Current House Budget Bill kills the ITC for residential solar

That isn't money we're given, it's less money the government takes from us ....and I'm fine with that.
Which unless the government cuts something from spending, they need to take from someplace else. This of course is assuming government has a balanced budget to begin with.
 
The thing is about most electric utilities is to us the consumer there is no free market, its a monopoly and in most cases owned by private equity or share holders. Here in Oregon some utilities are owned by a local town or there are rural cooperatives run by a public board.
I have herd of some places out east where you can choose what utility you have, however I am not sure how that works?
I doubt anywhere has two sets of primary distribution owned by two or more competing companies in a free market?

In exchange for the privlage of being a 'monopoly' (public or private) is it unfair to ask for clean air and water in return? Now how thats best accomplished could be up for debate, here in Oregon I believe the utilities pay a tax and the revenue from that tax go to a independent energy conservation non profit that then funds grant programs like LED lighting, heatpumps and solar. But I am not sure exactly how it all works.
Mostly in the northeast, it called deregulation. Customer can buy their own transformers. There’s a few places around Atlanta that can chose who they buy from. Here in north Georgia, we have EMC’s where the customer owns the utility. The EMC’s buy their power from the TVA, which is mostly Hydro and Nuclear. They dabble in solar, but you have to sign up and pay more per kWh and they have the solar farms. Haven’t seen them offer that program in a long while. I asked a lineman about it, and he just laughed!
 
The thing is about most electric utilities is to us the consumer there is no free market, its a monopoly and in most cases owned by private equity or share holders. Here in Oregon some utilities are owned by a local town or there are rural cooperatives run by a public board.
I have herd of some places out east where you can choose what utility you have, however I am not sure how that works?
I doubt anywhere has two sets of primary distribution owned by two or more competing companies in a free market?

In exchange for the privlage of being a 'monopoly' (public or private) is it unfair to ask for clean air and water in return? Now how thats best accomplished could be up for debate, here in Oregon I believe the utilities pay a tax and the revenue from that tax go to a independent energy conservation non profit that then funds grant programs like LED lighting, heatpumps and solar. But I am not sure exactly how it all works.
You likely choose your energy supplier and are billed via contracts with them and likely renew contract on a yearly basis. Whatever facility owns the local infrastructure still bills you a set monthly fee for them to keep up the infrastructure. They likely send you one bill monthly but have itemized lines for their fees and lines for your energy supplier's fees.

Electric utilities here are all publicly owned and you have no choice, but you do get to vote for board members on a periodic basis and supposedly board meetings are public meetings and you can attend and address the board with concerns.

The natural gas utilities (kind of has all merged into one pipeline operator for a pretty large area over the past 30 years) works mostly like I described above though. You choose your gas supplier, but the pipeline company delivers it, the pipeline company bills you but itemizes their charges and your gas supplier charges on the bill.
 
On a related note:

Rogue communication devices found in Chinese solar power inverters​


I don't think anyone on here said they got panels that say 'made in china' when I asked in the other thread on tariffs.
I think most US PV panels that are listed for a 690 type install are made in Mexico, Canada or Philippines.
Not that make them more 'secure' from hacking but just that I did not see anybody pipe up and say they get panels with 'made in china' stickers.
 
I don't think anyone on here said they got panels that say 'made in china' when I asked in the other thread on tariffs.
I think most US PV panels that are listed for a 690 type install are made in Mexico, Canada or Philippines.
Not that make them more 'secure' from hacking but just that I did not see anybody pipe up and say they get panels with 'made in china' stickers.
Do you mean inverters? Or solar modules which are often called "panels"?
 
I don't think anyone on here said they got panels that say 'made in china' when I asked in the other thread on tariffs.
I think most US PV panels that are listed for a 690 type install are made in Mexico, Canada or Philippines.
Not that make them more 'secure' from hacking but just that I did not see anybody pipe up and say they get panels with 'made in china' stickers.
There is nothing to "hack" in a solar module.
 
I'm possibly standing alone on my soapbox but I'm more of a free market individual. If the product does not stand up financially without subsidy then it's a personal choice to select it.
Let's be fair all the way around. Tax credits are not subsidies. A subsidy puts money in your pocket that you never had. Credits reduce the amount of your money that goes to Uncle Sam. The difference is that subsidies have no upper limit; whatever the congresscritters decide to give you is what you get. Tax credits are limited to the amount of your tax burden or some reduced portion thereof. There may be carry forward provisions, but in the end, you can't get back more than you owe.
 
Let's be fair all the way around. Tax credits are not subsidies. A subsidy puts money in your pocket that you never had. Credits reduce the amount of your money that goes to Uncle Sam. The difference is that subsidies have no upper limit; whatever the congresscritters decide to give you is what you get. Tax credits are limited to the amount of your tax burden or some reduced portion thereof. There may be carry forward provisions, but in the end, you can't get back more than you owe.
That, and there is no such thing as a free market. All markets are manipulated by governments and moneyed interests (some will say that they are one and the same) for their own enrichment.
 
Let's be fair all the way around. Tax credits are not subsidies.
I will disagree. Unless your tax burden is too low, there's no economic difference between getting your taxes reduced by $100 and getting sent a check for $100. And for a refundable tax credit, there is no difference at all.

Cheers, Wayne
 
I will disagree. Unless your tax burden is too low, there's no economic difference between getting your taxes reduced by $100 and getting sent a check for $100. And for a refundable tax credit, there is no difference at all.

Cheers, Wayne
True, the effect on the recipient is the same either way. However, the subsidy comes out of the pockets of his neighbors, or by inflating the national debt.

What the heck is a refundable tax credit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zee
True, the effect on the recipient is the same either way. However, the subsidy comes out of the pockets of his neighbors, or by inflating the national debt.
That's a separate issue, whether the budget is balanced or not. Money is fungible, so it's not really possible to say that when the deficit is 10% of the budget, these particular 10% of government expenditures are inflating the national debt, while these 90% of government expenditures are being paid from current revenue.

Both reducing revenues and increasing expenditures reduce the budget surplus or increase the budget deficit; they are equivalent in this regard.

What the heck is a refundable tax credit?
A tax credit where if it reduces your taxes below zero, you get a check from the Treasury. The Earned Income Credit is a good example.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Top