Update on Solar Tax Credit

S

solarken

NABCEP PVIP
Location
Hudson, OH, USA
Occupation
Solar Design and Installation Professional
Things have gotten much worse with the budget bill just passed by the House. In it: The residential 30% CE credit will end this year. The commercial/utility ITC (Tax code section 48) will only be available for projects that start construction within 60 days of Trump signing, and that is placed into service by 12/31/2028.
We need energy from all sources to meet increasing energy needs. Solar PV is the only energy source that can be deployed quickly, as in a few months for residential, 3-6 months for smaller commercial, and 6-12 months for large commercial and industrial. Even utility scale can be done in 18 months if red tape does not slow the permitting process. It takes several years to build a new gas fired generation plant. This is insane. Time to call your senator.
www.solarpowerworldonline.com

House passes more bruising budget bill for solar industry

The House of Representatives passed a budget bill with last-minute amendments early Thursday morning that could spell doom for residential solar and
www.solarpowerworldonline.com www.solarpowerworldonline.com
 
solarken said:
This is insane. Time to call your senator
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the horse is out of the barn and its unlikely the Senate will help. The current administration dislikes non-fossil fuel industries so as suggested in your link this could be the death knell for the solar industry (at least for the next 4 years).
 
Per AI, The solar industry now employs significantly more people than the fossil fuel industry in the United States. Specifically, there are roughly 5.4 times more jobs in solar than in coal, and 1.78 times more jobs in solar than in coal, gas, and oil generation combined.

In addition, China is accelerating deployment of solar, while we go backwards. This is insane.
 
While what you say is probably true, I have never liked the idea of the high subsidies given to solar vs hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc.
Some estimates say solar is subsidized at 7-8 times as much as fossil fuels.
Hydro/nuclear is more reliable IMO.
At least it works at night. 😁
 
Yeah, SEIA posted a response and it's very negative on the proposed budget. Basically a dismantling of the solar and storage industry, job losses, factory shutdowns, loss of consumer energy choices, increased energy cost, etc. It still has to get through the Senate. It could be fixed up a bit there.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Some estimates say solar is subsidized at 7-8 times as much as fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
What's the current subsidy for solar in cents/kWh levelized? The subsidy for not taxing natural gas for its emissions is at least 8 cents/kWh. For coal it's at least 21 cents/kWh, probably more because of the variety of pollution it releases (mercury, etc).

Cheers, Wayne
 
I see both sides to this.

I appreciated the tax credit when I installed my system. Was hoping to take advantage of it again to add batteries and possibly additional panels. Probably will not happen before the end of the year though. Even if I can the $$, I'm told batteries are not easy to get.

On the other hand, why should people that can't have solar due to the high cost, shaded roof or are renters be forced to pay for other peoples solar.

The one good thing that will hopefully come from this is shutting down the slimy solar lease/power purchase agreement companies. Most of their customers have no idea what they are really agreeing to.
 
Hv&Lv said:
While what you say is probably true, I have never liked the idea of the high subsidies given to solar vs hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, 😁
Click to expand...
I have also seen those industry articles about how little nuclear gets in subsidies and its puzzling how they even print that. And I am a supporter of fusion energy research subsidies.

If you do a closer inspection of those numbers even the EIA's own numbers they completly omit the cost of nuclear waste disposal sites, long term payouts particularly those related to the Yucca Mountain project.
As soon as you start incorporating the costs associated just one nuclear waste disposal site, particularly the Yucca Mountain project the chart changes quite a bit The Yucca Mountain repository, intended as a long-term storage site for high-level radioactive waste, has faced numerous challenges and delays and thats just one of the hidden costs at one of the sites.
They also omit all costs around transportation of waste, and paying utilities to store their own waste, the omit all security costs like military protection of nuclear sites, for nuclear sites on an on and on and on.
For instance, if we consider just $26.9 billion cost of the Yucca Mountain project and the additional $34.1 billion in potential liabilities for interim storage, the total exceeds $60 billion. Amortizing this amount over the years of nuclear power generation would significantly raise the per-kilowatt-hour subsidy figure for nuclear energy.
The amount spent on Yucca mountain alone per year is about 40-50% of the entire residential solar subsidy per year.
 
Hv&Lv said:
🤔
Who supplies the subsidies?
Click to expand...
How much are all the solar tax credits and "subsidies" costing you personally? And before you say "it's not the amount, it's the principle", I must vehemently disagree. It's ALWAYS about the amount.

To supply the rapidly expanding appetite for energy in this country we are going to need it all - fossil fuels, nukes, hydro, geo, wind, and solar, and if we do not fund the capacity for generation on the front end we will pay dearly for it on the back end. Despite what some in positions of power these days seem to think, renewable energy is not in competition with fossil fuels. We need it all.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Who supplies the subsidies?
Click to expand...
I was interpreting the comment to be "non-solar POCO customers are subsidizing solar POCO customers through the rate structure", which is the false narrative I was referring to. [OK, maybe it's just 90% false and way too simplistic. A more nuanced discussion would require thinking about electricity rate structures, energy vs distribution, etc.]

As to who provides the subsidies for solar tax credits, it's the entire US tax base, just like who is providing the subsidies for fossil fuels.

Cheers, Wayne
 
If solar is so great it should be able to stand on its own without subsidies. 30% was insane to begin with. Borrowing money to pay people subsidies so they can save money on products made in China is so many levels of insane it boggles the mind to consider them all.
 
going_commando said:
If solar is so great it should be able to stand on its own without subsidies.
Click to expand...
If fossil fuels are so great they should be able to stand on their own without subsidies. Eliminating subsidies only for solar unlevels the playing field.

I'm fine with eliminating the solar tax credit and charging all energy sources fees in accordance with the pollution and other harm they generate.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Hv&Lv said:
While what you say is probably true, I have never liked the idea of the high subsidies given to solar vs hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc.
Some estimates say solar is subsidized at 7-8 times as much as fossil fuels.
Hydro/nuclear is more reliable IMO.
At least it works at night. 😁
Click to expand...
Whoever told you that is absolutely wrong. the fossil fuel industry has received subsidies far longer and greater than the solar industry, and they continue to get subsidies.
 
going_commando said:
If solar is so great it should be able to stand on its own without subsidies. 30% was insane to begin with. Borrowing money to pay people subsidies so they can save money on products made in China is so many levels of insane it boggles the mind to consider them all.
Click to expand...
If you are going to list all the things that the US government has done, is doing, and will be doing that are "so many levels of insane it boggles the mind", solar is going to have to get in line. Many of them are also in the bill that just passed the House.
 
going_commando said:
If solar is so great it should be able to stand on its own without subsidies.
Click to expand...
I could be good with that as long as we level the playing feild, we would need to get rid of at minimum these 8 other corporate subsidies, this is a old list and just one of these items costs taxpayers about the same as the residential solar credit, so lots of saving potential.

1. Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957)
Citation: 42 U.S.C. § 2210
Link: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/governing-laws.html
Limits liability, taxpayer bails out even a small disaster

2. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990
Citation: 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title33/chapter40
EPA Summary: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-oil-pollution-act
Free state owned oil to corporations.

3. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)
Citation: 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title43/chapter29/subchapter3
Free state owned oil to corporations.

4. Deepwater Port Act of 1974
Citation: 33 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.
PDF (govinfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-2973/pdf/COMPS-2973.pdf
Free state owned oil to corporations.

5. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973)
Citation: 43 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title43/chapter34
Free state owned oil pipeline to corporations, loss for taxpayer.

6. Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (1982)
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.
Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter29
Free state owned oil to corporations, loss for tax payer.

7. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter25
OSMRE Overview: https://www.osmre.gov/laws-and-regulations
Free coal to corporations, loss for taxpayer.

8. Black Lung Benefits Act
Citation: 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.
U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=/prelim@title30/chapter22/subchapter4
DOL Program Info: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dcmwc
limits liability of mines, tax payer covers black lung costs.
 
wwhitney said:
If fossil fuels are so great they should be able to stand on their own without subsidies. Eliminating subsidies only for solar unlevels the playing field.

I'm fine with eliminating the solar tax credit and charging all energy sources fees in accordance with the pollution and other harm they generate.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have a problem if the subsidies were equal. The levelized concept takes into account the plant life. How many fall short of plant life? How many solar farms are 30 years old?
 
solarken said:
Whoever told you that is absolutely wrong. the fossil fuel industry has received subsidies far longer and greater than the solar industry, and they continue to get subsidies.
Click to expand...
Never said they didn't.
Solar subsidies are multiples of other fuels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top