Last December Rep. Paul Gosar (R, AZ), a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, along with 11 other House members, sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission warning that the new solar-leasing market industry has engaged in “deceptive marketing strategies” to sucker unsuspecting homeowners into misleading zero-money-down teaser loan deals.
Some of these purchasers who are now struggling to sell their homes were not “fully aware of the terms of their 20- to 30-year leases” which will exceed the life of the roof the panels are mounted to.
Such practices have prompted the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate SolarCity, the biggest player in the solar installation subsidy industry for possible misrepresentations about the “fair market value” of its systems and services.
Yet, as the company is expected to lose more than $1 billion through 2016, it still seeks to score more taxpayer subsidies out of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has already kept the industry going for far too long.
Writing in Newsmax, Bradley Blakeman explained how the scam works, one where non-utility third-party contractors/installers approach homeowners and small businesses promising significant energy savings from rooftop solar systems with the enticement of a 20-year lease and little or no upfront installation and operation costs. The purported savings are based upon too-good-to-be-true inflated and unsupportable estimates of future utility rates.
Nor are homeowners typically aware that since the equipment must be insured, their solar installations may increase their property insurance premiums. In some cases the customer who doesn’t own that equipment is also responsible to pay for its maintenance. And while each purchasing homeowner typically gets a $1,000 subsidy from other taxpayers and grid users, the actual savings from electricity generated usually doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of materials, installation, and upkeep.
These liens can be sold to other creditors at a deep discount, offering no remedy to the solar customer if the profiteer goes out of business or simply walks away. When this happens, any refusal to pay — even for legitimate reasons — creates risks of potential foreclosure or other legal action by the new lease holder.
Homeowners may learn about the lien transfers for the first time after attempting to sell their property to a prospective buyer.
Many also experience other problems in selling their property. In some cases the solar installations are defective or become inoperable due to lack of maintenance. Removal can cause expensive roof damage. Improperly maintained fixed panels can cause roof leaks, and even fire hazards.
On top of all of this, solar panel leasers along with other electricity ratepayers also get hit to compensate utility companies for losses 
incurred under a “net metering” scheme which forces customers to purchase solar power at inflated, money-losing costs.
This happens through a shell game whereby credits subtracted from customer utility bills for electricity not used from the electric grid are simply incorporated back into overall rate increases.
Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all public utilities are required to offer customers net metering upon request. Currently, 43 states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories have such policies in place. In addition, about half of all states have “renewable energy standards” which require utilities to purchase a set percentage of their electrical power from higher-than-market solar and wind sources.
NOTE: This article first appeared at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/solar-bailout-gosar/2015/03/30/id/635202/#ixzz3VyQqssxR
A business that depends on subsidies for itself and its customers, reveals a marketing strategy that has no sustainability. Remind you of any other *cough* schemes in the country?
John Christy 1st law of sustainability : If it’s not economically sustainable , it’s not sustainable .
They said that about the Clean Air Act. Yet it’s saved $22 trillion in health care costs, while costing only $0.5 trillion. Quite a deal.
When they first installed catalytic converters on gasoline engines, the levels of atmospheric sulfur dioxide went up and fuel economy went down. This did not get fixed until they took sulfur out of the fuel, retuned the engine for maximum efficiency and used the resulting NOX to get rid of the unburned hydrocarbons. While I support the aims of the clean air act (to reduce HARMFUL atmospheric gasses) CO2 is not harmful it is necessary. If it indeed saved $22 trillion in health care costs, why did the government find it “necessary” to pass the ACA? The ACA doubled my daughter’s health care costs. Remember who is paying for all of this.
*Some* CO2 is necessary, and the pre-Industrial value of 280 ppm was just fine. It’s the values beyond that are heating the planet and acidifying the ocean.
Apparently, 12 times that amount (280 ppm) was also OK since life managed to survive and prosper under those conditions. As to whether CO2 really warms the earth, that has yet to be proved scientifically
Are you aware the sun was much dimmer in the past? So it took more CO2 and its greenhouse effect to keep the planet hospitable.
The sun goes through cycles as it burns off the helium ash at the core. The result is a slight variation in the solar output which results in slight temperature changes (based on degrees kelvin) on earth. All of this “radiative forcing” you speak of is based on a THEORY (unproven and unsupported by ice core samples) that increases in CO2 levels would cause the planet to warm. As you have pointed out, the sun has gone through cycles (supported by carbon 14 data) and these cycles seem to coincide with temperature variations. Not surprising since it is well known that the sun supplies all of the heat that the planet receives. Have you not noticed that temperatures fall at night?
No, I’m not talking about cycles, I’m talking about luminosity. The Sun’s luminosity is increasing with time, at a rate of 1% per 110 million years.
So in the deep past it was several percent cooler, which means more CO2 was needed to keep the surface at a habitable temperature.
“No, I’m not talking about cycles, I’m talking about luminosity”
No, you are talking about energy. The sun goes through cycles of energy output (only part of the suns energy is visible light). We recently went through a period of solar minimums which lasted from about 1300 AD to about 1850 AD known as the little ice age. CO2 had nothing to do with this and no one has claimed that it did. The period prior to that was known as the medieval warm period. You can go on believing this myth if you want to, but I need scientific that CO2 makes the earth hotter in the face of the known fact that it produces no energy. Like the rest of the atmospheric gasses, it merely distributes the energy the earth receives from the sun.
Again, I am not talking about solar cycles, whose average does not change the luminosity of the Sun.
I’m talking about long-term changers, over millions of years.
Then, the luminosity increases 1% per 110 Myrs. So the sun was dimmer in the past, which explains why more CO2 was needed to maintain a habitable temperature.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that CO2 is a warming gas, but here’s direct proof:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
CO2 doens’t *produce* energy — it absorbs upwelling radiation, and then reemits it in a random direction, some of which will go downward. That’s global warming.
The specific heat (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight) of CO2 is approximately one eighth that of H2O. So CO2 does not have the energy storing capacity of water and it does not produce energy, it does not add to the temperature. It moderates the temperature just as al the atmospheric gasses do.
Have you ever heard of the Clausius-Claperyon equation? Do you know what it means to say water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing?
Of course CO2 does not produce energy. If it did, it would cause the temperature to increase. It only absorbs the energy produced by the sun just like everything else. The amount of heat it contains per unit of mass can be determined by measuring the temperature and knowing the specific heat. In any case, the atmosphere only serves to moderate temperature extremes.
Wrong — CO2 does *NOT* “absorb energy produced by the sun.”
It absorbs energy produced by the Earth. Huge difference. Fundamental. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand anything.
CO2’s radiative forcing has been *measured*:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.htm
“CO2’s radiative forcing has been *measured*”
Jim Hansen entered these “observed” forcings into a computer model designed to predict temperatures based on CO2. Three time they failed after some tweaking. (there was an article about this in the May 2005 issue of Science) They predicted much higher temperatures than were actually measured. The result was instead of admitting failure, they went back and tweaked the raw data. You need to google Prof Richard Lindzen. Perhaps he can explain better than I.
Jim Hansen *calculated* these values, based on the laws of physics. And now we see he was right.
Link to claimed article in Science?
I can email you the paper.It is six years old and written by believers in GW. If you google “something new under the sun” you might find it, but I don’t have a link.
My email address is here:
http://www.davidappell.com
That is a web site, not an email address.
My email address is clearly indicated on my home page.
I know all about Richard Lindzen. Not many scientists thing he is right, and many think he is wrong.
“Not many scientists thing he is right, and many think he is wrong.”
He used to be an IPCC member. I expect he did not agree with the IPCC position which is not surprising since most of the scientists not tied to the IPCC do not agree with their stated position.
Thousands of scientists have worked on IPCC reports. The problem with Lindzen is that his claims have been wrong (about climate sensitivity, about the Iris effect, about second-hand smoke….)
“They predicted much higher temperatures than were actually measured. ”
So what?? Do you expect science to be perfectly accurate right out the blocks? No science ever is. Hansen did the proper thing — make models, compare them to observations, and then make changes to the model.
That is the point of building a model. This is how science has been done for 400 years — and look at all its great successes.
“So what?? Do you expect science to be perfectly accurate right out the blocks? No science ever is. Hansen did the proper thing — make models, compare them to observations, and then make changes to the model”
Science tests theories and when they don’t work they are discarded. This has happened many times in the past. It is not proper science to go back and change the DATA (Hansen did not do this, he changed his algorithms 3 times)
False – scientific theories are rarely “discarded.” They are usually modified to account for observations. In any case, AGW has in no way been falsified — the forcing from CO2 is know, accurately.
The theory about phlogiston was discarded when oxidation was proved. If AGW is so well known, why are their temperature findings being massaged?
That’s one theory, which doens’t contradict what I said.
How about the displacement current in Maxwell’s equations? Einstein’s incorporation of Newton’s laws at low speeds? Dark energy and Einstein’s cosmological constant?
“False – scientific theories are rarely “discarded.”
Horse crap. You discard what is worthless. Or maybe you don’t and that is why you are still pursuing this.
Climate science certainly isn’t “worthless” — it’s based on our best understanding of physics.
I know people like you are desparate to discredit AGW by any means necessary. But the fact is it is firmly set in basic laws of physics that aren’t in doubt in any way whatsoever.
“I know people like you are desparate to discredit AGW by any means necessary”
I just have yet to see any credible evidence that the AGW THEORY is correct. It flies in the face of logic.
Where have you looked for evidence?
It has been published now in a great many places.
“Have you not noticed that temperatures fall at night?”
Have you noticed they don’t fall nearly as much as they do on the dark side of the Moon? Explain.
“Have you noticed they don’t fall nearly as much as they do on the dark side of the Moon? Explain”
They also do not rise as high as they do on the sunny side of the moon. The moon has no atmosphere. The atmosphere acts as a working fluid to cool hotter areas and warm colder areas. It distributes heat, it does not generate heat. In other words, it moderates temperature extremes.
Right. And what keeps the atmosphere warm at night? Infrared energy radiated from the Earth — the same IR that’s trapped by CO2.
“Right. And what keeps the atmosphere warm at night?”
Water vapor. The specific heat of water is 1. That means that it takes 1 calorie of heat to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree centigrade. The heat of vaporization is 540 calories/gram. That means for every gram of dew you find on your lawn in the morning, 540 calories of heat energy were released. Water accounts for over 95% of the temperature moderation on the planet. It is why temp variations in Arizona (dry) are more extreme than they are in Georgia (humid). CO2 is a gas and it is not confined. It is free to move about the planet and carry any trapped heat with it. Heat energy seeks its own level, it flows from the hotter to the cooler until an equilibrium is reached. CO2 is a working fluid which distributes, not increases energy
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas — you didn’t seem to realize that.
And water vapor is not water, so the amount of heat to heat water is irrelevant.
Water vapor in no way accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. As they say, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Do you know what that means?
The specific heat of water is 1 (1 cal/gram) whether or not it is in liquid or gas form. It takes 54o calories of heat energy to turn 1 gram of liquid water into 1b gram of water vapor. If the education system of our nation were doing a better job, I would not have to do so much typing.. Go back to school. This time, pay attention.
“The specific heat of water is 1 (1 cal/gram) whether or not it is in liquid or gas form….”
Wrong — they differ by a factor of over two:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
Also, the units are cal/gram*K, not cal/gram.
“Water vapor in no way accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect”
Professor Richard Lindzen disagrees with you. Needless to say, so do I.
Wrong. Water vapor accounts for about 50% of the greenhouse effect.
Here’s an actual calculation of that (you didn’t cite one from Lindzen):
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
Also you might take into account the moons day is 28 times as long as an earth day.
Irrelevant to the calculation.
Not so. The earth at one time had a molten surface. The sun has gradually burned its supply of hydrogen and one day will run out of fuel. Better save your CO2 bubba.
Of course the sun was dimmer in the past. And it will be stronger in the future — its luminosity changes about +1% every +115 million years. Well known.
There is no doubt whatsoever that CO2 warms planets. It’s been known for at least 120 years…. the latest proof is here:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
“There is no doubt whatsoever that CO2 warms planets”
Oh really? Then why don’t you try warming your house with it.
1) Because the density of CO2 is far too small to warm a house.
2) Because you can’t run a heat engine from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (a house, the surface). Basic thermodynamics.
Not sure if your ACA question is serious….. There are obviously many more health issues than are caused by dirty air. In 2013 the US spent $2.92 trillion on health care, just in one year.
“Not sure if your ACA question is serious”
It was not a question. It was a statement. The US did spend one hell of a lot of money on health care and the ACA made it worse, not better.
How did the ACA make it worse?
By increasing costs and government mandates. As a result, hiring has gone down. I don’t know how you feel, but I prefer to make the decisions myself about how I will spend the fruits of my labors.
Hiring is way UP, not down. Here’s the data:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=17aB
Yeah, up from when people were being laid off. The participation rate is still lower than it was before 2008
A lower participation rate is a GOOD thing — more baby boomers retiring, more mother or fathers staying home with their kids, more people retiring early because they can.
There is more to life than work.
What data show increased costs?
In the data I see, from the Altarum Institute, Jan 2015 had national health expenditures of 17.8% of GDP. That’s the same level as January 2010.
The uninsured rate has dropped from 18.0% to 11.9%. How is that worse?
Graph:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/aca-airbrushing/
The costs per individual has gone up. That is worse, since the ACA was supposed to bring costs down. It was also supposed to provide universal coverage (whether you want it or not). The big difference is that responsible people now pay more for their health care so that people who would not or could not pay for their health care are insured. That is also not good. The economy works better when people get what they pay for.
Costs per individual have been going up for decades. Did you just notice.
National health expenditures were 17.8% of GDP in Jan 2015, the exact same level as in January 2010. (Altarum Institute)
Universal coverage? I can’t believe you would say that, since it’s couldn’t-care-less Republican governors and legislatures who refuse to let it into their state.
Universal coverage is what was promised. Along with lower costs. Neither was delivered. I did not write the law nor did I vote for those who did. I am not a supporter of socialism or its more extreme cousin communism. You should have figured that out by now. Even if the Repub govs would let it in, you wouldn’t have universal coverage. Some would prefer to pay the penalty for not buying something they don’t want.
How can there be universal coverage when so many Republican governors have decided not to accept the program and instead let their poor citizens suffer without health care??
Their “poor” citizens did a lot better before the ACA.
What an ignorant statement. Prove it.
Have you ever had to go without health insurance?
I think you like socialism just fine when it helps you (mortgage payments, employer health care, retirement savings, college savings) and resent it when you think someone else is getting a dollar that you can’t get your hands on.
“(mortgage payments, employer health care, retirement savings, college savings)”
All of those things paid for with money that I earned in my employment. The government only printed the money. It is called coin of the realm. If you don’t earn it or didn’t save it, it is welfare, better known as socialism.
“I think you like socialism just fine when it helps you”
No David, I would never accuse you of thinking. That would require too much effort. Let the government think for you.
Is this all you have, personal insults?
Stick to science and rational discourse, if you can.
Obviously, if people choose not to pay for health insurance, there can’t be universal coverage. Duh. Instead, they will give the bill to you, which you seem happy to pay.
Greedy people don’t pay other people’s bill. Remember, you called me greedy. I believe people should pay their own bills.
Responsible pay for their health care? Those people get a HUGE tax credit for getting their insurane through an employer — it costs the government $250 B/yr:
– “The huge health-care subsidy everyone is ignoring,” Edward Kleinbard, Washington Post, October 15, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/15/the-huge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/
Taxes not paid are not subsidies. Taxes that you did not pay but are refunded as if they were are subsidies. That is why you have a job bubba; to pay for what you want and need.
Of course taxes not paid are subsidies.
If you doubt that, I’m sure you willing to give that subsidy back, right? (Sure.)
“If you doubt that, I’m sure you willing to give that subsidy back, right? (Sure.)”
I earned the money in the first place. Don’t talk about subsidies when talking about money that I have earned. If I did not earn it the government would not get that portion.
So you’re not willing to give that money back?? Right? Just as I suspected — you like your own subsidies, but resent when they are given to anyone else. Typical conservative — driven purely by greed.
Conservatives want only what they earn. Communists want everything so that they can dole it out as they see fit. I don’t intend to “give back” what I never recieved in the first place. Subsidies were the idea of you socialists and now you want to blame conservatives because they are not working as you would like.
“driven purely by greed”
If I was driven purely by greed, I would be a Democrat….with a solar panel on my roof. .
A solar panel is good economics for those who can afford it. If you’re too stubborn to take advantage of that, that’s your poor choice.
I am too stubborn to cut my trees down so I can pay more per KWhr than I do to the power company.
Not good economics. I ran the math. It would cost more per KWhr than the power company charges
Not if people can sell their excess power back to the grid.
“Typical conservative”
Thought you said I was a socialist.
Most conservatives *are* socialists, when the socialism benefits them personally. It’s only the socialism for everyone else they complain about.
You should not get a subsidy for housing that all people don’t get.
I don’t get a subsidy for housing.
Have a mortgage?
No. I paid cash.
Others who earn exactly the same income must pay more taxes than you. You’re priviledged. You get a subsidy that others don’t.
At least you could be appreciative.
I am appreciative that I don’t get all of the government that I pay for.
You have no idea how much tax I pay nor do you have a right to know.
You (not surprisingly) missed the point. Deliberately, I suspect.
“At least you could be appreciative”
I don’t appreciate thieves.
Of course you like YOUR OWN subsidies and favorable treatment…..
You have no concept of what I earn, what my obligations are or economics in general. If you worked for Texas Instruments, I would bet you invented “fuzzy logic”
“Fuzzy logic” was a great advance. Sorry you can’t understand that.
Do you benefit from any government subsidies? From its copious socialism — military, police forces, fire protection, post office, judicial courts, etc?
“Of course taxes not paid are subsidies”
According to your logic then everything was subsidized before 1913 (when the 16th amendment was passed).
Not at all. In fact, the opposite, since there were no tax breaks before the 16thA.
That is why it needs to be repealed and replaced with a flat tax.
Not paying taxes on your health care is a benefit given to you, but not those who receive cash in lieu of health care, or who work for themselves, or who do not get health insurance but some other benefit.
You probably also get a healthy tax break from a mortgage, right? More government dependency….
“You probably also get a healthy tax break from a mortgage, right?”
It was my money in the first place
I rent, and get no tax break on my housing payments. You get big breaks on your housing expenses.
You love socialism when it benefits you — just admit it. Socialist.
Your landlord pays taxes. If his taxes go up, he will have to charge you more rent
And if his taxes are reduced or partly subsidized, he doesn’t have to share that at all.
I don’t have a mortgage. Sorry to disappoint you. But your problem seems to believe that all benefits come from the government and that you are entitled to them. You have also lost track of the subject of this blog. Are you a troll?
“You probably also get a healthy tax break from a mortgage, right? More government dependency”
If there wasn’t a government, there would be no taxes and I I would not get a tax break. So it looks like the government (and you) are more dependent on people like me. Be careful; we may desert you…
If there wasn’t a government, North America would be Somalia.
Is Somalia your personal wet dream?
If there had not been a communist government in Russia, they might not have gone bust. Is communism your personal wet dream?
I paid cash for the house. I still pay taxes on the property. If you want to know why medical costs have gone up faster than the cost of living, it is because of increasing government involvement in healthcare.
Government involvement in health care? They why does every country on Earth who has single payer have lower health costs than we do?
Hmm????