In California, Small Clean-Energy Producers Get a Boost

nytimes.com:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed two bills into law on Sunday that may help the state meet its ambitious renewable energy goals and beef up its solar industry.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[iamnodem]

Calif. is the biggest laugh of the decade.

[Mildmannered]

What about geothermal?

[spikeykitten]

Good News For Small Clean Energy Producers In California

Bad news for all people that consume energy:

For One bill requires utilities to buy power from a larger pool of small solar generators for above-market prices.

In layman terms:

All of you will pay more for energy.
or
We are going to take your money and give it tot someone else.

Either way - that's what it says and will be.

[jsarets]

It takes money from consumers and gives it to producers. In what sense is that a bad thing?

Why shouldn't property owners be compensated for the excess energy they distribute to the grid? Why shouldn't renewable energy be worth more than non-renewable energy?

Capitalists should stop pretending that their policies help consumers when they actually help investors at the expense of producers.

Consumers need income, or else no price will be low enough. We need to be able to produce and be compensated for the value of our production.

Bad news for parasitic freeloaders.

[spikeykitten]

"It takes money from consumers and gives it to producers. In what sense is that a bad thing?"

1. It is not a bad thing if the price is the same for both products
2. It is not a bad thing if the prices are different and a consumer and the consumer has a choice in what they buy.
3. It is a bad thing if a consumer is forced to pay more for some item that he does not want.

"Why shouldn't property owners be compensated for the excess energy they distribute to the grid?"

1. They should at regular market rates.
2. My comments were on point one not two duh.
3. See answers to the next question.
4. Now the greenies are getting greedy

Why shouldn't renewable energy be worth more than non-renewable energy?

1. Why should it?
2. If it just is, sell it as such - i.e. do not make the purchase of such energy mandatory.

[joebaggadonuts]

This looks like a HUGE deal, and a HUGE step in the correct direction.

Why reported first by the NYT?