In response to David A. Fowler’s letter on the rooftop solar ruling by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (“Net metering decision,” Tuesday Review-Journal), I have to hand it to the RJ for allowing every possible opinion to be printed.
Search results for:
In response to the article on the officer-involved shooting on New Year’s Eve (“Missteps detailed in shooting,” Tuesday Review-Journal), I would like to see future articles such as this subtitled, “Convicted criminal killed for not following instructions from police,” rather than the R-J’s subtitle, “Unarmed fugitive holding phone killed.”
NV Energy would have you believe that supplying a rooftop solar customer with electrical power is far different than supplying electrical power to a nonsolar customer. Nothing could not be further from the truth.
The attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., are examples of a pattern of terror that predictably will be repeated in the months and years ahead. No gathering of Americans will be safe. All public gatherings, religious and secular, will be targeted and increasingly vulnerable. Counteractive measures must be planned, organized and implemented.
Regarding the article on the juvenile residential facility and the subsequent editorial, I would respond: While comparing the county’s proposed 5,000-square-foot juvenile residential facility, with an estimated cost of $2.9 million, to a multimillion dollar luxury home aids in portraying government excess and waste, such comparisons are simply not fair.
Regarding the ruling on rooftop solar rates, net metering is no more and no less an extension of a co-generation facility in small scale.
Letters from Leon Pitt, Richard McGarrity, Robert Raider, and Mike Bryant.
Letters from Robert Morrow, Doug Nusbaum, and Fred G. Breitling.
Regarding the article on the new net metering rate structure for rooftop solar owners (“PUC OKs new solar rates,” Dec. 23 Review-Journal), let’s look at this and see what’s really going on.