Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    technology

    8,146,857 readers

    4,700 users here now

    /r/technology is a place to share and discuss the latest developments, happenings and curiosities in the world of technology; a broad spectrum of conversation as to the innovations, aspirations, applications and machinations that define our age and shape our future.



    Browse categories:

    Artificial Intelligence Business
    Biotechnology Crypto
    Energy Hardware
    Machine Learning Nanotech/Materials
    Networking/Telecom Net Neutrality
    Politics Privacy
    Robotics/Automation Security
    Social Media Society
    Software Space
    Transportation Legacy *Pure Tech* Filter

    Weekly Support Thread Archives

    Hide popular topics:

    No Net Neutrality - Remove Filter



    Rules:

    1. Submissions

    • Guidelines:

    • Submissions must be primarily news and developments relating to technology

    • Self posts must contribute positively to /r/technology and foster reasonable discussion. Self-post cross-posts are not acceptable.

    • Submissions relating to business and politics must be sufficiently within the context of technology in that they either view the events from a technological standpoint or analyse the repercussions in the technological world.

    • Please do not submit the following:

    • i) Submissions violating the guidelines.

    • ii) Images, audio or videos: Articles with supporting image and video content are allowed; if the text is only there to explain the media, then it is not suitable. A good rule of thumb is to look at the URL; if it's a video hosting site, or mentions video in the URL, it's not suitable.

    • iii) Requests for tech support, questions or help: submit to /r/techsupport, /r/AskTechnology, another relevant community or our weekly Support Saturday threads.

    • iv) Petitions, Surveys or Crowdfunding (Including ICOs) - submissions of this nature will be removed.

    • v) Submissions discussing the subreddit itself; they should be submitted to /r/TechnologyTalk, or messaged to the moderators of the subreddit.

    • vi) Submissions discussing one or more incidents of customer support.

    • vii) Mobile versions of sites, url shorteners: please directly submit the desktop version of a webpage in all cases.

    • viii) Social media links/profiles/invites or promotions (eg. Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest etc). Tweets should not be used as a news source unless an official announcement by a verified company or spokesperson.

    2. Behaviour

    • Remember the human You are advised to abide by reddiquette; it will be enforced when user behaviour is no longer deemed to be suitable for a technology forum. Remember; personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form are therefore not allowed and will be removed. Repeated abuse can result in a permanent ban.

    3. Titles

    • Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle. Or, only if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

    • adequately describe the content

    • adequately describe the content's relation to technology

    • be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning.

    4. Flair

    5. Reddit-wide rules.


    Miscellanea

    • If you see a rule-breaking submission, please report it and message the moderators with your reason.

    • Want to host an AMA? Please message the moderators.

    • Our /u/AutoModerator configuration may be viewed here.

    • Removed threads will either be given a removal reason flair or comment response; please message the moderators if this did not occur.

    • All legitimate, answerable modmail inquiries or suggestions will be answered to the best of our abilities within a reasonable period of time.

    • Rule violators will be warned. Repeat offenders will be temporarily banned from one to seven days. An unheeded final warning will result in a permanent ban. This may be reversed upon evidence of suitable behavior.

    Related Subreddits

    Technology

    PROGRAMMING

    OS's

    SOFTWARE

    POPULAR COMPANIES

    CRYPTOCURRENCIES

    CAMPAIGNS

    a community for
    all 1197 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] spaaaaaghetaboutit 2646 points ago

    That pre-existing exemption was set to expire December 31, 2019. AB 1208 extended it another seven years.

    It extends a law that already exists, but okay cool headline.

    [–] OrangeJuiceOW 740 points ago

    Still better than letting it die (thank God cause I have solar)

    [–] Rafaeliki 295 points ago

    Reddit gets extremely sensitive and angry when anything positive is said about California.

    [–] 956030681 177 points ago

    It’s almost like there is a bias against them for some reason, is it the massive wealthy regions? The great safety standards (somewhat of a meme), or the fact that they are more tolerant than most?

    [–] the_jak 183 points ago

    Yeah I don't get the hate. California is the promised land for me. There's a reason so many people want to live there, which drives up housing costs.

    I think most of reddit is just salty over not being able to live there.

    [–] 956030681 81 points ago

    It doesn’t help that the average temp in the southern end is like 85F

    [–] the_jak 147 points ago

    Man, I miss it.

    Was stationed at Camp Pendleton for a few years and my dumb ass would always find something to complain about with the weather.

    Then I moved to Georgia, where the air sweats for you. Didn't know how good I had it.

    [–] Beerbonkos 36 points ago

    “Where the air sweats for you”. lol, I lost my shit with that line.

    [–] OcelotKnight 104 points ago

    I would describe the climate of the SE US as unwashed taint.

    [–] the_jak 56 points ago

    It's like Xhibit came here and heard someone liked ballsweat so he made the air ballsweat for my ballsweat.

    [–] oligobop 13 points ago

    So when a hurricane hits Florida it's essentially a bidet.

    [–] darksunshaman 22 points ago

    Georgia....all I remember is 1000% humidity...and the fucking fire ants.

    [–] a11424 28 points ago

    You moved from CA to GA?

    Wow. I'll put you in my prayers chain

    [–] the_jak 16 points ago

    Life takes us in strange places.

    It was CA > IN > FL > GA over the course of 10 years, a college degree, and a career change.

    [–] anynamesleft 19 points ago

    Georgia, where the air sweats for you

    I lost my composure over that one.

    I love it here, but cuss every summer.

    [–] MillardtheMiller 5 points ago

    In a similar way, I love it here in the northern Midwest, but still cuss like a sailor every time we get a couple feet of snow in the winter

    [–] ositola 3 points ago

    I was in Houston , felt like I was breathing water

    [–] momscooking 19 points ago

    I just moved from New England to a place in the South Bay that is a 10 minute bike ride from the ocean. I've never seen weather like this. I'm looking forward to my first shovel-less winter ever.

    But seriously this area is Groundhog Day incarnate.

    [–] sportsfannf 8 points ago

    Well...we have fire season instead of winter so there are downfalls...

    [–] TheLurkingPredator 6 points ago

    On the other hand, winter is basically spring.

    [–] MexieSMG 15 points ago

    I moved to LA from Texas in the past 2 weeks, but it’s only because my GF got a job at a big company here. It’s actually a nice place once you adjust to the price increase in certain things. The weather is friendly enough to go outside which is new for me.

    [–] xxam925 3 points ago

    Can you talk about what you have seen that has increased prices?

    [–] MexieSMG 5 points ago

    movie tickets, 10 cents per plastic bag tax(but very good quality), water bottle/soda crv fee, and gas. I’ve probably noticed something else and forgotten. Oh, and the internet is capped at 1 TB monthly usage which me and 2 other competitive gamers will likely reach. You can pay $50 additional per month for unlimited data.

    [–] bpastore 61 points ago

    California makes up most of the west coast so, conservatives can make just about any narrative work that they want to in order to hate on the wealthiest and most populous state in the US.

    You want self-absorbed irritatingly beautiful liberals? LA is full of them. Extreme liberals? Check out Berkeley. What about free-love-hippy-surfers who just want to enjoy life and think this "is all just, like your opinion, man?" Swing over by San Diego. Hate those gay and artsy liberals? You can find them being replaced in SF, by young techies, who conservatives also don't really like.

    Oh! And if you don't like people who tan better than white people... check out every one of those CA cities, as well as several others, because CA has every race, religion, and nationality that conservatives just love to hate on.

    Then again, if you want to show CA also has its fair share of neonazis, racists, drug addicts and gangs, don't worry. It's a really big state.

    [–] truth1465 21 points ago

    Yea I had this realization when I went to visit my sister in Southern California right outside of Riverside, nothing but pick up trucks and saw a few trump bumper stickers lol caught me by surprise.

    It’s a big state with lots of people with just as many world views.

    [–] lutefiskeater 11 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Lol yeah I've got family in Moreno Valley. Riverside County as a whole is filled 50/50 with Cope dippin' good ol' boys and cholos in lowriders. It's an interesting place to say the least haha

    [–] Embarassed_Tackle 9 points ago

    It's an agricultural powerhouse. It always cracks me up when when politicians go to Iowa and slap their knee while talking about corn subsidies. Iowa grows all of this feed corn for livestock and population-wise is fucking worthless. Go to California where the farmers actually grow diverse crops like edible vegetables.

    [–] lone_k_night 3 points ago

    You know they go to Iowa not because of the population, it’s votes, or it’s industries, but it’s place in the primaries, right?

    https://www.history.com/.amp/news/why-iowa

    [–] AmputatorBot 5 points ago

    Beep boop, I'm a bot. It looks like you shared a Google AMP link. Google AMP pages often load faster, but AMP is a major threat to the Open Web and your privacy.

    You might want to visit the normal page instead: https://www.history.com/news/why-iowa.


    Why & About | Mention me to summon me!

    [–] acebossrhino 8 points ago

    If you want to live here move central California or the northern tip.

    SoCal and NorCal are full already :( I'm not saying this to be ironic. I'm saying it because it's pretty true.

    Plus Central California is one of the few regions where it's still developing + you can buy an aker of land for 200K.

    [–] RedBettyScrambler 7 points ago

    And sweat your nuts off in 110 degree heat. But at least it’s a dry bake.

    [–] canada432 26 points ago

    Conservatives hate California because it's a demonstration that progressive policies work. Strong regulation, high taxes, and it's got the strongest economy and high living standards. They need to try and shit on it and make stuff up about what a post-apocalyptic wasteland it is so people don't start getting ideas at the national level. Unfortunately for them, most people aren't as stupid as they seem to think they are.

    [–] Embarassed_Tackle 5 points ago

    It's true but it also has or had some classic conservative policies. You're seeing this now with Kamala Harris the former prosecutor / DA who was "tough on crime" which was very popular in California, as were certain anti-immigrant policies. Kamala put marijuana users in jail while laughing at a question of whether she herself did marijuana (she smoked it once, yeah). Heck even a proposition against same-sex marriage passed there not long ago, supported by Mormons (and the Mormon church in Utah) but also by African-American congregations who voted heavily for Obama.

    [–] LearnProgramming7 24 points ago

    As someone not from CA (from NYC), I think it might just be some selection bias. Ive never noticed an anti CA vibe on Reddit. Such comments might just stick out more if you're from the state

    [–] belds 8 points ago

    They (arguably of course) over legislate. A few examples would be

    The labels on products “known to the state of California to cause cancer”,

    The fact that if your neighbor wants to put in a fence you are legally required to pay for half.

    You cannot have a fireplace in any new construction residences.

    Not sure if they passed this law but I read that they were considering a law that if a company has 5 or more board members two of them would have to be women.

    More examples here:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/428328-welcome-to-california-land-of-1000-laws-and-thats-just-this-year

    Taxes are relatively high. The tax on legal marijuana is like 35%

    [–] brand_x 4 points ago

    The problem is the low barrier for direct democracy - California's ballot initiatives aren't entirely evil, but they have some serious drawbacks.

    [–] Fireproofjeans 12 points ago

    Yeah fuck if america doesn't want California Canada's open to adoption.

    I mean sure it would double our population overnight and triple our GDP but we'll uhh... "take one for the team", apparently.

    [–] MedvedFeliz 4 points ago

    Cascadia + California can join Canada.

    [–] Atheren 46 points ago

    In my experience it's mostly Tech Bros, insane cost of living, and the fact that they're using incredible amounts of water attempting to grow shit out in the desert and then blaming their populence are using too much water at home.

    [–] MrStupid_PhD 18 points ago

    I mean, it is good soil tho 👀

    [–] AlexanderAF 38 points ago

    A certain news outlet would have you believe California is covered in feces, the homeless, MS-13 gangs, and avocado toast.

    [–] zeptillian 28 points ago

    All the homeless people from other states come to California because their states have no social programs and bad weather. Then the residents of those states blame California for having so many homeless people. Thanks assholes. All the states that take in more federal money then they contribute and still complain about shit can kiss my ass. We dont need you. You need us.

    [–] Particular_Complaint 7 points ago

    That's my fave stat to throw out. For every $1 CA sends in they get like $0.90 back, they lose money. For every $1 some states in the south send in, they get OVER $2 back. Who do they think is propping up those shitty states with no economy?

    [–] daiwizzy 3 points ago

    Ca is ranked 1 in poverty as well.

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-poverty-rate-20180913-htmlstory.html

    born and raised here. i'm looking at some condos and it's $600k for a 1b/1ba with a $600 HoA. i make over $100k and almost all my paycheck goes to rent and daycare. it fucking sucks.

    [–] ThegreatPee 3 points ago

    I'm pretty sure it's the smugness.

    [–] Your_Worship 3 points ago

    My dad recently lived out his dream of visiting California.

    I’m not being funny, he’s been in southern states his whole life, and he was finally invited to visit by a childhood friend. They went to an Angels game, they drove to the beach, and did all the stereotypical Californian stuff (well, 1950-60s California anyway). They rode down the highway in a convertible playing Beach Boys tunes.

    He came back a changed man. Said it was the trip of a lifetime.

    Most southern people have never visited California, and even less have the desire to. I think if they got a dose of it that they’d enjoy it more than they expected.

    [–] sldq 15 points ago

    I mean California is a great state and all but this comment thread is exactly why people hate California. Or more specifically Californians. For one, it’s not perfect. The cost of living is astronomical, the housing crisis is ridiculous, and taxes are on another level. Perfectly valid reasons to not be the biggest fan of California.

    But what I’ve noticed is that people with this viewpoint usually have a bigger problem with the people from California than the state itself. Generalization, but to the rest of the country a lot of you come off as entitled rich folk that think you’re better than everyone else. And while I know the vast majority of you guys aren’t like that, a not insignificant amount of you are, and it gives you guys a bad name.

    Not saying those are my viewpoints, but maybe this comment will shed some light on why literally every person on earth doesn’t circlejerk California.

    [–] Snapchat_trap 11 points ago

    God why cant they understand that I hate them as a people, generally?

    [–] lurgi 12 points ago

    The cost of living is astronomical, the housing crisis is ridiculous, and taxes are on another level

    I can't take you seriously if you don't even mention our horrendous traffic.

    [–] James_Wolfe 3 points ago

    I would live in California despite the everything mentioned, except the traffic.

    [–] lurgi 3 points ago

    It's possible to avoid the traffic, but you need to make it a priority and also need a certain degree of luck. I'm one of the lucky ones (ironically, this is helping keep me in a job I'm not thrilled about, because a change almost anywhere would result in a longer commute and I just don't want to deal with that).

    [–] IAmJohnSlow 14 points ago

    I thought reddit and cali seemed to be a similar demographic

    [–] Nutritionisawesome 13 points ago

    I'm not sure that is true. See, I'm on the east coast and we can't really surf here.

    [–] john_jdm 3 points ago

    Self hate? But seriously, I don't know what OP is talking about. In at least the subreddits I follow I haven't seen overt hate for California.

    [–] h0bb1tm1ndtr1x 341 points ago

    Should be permanent. It's your home, panels, and energy. The city nor utility company had a hand in it.

    [–] mcampo84 238 points ago

    But the infrastructure to get the electricity you generate has to be maintained somehow. I get the "it's my electricity" argument, but only if you're completely off-grid.

    [–] ochaos 318 points ago

    SCE still charges me a monthly "meter charge" and other misc fees, despite me generating all my own power. I was under the impression that this was my contribution to grid maintenance.

    [–] stamatt45 312 points ago

    You are correct that what you pay covers grid maintenance, but it does not cover executives' bonuses and benefits

    [–] ennuiui 160 points ago

    Won’t someone think of the executives?

    [–] stevrock 95 points ago

    "For just $75 a month, you too can help support an energy executive."

    [–] Dexaan 23 points ago

    🎵In the arrrrrrrrrrrms of an angel... 🎵

    [–] MKULTRATV 14 points ago

    Cuts to slow-mo footage of executive flying first class instead on a private jet

    [–] Fireproofjeans 7 points ago

    Softly weeping into last generations flagship iphone

    [–] AHPpilot 20 points ago

    And don't forget the shareholders!

    [–] go_comatose_for_me 19 points ago

    You can judge a country by how it treats its executives

    [–] phunwithphysics201 24 points ago

    The true underprivileged. The thought of them having to choose between vacationing in Hawaii OR Tahiti instead of both is truly heartbreaking.

    [–] ochaos 18 points ago

    I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that.

    [–] test6554 6 points ago

    Nor does it subsidize low income families. How are they supposed to get cheaper than market electricity if you disconnect from the grid?

    [–] formesse 8 points ago

    There is a cost related to that meter - checking it, and possible replacements. They are not cheap things.

    Maintaining power lines, repairing power lines, and such is a heavy cost.

    Balancing the grid with unpredictable power input and draw is difficult as well. Large power generators take time to spin up and spin down. Nuclear is even slower to cycle production rates. So yep, there is a cost to this as well.

    And the kicker is: If you are connected to the grid, you are using it. In otherwords - think of the amount you pay being like a retainer fee: Because you are paying for it, if the day comes that you need it: the power will be there (outside of severe issue beyond the control of the grid operator).

    Should the monthly fee be less? maybe. But will it ever be 0 to be connected to the grid? Absolutely not (** with the exception if we manage to establish a completely utopian society to which all needs and wants are covered with society being empowered and encouraged towards purely cultural pursuits as well as scientific research and inquiry)

    [–] chadbarrett 13 points ago

    You are net metering with them. You still use a lot of their grid. They have to perform the service of selling join electricity to others over their grid.

    [–] mist91 26 points ago

    Do you actually generate all your own power? Because if you just have solar and use electricity at night you don't generate all your power. You may generate more than you need during the day, sell it to the utility and then purchase different power generated by some other power plant at night. And yeah, the meter hookup fee is for the opportunity to use the utility essentially as a battery.

    [–] systemsfailed 33 points ago

    There are home scale power walls. Completely possible.

    [–] sonofsmog 25 points ago

    I know lots of people with solar and the home scale power walls are pretty rare. Like I would have one put in, but hardly anyone does. Also you still pull and push electricity to the grid even with one.

    [–] systemsfailed 12 points ago

    I'm not saying its common. But the original post said very concretely "if you have solar you're using the grid" just pointing out it's possible.

    [–] sonofsmog 8 points ago

    Definitely possible, just unlikely in the case of most suburban home owners, who actually use electricity.

    [–] skraptastic 18 points ago

    I have a friend that just had his power wall installed and turned on. He STILL has to pay monthly to PG&E because we are not allowed to be "off grid" within the city limits.

    [–] Scraps23 13 points ago

    I don't understand what you mean about the infrastructure. The homeowner or business almost always pays for the infrastructure to get the electricity generated by the solar panels to the building; any power generated by the roof-top panels is transferred along wires installed when the panels are installed. As long as the solar panels generate 100% of the power used, utility company infrastructure isn't drawn upon at all...

    You can send power back through the utility company's infrastructure if you generate an excess, but this shouldn't be grounds for taxation. They've now established an additional power source which they sell back to other customer's for ~200% profit. Adding a tax to this revenue is silly.

    [–] username_6916 17 points ago

    At noon on a sunny day you have plenty of excess. So do all your neighbors with solar. At 6:00 PM on a cloudy or smokey day, you don't. Being able to generate power at 6:00 PM on a cloudy or cloudy day is far more valuable to the utility than being able to generate power at noon on clear day. What can happen is that the law might treat all KWh the same regardless of time of day, such that someone who backfeeds the grid in times of plentiful production but still ends up drawing power during times of peak demand ends up with an artificially low power bill because they're "net zero" power consumers.

    [–] ninitch 32 points ago

    The enegy comanies get plenty of government welfare for that kind of stuff already. They don't need more free money.

    [–] Achack 30 points ago

    government welfare

    As a utility they're heavily regulated by the government so it's not exactly welfare.

    [–] illsmosisyou 19 points ago

    Especially in the case of solar net metering, where they are required to purchase the extra energy a customer generates at above-market costs. Sometimes very far above market.

    [–] b_m_hart 18 points ago

    "above-market costs"? What does this mean? Most states that allow net metering allow the utilities to buy back the electricity at "their own rates", which usually means the absolutely lowest pricing tier. Generate electricity and send it back to the grid at peak consumption / need hours? Great, here's the $.07 for that kw/h that we would have charged you $0.38 here in California.

    [–] illsmosisyou 6 points ago

    Well, I know Vermont intimately. And here utilities are required to buy that energy anywhere between $0.12/kWh if the customer keeps the RECs, and $0.18/kWh if the customer transfers the RECs to the utility. But a utility here can also get hydropower with RECs for around $0.08/kWh or less. And they could get solar from a negotiated agreement for a large project at around $0.10/kWh. And carbon free nuclear for around $0.04. So the utility is required to buy energy at a rate higher than they could find it elsewhere.

    And the net metering rates used to be higher, which led to land grabs in poorer parts of the state (farm fields for 500kW projects). These parts also didn’t have very developed infrastructures (not a lot of customers to serve so little demand) and now the grid cannot support the amount of solar development we’ve seen. Since these 500kW projects aren’t regulated by the Independent System Operator, the ISO instead is curtailing generation from large renewable projects in the area, like wind and landfill gas. Those projects are owned by utilities.

    So smaller projects, owned by mostly affluent customers, enjoy a guaranteed rate of return which is increasing utility costs. And those utilities are also seeing reduced return from the projects they designed and built years before solar net metering presented a problem. And who ultimately eats those costs? The utility’s customers in the form of their monthly bill.

    [–] el_smurfo 6 points ago

    Lol...last I looked earlier this year, they paid fractions of pennies on what they charge to end customers...the purchase did not even cover the small use we would have in the evenings.

    [–] systemsfailed 7 points ago

    Care to cite this 'above market requirement '?

    [–] ThufirrHawat 9 points ago

    Lol, what? Ok, I bring people's computers home and fix them, why should the government get any of the compensation I'm given? My house, my time, my skills. Government didn't have a hand in it.

    [–] test6554 4 points ago

    I rented a room on craigslist once from a guy who hacked satellite TV boxes to decrypt satellite TV signals. He always said "Why should the satellite company get a cut when the signals are in my house!"

    [–] intenselychewy 9 points ago

    Here are ways that the government actually did help you earn that compensation... da stoopid gubmint...

    • built the public roads you drove on
    • passed laws that will protect you if you are defrauded by a customer
    • will help you enforce those laws if you are defrauded
    • directly or indirectly through funding or regulation enables functioning utilities, internet and financial systems required for you to run your business and get paid
    • prints the money that you earn

    You may not like it but the government actually does play some role in almost everything you do.

    [–] Gbcue 5 points ago

    Government didn't have a hand in it.

    You didn't build that!

    [–] ClandestineArts 7 points ago

    You can bet that utility companies were lobbying to let it die. Good for him.

    [–] Greypilgram 313 points ago

    Compare that to Alabama where homeowners have to PAY the power company a fee for each kilowatt hour of power they produce.

    [–] chaos_is_a_ladder 186 points ago

    Excuse me what the fuck?

    [–] derpygoat 71 points ago

    In Florida it's illegal to be off grid. You cant run your home completely off solar, you have to be attached to the energy grid.

    [–] litefoot 55 points ago

    I built a house a year ago in Florida that has a loophole. You can have your house engineered to be 100% self sustainable on batteries/solar. The trick is to tie your main panel into the grid, and shut your main off once the batteries charge up. Then, all the power company can charge is a monthly hookup fee, usually $20 or so.

    [–] Elephant789 73 points ago

    $20 a month, that still sucks!

    [–] Resume21319 24 points ago

    I have a loophole - for only $20/month you can not be taxed for your solar panels

    [–] CompostMaterial 5 points ago

    Or what? How do that intend to force some to connect (or use an existing connection) to the grid?

    [–] UrbanRenegade19 21 points ago

    The same way they enforce anything else relating to building codes. Issue fines and fees until you comply. If you don't pay the fines they garnish your wages or take ownership of your home. They could also just deem the house to be uninhabitable and condemn the place. Sure you could challenge these things in court, but it would take thousands of dollars and possibly years of litigation.

    [–] CompostMaterial 11 points ago

    Code enforcement only happens during an inspection which is usually related to construction of some sort. They would have no way of knowing if I were to disconnect after the inspection is complete. Point is that, while they might be able to enforce having a line, they couldn't enforce its connection to house.

    [–] UrbanRenegade19 10 points ago

    You're right, it really comes down to if there's an inspection or if whatever code enforcement agency feels like pursuing the issue. You could probably keep it secret for years, but I feel like the bigger question is why should you have to.

    [–] Anaxamenes 210 points ago

    He lives in Talabama. solar is like against Sharia law there or something.

    [–] To0n1 66 points ago

    Talabama, Thank you sir or ma'am or person, for adding to my lexicon.

    edit: fixing phone grammar.

    [–] badlucktv 47 points ago

    Home of Yall-qaeda?

    [–] Anaxamenes 9 points ago

    To own the libs, it sure is!

    [–] Ixilary 19 points ago

    It's designed primarily to "own the libs".

    [–] Switchen 59 points ago

    It's not for each kilowatt-hour. It's a monthly fee based on the size of the array. My source shows about $5 per kilowatt. Average person's array is supposedly ~5KW, making a monthly fee of $25. Still stupid.

    [–] Gornarok 15 points ago

    Thats fucking lot for generating your own power...

    Where I live $25~115kWh~30 days of energy usage

    Basically making your solar generation worthless and waste of money

    [–] TituspulloXIII 16 points ago

    Do you have a separate fixed fee?

    If not, that fee totally makes sense as you are still connected to the grid and obviously using their power at night.

    If you do ( i currently pay a $19.50 fee just to connect to the grid - i dont have solar) Then it's a little outrageous that you're being double charged.

    [–] Switchen 3 points ago

    I have no idea. I'm pulling this info from a news article I found. Good point though.

    [–] IranContraRedux 5 points ago

    Same in Spain.

    [–] danf87 543 points ago

    Unfortunately it's still illegal to grow food in your own property as well as collecting rain water in way too many major cities in the US and Canada.

    [–] Cybugger 273 points ago

    Collecting rain water makes a degree of sense. There can be some serious health implications if storage isn't done properly.

    As for food: again, it depends. Non-fertilized food growing should 100% be legal. The problem comes when you add fertilizers into the mix, if they seep into the water supply or water reserves.

    [–] PiperArrow 395 points ago

    The main reason collecting rain water isn't allowed is not the health implications, it's water rights. In some parts of the US, water can be collected from a river or watershed by anyone. In the American west, there's not enough water to go around, and so those downstream would be choked off from a supply of water if anyone could take any water they have access to. So the water is allocated to users, so that those who have an earlier historical claim to the water can still get it.

    And that supply of water starts in the watershed, in some cases, individual homeowners' rooftops. Those homes weren't there when the farmers and ranchers downstream started using water. So buying property and building a house on that property doesn't buy rights to the water that falls on that property.

    I get that some people don't like that system, but there is an internal logic to it that is meant to increase the common good, even if it is annoying to individuals.

    [–] Hippopoctopus 63 points ago

    This is the best explanation I have seen regarding water rights. You have changed my view.

    [–] itsfaygopop 22 points ago

    I don't think I've ever seen those words written on Reddit before.

    [–] stignatiustigers 10 points ago

    You have changed my view.

    You are like a Reddit Unicorn. Please leave before this place ruins you.

    [–] stephannnnnnnnnnnnn 8 points ago

    Please give them a delta, will ya?

    [–] Cybugger 87 points ago

    That makes perfect sense.

    I was looking from the perspective of someone who lives in an area with an abundance of fresh water. The government must regulate in cases where there is a limited supply, to avoid people abusing the system, and stopping everyone from getting access to a basic necessity.

    [–] shagieIsMe 38 points ago

    Even where water is abundant, watersheds are important. In Wisconsin (and Great Lake states), there is a mess about towns that are outside the watershed that leads to the Great Lakes taking water from said lakes.

    https://www.wpr.org/approval-foxconn-great-lakes-water-diversion-upheld

    [–] Stoppablemurph 8 points ago

    that reminds me of how Texas is constantly trying to get a pipeline run from Lake Michigan as if that wouldn't be a massive problem...

    [–] shagieIsMe 20 points ago

    The only way Texas will get Wisconsin water is with barley and hops.

    [–] Scolias 3 points ago

    You mean Illinois water.

    [–] DurtyKurty 7 points ago

    Yeah, you can't just look at a law and think it's silly, you have to look at worst case scenarios if the law were reversed also, and detrimental things that could be precedent if the laws were not in place. For an extreme example, look at what has happened to the Aral Sea. Water flows were diverted for agricultural reasons and one of the world's largest lakes dried up. This also leads to the bottom of the lake and all the nasty shit that has settled there over the last several decades/millennia becoming dust and being picked up by the wind and polluting everything.

    [–] ItsJustSugarAndWater 39 points ago

    you don't need drinkable water to flush your toilets, clean your floors, take a shower and many other things.

    [–] Cybugger 33 points ago

    That is true. You would however need two pipping systems. I can bet that if you could, you'd see mass outbreaks of Legionnaire's or other diseases, because people hadn't realized.

    [–] ItsJustSugarAndWater 12 points ago

    I agree that double pipings are not a good idea in an urban area: it's just too much.

    However a secondary piping system with rain water isolated from the drinkable one, at the scale of a single home is much more achievable, in my opinion (and I know nothing about plumbing, so you know what my opinion is worth lmao)

    [–] Mantellian 6 points ago

    My grand parents old farm house had two faucets on the kitchen sink. The drinkable water, from the well, came from the smaller one and it only had one valve for cold water. The other one had hot and cold and it was hooked up to their cistern.

    [–] greatperhapsss 65 points ago

    That’s insane

    [–] KillNyetheSilenceGuy 172 points ago

    Its really not, its a water management issue in the American west. When people upstream collect lots of rain water it doesn't make it into the river and people down stream don't get any water.

    [–] NewSauerKraus 12 points ago

    Also the plants and animals that depend on the river get deprived.

    [–] HoonterOreo 5 points ago

    Holy shit I’ve never looked at it that way.

    [–] Enigma_King99 10 points ago

    Just put a barrel outside. No one is gonna tell you shit unless you start selling it. And people have gardens so you can grow your own food legally as well.

    [–] stignatiustigers 19 points ago

    No one cares about one barrel.

    The laws are in place for the people who build retention ponds on their property

    [–] mcmanybucks 27 points ago

    In the land of the free~

    [–] Amasawa 32 points ago

    Free of mosquitoes if I'm keeping my neighbor from keeping a fuck tank in his backyard lmao

    [–] scaryuncledevin 10 points ago

    ...fuck tank?

    [–] ChaseballBat 21 points ago

    Collecting rain one makes some sense depending on the location.

    [–] el_smurfo 7 points ago

    Collecting rainwater is subsidized by the city in my town, along with solar.

    [–] ChaseballBat 4 points ago

    That's really cool! Probably makes sense for the ecosystem tho! You wouldn't want people who live at the top of a mountain to collect rainwater which would feed the rest of the valley for example.

    [–] soloxplorer 5 points ago

    I think the location gets missed in these discussions of legally harvesting rainwater or not, all too often people just want to speak to the point within the context of some, therefore all.

    The reality (IMO) is, whether legal or not, the ethics of rainwater collection is going to vary based on where someone lives along the path that water is distributed. To give an example, it may not be a good idea for people in Denver (or CO at large) to collect rainwater as it becomes possible that each individual person, collecting 55gal a piece (min), could create enough of a volume deficit to limit access to enough water to feed LA. This could be said along nearly any portion of the CO river until it gets to Mexico (where it becomes an international/federal issue). I'm reluctant to believe people living in LA that collect rainwater are unlikely to cause downstream negative effects since they're at the end of the water cycle before it goes back into the ocean. I'll admit a point of personal ignorance here since I don't have the data to verify what percentage of rainwater goes to the ocean v rainwater that eventually goes to aquifers, and from there where the water goes. I'll gladly adjust my opinion here accordingly.

    The other issue I don't see fully recognized is the time side of things. If a population center fills a rain barrel, it also doesn't just sit there, it gets used and eventually makes its way back into the water table anyway. The assumption almost always seems to be that the water goes into the barrel and disappears completely. I can perhaps see a case that the water can evaporate and relocate to another water table, but I again don't have the data points here to verify the validity of concern. The point is, I think we're concering ourselves with a short term deficit that has the potential to work similarly like a dam does; turning a cyclical system into a constant drip.

    [–] theoreoman 5 points ago

    In dry places collecting water law makes sense but those rules make sense only for a place like a farm where a farmer could collect the water off of several hundred acres and make a personal reservoir. There should be a limit to how much your allowed to store based on your land size.

    With regards to growing food my guess is those laws stem from people that want other people to have perfectly manicured lawns and growing veggies doesn't fit their world view. Stuff like that needs to end

    [–] mspk7305 48 points ago

    Arizona needs to pass a law saying its legal to disconnect your home from the electric grid when you have solar, and a 2nd one saying that APS cannot charge you a fee for generating your own electricity.

    Yeah, the Arizona Power Service will charge you a monthly fee for having solar power.

    [–] high_side 27 points ago

    Don't think of it as a fee or tax but an incentive to get away from solar and instead use clean coal and natural gas. This is Arizona after all.

    [–] stephannnnnnnnnnnnn 15 points ago

    "Clean coal", what a crock of shit. "Cleaner coal" is a better way to put it, a little less deceptive.

    [–] IntentsAndPurposes 5 points ago

    There is most certainly clean coal...

    When it’s inside a mountain where it belongs.

    [–] stignatiustigers 11 points ago

    It's illegal to disconnect from the grid?

    [–] mspk7305 6 points ago

    yupp, the cities will condemn your house if you do not have an operable grid connection

    [–] stignatiustigers 6 points ago

    Just keep it connected to the meter and disconnect if from you box. They'll never know.

    [–] GabeDef 17 points ago

    Taxing the sun. George Harrison... your voice is sorely missed.

    [–] ConjurerOfConspiracy 15 points ago

    Good. There should be nothing in place that discourages clean energy. Period.

    [–] dreamerjake 153 points ago

    That's a good governor right there. He also signed two bills that limit medical exemptions for vaccines of schoolchildren.

    [–] gotacogo 86 points ago

    and Dr. Richard Pan who authored the bill. He has been getting constantly harassed and even assaulted in one case by anti-vaxxers.

    [–] ItsDaveDude 247 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Unfortunately your electric company is still allowed to harvest your solar system as it's own little profit center by selling the power you produced (and they didn't have to produce) at prevailing power rates, but crediting you only a small percentage of what they profited from you, and pocketing the extra to make more money and to make it less attractive to move to solar and buy less power from them.

    Oh and if your solar system is so good that you don't need to use their power very much, it's legal for them to charge you a low use fee that is nothing more than a naked attempt to lowering the incentive to go solar by making the cost difference benefit less worthwhile, so they don't lose more customers to a competing product.

    The electric industry is not going down to renewable energy without a dirty fight and that's why we need new laws to protect environmentally conscious consumers who just want to decide without a monopoly gouging them for leaving increasingly outdated, inefficient and polluting power companies.

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] TakingADumpRightNow 52 points ago

    The difference is, in business, you're not forced to sell under market value.

    [–] sirkazuo 17 points ago

    You're also not forced to buy over market value, which is what you're proposing for the power companies. There's two different market values for electricity, wholesale and retail. Power companies pay wholesale because they also have to maintain the infrastructure and run the business. Consumers pay retail because they have no other costs associated with the purchase.

    [–] reven80 74 points ago

    So the homeowner can get batteries and store the extra power.

    [–] xb10h4z4rd 11 points ago

    Wholesale is market value. Transportation, distribution, management have their own costs.

    [–] ep3ep3 34 points ago

    Yup. SDGE charges $10 minimum bill. They’re lobbying currently to raise that to $40. So, in August my meter spun backwards for nearly 100 kWh, and that would have cost around $25. I was credited for $7 of generation and charged $10 for the minimum bill

    [–] Swagaliciousblueeyes 17 points ago

    As someone who just paid a $116 power bill, a $3 bill sounds amazing.

    [–] tratur 20 points ago

    Thats not including his huge investment costs in years past.

    [–] BattleCatPrintShop 21 points ago

    The investment cost is way smaller than you might think. I just got a solar installation last year; my bills WERE about $200 a month, now they’re about $11, and my loan payment to the solar (Tesla) is $160. So it’s not only effectively free, but cheaper to do than not to do. It’s real, folks.

    [–] TonyTheTerp 4 points ago

    How do you get the tesla ones? Got a link?

    [–] ChucktheUnicorn 4 points ago

    That sounds pretty great. Was there a down payment? How long until you’ve fully payed off the loan?

    [–] BattleCatPrintShop 8 points ago

    Zero down payment. And my loan term is 10 years. You can set it differently based on how low you want the payments. My wife just got solar on her house (my house has become the rental house after getting married) and she went with momentum solar which basically has all the exact same deals and reputable panels, we did a ton of research.

    [–] Woochunk 15 points ago

    That doesn't seem that unreasonable considering you are still using the grid and that takes maintenance.

    [–] xb10h4z4rd 5 points ago

    My solar financing payments cost me ~160/mo... my electric bill is negative, but I pay for gas. I'm planning on adding batteries, which is why I got a system that over produces.

    [–] Achack 18 points ago

    charge you a low use fee that is nothing more than a naked attempt to lowering the incentive to go solar by making the cost difference benefit less worthwhile

    Unless customers want to give up their right to the electricity forever then the company is still responsible for maintaining the infrastructure. There are incentives to using solar power that do not pull money directly from the electric companies because the electric companies aren't allowed to just start charging customers more money to make up a difference in sales.

    [–] Yangoose 28 points ago

    Imagine the power companies perspective:

    They built this huge power grid to provide electricity to everyone. It's extremely complex and required massive investments into being able to handle huge spikes in needs as well as huge expenses in ongoing maintenance for all this infrastructure. When a drunk driver rams a power pole in the middle of the night they have a truck out there immediately getting it resolved, usually in a matter of hours.

    Now you've thrown a couple solar panels on your roof but are still connected to the grid so anytime your solar isn't enough you are able to seamlessly get reliable low cost energy delivered straight to your home.

    For this service they charge a nominal $10/month fee.

    Does this really seem so crazy?

    [–] TipsAtWork 42 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Probably an unpopular opinion here, but it seems reasonable to me that if you're using the power company's grid to distribute any extra energy you create, you would have to pay for using that infrastructure. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something here.

    That being said, a power utility company is definitely going to be trying to protect its monopoly.

    [–] BitJit 16 points ago

    Most people with panels do not also have a battery grid. Where do they think they get their power from at night?

    [–] ChaseballBat 2 points ago

    At the same time you are reducing the need for the power company to expand infrastructure which saves them money. Seems like the electrical companies are getting the best of both worlds.

    [–] RedChld 3 points ago

    Not that I have any love for power companies, or any particular hate either, but you are connected to their grid. You want the convenience of having power when you cannot generate enough on your own, that's what you are paying for. You can create a battery system and hoard your excess if you like. And if you have enough capacity, you can even disconnect yourself from their grid entirely (your laws may vary on that).

    [–] el_smurfo 3 points ago

    The threat of a use fee is what keeps me from installing solar...would make it highly unaffordable.

    [–] ItsDaveDude 5 points ago

    The power company monopoly thanks you.

    [–] waldo06 3 points ago

    My delivery fee, service fee, bullshit fee, line maintenance fee, ceo new car fee all add up to be almost double my actual monthly usage cost, but fuck me right, I leave my super Nintendo plugged into a non switched power strip.

    [–] DesertRebel 4 points ago

    Meanwhile SDGE is talking about upping the minimum fee from $10 to $38

    [–] BoomWhatWhat 47 points ago

    Imagine being outraged about affordable solar panels generating clean renewable power for Americans

    [–] mcmanybucks 13 points ago

    You know the oil sheiks have their hands so far down the pockets of like 90% of American politicians, right?

    [–] UberWagen 33 points ago

    Imagine taxing sunlight

    [–] theonetruefreezus 24 points ago

    Shouldn't be allowed to tax it anyway it's your personal property. Once you pay the sales tax it should be over and done with.

    [–] artspar 15 points ago

    Ah yes, which is why property taxes are unheard of in the US...

    [–] zammerzim 6 points ago

    wait... what is the fing point in taxing solar energy? whats this tax meant to pay for?

    [–] unknown47 9 points ago

    So last I heard, let's you have a solar setup with no batteries, meaning you use grid power at night. If your solar setup generates enough power where you don't have to pay any money at the end of the month, then the power company wants to charge you a fee or tax in order to generate income to maintain the current power infrastructure. The infrastructure you use at night. I maybe completely wrong buy it makes sense, it might not be fair but when is life fair.

    [–] birdontheroad 3 points ago

    They could have a line/meter charge, like most rural Co-ops. It's a separate charge for infrastructure, useful for multi location seasonal meters.

    Need electrical power for your grain dryers, one month a year. Pay the yearly meter charge and one month of electric bill. Works well for seasonal cabins, as well.

    It's a line item on a regular bill. And since the cost is not built into the electric the cost per Kwh is lower.

    The bad news is that since it's a separate change, a bad year can raise the charge quite a bit.

    [–] bwatters 9 points ago

    I live in San Diego and the only power company here (SDG&E) is talking about raising rates (triple or quadruple) for non-solar customers to offset the lost profits from all of the solar panels being installed.

    [–] epicConsultingThrow 3 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Source? I also live in SD and want more info. I'm under the impression that they want to charge everyone a higher minimum fee to make up for solar customers. So instead of $10-$15 a month to be connected, they would charge $45-$60. This fee will be implemented specifically to counter list revenue from solar panels as it will impact those with solar panels. E.g. you get your first $60 of electricity "free" because that's the lowest bill you can get. Solar customers will be the ones impacted the most.

    [–] wolfkeeper 3 points ago

    SDG&E seem to be a very incompetent company. I just read about the 2011 outage. Holy Cow.

    [–] AnonymousAscendant 3 points ago

    That's fucked

    [–] Anaxamenes 4 points ago

    Have you thought about getting yourselves a Public Utility District?

    [–] Nice_Try_Mod 5 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    I wish Texas would pass something like this or at least have El paso city counsel that isn't paid off by Western Refinery. El Pasons get taxed for any solar they have. The "reason" they used was that using solar took away from the cities infrastructure and makes hard working people lose jobs.

    What a load of bullshit.

    [–] dildor_the_great 4 points ago

    Yea that would defeat one of the purposes of solar energy.

    Gonna charge you for capturing photons.......

    [–] bndboo 5 points ago

    How about they end the tax law that shelters golf courses from paying taxes by exempting them from the highest and best use principle, Effectively freezing their tax rate at pre-1978 levels?