Constitutional Law, Courts, Justice, Politics, Society

The Arizona Solar Tax and Who Benefits From It

300px-Solar_Plant_kl

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.”

 

422 thoughts on “The Arizona Solar Tax and Who Benefits From It”

  1. John – we have all had our comments eaten by the filter. I lost a bunch directly. All you have to do is waive your arms for help and someone fishes it out.

  2. Feynman:

    I have called physicians and other providers myself, and was told they did not accept Exchange policies.

    That is really what you should do, instead of ignoring any article written by a journalist who has different political beliefs than you do.

  3. Feynman – have you not read any of the links, including the one on CNN on major hospitals not accepting Exchange policies?

    If you are not open to getting information, that is completely fine, but please stop asking for proof then.

  4. Annie – if you want to stay informed, then please call around and ask doctors and hospitals if they accept Exchange policies. If they don’t, then please be open to changing your belief system.

  5. Who deleted my comment on this thread? I have to compliment you. That was a very effective tactic. Just make other perspectives disappear. It’s easier that way, huh? My comment was among the first five. I’ll try again down here around the millionth entry.

  6. Karen,

    I have been unable to learn much more about the Concord situation. The calls I have placed all go into voice mail. I did however, read the op-ed by the hospital’s CEO written 9/11/13. In that piece, I learned that the hospital and Anthem were unable to negotiate rates. It isn’t that the hospital is refusing to accept ACA. It’s an negotiating issue with the insurance company. The CEO goes on to say

    ‘There are many uncertainties for 2014. It is unclear what the Anthem product will cost consumers. Depending upon that cost, participation in 2014 may be limited, which puts the product at risk. I fully expect we’ll be participating in products offered on the exchange in 2015.’

    I am not happy that Concord H is not accepting exchange policies now. But then, maybe they are. The op-ed was written 7 months ago and there have been many changes since then. I hope this will be resolved before the sign ups open in November. The CEO of the hospital seems to think it will.

  7. Karen,

    If you will provide citations on the breast cancer charges and refute Annie’s citations, I will continue to try to find out about the hospitals.

    But I researched (and Wpress gobbled up) your USNEWS & World Report link.
    WSNWR picked up a piece from Watchdog.org. Watchdog.org is linked to Franklin Center and Sam Adams Alliance and they all get their funding from David & Charles Koch. And I grow very tired of propaganda pieces.

    However, they do serve one very important purpose. They are fine examples of the huge dark propaganda network that have been built by the Koch’s.

  8. Help.

    Lost a comment to Karen that traced the ‘US News’ report right into the laps of Charles and David Koch.

    Anybody around to dig it out?

  10. What I do know is that the Tea Party folks are as indoctrinated as any right of the righty right right winger anywhere.

  11. Annie, Good morning! I think the Tea Party is pretty active. Is that your impression as well.?

  12. That subscription service was not ‘investing for dummies’. Not when you are advertising daily ROI of greater than 1000%. That is a scam. No reputable financial adviser or planner, or family attorney would ever advise a client to subscribe to such a service. Your expert is QVC and 3:00 am infomercials material. He is not trustworthy.

    Karen, it’s one shock after another. ACA ‘took away cancer treatment for women’? Can you provide a citation for this?

  17. Hey, I know! Let’s vote for Obamacare, which took away cancer treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer, but let’s participate in the Avon Walk, so we can really feel like we’re helping them! Sure, they probably won’t achieve remission because the best doctors won’t accept their shiny new Exchange card, but we WALKED an entire weekend for them, and wore PINK! And’s let’s claim that any critic who complains about these women losing treatment options is a racist!

  18. Just in case you have any objections to any of the journalists in the US News website, here is CNN. Oh, look, the only hospital in Concord, NH does not accept Exchange policies.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/

    Believe me now? Isn’t this a great advancement in giving health access to the poor? Now it’s unaffordable for the middle class, and anyone with an Exchange policy will have a really difficult time finding doctors and hospitals who accept their insurance. Won’t that be just great for cancer patients, when the specialist in their cancer won’t accept their insurance, and there are no out of network benefits? That is so very helpful!

    Now I’m funny this way, but I actually care more about the end result – access to quality health insurance for everyone, than I do about the means to get there. But when people ignore some very disturbing facts about Obamacare and press on, that indicates that they care more about Obamacare than they do about people getting access to quality health care at affordable rates. Because Obamacare has been proven to do neither.

  20. So, you will continue to believe a tiny minority among economists, are not interested in hearing the opinions of literally hundreds of other economists refuting his every point, all because you petulantly object to what happened to be the first article I forwarded? And that was because the author, a retired trader and fund manager and current editor . . . gasp . . . is selling something on the internet with a catchy title on basically investing for dummies?

    You have refused to answer a single one of my objections to Krugman or anything else. You have not addressed Obama refusing funds to keep the NIH open to treat sick kids.

    My impression is that you are a True Believer, inconvenient facts be darned.

    I, on the other hand, think the Republican Party does have some problems. I’ve condemned Republicans when they either vote for pork or otherwise behave badly (like the guy who tried to impose a littering fine on the paper who criticized him). And when someone, like rafferty has in the past, sends me information that really concerns me, I read it, and I research it. I even called the House Committee in charge of the Post Office to ask about his concerns.

    But I see no such inquiry from you. The most effort you have made is to determine the political beliefs of journalists, rather than actually address the content of any article.

    And that is fine. No one can be forced to question their position or beliefs. They can completely ignore every fact presented to them and continue on their way. But I will not pester you with explanations anymore since they fall on deaf ears.

Comments are closed.