I'm voting Yes on prop 7. If you follow the money you know that PG&E, SoCal Edison, and SEMPRA utilities are against this. That gives me a lot of concern
Sigh... how I hate going against anything helping to ease our oil dependency. However, these propositions do frighten me. I guess the easiest way to explain my feelings is to throw out Occam's razor: all things being equal, choose the simplest solution. Or KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid. I'm also thinking if it looks like corporate welfare, feels like corporate welfare, and smells like corporate welfare, well, then it must be corporate welfare. Sadly, I'm voting NO on Prop 7 & 10.
I agree with you on 10. As far as keeping it simple goes, Prop 7 is not asking for much. The technology is ready to go on making sure we get at least half our energy from renewable sources by 2025...that's it. Anything that you've heard to complicate this issue has been a lie by the utilities due to the fact that they don't want to get off coal.
TPickens: perhaps he'll get a CA rebate for buying new clean-burning jet planes as personal vehicles.
"Prop7, the one that's generating the most heat right now." Hot air! When the legislators are major beneficiaries of the lobbying it's called corruption; sometimes... I think they cook these props up just to see who comes to the table to pick up the tab, with catchy titles to "embarass" whistleblowers. You won't hear PU having anything to do with P10 unless it's good for enrollment.
Proposition 7 would not in any way force utilities to buy electricity that is not available or they cannot use. The initiative simply provides greater flexibility for electricity retailers to contract with suppliers of solar and clean energy.
"Ration up": Maybe you can't make them buy what doesn't exist but you can tell them not to make more than they can match with nonrenewable. Right now they're paying less per KW/H for renewable than they're charging for nonrenewable. Basicly they should want to keep larger renewable producers from having thoughts of demanding independence from their local nonrenewable power grid and possibly starting a territory/price war.
I'm voting Yes on prop 7. If you follow the money you know that PG&E, SoCal Edison, and SEMPRA utilities are against this. That gives me a lot of concern
Ishmael2287 3 years ago
Sigh... how I hate going against anything helping to ease our oil dependency. However, these propositions do frighten me. I guess the easiest way to explain my feelings is to throw out Occam's razor: all things being equal, choose the simplest solution. Or KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid. I'm also thinking if it looks like corporate welfare, feels like corporate welfare, and smells like corporate welfare, well, then it must be corporate welfare. Sadly, I'm voting NO on Prop 7 & 10.
DawnAkemi 3 years ago
I agree with you on 10. As far as keeping it simple goes, Prop 7 is not asking for much. The technology is ready to go on making sure we get at least half our energy from renewable sources by 2025...that's it. Anything that you've heard to complicate this issue has been a lie by the utilities due to the fact that they don't want to get off coal.
Yeson7 3 years ago
TPickens: perhaps he'll get a CA rebate for buying new clean-burning jet planes as personal vehicles.
"Prop7, the one that's generating the most heat right now." Hot air! When the legislators are major beneficiaries of the lobbying it's called corruption; sometimes... I think they cook these props up just to see who comes to the table to pick up the tab, with catchy titles to "embarass" whistleblowers. You won't hear PU having anything to do with P10 unless it's good for enrollment.
HighestRank 3 years ago
Proposition 7 would not in any way force utilities to buy electricity that is not available or they cannot use. The initiative simply provides greater flexibility for electricity retailers to contract with suppliers of solar and clean energy.
Yeson7 3 years ago
"Ration up": Maybe you can't make them buy what doesn't exist but you can tell them not to make more than they can match with nonrenewable. Right now they're paying less per KW/H for renewable than they're charging for nonrenewable. Basicly they should want to keep larger renewable producers from having thoughts of demanding independence from their local nonrenewable power grid and possibly starting a territory/price war.
HighestRank 3 years ago