1 - 5
I'm not familiar with the alleged political actions you ascribe to APS, but I think conservatives have a duty to understand and explain basic economics, something your column sorely lacks. The utility grid is largely a fixed cost business because electricity is the ultimate just-in-time product. All of those generators, transformers, poles, wires, substations, etc. are required to make the system work when you want it to - just like the internet. When you flip the switch, somewhere a generator is responding to that change in load whether the sun is shining or not. Unfortunately, since the industry began it has priced residential service in cents/kWh as if the cost of service was largely variable when, in fact, it is not. I don't know a great deal about APS' generating portfolio but I suspect that their actual variable cost of providing a kWh is less than 4 cents/kWh which is significantly less than their residential rate of around 11 cents /kWh. That difference represents fixed network costs that are required to serve all customers, including those with solar panels. If internet priced their product the same we'd all be paying a cent/byte rate for every data transfer even though the system costs are largely fixed. The economic problem of solar panels is that the users want to base their economics on the traditional utility rate that consists largely of fixed costs. APS, like a lot of utilities, is trying to change their rate design to send the proper price signal that the solar user is not "saving" all of the fixed costs that are there for them to use when the sun is not shining. Furthermore, you incorrectly state that solar subsidies have ended. That is untrue. Both the Federal government and AZ continue to offer tax credits for installing solar panels. You may not like APS' political actions but their efforts to properly price their product so that solar customers pay their share of grid costs are designed to protect their non-solar customers from further subsidizing solar customers. Regulated utilities like APS earn a return based on their investment, not on how much they sell. If they do not collect their investment in their fixed assets used to serve solar customers, then rates for all, including the solar customers, will have to increase. This is basic regulated utility economics that a conservative website should seek to explain rather than resorting to the populist rhetoric of the left.
In response to:

"HRC": A Study Guide To 2016 for the GOP

David210 Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 8:30 PM
I would also add that the XII Amendment makes the VP option less likely because it says that no person ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible for VP. However, as we all "know" by now, the Constitution is a living document and surely we can't be bound by an 1804 amendment ratified by a bunch of white, slave-owning males.
In response to:

"HRC": A Study Guide To 2016 for the GOP

David210 Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 8:25 PM
Good point but it would seem that with Hawaii, Illinois and DC to choose from, I'm sure this will not be a challenge. Recall that Cheney "moved" back to Wyoming in 2000.
In response to:

"HRC": A Study Guide To 2016 for the GOP

David210 Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 8:14 PM
Nothing is inevitable but the trends are not good. For example, our education system at the university, secondary, and primary level is becoming increasingly progressive. As Lenin said, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world.” Second, the celebration of multiculturalism further divides the nation. See Arthur Schlesinger's "The Disuniting of America." We are a long way from de Tocqueville's description of what it meant to be "American" and I'm not taking about ethnicity. Lastly, if you haven't read Orwell's "1984" in awhile, I encourage you to do so. One of the Party's slogans was "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." The people today know less and less about the past so they don't understand the implications of tyranny so they won't until it is too late. As I said, the trends are not good.
In response to:

"HRC": A Study Guide To 2016 for the GOP

David210 Wrote: Apr 18, 2014 4:39 PM
I agree that Benghazi will be Hillary's downfall, but not because the GOP will exploit it. Rather, the "truth" about her failure will be "sadly" revealed by President Obama at the appropriate time - when Michelle is ready to "reluctantly become the party's candidate in its hour of need in order to continue the transformation that Barack has worked so hard for on your behalf these last 7 years." Does anyone really believe that Team Obama is going to go quietly into the night? There was a reason that Organizing for Action was announced by Michelle (watch the video on YouTube). What's more hip than the first black president? The first black female president. The demographics that supported Barack would certainly turn out in droves for Michelle. Only racists and sexist could possibly oppose her. She has no experience you say? That is why Barack will agree to be her running mate (the 22nd amendment doesn't address running for VP). Who says Barack hasn't learned anything from watching Putin operate (how is Medvedev these days?). Best of all, once Michelle wins, she could always resign and Barack could take over again because the 22nd Amendment only addresses being elected president, not assuming the office upon the resignation of the president. Far fetched you say? Not when you are trying to Fundamentally Transform America.
1 - 5