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.”
Well, it’s worth it to me to know I am making it possible to help lower abortion rates. Good for the ACA and preventative care coverage.
Annie – just think of the doctors you are going to put out of business with your attitude on abortion. They will have to find a new specialty or join the unemployed.
Paul, birth control pills are part of preventative care, as is the prostate exam. There are more old men with prostates than young women with ovaries, I suspect. Baby boomer men, they are costly.
Annie – all women have ovaries (unless they are removed) and all men have prostates (unless they are removed. Whether there is a problem with either is the issue. Women also have breasts (unless they are removed). I am not sure what point you are trying to make?
The number of black children born is not as important as the home in which they are born. Currently, 72% of black babies are born out of wedlock, and the numbers rise every year.
AND to make it worse, they want poor women to pay for their own birth control, when providing it under preventative care for women would be so MUCH better than aborting a child. I would think birth control would be EMBRACED by Christians to prevent abortions. Yes indeed the cost of women’s preventative care will be passed to the rest of us, but it’s WORTH it, isn’t it? I think old men’s prostate exams are also worthy of cost sharing.
Annie – the general prostate exam is part of your general check-up.
Feynman, it’s all so confusing 😕
I’m getting so many mixed messages from conservatives and libertarians, in one breath they claim there are too many children being born, then in another breath lament the declining birth rate, then in another breath they resent having to help pay for the care and education of these children born to poor women. Should only rich people be having children? Is that it?
Annie – remember that if those kids every get a job, they are going to be paying for your retirement. The more who are working the less stress on each of them financially.
Now that we are into abortion….
If Americans want fewer abortions, let birth control be readily available.
And birth control is not condoms. Birth control is prescribed by a doctor. Condoms are something a woman may hope will be used, but she has little control that it will be.
There will always be some abortions. Things go wrong, women’s lives are put in jeopardy and abortion is needed.
Safe, rare and legal is the way to go.
Birth control must be readily available.
Birth control is readily available and I used to drill into my female students that they needed to carry condoms for emergencies when their hook-up did not ‘remember’ to bring his.
Were those Chicago schools closed because of low enrollment or poor test scores?
Karen said:
I have to say that I suspect that the critics of Charter Schools would change their position if they had kids in a failing public school, could not afford tony private schools, and there was an outstanding charter in the area.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Karen, I think your suspicion is misplaced.
Chicago recently closed 50 schools and the parents raised holy hell. And there were no tony private schools in the offing for them. There were, however, some charter schools coming on line. They didn’t seem to find that comforting.
Parents and kids grow very attached to teachers and their schools. It is a very bad idea to think you can uproot a child without the child being damaged. It shows you have little respect for that child.
And ‘outstanding’ charter schools are hard to come by. So far, most do about the same as the old ‘lousy’ public school, some do worse. Damned few are outstanding. And as I said, the idea we’ll just close this one down and open another is one lousy way to help a kid get an education.
http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60_fig1.jpg
Children under 18 by race and ethnicity, from 2000 projected to 2020.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db123.pdf
Teen birth rates by rac and Hispanic origin.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/28/birthrate-continues-decline-us/
Birth rate continues to decline. In not just white the white population. Who are all these poor people having all these children?
Hskip,
Hmm, are you sure that those in the lower socioeconomic group are having lots of children? I thought they were being aborted at alarming rates. I recall hearing some saying that abortion was a black genocide. Now here you’re complaining that the rich are having to support the poor’s children. So what is it, are they having too many abortions or too many children? There is evidence that the Latino birth rate is falling significantly too. Make up your minds.
Karen,
I may be a little late, but I rescued your two comments from the spam filter which is very hungry today.
Karen,
I can guarantee you teachers do not want your child to go to high-violence school with no arts or music program or gym. Guaranteed. Period.
They would LOVE to teach in a safe school with science labs, arts, music and gym programs. Guaranteed. Period.
Karen S. It is hard for some to understand that monopolies are bad in the private sector, but they except it. Therefore, they do not like to apply that logic to the public sector and especially education but other social services as well.
Additionally, they do not see the injustice and inequality of parents who say have 8 children they cannot afford to educate, having their children’s education paid for by a couple who has no children, because they do not believe they can afford them.
Eventually, as you now have in this country, the parents from the lower socio-economic levels are having more children then parents from higher socio-economics levels. Go figure. You must apply approximately two years in advance to get Section 8 housing and only parents or single parents with a bunch of kids are eligible.
I think that we can conclude that real justice and equality are not possible any longer in our society and the middle class will continue to be crushed by the socialist/ progressive mindset.
I have to say that I suspect that the critics of Charter Schools would change their position if they had kids in a failing public school, could not afford tony private schools, and there was an outstanding charter in the area.
This public education discussion is #1 on Elaine’s list of topics. I wonder why she’s not here?
Byron, Bingo. Who said it?
I am friends with a family who yanked their boys out of public school after they wasted a year in a classroom with a different sub every day. The teacher just would not show up to work. Many kids got held back a grade after that year. They were furious and fed up.
So they put them in the local charter school, and the boys LOVE learning. They have blossomed.
This charter was founded by parents who were fed up with the problems with their local public school. I applaud them for actually doing something about the failings in education, instead of just complaining about it.
I want the public education system to improve, to put kids’ needs above unions’, and to become innovators in education. To incorporate local examples into the classroom. But the teachers’ unions oppose progress and innovation at every turn. They oppose merit-based pay and the dissolution of tenure. They WANT those hockey puck teachers to sit behind the desk and waste our kids’ time.
So if the public school refuses to change, what’s left? Top performing private education costs a fortune. The other option is charters. And thank goodness we can review their rankings. Now we parents can make an informed choice.
I think my comment is lost, so I’ll try to repost.
Performance and rankings are now listed for schools online, including public and charter. Parents can look up schools in their area, and if there are charter schools, choose which one to send their kids to.
We have had suicides in my local public school due to bullying. We also have fights and drugs. We have had no violence or bullying at the charter school. There, elementary school kids are studying DNA in a lab. The charter also offers arts, music, sports teams, multiple languages. They have fully integrated special needs programs. Teachers do not have tenure, and only highly performing teachers stay on (the parents cheered at the meeting upon hearing this.) The public school doesn’t even have a gym, no arts programs, and it’s overcrowded. To compare the two is laughable. The charter is so wildly popular that they hold a lottery to get in to keep it fair.
I am a parent and I want a choice.
The teachers union does not want me to have that choice. They would rather my kid go to the high-violence school with no arts or music program, and no gym. Where teachers cannot be fired, even if they just sit in a chair and read novels every day. Whenever Big Business or Big Union tries to use its money and political clout to squash competition, that sends the message that they don’t think they can win fairly in a competitive marketplace.
I want poorly performing public AND charter schools to fail, and make room for something better.
By all means put in place safeguards against “wildcat” charters, but do not bow down to unions’ demands to get rid of charters.