Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Future unclear for solar power project

January 16, 2013

The future of what was to be the largest solar field east of the Rocky Mountains is uncertain after the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio rejected a plan to finance the Noble County project....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-22-14 4:44 PM

20 cent a bill ? People are iching about 20cents ? The oil/gas companies have won once again !

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:13 PM

If something makes zero financial sense, then I expect it to be stopped. The PUCO did the right thing.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 6:30 PM

Also 1 of the PUCO members is too closely tied to the oil and gas energy lobby. PUCO Cheif Snitchler, too political for position he holds. check it out

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 6:24 PM

As far as govt. "investments in energy production" do a little research and find out how much the feds put into hydraulic fracturing. How much govt investment was there in putting electricity into rural areas. Should this be privately invested in and no govt subsidies be involved, in an ideal world, of course. But dont blame todays politicos for doing the same thing prior office holders did, by the way for every 1 dollar Eisenhower( the truly last fiscal conservative) put into the federal interstate system initially, 6 dollars were returned in services to the private sector, which still benefits from tax dollars being spent on a way to get goods to and fro.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 4:53 PM

PUCO isn't telling the developers or AEP that they can't build it, only that rate payers aren't going to subsidize it. If Turning Point wants to build it, more power to them, but don't force all of us to pay for it.

It's the same flawed policy that is going on at Ormet, where they get a discounted electric rate, but AEP gets full price because the rest of us as AEP customers pay the difference.

It's bad policy.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 11:51 AM

take not that

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 11:50 AM

if the project had value aep would shoulder the full deal. they will own it, operated it, and that profit from it. what do we get for our investment?????

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 9:01 AM

It's funny how the private public partnerships always benefit the private investors for profit but pass the 'costs' along to the taxpayer. I think we're better off not being half pregnant. Power should be public or private, with clear lines about profit & cost carrying.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 6:27 AM

Actually,PUCO made it quite clear,as well as AEP.The costs listed in this article are not correct.The entire state should not be assessed to provide fairy dust power to 25,000 customers.Solar is NOT able to stand alone without gov subsidy..and we see where that has got us.If it were financially sound,it wouldnt take $8 million dollars of taxpayer funds..the private sector would have done this already.So,where is that $8 mill of our tax dollars?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-16-13 5:37 AM

Isn't it also "economically harmful" if it is passed on to people who are already struggling to pay their bills.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 10 of 10 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web