diy solar

diy solar

Iowa wants you to pay utilities even if you are totally off-grid and don't use grid power.

If they could they'd sell you sunshine and rain and tell you youre free because you get to own sunshine and rain. Then tax it.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. Lets get the facts straight, i see folks talking about 2 different situations.

The OP says "completely off grid and don't use grid power" in the title. People are talking about grid tied systems, which to me, is quite the opposite.

And, if the OP is "completely off grid and don't use grid power", then he/she would not be a customer. So how or why would an electric company know you exist and more relevant, why would they send you a bill (and expect you to pay it)?

There has to be more to the story for me to judge how outraged i am...
 
dougbert said:
I found Jack Rickard on EVTV and Youtube and have found his insights great

He switches the model of things. Don't look at batteries as a "backup" to the grid, rather view the grid as the "backup" to your batteries. Live "Selfish Solar" and don't share yours with the grid. Just use the grid to charge the batteries if the sun is behind the clouds for too long

I have solar, but my interest is NOT trying to pay back the cost of building it. My primary use is as a UPS as well as daily loads being driven by solar and batteries, and will never connect in a grid-tie model using NetMetering. Thus I don't have to "register" my stuff with them
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with your approach. It's a little more costly with batteries. But, when the grid is down, our configuration is king of the hill. And if this configuration is not included in the OP's state bill, then it's just another reason for people to avoid grid-tie.

I'd love to hear an update if we can get clarification for just who is impacted (grid-tie or off-grid) and how it is applied.

In the end, though, I think the next wave in solar technology is optimizing transitional off-grid so people can scale over time while reducing utility dependence.
 
erik.calco said:
I agree 100% with your approach. It's a little more costly with batteries. But, when the grid is down, our configuration is king of the hill. And if this configuration is not included in the OP's state bill, then it's just another reason for people to avoid grid-tie.

I'd love to hear an update if we can get clarification for just who is impacted (grid-tie or off-grid) and how it is applied.

In the end, though, I think the next wave in solar technology is optimizing transitional off-grid so people can scale over time while reducing utility dependence.
Click to expand...

thanks

I think adding Tesla batteries OVER time is part of the scale over time solution - add when one has the money to whatever size you want (and can afford). Lead Acid batteries one must buy ALL you ever need at once, since they age as old batteries don't play nice with the younger kids
 
offgriddle said:
I hope to visit Canada one fine day, (will have to brush up on the language first), and I would love to see a show at that beautiful opera house in the capital of Sydney.
Click to expand...
Its not worth the price and the food is hospital food. Thats the Opera House in Sydney Australia .
If they have one in Canada then I hope the shows and the food are better.
 
When they want to get your money they are devilishly clever.
Take water supply and water removal services in a town. Because it passes your house block and is available you have to pay for it whether you use it or not.

Its unnecessary and at odds with the "user pays" principal which is another they pull out when they want to get more out of you .

Don't quite know how you combat those arguments . It feels wrong to have to pay when you are not a part of something. I think its only a matter of numbers and as soon as a goodly number are off grid permanently they can start objecting and their votes start to count.

But are they off grid permanently ? If they use the grid as a battery then they should be paying something . Certainly the governments have had their water ,sewerage and electricity infrastructure costs repaid a long time ago.
 
I'm gonna have to brag on my state a little bit now. We are still mostly free here in New Mexico. This type of behavior might get a fellow shot.
 
April said:
When they want to get your money they are devilishly clever.
Take water supply and water removal services in a town. Because it passes your house block and is available you have to pay for it whether you use it or not.

Its unnecessary and at odds with the "user pays" principal which is another they pull out when they want to get more out of you .

Don't quite know how you combat those arguments . It feels wrong to have to pay when you are not a part of something. I think its only a matter of numbers and as soon as a goodly number are off grid permanently they can start objecting and their votes start to count.

But are they off grid permanently ? If they use the grid as a battery then they should be paying something . Certainly the governments have had their water ,sewerage and electricity infrastructure costs repaid a long time ago.
Click to expand...
When I lived in SD, water access was a fee charged by the state based on the acreage you owned. If the river was adjacent to your land, you were billed for the water access rights... in 81, it was 800/month for the acreage we owned... didn’t matter if we were irrigating or not... the water infrastructure was there, and we were taxed for its availability...
 
When the enhanced 911 system went in, if you had county road frontage, it was assessed by lots no matter if it were farm ground or pasture, or woodland,
And we were expecting to pay taxes on that frontage BY LOT.

Just about the time we got that straightened out, the rural electric company wanted to do the same thing.
Assessed by LOT and keep in mind, there weren't power poles/wires within a mile of me!
So it took two years to beat that stupid idea down...

What I had to point out, while 911 was public/community/social, like the road system,
The power grid is entirely private owned, for profit enterprise and I was NOT required to use, or pay for their services.
 
bulrush said:
No joke.

March 2019.

A bill to let Iowa utilities charge a new fee to customers who install solar panels is among the policy proposals that have cleared a procedural deadline in the legislature.

Senator Michael Breitbach, a Republican from Strawberry Point, said it’s fair for all customers to pay for the maintenance of utility infrastructure. “The average, everyday person can understand how the utilities have a cost for lines, poles and transformers,” Breitbach said during today’s Senate Committee Committee meeting. “The solar customer uses those features…to transmit the power out and get power back in when they’re not producing.”

Senator Joe Bolkcom, a Democrat from Iowa City, said the bill is a “power grab” by the state’s investor-owned utilities.

“Iowa’s largest utility monopoly is trying to pull the plug on Iowa’s growing solar industry by creating a new ‘sun tax,'” Bolkcom said. “The new sun tax will kill good jobs and make it virtually impossible for Iowa businesses, farmers (and) homeowners to continue to cost effectively invest in generating their own power.”


https://www.radioiowa.com/2019/03/0...or-iowa-solar-panel-owners-clears-committees/

Iowa solar power incentives: https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/solar-rebates-incentives/ia/
Click to expand...
So if i'am driving down the road and pas a man on a horse I should expect him to help me out and pay part of my gas??? Just after seeing the ? i saw a sign that said (pay your fair share)
 
Ped said:
If they could they'd sell you sunshine and rain and tell you youre free because you get to own sunshine and rain. Then tax it.
Click to expand...
Well in some states, like Colorado, it's illegal to collect rain water. They don't tax it, they just ban some things. Something about water rights of nearby states that was agreed upon over 100 years ago. Something to do with rivers, and the politicians say rain is just a river in the sky, so it's all protected something something mumble mumble.

If 1000 guys in one state collect 1% of the rain coming down on their property I can hardly think that would make a difference. I only know 1 other person who collects rain water and she only did it for a year. I honestly don't personally know anyone who collects rain water, not that they don't exist, it's just they are very rare.
 
bulrush said:
Well in some states, like Colorado, it's illegal to collect rain water. They don't tax it, they just ban some things. Something about water rights of nearby states that was agreed upon over 100 years ago. Something to do with rivers, and the politicians say rain is just a river in the sky, so it's all protected something something mumble mumble.
Click to expand...

Those are really 2 separate issues. You're talking about the Rio Grande compact, but the banning of rain water is more of a local issue. Morons. Very very little of that water would ever make it into the aquifer anyway. But you can buy pot gummy bears on every corner. One state south, you can get government subsidies to install your rain barrel. I wouldn't say that New Mexico is smart most issues, but they have this one figured out.
 
bulrush said:
Well in some states, like Colorado, it's illegal to collect rain water. They don't tax it, they just ban some things. Something about water rights of nearby states that was agreed upon over 100 years ago. Something to do with rivers, and the politicians say rain is just a river in the sky, so it's all protected something something mumble mumble.

I remember when CO passed that bill. I thought that pretty hardcore for the state to do so. And you’re correct that it had to do with “surface water” water rights. Somebody brought it to the attention of the state legislature and viola. My brother-in-law (in Missouri) diverts rainwater flowing down the ditch in front of his house into his farm pond. Legal? Beats me! Here in Flagstaff, AZ our population has grown so much the city encourages rain collection (off roofs) for irrigation and even sells the barrels. Flagstaff is “water poor” so have resorted to “recycled water.” After treating the effluent, the effluent is injected back into the aquifer to be consumed. We also have a “reclaimed water” system in parts of the city that services the parks and golf courses as well as some businesses and residential areas. In the Western U.S., whiskey’s for drinkn’ and water’s for fightn’ over!
We also have a “Storm Water Runoff“ tax on our utility bill based on the square footage of “non-soil” (roof, concrete, gravel, etc.) on your property. Dave


If 1000 guys in one state collect 1% of the rain coming down on their property I can hardly think that would make a difference. I only know 1 other person who collects rain water and she only did it for a year. I honestly don't personally know anyone who collects rain water, not that they don't exist, it's just they are very rare.
Click to expand...
 
I'll be installing 2 Bushmaster 800 gallon engineered rain barrels sometime before monsoon season.
 
bulrush said:
Well in some states, like Colorado, it's illegal to collect rain water. They don't tax it, they just ban some things. Something about water rights of nearby states that was agreed upon over 100 years ago. Something to do with rivers, and the politicians say rain is just a river in the sky, so it's all protected something something mumble mumble.

If 1000 guys in one state collect 1% of the rain coming down on their property I can hardly think that would make a difference. I only know 1 other person who collects rain water and she only did it for a year. I honestly don't personally know anyone who collects rain water, not that they don't exist, it's just they are very rare.
Click to expand...
I have a system of 36 thirty gallon barrels, 12 55 gallon barrels and a 350 gallon tote tied into my barn roof runoff to water my garden... city water bill is outrageous for any crop watering... and they actually charge here for runoff... so I get a break having 50% of my barn roof collected...
 
I have two of these 300gal stackable tanks catching rain off my 24’x24’ garage connected to a soaker hose system to keep my summer shade producing Aleppo pines watered in the dry season. Probably add two more down the road.

D0345784-648E-43CB-B55C-48B98B2D70B0.jpeg
 
I'm always amazed that more people don't install tanks for run off. I don't mean for this to get into some sort of contest (as some of my friends collection of tanks make mine look minor) I have 5500 gallons rainwater in a fixed tank with a firetruck fitting and 60 K in a lined pond (which has been recently reduced by about 12 inches so maybe now 50K because of the bear slashing the liner).

I also have a tank (2400 gallon...2500 gallon tank with overflow at 2400 gallon level) in line with my city water. It is kept filled by a standard stock tank valve. I then use a shallow water pump and pressure tank to supply our home from that tank. That way when or if the earthquake that we are constantly warned about comes I will have 2400 gallons stored which has been constantly fluxed (this has removed the chlorine smell) and thus is fresh tasting. The volume of the tank is slightly more than our monthly useage so essentially the water is changed each month.

We still have a well (15 gal/minute) which is used for the garden but (first hand knowledge here) after an earthquake wells are often unusable for quite a long period afterwards.
 
You use 2400 gallons a month? My 40 gallon RV tank lasts me and the dog a month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The spooks are about to take over the internet
Replies
5
Views
184
aenyc
A
F
California Members: NEM3.0 impact on NEM1/2 customers and what to do?
20 21 22
Replies
428
Views
20K
fafrd
F
Back
Top