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.”

LOL!!
Here’s one thing to consider…
There are more white women than black women. So even though the percentage of black women may be greater, there are fewer black single mothers than white single mothers.
Here’s another….
I thought it was implied that the rate was rising among black women. (Hmmm. There’s something about that that makes me uncomfortable, but nevermind) I thought it fair to point out that perhaps the rate is growing among all women.
And the chicken example? Colorful, but very uncivil.
Asian babies born out of wedlock 17%.
Insurance.
So right Feynman,
Risk shifting and cost sharing was and is implemented in all insurnace, not just Obamacare, Paul.
Black children born out of wedlock 72%.
White children born out of wedlock 29%.
And, I wrote my comment EXACTLY the way I wanted. Discussing a subject w/ a liberal is like playing chess w/ a chicken. The chicken kicks around the pieces, shits on the board, and then struts around like they just won.
They did not pay since I chose an experimental process. It was not covered by my insurance.
sorry – that sh/be young women did indeed help pay for your surgery.
Annie – your spelling is getting as bad as mine. I cleaned my glasses and that seemed to help some, not sure what to suggest on your end. 😉
If you had insurance and it paid for your surgery, chances are young women did indeed help pay for your insurance.
The number of black children born is not as important as the home in which they are born.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How about
The number of children born is not as important as the home into which they are born.
Isn’t that better?
And I haven’t looked it up, but I’m pretty sure that many women are choosing to have babies while remaining single. That would include white women.
Paul, It sounds like you got through it. And thanks for the concern, I do.
The number of children born is important. The fewer born the greater the tax burden/debt burden.
Nick – from personal experience, take care of yours. 🙂
Prostate obsession. Creepy.
Well, yes, true it helps prevent our DEATH.
Annie – I would have a warmer fuzzier feeling if you had prevented mine. However, the exam is not for prevention, it is for seeing if you might have it. A breast exam does not prevent breast cancer, it only help identify that it is there.
Paul, baby boomer women and men are going to cost all those young people plenty, be greatful and don’t grouse about the cost of birth control for young women.
Annie – those young women did not help pay for my prostate cancer surgery. I can grouse if I want to.
I get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing I’m helping prevent prostate cance in baby boomer men. It’s a noble cause!
And Paul, think of all the abortions you can help prevent.
But there are a lot more old men than young women. You guys cost us more, I bet.
Annie – not sure we are costing any more. BTW, printed out the emoticons, thanks again.
I’m clearly stating that YOUNG women of childbearing age who need preventative women’s healthcare, which includes birth control pills, costs us no more than baby boomer men and their health issues.
Annie – men with prostates only need a finger wave once a year. Women of childbearing age needing birth control cost “us” money now that Obamacare has decided that one size fits all.