Petitions for review to the Supreme Court are rarely granted. The proponents of the ballot proposition filed one in the Court of Appeals on 9/12/2013. There is no record on it yet at the Supreme Court. They usually rule on whether to accept briefing on a Petition for Review within about 90 days or less of filing of the petition. As of now the case is moot. Even more rarely do they accept moot cases for review. When they do, it is because the legal questions are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." So, it would have to be an extraordinary legal issue that is very likely to arise again in the future and seriously needs to be addressed for future guidance. Like I said before, this is quite rare and highly unlikely in this circumstance. And even if they did grant review of this moot case, it would not put it back on the ballot at a future date. They would have to get signatures all over again.
I know that Jim, my point is that it could still qualify for a future ballot once the Supreme Court rules later this year or next. The final resolution awaits their decision. Had the Supreme Court not continued the matter then you would have been right that it would never appear in its current incarnation. Until that is decided one way or another the matter remains open for a future ballot. Further the problem for the city isn't going away, but getting worse. The City Manager projects a cumulative $250 million short fall in the city's operating fund within five years. You might want to check that out.
Well, there's a bit of thread drift.
A big question is will the ratepayers at one NorthWest Tucson Water District approve a %4 rate hike to pay for criminal defense counsel? Should the ratepayers HAVE to pay for this? Why did channel four and thirteen neglect to discuss this topic in their recent coverage?
Michael, I guess we will see when ballots go out in two weeks whether you have a chance to vote on the pension initiative. My bet is that you won't.
Well the truth is that the pension initiative isn't dead, it's pending at the Supreme Court. The Supremes continued the pro initiative committee's appeal while awaiting an opinion from the Court of Appeals so that the Supremes have something to review. At least that is what the Star said. Could it be that the much maligned Star got it right and the "uber accurate" Jim Nintzel made a mistake? Perish the thought....
A block south of Broadway at Highland is hardly "the southside."
Two interesting campaign tactics noted: After the camera issue was closed, suddenly little signs popped up beside Ulich's signs. They had an arrow pointing to her name and said something like "She voted for cameras." Also, how come Buehler-Garcia's signs have the Garcia emphasized in BOLD type but not the Buehler. I thought a hyphenated name was supposed to treat both names equally. Trying to sell something else to an unwitting public?
Mainly contributing to the demise of the promising, job-creating solar industry is APS’es virtual elimination of their so-called rebates (actually usurpation of their customer’s carbon-offset credits) and all-out assault on the Arizona Corporation Commission’s net-metering requirements. From my perspective, they seem to be doing all that they can to stymie property-owner’s ability to contribute to distributed generation. The image that they present to the public disguises their under-handed greediness to have it all to themselves.
Many in-depth studies by distinguished groups (including electric companies) have proven that distributed generation in the form of homeowner’s and commercial photovoltaic systems is actually financially beneficial to utility companies. Some of these benefits are:
• Deferment of Transmission and Distribution capacity upgrades (avoiding or delaying new construction)
• Reduced transformer and line losses
• Energy diversification (natural gas price hedge)
• Saved fuel expenses
• Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement compliance
• Aids disaster recovery
Of course there are also societal benefits including reduced pollution, job creation, resource diversity and national security.
Those of us in the solar industry fully embrace the need for our industry to mature to the point of grid-parity but we also deserve a level playing field. In my opinion, we should increase our RES requirement to be at least as progressive as any other state, do away with the system size limits and keep our current net-metering requirement in place in the meanwhile.
The new homes I've seen here in Arizona w solar panels and energy efficient building methods make any other kind of construction seem kinda silly. We can't just keep sticking our heads in the sand and have any kind of economy here.
We rely on growth and we stifle good housing construction. what is the sense in that? (Relying on growth is akin to a pyramid scheme but still...)
There is no requirement that ACC accept ANY input from the public at one of their meetings. Granting public comment is optional at these hearings. Only the corporate lawyers are guaranteed to have their say on this one, and your rates will go up while your solar incentives will go down. Under this system, the public will always pay more to get less, and the corporations can't lose.
Considering the abundant sun and wind in the desert-southwest and throughout the USA, I am stunned that we are now finally pursuing really communicating about this. Harvesting power from the sun and the wind should not be as over-priced as it supposedly is. Getting electricity from clean natural sources should not be restricted to only those who can afford solar panels and wind turbines.
Hang in there and take care, everyone.
Warren G. Richards
Kayenta, Mesa, and Tucson AZ
Almost every human on earth uses electricity. Almost every economy in the world is directly dependent on it. The sun can provide more energy than we could ever use. Let's stop bickering and figure it out.
Owner of Newport Solar
David, I'm afraid you miss the real point. Decentralization (along with stringent CONSERVATION) is the wave of the future.
Just like the rest of the industrial growth paradigm that's destroying our Planet, large, industrial scaled, wasteful energy production is dead. These attacks on decentralized, human scale energy systems are the twitching of the corpse...
The so-called "Solar Lobby", of which I consider myself a Proud Member, wants your grandchildren and their grandchildren to inherit an Earth where they can breath the air, drink the water and enjoy the environment wherein they will live.
Unless the fossil fools industry destroys it...
Magoffin, I am a United States citizen. You do NOT have propriety status of public land, no matter how much more time you spend on a grazing allotment. All U.S. citizens own the land, NOT you exclusively. I have as much right to voice my opinion about you grazers as you do, particularly when you denude and destroy public land with your range maggots.
It makes no sense to put solar on homes already connected to the grid. Utility scale projects are 1/2 the cost of residential rooftop projects. But worse, the utility scale projects are still uneconomic even after large federal subsides. Utilities build them because they are forced to by ACC mandates.
Large scale deployment of Solar is at least 20 year premature and Net Metering is massively unjust to rate payers, especially lower income ratepayers.
The solar lobby pushes for residential solar mandates because visible rooftop systems are a form of advertising for solar,.. a very expensive form which we are forced to pay.
CEO, AZ Solar company.
Ranchers are on the land 24-7, what have you done? Actually done on the land to make you so knowledgeable? Why don't you buy our ranch and walk the walk, only then can you have anything significant to say.
Ron Quinn is my Step Dad! He has a New book out and its great,Go to amazon books and type in Ron Quinn Take care.N
Ricardo Small - I agree with you in principle. But it seems we're in a position of 'lesser of several evils' here. Malpai and Altar Valley alliances are compromises, but pretty solid ones it seems to me.
One thing that does not help staunch environmentalists (like myself) is the impression of telling people that what they are doing is wrong, and we'll tell you what to do. Even if your message is a good one, that never goes over well with other, less green-minded people local to an area.
Excellent article, with really good commentaries. This is what a free society, and a free press look like. Gracias, Tucson Weekly. Micky Smythe.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation