[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Johnd

I’m voting yes on Amendment #1 because it adds protections for people like me who will not install solar appliances and do not want to monetarily support people who do. There is no way for solar to compete without the “state” coercing citizens to subsidize solar. The solar industry would probably be better off without subsidies as they would then marshal the resources necessary for technological breakthroughs that may make them competitive.

The opponents 3 talking points are vague. Point 1 states in part the amendment will “limit customer-owned solar”. Please explain how. Point 2 mentions “barriers that would penalize solar customers”. What barriers? Point 3 is partially correct. The right of solar activists to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use is already existing law. But the right of ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production is not presently protected.

I agree.