SB 51: the California politics thread

this was 2000 and there was regularly deposits of human excrement on the sidewalk in that spot, so I knew that people did have a tendency to "go there"

it was not a case of "if you build it they will come"

more like "if you build it they will shit"

welp

BREAKING: The mayor of Oroville, CA declared the city a "Constitutional Republic" in an effort to get around vaxx and mask laws.

THIS YEAR Oroville used federal funds to fight fires AND rebuild their damn. If they were independent, they would be both on fire and underwater.

— Steve Hofstetter (@SteveHofstetter) November 26, 2021

The most ridiculous part is the idea they'd be able to be independent from Butte County.

The county is the largest employer in the city. Over 15% of the entire population works for Butte. Though the 2nd largest employer is the hospital - which will probably need more staff.

— Steve Hofstetter (@SteveHofstetter) November 26, 2021

Clarification - the vice mayor requested it and the city council voted for it.

Well, good luck on your independence, Oroville. I'm sure you will be sending back all the federal and state money shortly.

— Steve Hofstetter (@SteveHofstetter) November 26, 2021

Oroville always been the shittiest of the towns and small cities in that area.

Christ

Looking like the local control over housing ballot initiative is getting to the point where they'll have enough money to qualify for next year's ballot https://t.co/H0qPgS6Kbj

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) November 28, 2021

Alameda is a weird place.

Any thoughts on the proposed PUC rules to stop allowing net usage metering for solar and charge solar customers for the PRIVILEGE of having installed solar panels? As someone who just installed solar, plus a battery, it smacks of utility rent-seeking. Plus, they are doing this pathetic woke-washing where they claim if they don't get this money, it will hurt minority communities, since they won't be able to use all that money to build desert solar installations.

nothing to add beyond OTM

That sounds like immense bullshit

disincentivizing installing solar *should* be a non-starter

as opposed to the massive tax credits the Federal Government gives for installing solar?

It all smacks of entitlement and regulatory capture. The utilities would like to just keep getting the same amount of money from every Californian forever, and that's probably how they've done all their budgeting. And I guess the PUC thinks this is a convincing argument to charge people for using their solar panels.

tbf this has a similar tone to Republican home owners and landlords complaining about paying extra property taxes for services that don't benefit them personally

otoh, at least one client of the org I work for had the city want to charge them affordable housing impact fees for legalizing units that are currently affordable housing in order to preserve affordable housing ...

xp otm

"woke-washing" seems like a tell tbh

tbf this has a similar tone to Republican home owners and landlords complaining about paying extra property taxes for services that don't benefit them personally

If utilities aren't getting enough in usage fees, I'm fine with paying, say, taxes, or a fixed fee, to fund power, a centralized service that we all need. Charging people to use solar, though, is stupid.

home solar is not the future. i don't think it makes sense to charge people to do it, and the more people that do it the better, but i'd rather spend the money we currently spend subsidizing it on mass solar.

xp

Exactly! Take over the utility and collect higher taxes to rich people fund solar projects.

And call it what you want (sorry I used "woke" in a negative way), but PG&E crying about the poor people who won't be able to afford solar is pretty rich. Solar is finally becoming affordable, and now they want to snatch away the incentives and add a monthly charge.

I don't know if I agree, caek. A decentralized power grid would be great! Why keep funneling money into monopolies who don't give a shit how fast we transition to solar?

nationalize the monopolies too obviously

PG&E crying about the poor people who won't be able to afford solar is pretty rich. Solar is finally becoming affordable

I'm confused, how are poor people, many of whom live in rental housing, going to install solar? Like, owner-occupied single family homes are the easiest market, but it seems like the real effort and greater benefit will be having it for commercial buildings and multi-unit developments. Thus, some "mass solar" project makes sense to me.

How much is this fee anyway?

i'd rather spend the money we currently spend subsidizing it on mass solar.

yeah fair

How much is this fee anyway?

also a good question, maybe this is being blown out of proportion.

They are talking about fees in the $40-50/month range, which would, I think, negate any savings I'm getting from installing the panels.

https://abc7.com/solar-home-panels-california-public-utilities-commission-panel-cost/11344016/

Although it will be phased in, so I'm not sure if it will actually impact me. This just seems like the wrong way to go about rolling out solar as fast as possible.

the tax credit is like 30% of the expenses to install it ... compared to say, the tax credit for child care so that parents can work, which often (at least in the bay area) ends up being sometimes 10% of what was spent ... and some families' child care costs are up there with the cost of installing solar panels ... and that is per year.

our childcare expenses for two kids in regular daycare is more than our mortgage (and we bought our house recently, it's not a small mortgage!)

we got a bid for solar ($10k before $3k of federal credits) that was 1/4 the cost of a year's daycare.

And I think the other thing that puts it in perspective *for me* is that there are other environmentally friendly improvements that can be made to homes that you don't get big tax credits for ... including choice of building materials, etc.

xxp

sarahell - I can't track your last post - are you saying that the solar surcharge is $40-40/year, or that childcare is a recurring expense?

My building has 'solar' panels on the roof, but they don't generate electricity - they preheat the water before it gets to the boiler & water heater

That's great! Less natural gas usage.

I'm saying that the tax credit for installing solar panels is very generous compared to that for child care, and child care expense is a greater burden to lower income people.

*and even middle income people!

I'm happy paying more taxes. What I don't love is having to pay more to PG&E to subsidize their solar build-out (after just paying $$$ to install solar), while rich people who DON'T install solar just continue to pay the same.

However, I understand your point about the large tax credit. That will pay for any fees for many years.

I didn't really do solar to save money, anyway. I'm just trying to reduce my carbon footprint. Natural gas is so cheap right now that things like heat pump water heaters/central heating take years to make their money back.

What I don't love is having to pay more to PG&E to subsidize their solar build-out (after just paying $$$ to install solar)

this sounds bad, but the other way of looking at it is PG&E are paying you $50/month less for the electricity you generate as a net metered generator.

people who don't install solar don't pay this fee because it's a "fee" levied on people selling electricity.

IIUC the fee exists to prevent PG&E's retail electricity business becoming a loss-maker. they can either charge the users who would make them loss-makers more, or they can charge everybody more.

(or they can go out of business)

Good. It should just be a public utility. Their incentives are not aligned with mitigating the impact of climate change.

you'll get no argument from me that they should be in public ownership, but i don't think a publicly owned utility is going to pay you more for your spare electricity then PG&E.

Are you in favor of this?

A public utility would hopefully be more focused on incentivizing the use of renewables (in any form!) than trying to run itself like a profit center.

totally! we should take ownership of PG&E and LADWP, spend the CA state budget surplus on green capital improvements.

if you're asking am i in favor of charging rich homeowners a fee that means they make slightly less money from PG&E when they sell them electricity, at the risk of slightly fewer home solar installations. eh, toss up.

i understand the concern about climate, and home solar is better than no solar. but like i say, home solar is not the most efficient way to address home energy use, and home energy use is not even the #1 priority. slightly reducing the number of home solar installations is not good, but it's *probably* worth it to allow PG&E to make capital improvements.

Man, all it takes is one rich guy whining about fees, and you're caping up for PG&E! :)

haha fair

I'm basically with Caek. Rooftop solar lets folks think they're helping, but it's small beans. The transformational stuff green energy wise requires huge investments and breakthroughs, such as storing green energy for nighttime use. Also I should mention that finding a sustainable way to fund a responsible steward for the grid would be a great way to reduce wildfire risk (as well as fix the now-inconsistent electrical supply for many rural areas).

I feel like decentralized energy production has been a mostly unhelpful left-wing fantasy for quite a while. Yeah, we want carbon-free energy sources, reliable power, etc. And I hate corporations too, especially ones who don't care how their gas pipes are welded or how their transmission lines are tended to. But rooftop solar doesn't help make sure everyone gets the energy they need when they need it.

(with that said, it is possible that rooftop solar did help push for more efficient production of solar panels, but now it's efficient enough that there's plenty of market)

What is an unhelpful fantasy is that there will be one plan or energy source or company or government that comes along and "makes sure everyone gets the energy they need when they need it." We should be placing bets on anything that helps, and if rich people want to get ahead of the utilities and government and put solar panels on their houses, the last thing we should do is put the brakes on that in the name of "equity." Fund all the clean energy projects you want, but find a better way to fund it!

Like, for example, a carbon tax, with a carve-out/rebate/exemption for lower-income people.