[inferiorhuman]

No, they're both perfect. The comment I was responding to put forth the idea that the UK is an outlier when it's not far off from the cost in big chunks of the US. What's going on in California is no more self-inflicted than the UK choosing to ditch coal or choosing to be heavily reliant on Russian gas.

[s1artibartfast]

California is terrible company to keep, and has the worst energy prices in the US.

We condescendingly laugh at Texas when their grid shuts down, meanwhile we pay 3x the price and our grid burns down towns and is frequently disabled.

We have a state regulatory commission that sets price controls on electricity, which the price at operational costs +10%. Naturally, the costs to deliver power goes up every single time it is assessed.

California is also home to laws that every new house must have rooftop solar, despite excess solar production, in the midst of a housing crisis.

California is also home to income based electricity rates.

There was even discussion of literally taxing individuals for using the sun to generate their own power.

[roenxi]

> There was even discussion of literally taxing individuals for using the sun to generate their own power.

In fairness, that is a weak point among several strong ones. All taxes are arbitrary. Eg, taxing the people who are earning an income is a bit crazy, because to earn an income you basically have to put yourself at someone else's beck and call and try to benefit them. Then taxes get added on top of that to make sure the pain really gets rubbed in. If that sort of taxing makes sense, then it also makes about as much sense to tax people for their property being exposed to sunlight; the incentives might be better than an income tax. It is actually part-way to a land tax which seems like a pretty good idea.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it is one of the strongest points, but am pretty strongly against the stronger embodiments of land tax. I think most people would find the sun tax outrageous, and put it in a similar category to taxing people for the work they dont do, or for the air they breathe.

The common factor here is common expectation that taxes are applied to profit in the commercial sphere, or barring that, they are use taxes for public infrastructure.

[roenxi]

> I think most people would find the sun tax outrageous...

Probably. There is an effect where, like clockwork, people are outraged by any tax that they can't fob off onto someone else. It is an suspicious coincidence how the tax burden sits the most heavily on a group with very few votes. People being outraged doesn't relate to whether a tax is a good idea or not (at least, relative to other taxes).

> The common factor here is common expectation that taxes are applied to profit in the commercial sphere

With the advent of the Chinese getting good at solar we're moving to a world where people have free energy falling on them from the sky. A sun tax would be surprisingly consistent with the idea that people are taxed on their profits. Sun-exposed land is a whisper away from being an active, profit-producing asset. I have no doubt that California could manage to screw it up but in-principle a sun tax sounds like it'd probably be a good idea. I'd rather people be taxed for loafing under the shade of a solar panel than for working their hands to the bone. They aren't that expensive to install.

[s1artibartfast]

Im having trouble constructing a charitable mental model of where you are coming from. I think the part I'm missing is WHY you think taking non-commercial work or benefit is good.

To me, it seems like serfdom to extract taxes just because it can be done, or to make people work harder. If someone grows potatoes in their back yard and labor, should they have pay for it just so that they have to work harder? Is the purpose of the state to be a torture machine?

[roenxi]

I don't think it is good, I'm strongly anti-tax. If I was in charge there'd probably be a $-per-capita tax large enough to fund a reasonable military and that'd be that. Maybe some other nominal spending.

But if we're going to go beyond that, which we are, a "sunlight tax" sounds like it'd be roughly equivalent to a land tax (or corporate tax, or what have you), and a land tax is broadly superior to an income tax for any metric I care about. So it sounds good to me. There is an asset (sunlight on land), it doesn't require investment to maintain it. There isn't any complexity to measuring the amount of sun that I can think of. It is reasonable to tax the owner; they are getting free wealth [0] so it doesn't discourage them from doing anything. They owner worse off, but that is the nature of taxes and if we're levying a tax that isn't in principle something that we are too worried about because we can't escape that without a small-government strategy.

> If someone grows potatoes in their back yard and labor, should they have pay for it just so that they have to work harder?

That is how tax systems are broadly set up. I don't think it is reasonable to come from a position that an income tax is ok but that sort of tax isn't. The only reason that specific activity doesn't get taxed is the enforcement is too tricky to implement in practice [1] but there isn't a theoretical reason not to beyond that. If I grow potatoes for you I'd get taxed, so I don't see why me growing potatoes for me would be above taxation. It is the same amount and nature of work.

And, again, California's implementation might be terrible - but just pointing out they are talking about taxing solar generation doesn't seem like a strong point. There is an idea there that makes a lot of sense.

[0] Which is important and what separates this from a typical wealth tax. The annual sunlight is a renewable resource they are getting - a sort of natural rent on the land.

[1] Ie, how does the tax office detect if you have a pirate potato operation, and if they do how is it done cost-effectively so the tax take is higher than the enforcement cost.

[inferiorhuman]

  California is terrible company to keep, and has the worst energy prices
  in the US.

Which is exactly what makes the comparison apt.

  meanwhile we pay 3x the price and our grid burns down towns and is
  frequently disabled.

Yeah, no. This week saw PSPS alerts for maybe a few hundred people in the Bay Area for 1? 2? days. That's a massive improvement over whole counties being down for a week.

Texas continues to struggle mightily with adverse weather — ERCOT was way off in their demand forecasts during the 2022 storms. It came down to sheer luck that they didn't see a repeat of 2021. Let's not forget that Texas is cheaper until it's not. 2021 saw residential power reach $9,000/kWh.

[s1artibartfast]

I would add that California struggles mightily with adverse weather too. In our case it is wind and lightning, which is different from Texas. The 2019 California PSPSs were over 3 million people at a time, and some people went without power for many days. California hasn't experienced statewide subzero temperatures, so Im not convinced our grid would preform any better under similarly extreme circumstances.

Either way, my point wasn't to start a pissing contest about which is worse, but point out the Hypocrisy of Californian condescension. Surely we can agree California isn't a shining beacon of wise grid management.

[zdragnar]

California doesn't rely on Russian gas, and still has one (small) coal power plant.

Even so, cross the border into Oregon and their rates are half... CA is literally double the national average price in the US.

CA makes up about 11% of the US population. So, just short of 90% of the country pays half of what they do.

CA is a big place, but simply is not representative of the country as a whole. They are, in fact, an outlier in many metrics.

[inferiorhuman]

… so? How is any of that relevant?

I wasn't comparing the whole country to the UK, I was comparing California to the UK.

There are more people in California than in a number of developed countries (e.g. Netherlands, Portugal, Taiwan, Singapore). PG&E alone provides electricity to more people (16 million across 5.5 million accounts) than the entire population of New England (15 million). California as a single market is an entirely valid comparison.

[zdragnar]

You said

    Wha? Fair play if you think the US is not a developed country

California and Hawaii are both extreme outliers in the US, and aside from gasoline prices in California, both are on the extreme end of outliers in comparing to Europe on most metrics as well.

Neither are good comparisons for what is "normal"... The only thing the comparison does is prove that the UK has high energy prices.

[inferiorhuman]

Last I checked California was part of the United States and the comparison I made was not about the US as a whole.