Does the Fourth Amendment protect smartphone users? Lewiston Morning Tribune
The rest is here:
Does the Fourth Amendment protect smartphone users? - Lewiston Morning Tribune
Tags:
The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission has introduced fourth amendments to the regulations governing net metering for rooftop solar PV systems. These amendments are aimed at updating and enhancing the existing framework, ensuring better integration and management of solar power within the states electricity grid.
The distribution licensees are now required to update the available capacity of distribution transformers annually. This information is to be provided to the Commission to facilitate the installation of rooftop solar PV systems under the net metering arrangement. For installations up to 6 kW, any necessary strengthening of the distribution infrastructure, including transformers, will be covered under the Annual Revenue Requirement of the Distribution Licensee. For installations exceeding 6 kW, the system strengthening charges will be borne by the applicant based on specific guidelines.
For low-tension consumers installing rooftop solar PV systems above 6 kW and up to 100 kW, the charges for system strengthening will be based on a per kW basis, as approved by the Commission. This applies to both state-owned distribution companies and other licensees. Similarly, for high-tension consumers installing systems above 6 kW and up to 1,000 kW, the charges will be calculated on a per KVA basis. If there is a need for infrastructure upgrades, the costs will be borne by the consumer.
The regulations stipulate that the minimum capacity for any rooftop solar PV system should be at least one kilowatt. Various activities and approvals are required for the installation of these systems, each with a prescribed timeline to ensure timely completion. These activities include registration, approval of diagrams by the Chief Electrical Inspector, submission of applications to the distribution licensee, and obtaining a technical feasibility report.
Once the technical feasibility report is received, the distribution licensee will issue an in-principle consent for connectivity, along with the necessary charges and agreements. If system strengthening is required, the distribution licensee will provide an estimate, and the applicant must pay the connectivity charges and execute the agreement within 30 days. The project must be completed within six months from the date of the agreement.
After the project work is completed, the applicant must submit various documents, including ownership proof, installation approval, and compliance certificates. The distribution licensee will then install the necessary meters and intimate the field office for further action. If the applicant fails to complete the work or submit the required documents within the specified time, the application will be canceled, and any charges paid will be forfeited.
The amendments also emphasize the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for each activity, ensuring that all entities involved in the rooftop solar PV project carry out their responsibilities efficiently. This streamlined process aims to facilitate the growth of solar power in Gujarat, promoting sustainable energy solutions and reducing the states carbon footprint.
Like Loading...
See original here:
Gujarat's Proposes Fourth Amendment To Net Metering Regulations For Rooftop Solar Systems Up To 100 KW - SolarQuarter
Police can traipse onto the vast majority of private property in the country without a warrant thanks to a century-old Supreme Court decision, according to a new study by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public-interest law firm.
In a study published in the spring 2024 issue of Regulation, a publication of the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice attorney Josh Windham and research analyst David Warren estimate that at least 96 percent of all private land in the country is excluded from Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement under the "open-fields doctrine," which allows police to forego warrants when they searched fields, woods, vacant lots, and other property not near a dwelling.
That adds up to nearly 1.2 billion acres open to government trespass, and the Institute for Justice says that's a conservative estimate. The organization also says the study is the first attempt to quantify how much private property is affected by the Supreme Court's 1924 ruling in Hester v. U.S., which created the doctrine.
"Now we have hard data showing that the Supreme Court's century-old error blew a massive hole in Americans' property and privacy rights," Windham said in a press release. "Now we know what the open fields doctrine really means: Government officials can treat almost all private land in this country like public property."
Windham added that "courts and lawmakers across the country will have to face the consequences of keeping this doctrine on the books."
As Reason's Joe Lancaster has reported, the Institute for Justice is challenging warrantless searches of private property in several states. Last week, it filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tom Manuel, a Louisiana outdoorsman who hunts on a private parcel of undeveloped land that he owns. Despite fences and "No Trespassing" signs, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agents came onto his property twice last December without a warrant to check his hunting license.
In December 2021, two Pennsylvania hunting clubs represented by the Institute for Justice sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission for setting up trail cameras on their property without their knowledge or permission. The organization filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of Tennessee residents who had trail cameras installed on their property without a warrant.
In one of the more bizarre cases of the open-fields doctrine run amok, a Connecticut couple filed a lawsuit challenging warrantless surveillance after state wildlife officials put a camera on a bear that was known to frequent the private nature reserve they run, turning the animal into a roving police drone.
This is all possible because the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement only extends to the curtilagethe immediate surroundings of a house. "The special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,' is not extended to the open fields," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in Hester. "The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law."
In 1984 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision, ruling in Ray E. Oliver v. U.S. that even the presence of fences and "No Trespassing" signs did not establish a legitimate privacy interest in unoccupied land.
However, the Institute for Justice has argued that Holmes' appeal to the common law is based on a misreadinga misreading that implicates a massive amount of Americans' private property.
The rest is here:
Nearly 96% of Private Property Is Open to Warrantless Searches, New Study Estimates - Reason