From a Bloomberg article:

The revisions would include ending technology-neutral clean electricity tax credits for sources like wind and solar starting in 2029 and requiring those projects to commence construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law. The initial version proposed by House Republicans had a longer phase-out time, allowing many of the credits to exist until 2032.

“They would probably amount to a hard shutdown of the IRA,” said James Lucier, managing director at research group Capital Alpha Partners, referring to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. “The initial version of the Ways and Means bill gave investors some hope they could live under the old regime for another couple of years, but now no more.”

The House bill would also hasten more stringent restrictions that would disqualify any project deemed to benefit China from receiving credits. Under the new version, those restrictions, which some analysts have said could render the credits useless for many projects, would kick in next year.

The Bloomberg article says that the Senate may restore some of the cuts. Murkowski is one of the Republicans vowing to do so.

I’m not exactly sad for these solar companies...but it seems like their real goal is not to produce energy but to produce “take the money and run” accounts.

There goes my Enphase stock. :(

A solar company wanted to put panels on our farmland, which is for row cropping so it’s valuable.

I figured they had to be getting government money because they would rent the land at 4x what a farmer would to grow crops.

History repeats itself in a cycle of decreasingly shorter and shorter pauses. There is no bad bill or good bill by the measure of modern American politics, but merely bills designed to launder money and enrich the architects of the social justice charade of the day. Left or right, republican or democrat, bureaucrat or judge, it’s all the same.

We are the point solar should be only a federal investment if done at an industrial scale. I am good with the lowest producing farm fields being replaced with solar, or the scrub behind the hill, beats miles and miles of lousy soy bean yield and sad looking corn.

We are at the point the people who can do pumped water energy storage at grid scales are the ones that need our collective support to get past land use and epa roadblocks.

The lowest yeilding crop land is not worthy of planting 50% of the time. We know the sun will shine at predicted rates for 100% of the time at some point. With revenue from the bad crop land, the mediocre land will be improved.

I see alot of the local farmers sell/lease out the worst to solar and then immediately go into high gear improving marginal to better than what is available to purchase within the footprint of where one can get the equipment to.

Total revenue end up higher, and if total production is higher, and some of the electricity offsets ethanol from corn, it is a free market gain no matter where you stand on the spectrum. Now figuring out how to keep a zipcodes power on during a wider outage...that is a federal mandate.

Those stocks were flying early in Biden’s first two years because of the massive “green energy” subsidies they passed.

Blah blah blah. Punted to the next election. If Dems win then they will restore the credits.

I wonder what this will do to homeowners foolish enough to get panels installed on a lease or pay for years basis. Every company involved in this tech scam is operating only because of gov’mt subsidies.

subhuman. ALL taxpayers’ subsidies of this solar nonsense...including tax breaks. There is nothing free market about solar.

Well I am not OK with the government with my money is overpaying farmers to use their worse land at premium rates...

https://www.google.com/search?q=most+solar+leases+are+a+scam

most solar leases are a scam anyway, plus they have significant drawbacks and may not be the best option for many homeowners.

Here’s a breakdown of why some consider solar leases problematic:

Disadvantages of Solar Leases:

No Ownership: You don’t own the solar panel system; you’re essentially renting it from the solar company.

No Tax Benefits: You don’t receive the federal solar tax credit or other incentives; the leasing company does.

Lower Long-Term Savings: Lease payments, even with reduced electricity bills, can result in lower overall savings compared to owning the system.

Difficult Home Sales: Selling a home with a solar lease can be challenging, as buyers may not want to assume the lease.

Locked into a Contract: Leases are typically long-term (20-25 years), making it difficult and costly to break the agreement.

Potential Escalator Clauses: Lease payments may increase over time, potentially outpacing electricity savings.

No Increase in Home Value: Leased solar panels don’t typically increase your home’s value like owned systems do.
Potential Issues with Some Solar Leasing Companies:

Pushy Sales Tactics: Some companies use aggressive sales techniques to pressure homeowners into signing leases.
Misleading Information: Salespeople may downplay the drawbacks or make unrealistic promises about savings.

Poor Customer Service: Some companies have been criticized for poor communication and slow response times for maintenance or repairs.

Important Considerations:

Research and Compare: Thoroughly research different solar companies and compare quotes for both leases and purchase options.

Read the Fine Print: Carefully review the lease agreement, paying close attention to terms, escalator clauses, and buyout options.

Seek Professional Advice: Consider consulting with a financial advisor or attorney before signing a solar lease.

In conclusion, while solar leases can provide a way to access solar energy without a large upfront investment, it’s important to be aware of the potential downsides and make an informed decision based on your individual circumstances.

Total revenue end up higher, and if total production is higher, and some of the electricity offsets ethanol from corn, it is a free market gain no matter where you stand on the spectrum.

It's not a free market as long as solar power is subsidized by uncle sugar.

Free energy markets select the best method of fuel, not solar, wind and corn which cannot exist without TAX assistance from ME.

If you have a good product that you can produce at a reasonable cost, you don’t need government subsidies. The contrapositive is also true.

The solar power company want to use our land because it’s near an electrical substation where high voltage power lines intersect.

The thing I wanted our family to be careful of is some, but not all, solar panels contain potentially toxic metals. Even though the metals are encased in polymer and glass should a hail storm smash them to pieces it could make the land much less valuable.

Just the perception of solar panel debris in a field could cause potential future buyers to say no.

If solar on bad farmland is so great, why does the Government need to pay for half of it?