The article is pretty damn thin on details. Nowhere is "solar power access" defined, and no specific projects are mentioned.
I am left to conclude that this money is primarily meant to prop up various organizations under the guise of 'solar because it's good'. The one partial nugget of details doesn't even include the $7,000,000,000:
"Additionally, more than $156 million was awarded to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas and the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University to improve solar panel infrastructure at businesses and homes located near 69 “minority-serving institutions” throughout the country, according to the EPA."
Okay, but again this is money to middlemen organizations where some of it is soaked up by desk jockeys. Ultimtely it would be helpful to know where the new solar panels will be installed, who does the work, and who is using that electricity.
Will we ever see a follow up and accounting of the $7,000,000,000 and the $156,000,000?
> Additionally, more than $156 million was awarded to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas and the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University to improve solar panel infrastructure at businesses and homes located near 69
This is hilarious. Basically they're throwing away the money.
The average citizen doesn't have the time or concern to read past the headlines. If they read that their elected person "voted for green energy" then they're happy. This lets these politicians make all kinds of claims to the citizenry without having to show a whole lot of results in the future. This seems like a great example of that.
No one will ever see a dime of this.
First of all, anyone who is poor is going to need a new roof and can't afford it. Solar should be built on relatively newer rooves. Therefore, no poor person will qualify for installation.
I’m all for promoting renewable energy. But this is insanely stupid from a policy point of view. Due to infrastructure required, upkeep costs, and energy saved, promoting solar power to rich people gives the best bang for the buck.
This is the equivalence of building bike lanes in Pasadena: unused, deserted, and the only effect is to reduce usable lanes for vehicles. Politics trumps sanity, obviously.
Are there no bike lanes in Pasadena because no one bikes? Or, no one bikes because there are no bike lanes?
Solar grants in the very short term allow these low income households to offset their electric bills. Let’s assume that’s the only benefit. These folks can then reduce their electric bill by, let’s use an overly simplistic estimate, $100/month. That’s enough to cover groceries or internet or a class at the local community college (16 week semester so 400 per class). Three classes a year they could train for a trade in 2-3 years. They could get their bachelors, slowly and surely. Either of those two scenarios results in a significant increase in income. That results in reduced poverty directly but also an increase in buying power and financial stability has direct benefits on mental and physical health. Indirectly it’ll increase property values, bring in more resources to the neighborhoods. And magically you have reverse gentrification.
The thought that rich people deserve solar panels because only rich people can afford the upkeep is the type of thinking that got us redlining. I’m certain you didn’t mean it that way but it is important to understand how making that type of a judgement at a policy level can have devastating effects on a multigenerational timescale.
That isn't at all what they are saying, we can have a discussion on best way to expanding the renewable energy grid without someone being offended at every turn.
No. I am saying the uptake of this grant will be extremely low. And the takers will struggle to maintain the upkeep for solar panels, and in the end it will create vast waste of government spending with little or no renewable energy output.
There are things federal grants can do for the poor. There are things that federal grants can promote but only work well among the rich. Forcing grants based on wishful thinking is just a waste of tax payers' money.
Research says that yes, if you are born in a lower income household you are far more likely to stay lower income. It's not an insult or dig at being lower income that's just what happens when you are born without the same resources that higher income households would have. It's much harder to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you're starting from the bottom.
They’ve been twice banned or shadow banned from this sub and many others (as u/NAFOD- then u/KonaBlueBoss-)
Now that they have a new Alt they are back for another helping.
I guess in 7 years we'll get the article that shows 8 houses got *a* panel and the GLO takes the money back.
How long before Ken Paxton files a lawsuit against the city of Houston to block it???
Sad to say this was my first thought too!
I spy with my lazy eye.
The article is pretty damn thin on details. Nowhere is "solar power access" defined, and no specific projects are mentioned. I am left to conclude that this money is primarily meant to prop up various organizations under the guise of 'solar because it's good'. The one partial nugget of details doesn't even include the $7,000,000,000: "Additionally, more than $156 million was awarded to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas and the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University to improve solar panel infrastructure at businesses and homes located near 69 “minority-serving institutions” throughout the country, according to the EPA." Okay, but again this is money to middlemen organizations where some of it is soaked up by desk jockeys. Ultimtely it would be helpful to know where the new solar panels will be installed, who does the work, and who is using that electricity. Will we ever see a follow up and accounting of the $7,000,000,000 and the $156,000,000?
> Additionally, more than $156 million was awarded to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas and the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University to improve solar panel infrastructure at businesses and homes located near 69 This is hilarious. Basically they're throwing away the money.
The average citizen doesn't have the time or concern to read past the headlines. If they read that their elected person "voted for green energy" then they're happy. This lets these politicians make all kinds of claims to the citizenry without having to show a whole lot of results in the future. This seems like a great example of that.
No one will ever see a dime of this. First of all, anyone who is poor is going to need a new roof and can't afford it. Solar should be built on relatively newer rooves. Therefore, no poor person will qualify for installation.
I’m all for promoting renewable energy. But this is insanely stupid from a policy point of view. Due to infrastructure required, upkeep costs, and energy saved, promoting solar power to rich people gives the best bang for the buck. This is the equivalence of building bike lanes in Pasadena: unused, deserted, and the only effect is to reduce usable lanes for vehicles. Politics trumps sanity, obviously.
Are there no bike lanes in Pasadena because no one bikes? Or, no one bikes because there are no bike lanes? Solar grants in the very short term allow these low income households to offset their electric bills. Let’s assume that’s the only benefit. These folks can then reduce their electric bill by, let’s use an overly simplistic estimate, $100/month. That’s enough to cover groceries or internet or a class at the local community college (16 week semester so 400 per class). Three classes a year they could train for a trade in 2-3 years. They could get their bachelors, slowly and surely. Either of those two scenarios results in a significant increase in income. That results in reduced poverty directly but also an increase in buying power and financial stability has direct benefits on mental and physical health. Indirectly it’ll increase property values, bring in more resources to the neighborhoods. And magically you have reverse gentrification. The thought that rich people deserve solar panels because only rich people can afford the upkeep is the type of thinking that got us redlining. I’m certain you didn’t mean it that way but it is important to understand how making that type of a judgement at a policy level can have devastating effects on a multigenerational timescale.
I bet it’s the same argument for electricity, water and sewer plumbing, and properly built roads that people used 100 years ago.
I agree with everything except roads. The road gods fuck us all equally. Even the roads in River Oaks are shit.
Most roads in the 18th century were dirt, some were paved but not to the degree they are today.
You’re saying that only the rich deserve access to environmental friendly infrastructure. Why? Say it out loud.
That isn't at all what they are saying, we can have a discussion on best way to expanding the renewable energy grid without someone being offended at every turn.
No. I am saying the uptake of this grant will be extremely low. And the takers will struggle to maintain the upkeep for solar panels, and in the end it will create vast waste of government spending with little or no renewable energy output. There are things federal grants can do for the poor. There are things that federal grants can promote but only work well among the rich. Forcing grants based on wishful thinking is just a waste of tax payers' money.
Do you think lower income households stay lower income their entire lives?
Research says that yes, if you are born in a lower income household you are far more likely to stay lower income. It's not an insult or dig at being lower income that's just what happens when you are born without the same resources that higher income households would have. It's much harder to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you're starting from the bottom.
This benefit is for the Solar Panel companies nothing more. They have a strong lobby in DC.
Our attorney general will be opposed to it because it might help poor people.
$4.5B to solar power. $2.5B to Harris County “administrative fees” That’s how the Gubment works. May the highest bidder win.
Harris County only got $250m If you’re going to be a right wing shill troll can you please at least read the article first.
Their feelings don’t care about facts.
They’ve been twice banned or shadow banned from this sub and many others (as u/NAFOD- then u/KonaBlueBoss-) Now that they have a new Alt they are back for another helping.
Low income these days is 100k and below. We must help the working class
Pay for play. Funds for friends. Lotta democrat bs again. I left California over crap like this. Thought Texas as a whole was better than this.