Oklahoma bows to Corpocacry, charges people who generate their own power

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/

Oklahoma residents who produce their own energy through solar panels or small wind turbines on their property will now be charged an additional fee, the result of a new bill passed by the state legislature and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mary Fallin (R).

On Monday, S.B. 1456 passed the state House 83-5 after no debate. The measure creates a new class of customers: those who install distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid. While those with systems already installed won’t be affected, the new class of customers will now be charged a monthly fee — a shift that happened quickly and caught many in the state off guard.

“We knew nothing about it and all of a sudden it’s attached to some other bill,” Ctaci Gary, owner of Sun City Oklahoma, told ThinkProgress. “It just appeared out of nowhere.”

Because the surcharge amount has not been determined, Gary is cautious about predicting the impact it will have on her business. She has already received multiple calls from people asking questions about the bill and wanting to have solar systems installed before the new fee takes effect. “We’re going to use it as a marketing tool,” Gary said. “People deserve to have an opportunity [to install their own solar panels] and not be charged.”

“It is unfortunate that some utilities that enthusiastically support wind power for their own use are promoting a regressive policy that will make it harder for their customers to use wind power on their own,” said Mike Bergey, president & CEO of Bergey Windpower in Norman, Oklahoma, in a statement. “Oklahoma offers tax credits for large wind turbines which are built elsewhere, but wants to penalize small wind which we manufacture here in the state? That makes no sense to me.”

The bill was staunchly opposed by renewable energy advocates, environmental groups and the conservative group TUSK, but had the support of Oklahoma’s major utilities. “Representatives of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma said the surcharge is needed to recover some of the infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid,” the Oklahoman reported.

“We’re not anti-solar or anti-wind or trying to slow this down, we’re just trying to keep it fair,” Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. spokeswoman Kathleen O’Shea told the Oklahoman. “We’ve been studying this trend. We know it’s coming, and we want to get ahead of it.”

But distributed energy sources also provide a clear value to utility companies. Solar generates during peak hours, when a utility has to provide electricity to more people than at other times during the day and energy costs are at their highest. Solar panels actually feed excess energy back to the grid, helping to alleviate the pressure during peak demand. In addition, because less electricity is being transmitted to customers through transmission lines, it saves utilities on the wear and tear to the lines and cost of replacing them with new ones.

That is so retarded/evil/stupid it makes no sense at all except to try and keep the rich polluters cashed up and maintaining their monopoly on Power supply.

                                      

Where does it stop; will farmers who eat what they raise have to start paying a surcharge because they don't shop for groceries? Yep, that's corporatocracy, brought to you by the same folks who will praise "self sufficiency" in every other context besides this one.

Hail Con-Edison.  If you pay enough to politicians--called "contributions"--you can call corporate welfare, subsidies, or restraint-of-trade, fees.  Orwell called it double-speak.

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats.

In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans.

Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.  

From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns.  By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.  During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.

You are just looking at another manifestation of the power of a lobby.  The only consolation is that Oklahoma is a Republican state.  So, they are screwing themselves first, which is wonderful.

  IT'S not only Oklahoma Energy providers who are able to blatantly get away with such government-sponsored corporate thefts...

DOWN here, if the local Water Board has their water supply mains running past your front (or side..) boundary, they can hit you up for a quarterly "Access Fee" of $20+..

WHETHER you choose to access their water supply or not !

Lone Wolf wrote:
  IT'S not only Oklahoma Energy providers who are able to blatantly get away with such government-sponsored corporate thefts...

DOWN here, if the local Water Board has their water supply mains running past your front (or side..) boundary, they can hit you up for a quarterly "Access Fee" of $20+..

WHETHER you choose to access their water supply or not !

Completely unfair, Bee. I agree.

But this scheme in Oklahoma amounts to a chill upon energy innovation. For years, here in California, we have had a program that goes the other way: if you produce energy (wind, water or solar) and it goes into the grid, the power company must pay you. Of course, most of the time it amounts to a reduction in billing, but that's just accounting.

This program in Oklahoma appears to have been designed to stifle innovation, most likely for competitive reasons. The grass-roots production of energy goes to simpler forms of electric production, and generally relies upon wind, solar and water, where the manner of production is less elaborate than nuclear or fossil fuels. The Oklahoma law treats a positive (economically and technically) as a negative.

I am not at all sure the law is not a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust and Clayton Acts, which prohibit restraint of trade in any form. The Oklahoma power, and perhaps the fossil fuel industry have conspired with the State to reduce competition in a relevant market, and that's a violation of the Federal laws.

Someone in Oklahoma should test the theory in Federal Court.

Original Quill wrote:Hail Con-Edison.  If you pay enough to politicians--called "contributions"--you can call corporate welfare, subsidies, or restraint-of-trade, fees.  Orwell called it double-speak.

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats.

In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans.

Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.  

From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns.  By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.  During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.

You are just looking at another manifestation of the power of a lobby.  The only consolation is that Oklahoma is a Republican state.  So, they are screwing themselves first, which is wonderful.

Quill, do you realise that Wiki does not approve of what you are doing:

Influence of the energy lobby in the United States

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[5] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.[6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby

You obviously knew what you were doing because you very carefully took out all the reference numbers.


This is what Wiki think of people who plagiarise from them:

There are many reusers of Wikipedia's content, and more are welcome. If you want to use Wikipedia's text materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can generally do so, but you must comply with one of the licenses that Wikipedia's text is licensed under. Many of the media files on Wikipedia are also reusable. Each media file has its own licensing statement which must be verified, and reuse of any media file must comply with its licensing.

Neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of material on Wikimedia sites provide legal advice. Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. law; re-users outside the U.S. should be aware that they are subject to the laws of their country. It is the responsibility of the reuser to determine how a license applies to the intended reuse. Additionally, while this document addresses copyright, other restrictions may apply. These may include personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the many other legal causes which are independent of copyright and vary greatly by jurisdiction. If you have any questions about your intended reuse, you may wish to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your area.

Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike

Attribution
  To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which should be indicated on an article's face or on its talk page. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users.
Copyleft/Share Alike
If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
Indicate changes
If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page history is sufficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content


It's not clever and it's not on!

 It's public information, sass.  Are you so anal that you don't want information disseminated?  Of course I deal with sources.  Do you mean to say that on-line research is a crime?  I make quick work of a long process.

Anyone who questions what I do--and no one ever does--can sue me.  I'm a lawyer.  I can handle them.  I also have an MA in US Constitutional Law and I am quite familiar with the First Amendment as a principle of law.  Please don't make a fool of yourself by telling a doctor how to perform surgery, a rocket scientist how to land a man on the moon, or a lawyer how to handle the law.

Original Quill wrote:  It's public information, sass.  Are you so anal that you don't want information disseminated?  Of course I deal with sources.  Do you mean to say that on-line research is a crime?  I make quick work of a long process.

Anyone who questions what I do--and no one ever does--can sue me.  I'm a lawyer.  I can handle them.  I also have an MA in US Constitutional Law and I am quite familiar with the First Amendment as a principle of law.  Please don't make a fool of yourself by telling a doctor how to perform surgery, a rocket scientist how to land a man on the moon, or a lawyer how to handle the law.

Read this Quill. It’s from Wiki (with link)

This page in a nutshell: Do not make the work of others look like your own. Give credit where it is due.

Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own.

Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work – including their language and ideas – without providing adequate credit.[1] The University of Cambridge defines plagiarism as: "submitting as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism

Read it all and follow Wiki’s terms and conditions on re-use of published material even if it is the public domain and perhaps it may dawn on you where you are going wrong. Or perhaps you should take the advice offered by Wiki in the link above which was
If you have any questions about your intended reuse, you may wish to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your area.

lol!

Oh, and BTW Quill, I am so anal that I have morals, one of which is not to plagiarise other people's work and pretend it's your own, and not give them the credit for what they have done, it's a bloody scummy thing to do.   As I said, it's not clever and it's not nice.

You sure are preoccupied with me, no?  You follow me around, stalking and snooping.  You break into my professional accounts and attempt to learn things that, really, are no business of yours.

Obviously, you do this because it is paramount to you to gain some intrusion in to my life.  Stalking is defined as the following:

To pursue or approach stealthily.
"a cat stalking a bird"
synonyms: creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;

https://www.google.com/#q=stalking+definition

More recently, stalking has gained legal meaning...that is, criminal definition.  Originally thought of as trespassing, intimidation of a witness, breaking and entering, etc., it is clear it is bad.  For example, in California it is--

§ 646.9. Stalking
Related Offenses

§ 422. Punishment for threats
§ 647. Disorderly conduct; Restrictions on probation
§ 653.2. Use of electronic communication to instill fear or to harass; Misdemeanor
§ 653m.Obscene, threatening, harassing or annoying telephone calls
§ 1270.1. Hearing prior to bail for person arrested for serious or violent felony or for certain other offenses including domestic violence or violation of domestic violence protective order; reasons for departure from bail schedule; Departure from schedule without hearing

The law now speaks of use of an electronic device, so that anytime you read "telephone" substitute "computer."

Nationally, in this country the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been used to prosecute individuals.  In New York ithe Computer Trespass Act treats it as a Class e felony.  In the United Kingdom it is the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.  All of these acts have universal jurisdiction, because the computer goes out universally.  So you could be prosecuted in any one of these venues.

I've tolerated this so long because I have suspected all along that you have a bit of a crush on me.  Nems, once your good friend, has politely suggested this.  But it is also rather obvious on its own.  Originally, I thought it would be untoward to bring all this up.  But now it has gone beyond nuisance.  So, sassy it is no longer funny.  Get over it and start behaving like a normal human being.

I really wish the two of you could find a way to cool this down a bit.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I really wish the two of you could find a way to cool this down a bit.

That's precisely what I am asking for Ben. A simple request is a beginning.

Original Quill wrote:You sure are preoccupied with me, no?  You follow me around, stalking and snooping.  You break into my professional accounts and attempt to learn things that, really, are no business of yours.

Obviously, you do this because it is paramount to you to gain some intrusion in to my life.  Stalking is defined as the following:

To pursue or approach stealthily.
"a cat stalking a bird"
synonyms: creep up on, trail, follow, shadow, track down, go after, be after, course, hunt;

https://www.google.com/#q=stalking+definition

More recently, stalking has gained legal meaning...that is, criminal definition.  Originally thought of as trespassing, intimidation of a witness, breaking and entering, etc., it is clear it is bad.  For example, in California it is--

§ 646.9. Stalking
Related Offenses

§ 422. Punishment for threats
§ 647. Disorderly conduct; Restrictions on probation
§ 653.2. Use of electronic communication to instill fear or to harass; Misdemeanor
§ 653m.Obscene, threatening, harassing or annoying telephone calls
§ 1270.1. Hearing prior to bail for person arrested for serious or violent felony or for certain other offenses including domestic violence or violation of domestic violence protective order; reasons for departure from bail schedule; Departure from schedule without hearing

The law now speaks of use of an electronic device, so that anytime you read "telephone" substitute "computer."

Nationally, in this country the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been used to prosecute individuals.  In New York ithe Computer Trespass Act treats it as a Class e felony.  In the United Kingdom it is the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.  All of these acts have universal jurisdiction, because the computer goes out universally.  So you could be prosecuted in any one of these venues.

I've tolerated this so long because I have suspected all along that you have a bit of a crush on me.  Nems, once your good friend, has politely suggested this.  But it is also rather obvious on its own.  Originally, I thought it would be untoward to bring all this up.  But now it has gone beyond nuisance.  So, sassy it is no longer funny.  Get over it and start behaving like a normal human being.

Deflect all you like Quill, this is about what you have done on here, and twice in the last few days you have plagiarised Wiki and tried to pretend it's your own work. That is underhand, immoral and against Wiki's rules.

You see Ben? It's certainly not bilateral. And, there's no stopping it. She just keeps at it.

You think you are tired of it? That's what I"m saying!

Why not do the honourable thing and apologise for plagiarising instead of claiming that it's all ok if you do it?   Otherwise, people can draw their own conclusions Quill.

Sassy wrote:Why not do the honourable thing and apologise for plagiarising instead of claiming that it's all ok if you do it?   Otherwise, people can draw their own conclusions Quill.

Sassy it is all in your mind.  Whatever would put to rest this issue, you would just move on to the next.  

Now, I do think this thread was about a tax in Oklahoma.

No Quill, it wasn't all in my mind, it was all in your post, the one you did that was the work of Wiki that you claimed for your own. Immoral, and then you compounded it by trying to pretend it was an ok thing to do, where Wiki's rules say it is NOT an ok thing to do.

Sassy, put down the keyboard and back away from the computer, with you hands up in the air.  Lol.

This is a thread about a law in Oklahoma.  Carrying on...

Quill, put away Wiki and use your own brain and don't claim that you wrote something you didn't, otherwise, in future when you are trying to sound so wise and intelligent, people will look at each other, nod, and go 'Wiki did it'   

"And other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"



Lol. The epitome of missing the point.

Back to Oklahoma.

Yes Quill. But who would we be having a debate with on Oklahoma? Would it be you or would it be with someone who's work you have stolen or modified? I'd really like to know please.

And BTW, check what Harvard have to say.

When you write papers in college, your work is held to the same standards of citation as the work of your professors. Your professors observe these conventions for two reasons: First, citing sources allows scholars to give credit to other scholars for their hard work and their ideas. Second, by citing sources, scholars provide a roadmap for readers who are interested in learning more about a topic and joining the ongoing conversation about that topic.

When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you commit plagiarism, an offense that is taken extremely seriously at Harvard. Plagiarism is defined as the act of either intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by someone else. If you turn in a paper that was written by someone else, or if you turn in a paper in which you have copied material from any source without citing that source, you are guilty of plagiarizing. As you begin your Harvard career, it's important to take the time to understand what constitutes plagiarism, why plagiarism is considered such a serious offense, and how to avoid plagiarizing in your own writing.

In addition to making sure you understand the material in this section, you should also consult departmental guides for additional information relevant to expectations in different courses you take, both in your concentration and in other departments. You should also be familiar with Harvard's official policy on plagiarism and collaboration.

Link here

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup106849

And this has what to do with Oklahoma, Sassy?

What has anything got to do with the threads you post on Quill, when no-one knows if it is your work or something you have lifted.

Sassy wrote:What has anything got to do with the threads you post on Quill, when no-one knows if it is your work or something you have lifted.

Oklahoma??

Safe in the knowledge now that you are aware of what constitutes Plagiarism and the consequences of doing it in debates and elsewhere and that you are unlikely to do it again then it's

Oklahoma here we come   

Over to you

Sassy wrote:Safe in the knowledge now that you are aware of what constitutes Plagiarism and the consequences of doing it in debates and elsewhere and that you are unlikely to do it again then it's

Oklahoma here we come   

Over to you

Lol. So, you are announcing that you have won? We all feel so much safer now, sassy.   

And this has what to do with Oklahoma?

I hate seeing two members that I like fight like this.

I know you have your reasons, but I still hate it.

Ben, that wasn't a fight, that was trying to stop Quill committing plagiarism on your site.   You as a journalist, should know how important that is.    

What worries me is that Quill purports to be an educator, but wrote in the thread on association fallacy:

'If I were teaching a class on composition, I would make students take the words of others and make a new point out of them. It would be an excellent exercise. It would teach them how to use quotes in an essay of their own.'

Which would be completely against the teachings of Harvard, as shown in the link on a previous post.

As a writer, albeit in a small way, I take plagiarism extremely seriously, which is why I send everything I write that I don't want copied, to a site that gives it automatic copyright and will sue anyone who reproduces it as their own.

I agree with you completely, Ben. Note, that I have been reminding Sass to return to the subject for some two pages on this thread alone.

Instead, she is preoccupied with me and cannot resist stalking me, not only all over this website, but all over the Internet. This is the third website we have been on, and it continues. Not only that, but she has hacked into my California State Bar account, and also read my doctoral dissertation from Rutgers University. She pursues my affiliation with civic entities, such as the GGBHTD in order to glean little tidbits she can get to.

I would think that if she wanted to stop all this, as you naively call for, she would simply block me. On the contrary, she is possessed with me and anything about me. Some would say I should be flattered, but after a couple of years of this it is a bloody nuisance.

Squirm and divert, anything to try and take people's minds off the immorality of plagiarism and your propensity for doing it.

Your lack of creativity or originality is legend, sass.  You project onto others what you, yourself, do best.  Manipulation?  You are the chief manipulator here.  Plagiarism?  You are the chief plagiarist.  And of course, now here you are accusing someone else of one of your best skills: Diversion.

This is a thread about Oklahoma.  Now, wiser men that we mortals, might ask...why is sassy talking about anything other than Oklahoma?  Isn't that the essence of diversion?

Once again, you are projecting yourself on others. Sass, you forced one board to close. Is this what you are going to do to Ben's board. Frankly, I like this place. Let's leave your ego out of your posts and try to be a little more amicable.

Chief plagiarist you cheeky bastard, I'm not the person trying to pass other people's work off as my own, that's your province I'm afraid and you seem quite proud of it.

Bastard? You call that amicable?

Blah, blah, blah...sassy, in my last post I said it all. You will ruin a board before you ever admit you are wrong.

All you have to do is admit you are wrong, and you will cause any fire to go out. But you continually refused to do that. You'd rather ruin Ben's board than leave this a nice place for others to enjoy talking with one another.

Shame on you. Are there no limits to your selfishness?

My selfishness?   You are truly nuts, barmy, off the scale.   You plagiarised, something I find indefensible, you won't apologise for it and seem to think there is nothing wrong with it.   Immoral and fraud.   Shame, shame, shame on you for claiming you are so high and mighty and being so totally underhand and immoral.   This board would be totally ruined if everyone followed you and plagiarised.   Ben could have it shut down.

Do you even know where Oklahoma is? Obviously you have lost your way.

As I say sassy, you accuse others of that which you do most. Plagiarism, manipulation--Haha--and hijacking a thread.

Sassy, you are making yourself look the fool. Admit you are wrong and leave it off. FGS,

Q

You do like to stand everything on it's head don't you, you silly old man!   The only person who has done anything wrong it you, plagiarising.   You are the one who looks a fool, you are the one who is wrong, you are the one that won't admit it, won't apologise for it, and actually are so immoral that you seem to think plagiarising is ok.   I remember you telling me how you were writing a book, Why Elephants Lie wasn't it, that you said you had changed to Why Republicans Lie?   Well, anyone who is a writer in any way, shape or form, knows how iniquitous plagiarism is.   It's led to highly respected journalists losing they jobs. (http://www.examiner.com/article/fareed-zakaria-suspended-from-cnn-for-plagiarism).
But you, you think you can do it with no consequences, because somehow rules and morals don't apply to The Great Quill.   Well, I hope everyone feels free to plagiarise anything you write (although why they would I have no idea) because you have no quarms about doing it to other writers.   You disgust me.

You are persistent, aren't you? What you lack in quality of ideas, you make up for in shear volume and longevity.

But it's not worth a good read. G'nite.

OK, nothing of value in this thread anymore, I'm locking it.