I don't care how righteous solar power advocates think they are. If they think they can function independent of their standard utility connection, let them. But if by reducing the amount of power they are taking from the public utilities they are also reducing what they should be paying for infrastructure that keeps them hooked up, it's only logical that they have to pay it some other way. Either that, or not use it.
Should they somehow go scot free from the responsibility, the majority of regular power customers and I would have our rates raised to subsidize their enterprises with the incurred costs that they have got out of paying.
Any thinking person knows that solar power by itself at this stage of the game is unrealistic. They need to pay in whatever way that works for their fair share, or be disconnected entirely. It's absurd to say or write that they are "paying for the sun" when they are still hooked up to an infrastructure that they can't do without. That's what they need to pay for. I'm paying my share; I don't want to end up paying theirs.
- In our opinion: The 3 levels of Christmas
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Why the working-class...
- John Florez: Utah's prison relocation is like...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Cogitating on...
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- My view: We deserve better than current...
- Drew Clark: The right to be forgiven, not...
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 62
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 46
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 37
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 34
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30
- Jay Evensen: Should Utah raise its gas... 28
- Letter: Police not the problem 24