MO hb340 anti solar bill

[stormkroe]

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/03/31/two-bills-show-missouris-solar-split-personality/

I don't understand how a bill like this can even get read in this age. In short, this bill would penalize consumers that have supplemental solar power on their homes, based on debunked claims that they don't share a proper proportion of infrastructure costs.
In one of the articles I read, the spokesperson for the power company basically said that the increased fee would barely be felt by the explosive growth in solar. Basically, they just want a piece of the pie.
This is very frustrating, here's hoping that the bill gets annihilated.

 

[brycejones]

Mo went full GOP last election. Expect the water to be carried for entrenched corporate interests. The new gov who ran on a reform government platform has already set up a corporation to take unlimited dark money and "advocate" on his behalf. He also has refused to disclose donors for his inauguration and who is paying for his frequent trips around the country in private planes.

 

[woolfe9998]

Utility companies have more money to donate to pols than do rooftop solar companies. Accordingly, the Republicans will pass this bill if they have the votes. There will be no other considerations.

 

[desura]

Yeah, pretty disgusting.

Lots of conservatards take pride in burning dirty fuels, like there's something manly about it.

I will admit that I'm skeptical of net-metering, but a regressive fee being levied on solar users is toxic masculinity by the guys who drive around those beefed up trucks which are always empty.

 

[desura]

It is really frustrating seeing a lot of the dishonest double-talk coming out of conservatives regarding alternative energy. Some of their rhetorical tactics include--

1. arguing that big heavy SUV's are about safety and that fuel efficiency standards cost lives. Which ignores the fact that systemically, big heavy SUV's are effectively an arms race which overall costs more lives.

2. arguing on class warfare grounds that clean energy subsidies are giveaways to the rich at the expense of the poor.

3. arguing that because we use oil as an industrial compound, that we need big SUV's to I guess keep the oil flowing.

4. being quote-unquote "skeptical" of global warming and not having an honest conversation about energy and sustainability.

5. arguing that windmills kill birds, as if they ever cared about wildlife sustainability.

 

[stormkroe]

I honestly expected it to have more D's in favor than it appears, simply due to the ever growing politics-equals-corporate-interest trend, but it was about as partisan as it gets.
3rd reading Yea R= 112 D = 2, Nay R = 0 D = 41
I'm sure there is a bit of spite nay votes from the dems, but not enough to matter. Does it even do any good to send these pukes emails or phone calls?

 

[ch33zw1z]

From the article: "According to a statewide survey conducted by a third-party polling firm, 75% of Missourians want more solar energy in the state."

Guess people can vote them out next time

 

[brycejones]

From the article: "According to a statewide survey conducted by a third-party polling firm, 75% of Missourians want more solar energy in the state."

Guess people can vote them out next time

LOL sure....

They run as social conservitives to get the rural vote and then immediately pass "right to work" legislation, cut funding for colleges, etc. All while their constituents complain about a lack of opportunity or that jobs don't pay well. They gave these ass hats more power in the last election not less.

Mo voted for this unfortunately.

 

[desura]

LOL sure....

They run as social conservitives to get the rural vote and then immediately pass "right to work" legislation, cut funding for colleges, etc. All while their constituents complain about a lack of opportunity or that jobs don't pay well. They gave these ass hats more power in the last election not less.

Mo voted for this unfortunately.

Why do people vote against their economic self-interest, as D's lament?

Because D's have gone too far culture war.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yeah blame the D's, that'll fix it.

 

[ivwshane]

Why do people vote against their economic self-interest, as D's lament?

Because D's have gone too far culture war.

I call that the snowflake defense. Repubs vote against their interests because dems are mean. Lol

 

[dank69]

Good. Suck a fat one Missouri. You wanted this. Keep rolling coal motherfuckers, you're really sticking it to us libs.

 

[desura]

I call that the snowflake defense. Repubs vote against their interests because dems are mean. Lol

Dems aren't mean. Dems are insane. Yeah, the bathroom bill in NC was silly, but the NCAA and NBA acting like a SJW corporate enforcer was creepy.

 

[brycejones]

Why do people vote against their economic self-interest, as D's lament?

Because D's have gone too far culture war.

Honest question why do GOP lawmakers feel the need to dick over their voters economically? The party was not always so f the unions and throw money at the rich as it is now.

 

[Thebobo]

Once again the republicans block progress. It's their fault we are where we are now. Jimmy carter provided tax cuts and incentives for solar power having even put solar panels on the white house. The industry was jut getting started and at least where I live there were major solar companies opening all over. But (/cue darth vader music). When Ronald Reagan came in he took the solar panels off the white house and stopped the tax credits and other federal incentives. Everything folded.

Solar panels on White house

 

[theeedude]

As a public utility ETF shareholder, Missourians, pay up!

 

[shortylickens]

Yeah, pretty disgusting.

Lots of conservatards take pride in burning dirty fuels, like there's something manly about it.

I will admit that I'm skeptical of net-metering, but a regressive fee being levied on solar users is toxic masculinity by the guys who drive around those beefed up trucks which are always empty.

Theres plenty of so-called Liberals who drive massive SUV's just to take one child to soccer practice. Its an American thing in general. Lots of waste.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Once again the republicans block progress. It's their fault we are where we are now. Jimmy carter provided tax cuts and incentives for solar power having even put solar panels on the white house. The industry was jut getting started and at least where I live there were major solar companies opening all over. But (/cue darth vader music). When Ronald Reagan came in took the solar panels off the white house and stopped the tax credits and other federal incentives. Everything folded.

Solar panels on White house

rarely a day goes by that I don't wonder how more advanced solar tech would be if those panels stayed on the whitehouse. 40+ years of lost tech. gj gop.:thumbsup:

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Agreeing with @dank69 on this one: Missouri is getting what it deserves. Suffer, you inbred, moonshine-swilling, cousin-screwing, toothless chromosomal disasters.

 

[glenn1]

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/03/31/two-bills-show-missouris-solar-split-personality/

I don't understand how a bill like this can even get read in this age. In short, this bill would penalize consumers that have supplemental solar power on their homes, based on debunked claims that they don't share a proper proportion of infrastructure costs.
In one of the articles I read, the spokesperson for the power company basically said that the increased fee would barely be felt by the explosive growth in solar. Basically, they just want a piece of the pie.
This is very frustrating, here's hoping that the bill gets annihilated.

"Proper" is a subjective term. Everyone including PV owners should share infrastructure costs. Saying they shouldn't us the same kind of myopic thinking as bike riders saying "hey I shouldn't have to pay for roads since I inflict less wear on the pavement and besides I'm saving oil." That being said that share of infrastructure costs is likely far less than what the MO bill calls for.

 

[stormkroe]

"Proper" is a subjective term. Everyone including PV owners should share infrastructure costs. Saying they shouldn't us the same kind of myopic thinking as bike riders saying "hey I shouldn't have to pay for roads since I inflict less wear on the pavement and besides I'm saving oil." That being said that share of infrastructure costs is likely far less than what the MO bill calls for.

I agree they should, good thing they already do.
http://www.seia.org/policy/distributed-solar/solar-cost-benefit-studies

As a matter of fact, power transmission fees are charged disproportionately to those using renewables with grid tie-in, sometimes both directions.

 

[glenn1]

I agree they should, good thing they already do.
http://www.seia.org/policy/distributed-solar/solar-cost-benefit-studies

As a matter of fact, power transmission fees are charged disproportionately to those using renewables with grid tie-in, sometimes both directions.

All these cost-benefit studies seem to lack the nuance to distinguish and separately break out maintenance costs for the existing infrastructure and the amount of capital costs needed to finance new infrastructure to keep up with increasing demand. Distributed may help with cost avoidance for CAPEX but does little for the first unless you go completely off-grid. Events like storms which knock down transmissions lines don't care if you have PV or not and that stuff still needs to be fixed. These costs should be calculated and separately allocated on a per-user basis. If you generate enough surplus power to sell back that your costs are still reduced to zero then great.

 

[stormkroe]

The costs all come on a per-use basis, the rub is that you don't get fees back if you're in bi-directional overproduction, and if your generation is mostly 'hand-to-mouth', then you didn't even use that infrastructure anyway.

All these cost-benefit studies seem to lack the nuance to distinguish and separately break out maintenance costs for the existing infrastructure and the amount of capital costs needed to finance new infrastructure to keep up with increasing demand. Distributed may help with cost avoidance for CAPEX but does little for the first unless you go completely off-grid. Events like storms which knock down transmissions lines don't care if you have PV or not and that stuff still needs to be fixed. These costs should be calculated and separately allocated on a per-user basis. If you generate enough surplus power to sell back that your costs are still reduced to zero then great.

 

[jackstar7]

Theres plenty of so-called Liberals who drive massive SUV's just to take one child to soccer practice. Its an American thing in general. Lots of waste.

Yeah! They all do it! They're all just as bad!





/s

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good. Suck a fat one Missouri. You wanted this. Keep rolling coal motherfuckers, you're really sticking it to us libs.

Lulz