U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:38 AM
zox
 
344 posts, read 102,338 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by joninaz View Post
The bill has been withdrawn.
This is great news. Debbie Lesko withdrew her own bill. I think she realized it would be career suicide as she knew she would be held responsible for killing the solar industry in Arizona. Her actions were in response to a large protest movement by the people of Arizona. You could say this is a win for the people as their protests led to this change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2010, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
17,009 posts, read 20,088,824 times
Reputation: 8918
Quote:
Originally Posted by zox View Post
This is great news. Debbie Lesko withdrew her own bill. I think she realized it would be career suicide as she knew she would be held responsible for killing the solar industry in Arizona. Her actions were in response to a large protest movement by the people of Arizona. You could say this is a win for the people as their protests led to this change.
It certainly is good news. But I doubt that Lesko realized anything. The announcement came from the governor's office, not her. She got taken to the woodshed and got a slapdown she (and the rest of the morons who signed on to the bill) richly deserved. The fact that the governor stepped in this early in the legislative process is evidence that this bill ruffled the feathers of the big cigars and others who are working hard to build a solid economy for the future of this state. I hope the voters in her district kick her out first chance they get, but I doubt they even know she is their rep. After all, how many of us can say who our state reps and senators are?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 07:42 AM
 
2,943 posts, read 3,633,176 times
Reputation: 1114
"We SUBSIDIZE EVERYTHING. How can you make the claim that solar and wind can't stand on their own two feet without the government when nuclear, gas, coal and electric all receive hefty subsidies. Please, stop saying this."

We most certainly do not subsidize everything (although we certainly subsidize too much). Coal, oil, nuclear, etc, do get subsidies (not all, but a fair amount).

"Do you really want to go back and account for all the subsidies that coal has received over the years????"

Here's a link to a report by the Energy Information Administration: EIA‚€™s Energy in Brief: How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm - broken link)

Their "independent statistics and analysis" shows that "renewable energy" is subsidized more than twice as much as "refined coal" (and more than five times as much as just plain ol' coal). About four times as much as nuclear. And more than twice as much as natrual gas and petroleum put together.

"Please, stop saying this."

Nope.

"Either you're all for a principled stand on yanking subsidies from everything."

Actually, if you want to know, I'm for getting the government out of the way, and letting the free market dictate what happens. So, yeah, subsidies should be yanked from everything IMHO.

"STOP the insanity."

OK, I'm "insane" for not mentioning that other energy sources get government subsidies, but you're not "insane" for failing to mention that "green" energy get's more than double the amount in subsidies as the next highest subsidized energy source? Shesh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 07:47 AM
 
2,943 posts, read 3,633,176 times
Reputation: 1114
"The bill has been withdrawn."

How do you suspect they'll pay for the subsidies?

Here's what I said in a prior post:

Quote:
Seems to me there are four possibilities (maybe there are more):

1) Do nothing. The state keeps the status quo and goes completely bankrupt.

2) Raise taxes (gee, that's a good way to encourage businesses and people to move here).

3) Cut money from other parts of the budget (but where? And what consequences does that have?).

4) Change the standard (which is what the legislature is trying to do), by saying 15% "green energy" by 2025 is a goal we cannot afford right now. We're broke, and if "green" businesses want to come here they can, but they shouldn't expect handouts (because there's nothing left to hand out).

Is there an option I left out?

Which choice is better?
Option #4 is (apparently) out the window. What do you think they'll do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
17,009 posts, read 20,088,824 times
Reputation: 8918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie_az View Post
"The bill has been withdrawn."

How do you suspect they'll pay for the subsidies?

Here's what I said in a prior post:


Option #4 is (apparently) out the window. What do you think they'll do?
You keep trying to turn this to a discussion of subsidies, which it is not. Subsidies were never part of this bill. It was about destroying a local market for renewable energy and thus removing the incentive for constructing renewable energy facilities in Arizona. If you don't agree with the subsidies, that is a different part of statute than was affected by this bill.

You know, you should run for office. You seem to have the requisite lack of vision and one-issue (low tax) mentality that makes for a successful Arizona legislator. Then again, maybe not. You're not a bigot from your posts. Sorry.

Last edited by Ponderosa; 02-26-2010 at 08:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 09:07 AM
 
2,943 posts, read 3,633,176 times
Reputation: 1114
"You keep trying to turn this to a discussion of subsidies, which it is not. Subsidies were never part of this bill."

Subsidies were not a part of the bill; however, subsidies were the reason for the bill. Saying that it's not is ignoring the large, white elephant in the room (the state's budget crisis).

"It was about destroying a local market for renewable energy and thus removing the incentive for constructing renewable energy facilities in Arizona."

I don't believe that in the slightest. When faced with two possibilities, the one most likely to be correct is the simplest one. The simplest one is the state is (literally) out of money (and can't even borrow more), and they have to drastically cut the budget where ever they can to keep afloat. The other possibility is that there is some sinister plan made in secret to kill off an industry, which, while not impossible, it certainly seems improbable.

"You know, you should run for office."

I've thought about it. I'd have to quit my job to even run, and I'm in no financial position to do that right now. But it's not out of the question some day in the future.

"You seem to have the requisite lack of vision and one-issue (low tax) mentality that makes for a successful Arizona legislator."

What you call "lack of vision" I call responsibility. What you call "vision" I call irresponsibility. I guess flip sides of the same coin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 10:14 AM
 
8,164 posts, read 9,507,823 times
Reputation: 5514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritchie_az View Post
Subsidies were not a part of the bill; however, subsidies were the reason for the bill. Saying that it's not is ignoring the large, white elephant in the room (the state's budget crisis).
no - the reason for the bill is that the legislature got upset that the arizona corporate commission set an energy policy - saying 15% must be from renewable sources by 2025 and outlining what a renewable source is.

The legislature feels that this is their job and the ACC should just stick to setting rates and dealing with regulatory issues

The whole nature of this was a political ego match done in a very irresponsible way - hence the quick retraction once the fallout started.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 10:38 AM
 
2,943 posts, read 3,633,176 times
Reputation: 1114
"no - the reason for the bill is that the legislature got upset that the arizona corporate commission set an energy policy - saying 15% must be from renewable sources by 2025 and outlining what a renewable source is."

How many years ago did the Corporations Commission set this energy policy? It was 2007 (three years ago) if I'm not mistaken. It could have been 2006.
So why now? Why three years later? Why not nip it in the bud right away? Why? Because it's not about that, but about the budget. It's about the fact that Arizona cannot meet the 15% by 2025 without investing significant amounts of money now and in the coming years--money that the state has zero of. The legislature is trying to figure out how the state will financially survive.

But, no, that couldn't be why. No, some sleezy REPUBLICAN, George Bush and Dick Cheney wannabe's, in a smoky back room, secretly scheme the death of an industry. That has to be why. The fact that the state has no money and cannot borrow any more money has nothing to do with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
17,009 posts, read 20,088,824 times
Reputation: 8918
Kudos to the media that got a hold of this story early, alerted the public, and averted a major blunder by our imbecilic legislators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2010, 10:44 AM
 
8,164 posts, read 9,507,823 times
Reputation: 5514
this isn't a partisan issue at all - republicans sponsored this legislation and republicans killed it

republicans also put through the subsidy legislation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top