I don't understand this way of thinking, I thought Warren Buffett was a supporter of Alternative Energy, well at least until it impacts his bank account I guess.
Last year, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada issued a report finding that rooftop solar customers actually give back more to the grid than they cost.
But on Tuesday, the PUCN seemed to go against its own data, voting 3-0 to create a new rate class that will push up electricity bills for people who have solar.
“The PUCN just changed the rules of the game for all Nevadans that have invested in rooftop solar,” Jessica Scott, a regional director for Vote Solar, said.
Among the biggest changes to the rate structure will be in how much customers are paid for the electricity they put back on the grid, though net metering. Solar customers in Nevada will no longer be paid for their excess electricity at a retail rate. Instead, the net metering rate will be set at wholesale prices — even though the utility doesn’t have to pay for any of the solar panels’ hardware or maintenance, and transmission costs are negligible, since the electricity is being generated close to where it is used.
In addition, the new rate will apply to both new and existing customers — a bitter disappointment to the industry and to the thousands of homeowners who have already installed solar.
more http://thinkprogress.....rate-hike/
Solar City's response
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Rooftop solar installation company SolarCity says it will stop selling and installing panels in Nevada after energy regulators decided to change the rate structure for solar customers.
26 Nov ’15
DangerDuke said
*sigh*
Another step backwards I guess...
It just shows that those more concerned with constantly increasing their bank accounts RULE the 'business regulations'. I am glad we are solar electric grid free.
My personal motto - The Home, a peace worth fighting for.
21 Feb ’12
Jain said
DangerDuke said
*sigh*
Another step backwards I guess...
It just shows that those more concerned with constantly increasing their bank accounts RULE the 'business regulations'. I am glad we are solar electric grid free.
That's why I'm a Libertarian. I'd rather have less government interference with my day to day life than more.
26 Nov ’15
DangerDuke said
That's why I'm a Libertarian. I'd rather have less government interference with my day to day life than more.
I used to be a libertarian, but I've decided that Panarchy is closer to reality even is its least likely to be acknowledged and embraced. One can't push the genie back in the bottle once the light' shines forth.
Wasn't it Jefferson who said that the best government is the one that governs least? (or something like that) And of course no governmant is ever as good as self responsible mutually respectful attitude and actions. Sigh, with trust at an all time low, that is very difficult to say the very least.
My personal motto - The Home, a peace worth fighting for.
6 Oct ’15
DD...I am a Libertarian too!...Politico's want to regulate every aspect of our lives...our taxes, our guns, heck-even the water in our toilets is regulated (1.6 gal flush- I believe that people would change on their own to spend less on water and be conservation minded-might take longer but that is letting the people decide what is best for them as individuals)...Now we seem to be regulated by the gov't in terms of the 'right to' have food stamps, Obama phones and so called entitlements.
Not to beat the toilet water up...but it is regulated so we don't 'waste'...sooo...why don't we regulate automobiles to not have more than 100hp? or homes over 3,000 sq feet...does any one truly need these??? and would regulating them preserve resources???
...sorry if I am hijacking this thread...but gov't regulation is very one sided in my views.
The following users say thank you to Gravel Road for this useful post:
DangerDuke21 Feb ’12
Jain said
DangerDuke said
That's why I'm a Libertarian. I'd rather have less government interference with my day to day life than more.I used to be a libertarian, but I've decided that Panarchy is closer to reality even is its least likely to be acknowledged and embraced. One can't push the genie back in the bottle once the light' shines forth.
Wasn't it Jefferson who said that the best government is the one that governs least? (or something like that) And of course no governmant is ever as good as self responsible mutually respectful attitude and actions. Sigh, with trust at an all time low, that is very difficult to say the very least.
I just can't see Panarchy as being a realistic option. Maybe in a smaller, less globalized world being able to "opt out" might have been feasible. We have too many problems that would come up (vaccinations, or roads are perfect examples) if someone were able to simply exist outside of a system of government, or if everyone was under their own separate flags.
I'm a Libertarian and I recognize the need for a government, but I advocate one that does as little as possible and governs for the benefit of the people, not its self. I'm a little more liberal than a lot of my libertarian friends, in that I think done properly I think social programs can be a very good thing. I like fire departments, public roads, schools, police, libraries... and I would even support universal health care if we reigned in the actual cost of health care first. All these things are good for the people, and it takes a government to provide them on a large scale. What I don't like is fiat currency, endless unwinnable wars, treating the government like a corporation and your citizens like slaves. That ain't liberty.
The following users say thank you to DangerDuke for this useful post:
KMost Users Ever Online: 698
Currently Online:
34 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
easytapper: 2149
DangerDuke: 2030
groinkick: 1667
PorkChopsMmm: 1515
Gravel Road: 1455
Newest Members:
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 12
Topics: 11482
Posts: 58640
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 19842
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Administrators: K