Californians vote in favor of renewable energy

[ScienceRocks]

Californians vote in favor of renewable energy


Californians vote in favor of renewable energy - Power Engineering

During the Nov. 6 election, California voters passed one proposition that will have a direct effect on the growth of the state’s renewable energy industry, and another that could have an indirect effect.

Proposition 39 changes corporate tax code to be based on sales rather than payroll in an effort to make California’s corporate tax structure consistent with most large states. This new structure is expected to generate an additional $1.1 billion each year in revenue. For the first five years after the initiative passes, 50 percent of the funds are set aside for solar, renewables and efficiency projects. After five years, 100 percent of the funds go to education and the general fund.

Proposition 30, meanwhile, eliminates $6 billion in cuts to California colleges and schools, strengthens California competitiveness by maintaining educational funding, taxes high income-earners with more than $500,000 in earnings and provides funding for schools and public safety.

“In implementing Prop 30, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) hopes that Governor Brown and California’s leaders can balance the budget while preserving a strong tradition of support for the state’s growing leadership in renewables, including solar energy,” said Carrie Cullen Hitt, vice president for State Affairs at SEIA.

This is insane.

 

[bucs90]

"This is insane".

Yep. They used to say that in the 1800's when people spoke of building a machine that could fly.

And in the 1940's when they talked about building a maching that could land on the moon.

People have a history of figuring crazy shit out.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Californians vote in favor of renewable energy


Californians vote in favor of renewable energy - Power Engineering

During the Nov. 6 election, California voters passed one proposition that will have a direct effect on the growth of the state’s renewable energy industry, and another that could have an indirect effect.

Proposition 39 changes corporate tax code to be based on sales rather than payroll in an effort to make California’s corporate tax structure consistent with most large states. This new structure is expected to generate an additional $1.1 billion each year in revenue. For the first five years after the initiative passes, 50 percent of the funds are set aside for solar, renewables and efficiency projects. After five years, 100 percent of the funds go to education and the general fund.

Proposition 30, meanwhile, eliminates $6 billion in cuts to California colleges and schools, strengthens California competitiveness by maintaining educational funding, taxes high income-earners with more than $500,000 in earnings and provides funding for schools and public safety.

“In implementing Prop 30, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) hopes that Governor Brown and California’s leaders can balance the budget while preserving a strong tradition of support for the state’s growing leadership in renewables, including solar energy,” said Carrie Cullen Hitt, vice president for State Affairs at SEIA.

This is insane.

10.2% unemployment, but with all this money going to schools and colleges conversations in California's unemployment lines will be on a higher level than in any other state.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I pretty much wanna be on the opposite side of California on almost every issue

 

[daveman]

I pretty much wanna be on the opposite side of California on almost every issue

That would be the sane position by default.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I pretty much wanna be on the opposite side of California on almost every issue

I pretty much wanna be on the opposite side of California on almost every issue

That would be the sane position by default.

Pretty much my thinking.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is the high taxes the reason for Califorina's 10.2% unemployment?

 

[Glensather]

I'll be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about putting money into alternative/renewable energy. I mean, all forms of energy, before they become "big", so to speak, have to start somewhere right?

Do I agree with the state doing it themselves? Yes, and no. I believe that states should pay more attention to alt. energy, but I believe that the biggest breakthroughs in it will come from the private sector.

But at least they're trying, unlike Georgia D:

 

[daveman]

I'll be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about putting money into alternative/renewable energy. I mean, all forms of energy, before they become "big", so to speak, have to start somewhere right?

Do I agree with the state doing it themselves? Yes, and no. I believe that states should pay more attention to alt. energy, but I believe that the biggest breakthroughs in it will come from the private sector.

But at least they're trying, unlike Georgia D:

CA doesn't have the luxury of playing with solar panels and windmills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/california-debt-higher-than-earlier-estimates.html

Gov. Jerry Brown of California announced when he came into office last year that he had found an alarming $28 billion “wall of debt” looming over the state, which had to be dismantled.

Since then, he has slowed the issuance of municipal bonds, called for spending cuts and tried to persuade the state’s famously antitax voters to approve a tax increase this fall.

On Thursday, an independent group of fiscal experts said Mr. Brown’s efforts were all well and good, but in fact, the “wall of debt” was several times as big as the governor thought.

--

The task force estimated that the burden of debt totaled at least $167 billion and as much as $335 billion. Its members warned that the off-the-books debts tended to grow over time, so that even if Mr. Brown should succeed in pushing through his tax increase, gaining an additional $50 billion over the next seven years, the wall of debt would still be there, casting its shadow over the state.​

They need to get their shit together.

 

[Glensather]

Oh, so in other words Cali is emulating Federal government and spending money it doesn't have.

Great plan. Let me know how that works for them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'll be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about putting money into alternative/renewable energy. I mean, all forms of energy, before they become "big", so to speak, have to start somewhere right?

Do I agree with the state doing it themselves? Yes, and no. I believe that states should pay more attention to alt. energy, but I believe that the biggest breakthroughs in it will come from the private sector.

But at least they're trying, unlike Georgia D:

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When did it become a good thing to spend money you don't have?

 

[Glensather]

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

I can understand that. I just really, absolutely, despise fossil fuels, so I'm kinda biased against them. I know we can't afford looking into better alternatives, but I feel like we can't just give up.

The private sector is where its at on that.

When did it become a good thing to spend money you don't have?

If you're referring to my previous post, I was being sarcastic.

 

[bripat9643]

"This is insane".

Yep. They used to say that in the 1800's when people spoke of building a machine that could fly.

And in the 1940's when they talked about building a maching that could land on the moon.

People have a history of figuring crazy shit out.

Government has a history of expensive boondoggles that fall flat on their face.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Wind and solar also require backup power that is equal to the amount of power supposedly being provided. That's never figured into the cost of wind and solar. that automatically doubles the price.

 

[Political Junky]

I'll be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about putting money into alternative/renewable energy. I mean, all forms of energy, before they become "big", so to speak, have to start somewhere right?

Do I agree with the state doing it themselves? Yes, and no. I believe that states should pay more attention to alt. energy, but I believe that the biggest breakthroughs in it will come from the private sector.

But at least they're trying, unlike Georgia D:

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Provide a link for that?

 

[OKTexas]

I love that plan, more millionares and companies coming to Texas. Good on Jerry.

 

[daveman]

I'll be honest, I don't understand what's so bad about putting money into alternative/renewable energy. I mean, all forms of energy, before they become "big", so to speak, have to start somewhere right?

Do I agree with the state doing it themselves? Yes, and no. I believe that states should pay more attention to alt. energy, but I believe that the biggest breakthroughs in it will come from the private sector.

But at least they're trying, unlike Georgia D:

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Provide a link for that?

You need a link to common sense?

If wind and solar could compete without government subsidies, they wouldn't need government subsidies, would they?

 

[daveman]

I love that plan, more millionares and companies coming to Texas. Good on Jerry.

But in a few years they'll come to you crying for a bailout. Of course, they won't take responsibility for their own incompetence -- leftists simply can't do that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The problem is that electricity produced by solar/wind power is more expensive than electricity produced from fossil fuels so when the government has to provide subsidies to make it competitive, the jobs and tax revenues that subsidy money would have produced if invested elsewhere has to be counted as part of the cost of the electricity. In prosperous times we can absorb these costs, but in lean times such as we are going through now, it means slower economic growth and higher unemployment.

I can understand that. I just really, absolutely, despise fossil fuels, so I'm kinda biased against them. I know we can't afford looking into better alternatives, but I feel like we can't just give up.

The private sector is where its at on that.

When did it become a good thing to spend money you don't have?

If you're referring to my previous post, I was being sarcastic.

I pretty much agree. I think the government should fund research to bring down the cost of electricity from renewable sources, but it should not at the present time subsidize the cost of this electricity or of wind/solar devices.