"Net Billing" in MA

[Stinsy]

You don’t do anyone any favours by pretending that their circumstances are not of their own making.

Before I respond Stinsy, I want to confirm that last line is what you truly believe when you say "Anyone"?

You can take offence at anything anyone says if you try hard enough. Hopefully my point is clear: not everyone is dealt the same hand. It is up to you to play that hand the best you can. Many people who claim impoverishment are doing a terrible job of managing their situation and would be better to take more responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. As Joe says: understand the terrain and plan accordingly. Those who bleat on about “fair” or who make excuses are doomed. And you do no one any favours by making excuses for them.

It really irritates me when people write vacuous nonsense such as “net metering is unfair because the poor can’t afford solar panels”. And then they try to twist the conversation to the disabled, the unwell, or the genuinely destitute. Sure not everyone can afford a £15k solar and battery install but the can afford to do something, that’s the point.

[NoraBatty]

Perhaps the conversation went towards the unwell and disabled, at my own doing i may add, not from the poster of your "vacuous nonsense" comment,
Because quite often the destitute and the poorest in society are also the disabled or unwell.
The conversation does not need to be twisted in any way towards that. The two go hand in hand and most people grasp that quite well.
The richer you are, the longer your lifespan, and the healthier that life is.
The poster clearly has this basic understanding, hence why he didnt feel the need to expand on what was a simple statement most people could understand at face value.

[MikeNovack]

I am always surprised that net metering has survived as long as it has in some parts of the world. It subsidises the rich who can afford to install solar. They pay nothing, except perhaps a small daily charge, for the security of an always available grid connection, which, in realality, they are only likely to use in times of high demand and thus adding to the pressure on the grid. Perhaps it is because they have the loudest lobbying voices and least regard for the poor.

I am going to address THIS first. Mind, I am on the town (township) Energy Committee.

Rich vs poor DOES play a role with regard to solar, but perhaps we aren't using "rich" and "poor" the same way. With the "solarize project" what mattered more was whether your house roof had suitable exposure and was made of an OK material (for example, NOT slate). For this purpose:
"rich" -- pay enough in FIVE YEARS income tax to be able to use the Federal tax credit (allowed to spread it out). Have a good enough credit rating to be able to buy a moderately expensive new car and so could get the bank to give a "home equity line of credit". OWN the property.
"poor" -- lacking those things. You could have quite a lot of money and still rent, own a lovely stone colonial with slate roof, have the roof axis running E-W, etc. Have roof axis But yes, the POOR were shut out.

BUT --- after the "solarize" project the Energy Committee tried to set up a "community solar" project. Like a co-operative, members own X number of panels in a modest ground array. Unfortunately two problems. No suitable TOWN (public) land and felt local politics would create problems if leasing private land << WHO is going to be this landowner making money >> Additionally the power company itself can throw roadblocks, refusing to do what necessary to make connection possible*. Note in THIS case, had it worked, only needed to be credit worthy enough to buy in.

I might add, though we do have some RICH people out here, by and large all of rural, western MA is poor compared to the Boston area. Pay scale lower but also price of land/housing. 'm not rich, just comfortable in retirement. But in the eastern end of the state my ~87 acres of woods would be worth many millions. Here, our house and that land under 1/2 million. Movies, etc. should give you an idea of language/terminology differences across the pond. HERE the term "middle class" doesn't mean RICH. Here almost any professional, even school teachers would be considered middle class. But also a tradesman who owned his own business, trucker who owned his own rig, etc. This program (the tax credits, net metering, etc.) was a program favoring the "middle class" but by OUR use of the term.

* Explanation -- with a slightly different example. At the moment, the hydro company operating the dams on the Deerfield River (runs through the village) is applying to build a smallish battery storage facility to take advantage of time of day differential. Their dam is "run of the stream, no pond storage. WHY smallish? As a power generating facility they are already "connected" and their connection permitted for Y MW but their turbines at normal water flow only producing ~ 1/2Y. So they DON'T need permission from the grid operators to add another 1/2Y from the battery. They already have that. Understand? It's business. If you NEED something from a company they are likely to hold you over a barrel. That's how they can block things like "community solar" in favor of some larger commercial solar array that can afford to pay more for the privilege of getting connected.

[Stinsy]

In these situations where there is something good but people bleat on about “but this doesn’t benefit the poorest so it is bad” I tend to think of the below story:

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

[Joeboy]

In these situations where there is something good but people bleat on about “but this doesn’t benefit the poorest so it is bad” I tend to think of the below story:

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

[Joeboy]

I wasn’t given any money/ advice from my parents
So I’m making sure my kids get a good financial education to value things, and we have open honest discussions about
Money, savings, pensions, work ethics, hard work, the options a good education can give etc

Similar here, born into the Glasgow slums of Govan, left in the mk1 van of enormous power with £300 in my pocket and a promise of a job in the North. Lived in a caravan as I couldn't afford a flat and I just went for it! First Winter was mental.

Brought the kids up to respect money and it's potential power for good & bad.

[Krill]

Just spotted this, what's the odds!

The solution is not meant as a 1 stop shop but a single workable scenario from many. As to the renting market/ mortgage. The route when I was growing up was buy a cheap flat in a low end area and work like hell to add value to it and your career, sell up and move on. I'd expect that to still be a working solution? Working like hell to me is 60 to 100hr weeks every week. People might do more these days if it's even harder to grow a deposit? Thats what i did though and set myself the goal of slaughtering the mortgage.




"The scenario you've described has several prerequisites, but a better way to look at it is that the cost of energy (and investments in this area) are likely to have a pay back way beneath saving for a deposit."

Really? Likely or has?

The gulf of understanding between those two words can be vast.

Being generous, let's say 100W per for an 8 hour day. Let's round it up to 6kWh per week? That's more than a quid a week, maybe £1.50? 36wk payback at £1.50. Tell me again about likely... Good luck with building a deposit Krill. There's advice in what I've written here.

That's a right steal, that is. I'm not sure the figures are quite as good as you make out (800 watt hours is such as a 6.4kWp system makes on some bad days in winter) but Id agree that it's probably worth it for most people who can put the solar panel somewhere. It's not that great a play if there is no where to put the solar panel, but could be great if there is a wall to hang it on.

But there's only one of them. And if everyone starts pilfering the second hand market (and we all should!) the costs will increase, and it's a limited size market anyway. Which is the point I'm trying to make: general advice will have specific, potentially quite wide ranging, exceptions, even if it is generally sound.

To give the specific counter example I went from renting a flat to buying a house in 14 months and only 1 summer. I think the payback on that system, as an example would have been longer than the 14 months. But that's just a cost benefit analysis.

[Krill]

You don’t do anyone any favours by pretending that their circumstances are not of their own making.

Before I respond Stinsy, I want to confirm that last line is what you truly believe when you say "Anyone"?

You can take offence at anything anyone says if you try hard enough. Hopefully my point is clear: not everyone is dealt the same hand. It is up to you to play that hand the best you can. Many people who claim impoverishment are doing a terrible job of managing their situation and would be better to take more responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. As Joe says: understand the terrain and plan accordingly. Those who bleat on about “fair” or who make excuses are doomed. And you do no one any favours by making excuses for them.

It really irritates me when people write vacuous nonsense such as “net metering is unfair because the poor can’t afford solar panels”. And then they try to twist the conversation to the disabled, the unwell, or the genuinely destitute. Sure not everyone can afford a £15k solar and battery install but the can afford to do something, that’s the point.

I agree, more or less, with the sentiments of this post, for the majority of people. But I never said net metering was unfair. In fact we have a system with IOG and fixed export which is even more "unfair" than simple net metering. I simply pointed out that it's more complex than you and Joeboy are acknowledging, and you are trying to generalise behaviours of some to a greater grouping.

However, the majority =\= anyone, hence my question. If you think it is "Vacuous nonsense" to consider complexities in life and society, well...

[NoraBatty]

In these situations where there is something good but people bleat on about “but this doesn’t benefit the poorest so it is bad” I tend to think of the below story:

Except that isnt how people operate, and doesnt work in real life when you analyse the true figures. Those on the highest incomes pay less tax than those on the lowest incomes as they can afford to manipulate their earnings to significantly reduce tax, and in the vast majotiry of cases choose what tax they pay.
Its why the wealthy are cash poor whilst being the richest in society. Buy. Borrow. Die.
All income bands, up to about 350k a year, spend an average of 20 years of their life working to pay their total tax bill, despite the tax % differences.
Seems quite a fair way to divvy it up, until you look at those on incomes over 350k, which can extend to billions a year. For those between 350k and 3million its an average of 7.5 years to pay their lifes tax bill.

If you are wealthy enough to pay for things in shares, and you do not claim a wage, your tax bill is practically zero compared to normal tax payers and that period reduces even further.

In your analogy, the richest guy would take out a loan against his unrealised assets to get cash.
He would then pay for the beer and get the discount without actually spending a penny of his own money, or paying tax on it other than VAT, which likely he could claim back eith some clever accounting tricks.
The barkeeper however pays tax on the earnings and takes a reduction in income for giving the guy a discount.