"Net Billing" in MA

[Stinsy]

I'm a newcomer here, so having more than a little trouble understanding the rules. WHAT is meant by "political"? By my understanding, arguing about the social justice of solar subsidies is political.

Which might be an opening to discuss to what extent environmental issues relate to social justice issues. For example, I would consider environmental justice issues to be social justice issues (not really environmental). The EARTH doesn't care if we humans are just or unjust with each other, only whether we are destroying the environment.

But by all means let's discuss the PURPOSE of the solar tax credit and (in this state) net billing. That was to increase the amount of solar electric generation overall. Could "bribe" the electric companies to do it, they'd want more. So bribe the "middle class" (our term) to pony up the money for the systems on their roofs. Not the RICH -- saving on their electric bill not enough incentive for them to have panels on the roof of their mansion. CAN'T give the incentive to the POOR because they don't have the resources to pay the up front costs.

The point I am trying to make is the purpose was environmental (reduce greenhouse gas). The purpose was not social justice. Discussion of things like that either don't belong in the forum OR the forum should have a separate place for "Ethics".

1) Everything is political. Issues involving the environment and energy policy, especially so. The line seems to be drawn on “party politics”. I’m not the policeman though.

2) There is a tendency from some quarters to shout down every initiative with “What about the poor?”. You’ve heard it in this thread. Net metering is a fantastic way to encourage people to put solar on their roofs. Particularly in colder places where most energy consumption is in winter and most solar generation is in summer. However just like any good idea or initiative it gets shouted down by people crowing “What about the poor who can’t afford to buy the panels” or “What about people who live in apartments” and “This only benefits the rich”. By the way “the rich” seems to include anyone with a job! In my opinion this nonsense should be squashed anywhere it rears its nasty head.

[Joeboy]

I'm a newcomer here, so having more than a little trouble understanding the rules. WHAT is meant by "political"? By my understanding, arguing about the social justice of solar subsidies is political.

Which might be an opening to discuss to what extent environmental issues relate to social justice issues. For example, I would consider environmental justice issues to be social justice issues (not really environmental). The EARTH doesn't care if we humans are just or unjust with each other, only whether we are destroying the environment.

But by all means let's discuss the PURPOSE of the solar tax credit and (in this state) net billing. That was to increase the amount of solar electric generation overall. Could "bribe" the electric companies to do it, they'd want more. So bribe the "middle class" (our term) to pony up the money for the systems on their roofs. Not the RICH -- saving on their electric bill not enough incentive for them to have panels on the roof of their mansion. CAN'T give the incentive to the POOR because they don't have the resources to pay the up front costs.

The point I am trying to make is the purpose was environmental (reduce greenhouse gas). The purpose was not social justice. Discussion of things like that either don't belong in the forum OR the forum should have a separate place for "Ethics".

Mike,
You could start a thread entitled solar ethics? That would be interesting? As to the definition of political/politics here, not exclusively but this will do for a start & finish.

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."

Debating forum members pov on social inequality and its impact is not political. It is or has been their reality. It may have been influenced by the politics of the era but those politics and the who & how of the moves made are not being discussed.

Don't look too much into this as I can't really be bothered even beginning to discuss politics beyond what I've already written. It exhausts me in ways I feel deep in the bone and don't enjoy (there are reasons for that but again this is not the place).

Discussions here can meander a fair distance from the original point. As they do amongst friends in the pub. Look at it that way and enjoy it for what it is but don't keep looking for where the boundaries are and definitions of. This place isn't for that. If that (pressing the boundaries) is something you need in your life i'm sure the complexity of the internet will supply it at another location. Until then of course, enjoy this place for what it is and is gently evolving into.

[John_S]

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 seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest with my post.

I unreservedly apologise for some bad choices of words, particularly rich and poor.

Most of us have chosen to invest in renewable energy because we care about the environment and the impact of changes in climate upon the world. Government incentives have helped us to make these decisions.

I joined the other place forum around 17 or 18 years ago, originally looking to install solar thermal on my roof as part of a loft conversion project. A builder who was not supportive and the example of St Barnabas installing solar panels caused me to look at installing PV, so in January 2010, before the FIT regime came into place. I was eligible for a Low Carbon Trust grant which I had to apply for at 0001 on 1 February 2010 in order to get accepted before the monthly allocation of money ran out. I was fortunate to also benefit from being eligible for FIT. I might have been gutted to have missed them by being an early adopter.

In retrospect I installed solar PV too soon and would have saved several thousand quid if I had done so two years two years later. But I did it for rational reasons with no regrets.

Nevertheless, I am not a supporter of net metering but totally get why those who have it feel entitled to keep it don't want to give it up.

[Moxi]

oh wow the greening of St Barnabas - now there's another memory from way back

I will have to make a pot of tea as I am coming over all nostalgic.

BTW cracking sunny day here after two days of gales and rain and not much insolation - made it through with the house batteries and the cheap rate period on both days with quite some to spare - gas central heating was on and the flow temperature was set at 40 degrees and it more or less managed to warm the house up to 19.5 degrees and keep the temperature there despite our very exposed position and the house being subjected to extra air change from the depression the gales caused at the door and stoves.

Moxi

[MikeNovack]

Mike,
You could start a thread entitled solar ethics? That would be interesting? As to the definition of political/politics here, not exclusively but this will do for a start & finish.

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."

Debating forum members pov on social inequality and its impact is not political. It is or has been their reality. It may have been influenced by the politics of the era but those politics and the who & how of the moves made are not being discussed.

Thank you. I would otherwise be assigning a MUCH broader definition for "political". That is partly because I am over here when until recently (the switch of the "Dixiecrats", rise of Trumpism, etc.) there was a wider range of politics WITHIN our major parties than between them. In other words, when I was Young, there would be Republicans far more liberal than the average Democrat and some Democrats far less liberal than the average Republican.

IF we were to add a forum section for Ethics (what that means in academic Philosophy) should/could all ecological issues. Separate ones for solar, biomass, hydro, etc. seems silly. Social justice issues crop up all over the place. Especially because ONE such issue is whether those with some justifiable social issue might be unwilling to help with any environmental issue unless their social issue is addressed << so irrelevant what sort of environmental issue >> THIS currently is playing an active role in the "politics" of organizations.

[Joeboy]

oh wow the greening of St Barnabas - now there's another memory from way back

I will have to make a pot of tea as I am coming over all nostalgic.

BTW cracking sunny day here after two days of gales and rain and not much insolation - made it through with the house batteries and the cheap rate period on both days with quite some to spare - gas central heating was on and the flow temperature was set at 40 degrees and it more or less managed to warm the house up to 19.5 degrees and keep the temperature there despite our very exposed position and the house being subjected to extra air change from the depression the gales caused at the door and stoves.

Moxi

23rd Feb is the first day I've felt the cornucopia of power this year. It's been scratching about before today Got up to about 5kW incoming at one point. Been exporting all day and just turned export off to see how fast the stack refills. Hello Spring . Welcome back!

[Joeboy]

Mike,
You could start a thread entitled solar ethics? That would be interesting? As to the definition of political/politics here, not exclusively but this will do for a start & finish.

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."

Debating forum members pov on social inequality and its impact is not political. It is or has been their reality. It may have been influenced by the politics of the era but those politics and the who & how of the moves made are not being discussed.

Thank you. I would otherwise be assigning a MUCH broader definition for "political". That is partly because I am over here when until recently (the switch of the "Dixiecrats", rise of Trumpism, etc.) there was a wider range of politics WITHIN our major parties than between them. In other words, when I was Young, there would be Republicans far more liberal than the average Democrat and some Democrats far less liberal than the average Republican.

IF we were to add a forum section for Ethics (what that means in academic Philosophy) should/could all ecological issues. Separate ones for solar, biomass, hydro, etc. seems silly. Social justice issues crop up all over the place. Especially because ONE such issue is whether those with some justifiable social issue might be unwilling to help with any environmental issue unless their social issue is addressed << so irrelevant what sort of environmental issue >> THIS currently is playing an active role in the "politics" of organizations.

I'm not going to do that. I was being polite. I'm bored already by this. You mentioned Donald, Republicans, Democrats as i expected when i simply asked for no politics.

That's strike one for you pal. Two more and you're gone. Probably best that you just fast forward to getting yourself ejected and save us all the time? I dont think you're going to be able to help yourself.

Your style is not unknown to me and I've got no time for it.

I've been clear on this.

If enough members ask for an ethics section I'm sure it will happen. PM me if it's something you want folks?

[MikeNovack]

That's strike one for you pal. Two more and you're gone. Probably best that you just fast forward to getting yourself ejected and save us all the time? I dont think you're going to be able to help yourself.

Your style is not unknown to me and I've got no time for it.
I've been clear on this.

I believe you will find you are mistaken. I will gladly accept the "strike one" even though I thought I was explaining why NOT associating/limiting the term "politics" to political parties. Expect no further mention of politicians, political parties, etc. from me. Expect me only to be mentioning "politics" in its broader sense of "social negotiations" between humans and groups of humans.

[Joeboy]

Don't mention politics at all, this is not a negotiation. I'm indifferent to what you'll accept. It's not going well is it?

Maybe sit at the back and "haud yer weesht" for a bit.. That's well done though, Fri-Monday. Good effort, I think the record was 8hrs and gone.

Buddha says it well. Take the hint, wind your neck in.


Maybe ponder what caused this reaction when other GLF'ers had a beautiful glide path?