanks for acknowledging that China is not going to call in their debt. That move would not be in their best interest. Would that a lot of Americans understood that.
So now you’re worried about human rights. Well, we’ve got a long list of human rights violators and some would include the US in that list. Do you include the US?
Let’s hit a hot button. Some would include all of the Middle East. That would include Israel.
Africa? Got plenty of human rights violations in Africa..
And of course, North Korea.
Hmmmm. Isn’t it odd that we share our own special list with Iran, China, North Korea and the US? I bet you know what list that is.
So where should we start in addressing the problem of human rights? I see one problem right off the bat. Until we clean up our own act, – NSA, death penalty, killing little kids and then demanding everyone have MORE guns – our concern about human rights is not going to be taken very seriously.
So to answer your question, I don’t want this president or the next to be running a big human rights campaign. I want our own rights problems solved and frankly there is a whole lot of danger out there and we don’t need to go searching for more.
Obama owns any civil or human rights being violated now?
Bush took a surplus and handed over a deficit.
He took that surplus and mailed us all checks because “we knew how to spend it better than the government does.” Well, it would have come in damn handy while he was shipping pallets of money over to Bremer!
He created two wars and didn’t pay for them. (Granted, there was no skipping Afghanistan).
A massive, massive financial collapse happened on his watch.
He created Medicare Part D and lied about the cost.
And Bush didn’t have the loyal opposition saying: ‘This shall be a one term President’.
That’s what Bush did.
Karen,
I’ve been thinking about your complaint that I have not been responding to your questions adequately.
Part of the problem is how the questions are posed and part is because I don’t know you. Exchanged information has to be reliable and trusted. Our initial exchanges way back when, were about charter schools and Medicaid, and ACA. You offered a lot of anecdotes about sick friends, friends pulling kids out of failing schools, great charters, doctors who won’t take Exchange patients. And most alarming, a major hospital that will not take Exchange patients.
The trouble with anecdotes is that there is no way to test them. That completely disarms (not in the good way) one who would challenge you. That tactic does not go unnoticed. But you did offer one piece of information that could be tested – that damn hospital. I may have missed it, but I don’t think you ever named the hospital. That is very concerning. Is Karen reliable?
But you send lots of links. Unfortunately, they are from sources that I have followed for many years. And I have found them very unreliable. Sometimes simply because I am a liberal and think about policy much differently and sometimes because they are untruthful and are manufacturing propaganda. Heritage is in the business of producing propaganda. Not all that long ago they actually did some ‘thinking’ in that think tank. Not any more.
But you link Popper, Matthews, Heritage, Forbes (I remember Flat-Tax Steve and I don’t like him or his policies), WSJ (I also know Murdoch and what he has done to that paper). A bunch of people that I have found very untrustworthy and disagree with them all. This is not a good way to establish trust. And then in attacking Krugman, (you’re entitled) but you have to slam Obama. What’s with that? Does that enhance your argument?
Look, I know we all make mistakes in writing comments. No one should get nuts about 10% vs 15%. But IIRC, you said China owned all our debt. I don’t think that is so. And it is precisely the argument that the right has been using for years to scare Americans. Who wants to bother with that kind of challenge? And I am not going to argue statistical methodology with you.
I am not Christopher Hitchens or Wm Buckley. I am a liberal. You’ve described yourself in a limited, ‘glossy’, kind of way. But I’m not at all sure who you are.
Karen,
Please understand that I’ve been around for a while. I am very interested in politics, history and foreign policy. You are explaining stoning in Iran as though I had never heard of it. I have and I have seen it. I know about honor killings. Can we move beyond that, please?
I am not afraid of being stoned in America, but I would point out that after 9/11 there was a Sikh murdered and not too long ago a Sikh temple was attacked and several more were killled. Religious murder is not unknown in this country. And, yes, I understand the difference between hate crimes and government sanctioned stoning.
Your response to Annie about christianists leads me to think you are unfamiliar with the term. Most Christians are not christianists. (I’m confused about the whole ‘jobs’ part) I think there are probably some christianists in Congress, but not many. (Although enough to muck things up.) Christianists are also Dominionists.
Definition of Dominionists
Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. At least under this name, it exists primarily among Protestants in the United States. It is a form of theocracy and is related to theonomy, though it does not necessarily advocate Mosaic law as the basis of government. Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology and New Apostolic Reformation
I think ‘christainist’ may have been coined by Sullivan and if you haven’t read him you wouldn’t know the term. I expect you are familiar with Dominionist.
And, yes, since I am an American and all my family and friends are Americans, the christianists scare me to death. You think I’m paranoid? Just look at yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling. Look at Hobby Lobby. And now they’re writing bible based curriculum?
But I’d rather not go off on that tack. If you’re interested you can probably find a lot of information over at Sullivan’s blog – The Dish.
Also: Obama has shrunk the deficit. Will Republicans ever give the guy credit for anything?
RTC – Obama, just like Bush, is not responsible for the debt or deficit all by himself. However, I think Republican will start giving him credit for things when he earns it.
Karen: Sarah Palin was the fraud in Alaska
The Sarah Palin that wants to baptize terrorist suspects with waterboarding, yup, that’s the one.
Sarah Palin -half term governor. That Sarah Palin. And wasn’t she going to build some pipeline or bridge or something. I think that deal may have fallen apart.
Also, how much of that money comes from the feds. I think Alaskan citizenshave been getting those checks for years – way before Ms. Palin put in her two years. Is the pumping done on federal lands? Are the oil leases, federal leases? Is the big drilling site Trudeau Bay? I’d have to look it up and dinner is getting cold. Back later.