ALEC calls for penalties on 'freerider' homeowners in assault on clean energy

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Walton Family, Owners of Walmart, Using Their Billions To Attack Rooftop Solar






A recent trend has seen utilities deciding that since they haven't been able to beat back the rise of rooftop solar companies, they might as well join them (or at least steal their business model). But the Walton Family, owners of Walmart as well as a stake in a manufacturer of solar arrays for utilties, aren't ready to give up the fight.


A new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has found that, through their Walton Family Foundation, the Waltons have given $4.5 million dollars to groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and Americans for Prosperity—groups that are attacking renewable energy policies at the state level and, specifically, pushing for fees on rooftop solar installations. The head of ALEC has even gone so far as to denigrate owners of rooftop solar installations as “freeriders.”

But support for groups seeking to halt the rise of clean energy is only half the story. According to Vice News, the Waltons own a 30% stake in First Solar, a company that makes solar arrays for power plants as “an economically attractive alternative or complement to fossil fuel electricity generation,” per its 2013 annual report, which also identifies “competitors who may gain in profitability and financial strength over time by successfully participating in the global rooftop PV solar market” as a threat to First Solar's future profitability.

Perhaps it was that threat to its long-term strategic plan that led First Solar CEO James Hughes to publish an op-ed in the Arizona Republic voicing his support for a proposal by Arizona Public Service, the state's biggest energy utility, to charge owners of rooftop solar installations a fee of $50 - $100 a month, which would effectively wipe out any economic benefits of generating one's own power. A compromise was eventually reached to adopt a lower fee of roughly $5 per household, but even that has had a chilling effect on the growth of rooftop solar in Arizona, as residential solar installations subsequently dropped 40% in APS territory.



Bryan Miller, president of the Alliance for Solar Choice, said at the time that First Solar's move was unprecedented: “no solar company has publicly advocated against solar until First Solar did it.”

Having collected its scalp in Arizona, First Solar is now attacking policies that foster rooftop solar in California and Nevada, according to the ILSR report.

“First Solar builds solar arrays for utilities and, as such, stands to benefit if households are blocked from generating their own electricity, even if it means slowing the overall growth of solar,” the ILSR report states.

While this gives the Waltons—a family worth an estimated $149 billion (three Waltons rank among the top 10 richest Americans)—a clear financial incentive to oppose rooftop solar, it doesn't make much sense in light of Walmart's very public commitment to solar energy. But, according to the report, it's not as much about shrewd business tactics or the future of energy as it is about consolidating power in corporate hands:


Rooftop solar is a threat to corporatists like the Waltons precisely because it decentralizes power, literally and figuratively. “It’s moving the U.S. from a system in which electricity generation is controlled by a small number of investor-owned utilities and toward a future in which households produce energy and reap the financial benefits,” the report states.




Walton Family, Owners of Walmart, Using Their Billions To Attack Rooftop Solar | DeSmogBlog
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If this is true, would it not be like restaurants trying to outlaw detail food vendors like grocery stores because buying the ingredients and a cookbook and pots and pans etc. is freeloading?
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
If a family can eliminate being on the grid and produce their own energy
why should they have to pay? If you are dependent on the grid that's ok
pay the price but if one can get by with their own power source why should
the government try to collect more and more people will be doing this with
thermal and solar its the way of the future and government never thought it
would happen. If we as a society did this the big power boys would be forced
to reduce the prices they charge
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
As soon as they leave their property, they are back on the grid buying grid goods, grid jobs and grid services.

And they'll be paying for it as a hidden overhead cost companies pass on to consumers, so where's the problem?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,824
113
Low Earth Orbit
And they'll be paying for it as a hidden overhead cost companies pass on to consumers, so where's the problem?

There is consumer costs for things like streetlights, traffic lights and everything else municipal/state that goes on a power bill?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
There is consumer costs for things like streetlights, traffic lights and everything else municipal/state that goes on a power bill?


Simple solution: separate the two. The power company charges the government for the streetlights, etc. and the government pays with taxpayer money. This way taxes go up and cost of power goes down. This way a person does not need to pah the power company for power he does not use but his taxes like everyone else for power he does use. You can't blame me for freeloading if the restaurant is selling to me at a loss. It's up to it to raise its prices. So in the age of solar panels, it's up to the government to restructure its policy accordingly.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
If a family can eliminate being on the grid and produce their own energy
why should they have to pay? If you are dependent on the grid that's ok
pay the price but if one can get by with their own power source why should
the government try to collect more and more people will be doing this with
thermal and solar its the way of the future and government never thought it
would happen. If we as a society did this the big power boys would be forced
to reduce the prices they charge

Heck, I'd park the sun right on my roof if I thought it would burn Hydro One and its crooked games
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,363
12,824
113
Low Earth Orbit
Simple solution: separate the two. The power company charges the government for the streetlights, etc. and the government pays with taxpayer money. This way taxes go up and cost of power goes down. This way a person does not need to pah the power company for power he does not use but his taxes like everyone else for power he does use. You can't blame me for freeloading if the restaurant is selling to me at a loss. It's up to it to raise its prices. So in the age of solar panels, it's up to the government to restructure its policy accordingly.

There is no such thing as going off grid.

Is it illegal to make biodiesel at home because of fire danger or the lack of road tax?
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
46,861
8,039
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
There is no such thing as going off grid.

Is it illegal to make biodiesel at home because of fire danger or the lack of road tax?


21 Amazing Off-the-Grid Houses

My Favorite..

 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
If a family can eliminate being on the grid and produce their own energy
why should they have to pay? If you are dependent on the grid that's ok
pay the price but if one can get by with their own power source why should
the government try to collect more and more people will be doing this with
thermal and solar its the way of the future and government never thought it
would happen. If we as a society did this the big power boys would be forced
to reduce the prices they charge

That is all well and fine if the gvt didn't have to fund the infrastructure.

What kind of hue and cry will there be when solar is hampered by clouds or lack of wind AND the local utility is not set up to accommodate the higher load?

The option is for the individual home owner that wants their own supply to pay for a back-up power source (from the utility) and assume the direct costs for tie-ins plus pay a super premium for any draw they need above what they can produce.

The above scenario will have all kinds of folks pissing and moaning about the high costs and their 'right' to the utility's power, but only on their terms and when it's convenient