patrick.net

tovarichpeter says

Hed just paid $53,000 to have solar panels installed.

The Rives are also bundling the 30 percent federal investment tax credit that SolarCity gets for each installation. As an unprofitable startup, it doesn’t need the credits to defer taxes, so it sells them to other companies. In February, Google invested $300 million in a so-called tax-equity fund Rive created for this purpose.

Hummm..... Now, is that what was really intended when the tax credit was first envisioned?

turtledove says

The Rives are also bundling the 30 percent federal investment tax credit that SolarCity gets for each installation. As an unprofitable startup, it doesn’t need the credits to defer taxes, so it sells them to other companies. In February, Google invested $300 million in a so-called tax-equity fund Rive created for this purpose.

I'm just curious... where's the liberal outrage? This is my problem with all of you. Shit like this is going on, but you don't even notice. You probably saw this article and didn't see past the marketing campaign, "alternative energy is good for the planet." You ignore stuff like this and then get mad at conservatives who say that if you want to fund your programs, look to abuses like this. But no... We need more taxes.

dem libbys wear dem rosecolored galassas...

turtledove says

I'm just curious... where's the liberal outrage?

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but ...
1) We provide tax credits for these installations in order to encourage people to install solar panels
2) This company isn't profitable enough to take advantage of the tax credits, so they sell them to companies
3) In the end, the government earns X dollars less in tax revenue due to these credits ... regardless of whether or not SolarCity or some tax equity fund is the party that actually uses the tax credit to reduce tax liability.

You think people who advocate for solar power should be upset about this because it provides added value to SolarCity's business (thereby encouraging an otherwise not so profitable business, if the information above is correct)?

SoftShell says

dem libbys wear dem rosecolored galassas...

I'm just wondering if they realize where these federal subsidies come from. Their well-intentioned subsidies are being converted into something that provides yet another tax advantage to companies that don't need it. But we're bastards because we don't feel our taxes should go up and be misappropriated through some loophole few have even heard of that benefits people who don't need it! Why would we want our taxes to go up when you mismanage every program across the board? IMHO, the problem isn't the idea behind the program, it's the sloppy way it is implemented and, therefore, taken advantage of. Name one federally-subsidized program that hasn't been abused by those the program never intended to help? Name one federal subsidy that didn't result in a rise in cost of whatever is being subsidized?

Things are so gunna change when I'm in charge.

Turtledove, did you read the part of the article where the utility company claimed that the grid could not support the solar power even though they had not done any tests to determine this? Later, when Solar City and the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory helped the utility do some real tests, they found that there was no problem at all.

Do you think the utility stands to gain from dishonesty about this? Do they profit more when they generate the power, rather than letting homeowners generate power (sometimes selling some of it back at the market rate)?

I'm very confused about why you believe 'liberals' should be upset about tax credits that appear to be working as intended (the net result is that solar city is more profitable, thus encouraging a solar-technology provider to do business), but not about a company that may be lying in order to defy a law and screw customers over.

So the utility built its own network and maintains it. Why should it be forced to buy a competitor's product? Now I am investigating solar too, but the utility should be compensated justly and fairly and make a decent profit-for it to even consider buying from someone??

Howcome when China dumped cheap computers on Ameirca(eMachines for $199) in a time when the average cheao computer was going for $800 or more?
But when it came time to dump solar panels, we as consumers got screwed and were denied the cheap price of Solar panels in the 21st century.

Don't answer I saw the cheat sheet. IT was because Alan Greenspan needed the tech market to fall when he said it was usless. They needed all of those average Joe day traders to fall flat on their asses, so that the few tech companies we have today can be the companies that they are today.

The Solar industry was never a common man start up situation with the goal to better the common man's life. It's a racket where the President him self doles out billion dollars in grants to make damn fucking sure, that those solar panel prices stay well over $50,000, and few utility companies willing to interface with them.

IT's not about selling solar panels as much as it is having a good damn reason for the government to write another industry blank checks.

turtledove says

I'm just curious... where's the liberal outrage? This is my problem with all of you. Shit like this is going on, but you don't even notice. You probably saw this article and didn't see past the marketing campaign, "alternative energy is good for the planet." You ignore stuff like this and then get mad at conservatives who say that if you want to fund your programs, look to abuses like this. But no... We need more taxes.

Where is conservative outrage about things like farm subsidies that go directly to huge ag corporations?

I don't see any abuses here. What do you see? The problem is paying for the grid. When you buy electricity the cost is built in. If you are generating it you don't pay. The simple solution is to pay wholesale instead of retail for net metering generated electricity. The electric company can sell it at retail rates and cover the grid costs plus profit. They do it every day now. If that were done then utilities should be grateful that their customers are building generating capacity for them rather than having to invest huge amounts of capital to build it themselves. They won't because of subsidies they get for building capacity, but in theory they should.

I don't find subsidies to solar any more egregious than the huge subsidies that have been larded on electric utilities both currently and in the past. Why does one disturb you and not the other? Building a diversified electric generating system that is not as subject to the politically volital price of oil is a good use of subsidies if they must exist.

bob2356 says

electric generating system that is not as subject to the politically volital price of oil is a good use of subsidies if they must exist.

Thanks for admitting that the Liberals are intentionally inflicting pain on the not only US but the world and their dinner plate.
But you do get all upset when they fuck with your nerd roof toys?

MattBayArea says

Turtledove, did you read the part of the article where the utility company claimed that the grid could not support the solar power even though they had not done any tests to determine this? Later, when Solar City and the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory helped the utility do some real tests, they found that there was no problem at all.

Do you think the utility stands to gain from dishonesty about this? Do they profit more when they generate the power, rather than letting homeowners generate power (sometimes selling some of it back at the market rate)?

Of course I read that. That is bad, too, and I'm sure something we will see more and more of as utilities scramble to make ends meet.

"I'm very confused about why you believe 'liberals' should be upset about tax credits that appear to be working as intended (the net result is that solar city is more profitable, thus encouraging a solar-technology provider to do business), but not about a company that may be lying in order to defy a law and screw customers over."

When we were sold on the importance of the tax credits, it was sold as a credit to benefit either the people who purchase solar panels or the company leasing the solar panels to the consumer. That makes sense. It was never sold as a tax credit that could benefit companies like Google, who aren't creating alternative energy, don't want to pay their share of taxes and, therefore, would rather purchase tax credits. First of all, it creates an income stream for the solar companies that is fake. They aren't in business to sell tax credits to profitable companies. They are in the business of selling solar panels. So, on the one hand it skews performance without any tax effect. Second, it takes a tax credit away from something else, and I tend to think there are more worthy causes than Google. If the credit is sitting around unused, you could lower taxes, use that money to fund something you've been defunding for decades, use that savings to fund an investigation of all these abuses, or consider it money that the federal government doesn't have to spend, at all.

bob2356 says

I don't find subsidies to solar any more egregious than the huge subsidies that have been larded on electric utilities both currently and in the past. Why does one disturb you and not the other? Building a diversified electric generating system that is not as subject to the politically volital price of oil is a good use of subsidies if they must exist.

I'm not arguing one subsidy over another. I'm arguing about what the companies are allowed to do with the subsidies.

I'm actually a fan of solar. I own panels, plan to collect my subsidy, and pay on a net-usage agreement with the utility (though it didn't cost anywhere near $53k, so I'm not sure what kind of system this guy has...). I think it's pathetic that net-usage might disappear because the utility companies want their profits. My understanding is that this summer, net-usage arrangements might disappear in California if the utilities have their way. They are voting on something, for sure. Clearly, this is also an abuse. I'm not saying that there aren't other abuses going on. But the subsidies are something that every single one of us pays for. These are your subsidies. Did you know that your subsidies, the ones you intended to promote solar in one capacity or another, is actually going to profitable, tax avoiding companies that have nothing to do with alternative energy?

My problem with "conservatives" is that they say they want lower taxes and for everything to be market-based, but when the companies above do both, they pretend to be bothered by it.

What do I expect from people who don't think the government can do anything right, but support the death penalty, the cops and the pentagon with religious fervor?

bob2356 says

turtledove says

I'm just curious... where's the liberal outrage? This is my problem with all of you. Shit like this is going on, but you don't even notice. You probably saw this article and didn't see past the marketing campaign, "alternative energy is good for the planet." You ignore stuff like this and then get mad at conservatives who say that if you want to fund your programs, look to abuses like this. But no... We need more taxes.

Hey bob2356, imagine how pissed off turtledove would be if he used his reasoning and logic on the expenditures of the Military Industrial complex. A simple quick example would be a $435 million dollar per fighter plane that the military says it doesn't even want. To paraphrase his outrage "where is the conservative outrage?"

CL says

What do I expect from people who don't think the government can do anything right, but support the death penalty, the cops and the pentagon with religious fervor?

saroya says

A simple quick example would be a $435 million dollar per fighter plane that the military says it doesn't even want. To paraphrase his outrage "where is the conservative outrage?"

I have a theory.

These people, so often on the wrong side of logic and history these days, fall back on accusing "liberals" of hypocrisy over and over. This has led, over time, to extremely broad definitions of hypocrisy. Warren Buffett, for example, is regarded as a hypocrite for proposing higher taxes on the wealthy; any liberal who is wealthy is now a hypocrite.

This has so diluted and mangled the definition of hypocrisy in the extreme right-wing mind that it has lost the ability to curb its own hypocrisy, or care much about it.

The problem with utilities working against solar is common all over the world. In Germany the utiliity companies are complaining about a "surplus" of green power (wind and solar). What they really mean is that they have to dial down their own plants depending on the fluctuating supply of wind/solar, and they do not like it one bit. It cuts into their profit and they insist they have the right to run at full power all the time.

Now, there are indeed serious problems with fluctuations in green supply being being too fast, as the wind and the clouds blow by, literally. But the polluters want to place the entire burden of temporarily storing the "excess" green power onto the green producers. Why storage? Well, when the supply fluctuates too fast, it is hard for the coal plants and even natgas plants to adjust their power output fast enough. This can lead to grid instability, overvoltage, undervoltage and blackouts. This problem is real, but it is also being used by the incumbent producers to hide behind. The article mentions tests versus simulations, and that some tests showed a 2x larger capacity than simulation. That may be true, but you can simulate many more conditions in a few seconds than you will experience in years of actual operations of a test. Simulation of power grids is fast and accurate.

The so-called cap-and-trade CO2 schemes are intended to induce the polluters to reduce their power production and profit by selling their pollution rights instead. That may be the only way to solve the problem, short of passing laws that say polluters get last priority to supply power at all times. The utilities and their shareholders will scream bloody murder, but it may be the only way to go.

"where's the liberal outrage?"

Are solar roofs being installed thanks to the tax credit?

Yes: Well, OK then.

No: Outrage!

I think so much is rotten in the conservatives' house they have to look for outrage where none exists.

My list of outrages would be:

Lack of affordable housing public policy

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=18eK

shows how housing starts are about half what they need to be

The immense waste of our ~$700B/yr defense expense

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A824RX1A020NBEA

Transferring $300B/yr of that into housing construction would build 1.5M new housing units at $200,000 apiece and put about another 10 million people to work here (accounting for the resulting job losses in our military forces, which would be substantial)

Top 1% of the economy -- one out of 100 -- is collecting one out of five income dollars

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0

This is driven by the high rents in housing and healthcare, and the conglomeration of American business, related to:

Since 1990 corporate profits have risen 6X while the average wage has risen only 2X

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=185g

The War on Gainful Employment, 1980 - now

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=18eP

shows how employment in manufacturing, construction, and information is basically flat (actually down 6M since its peak in 1999) while the population has been booming.

This drives so much civil unrest, which conservatives love to blame the victim about since doing that is an avoidance mechanism wrt addressing the fact that their own public policy initiatives are driving the employment losses in the first place.

"Got Mine Fuck You" works great on the individual level, but we can't have a functioning society with it, contrary to conservative ideology.

Speaking of ideology, Conservativism is also the ideology and outlook of the timid fool. We could be doing so, so much more than we are now, now that we are off the gold standard and now even Bretton Woods artificial capital constraints.

We've got tens of millions of people here needing productive work, and government sitting around with both thumbs up their ass, thanks to GOP obstructionism and unwillingness for anything good to happen while a Democrat is in the White House. "It's Obama's Watch!" is their catcall and thought-terminating cliche

They ran this same playbook in 1995-2000, but since people are generally stupid nobody understands this, and the corporate press isn't going to inform them of course.

Bellingham Bill says

I think so much is rotten in the conservatives' house they have to look for outrage where none exists.

Hillary didn't leave a tip at Chipotle.

CaptainShuddup says

bob2356 says

electric generating system that is not as subject to the politically volital price of oil is a good use of subsidies if they must exist.

Thanks for admitting that the Liberals are intentionally inflicting pain on the not only US but the world and their dinner plate.

Captain you bring nonsense to an art form. WTF are you trying to say? You really should wait till you sober up before posting.

turtledove says

But the subsidies are something that every single one of us pays for. These are your subsidies. Did you know that your subsidies, the ones you intended to promote solar in one capacity or another, is actually going to profitable, tax avoiding companies that have nothing to do with alternative energy?

You somehow weren't aware that almost all subsidies go to profitable tax avoiding companies? This has been going on since 1776.

sbh says

the red team wailing like a car alarm we just don't notice it anymore

Bill Clinton's tarmac haircut: 9 front-page articles in the Washington Post, claiming that air traffic was delayed. Coverage in all newspapers in the United States. Turns out that air traffic was not delayed. The Washington Post never retracted its reporting.

Only Travelgate (gasp!) ended the furor.

What liberal media?

HydroCabron says

What liberal media?

It's the media that, although wholly owned by Corporations ( Ralph Nader's best friends!), supports any war like Manna from heaven, outsources reporting to India, begs for advertising dollars, rubs elbows with the Robber Barons, enjoys cocktails with the Georgetown crowd, but somehow manage to steal elections for those Communists, the Democrats!

This won't end well. From the article: As revenue swells to an estimated $764 million in 2016, so will losses—to as much as $543 million, according to analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. And guess what happens at the end of 2016 -- the 30% federal tax credit drops to 10%. Lets hope Solar City isn't the "dotcom" of solar.

justme says

What they really mean is that they have to dial down their own plants depending on the fluctuating supply of wind/solar, and they do not like it one bit. It cuts into their profit and they insist they have the right to run at full power all the time.

It's not as easy as you might think to match loads! You just can't dial up (or down) big power plants quickly. Really depends upon the fuel used and size of the plant.