Fyi I think you might have replied to my comment when you intended to reply to the post itself

Hah, fair. But op said they're installing solar, so I'm guessing they own the building.

> f it plugs in (and isn't hard-wired)

It legally should be hardwired.

But there are non-contact clamp meters that can measure current without having to change any wiring.

e.g. https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-400-Amp-AC-DC-Digital-Clamp-Meter-Auto-Ranging-CL390/312649921

> is it Arcadia that’s basically the ponzi or are they not around anymore

They are around and I use them. I don't know about being a ponzi though, it's more like arbitrage with renewable energy credits which is its own form of semi-scummy, but it's also the best option I've been able to find.

Yes, RIE has a monopoly on distribution, but we can choose our supplier.

Because of RIE's semi-monopoly, there's a Public Utility Council that is supposed to oversee and regulate the amount of profit RIE is allowed to make on the distribution. It was previously 5% profit, but I think it was recently increased to 7.5%, but they don't make it easy to find that rate for some reason.......

They do!!! https://www.energysage.com/energy-products/energy-monitors/

They just clamp around the wire in your panel so you can read each circuit's current without having to actually change any wiring.

Or for even cheaper to just help you go hunting leakages instead of a more permanent install to monitor over time, a clamp meter like this $15 Harbor Freight one would work: https://www.harborfreight.com/digital-clamp-meter-96308.html

The good news is that presumably your solar array is sized for your current use, so once it's up and running, you can find and plug those holes to use less and sell more back to RIE!

For sure. Allowing private individuals to voluntarily spend their own money to install and maintain solar on their own property that gets sent to the grid should be a no-brainer for greening our grid.

Instead, we're stuck thinking about the grid as only moving power from central generation to consumers, when it really should be moving to a store-and-release model...capture grid-scale power during the day, then release it at night. Eventually, the grid should end up netting out to close to 0 power produced.

Guess you're not a narcoleptic then

Dang yeah idk, it does seem like a lot of electricity disappearing. I work from home and have a couple always-on PCs and media server.

Because you randomly fall asleep throughout the day?

> I feel like we don’t even use very much electricity.

That's all relative, right? My most recent bill was $124 for 416kWh, so in relation to me, you're using quite a bit.

But I have NG heat, hot water, stove, and dryer, so those don't hit the electric bill.

Total elec + NG last bill was $392, so if you have electric heat and stuff, then we're in the same ballpark overall.

It's sweet that you have solar coming online (hopefully) soon though!

> copy MA and make groceries tax free outright.

Food is already tax-free in RI. I am suggesting re-adding sales tax to the not-a-staple foods like aren't SNAP eligible.

> I’d just go to whatever that Laffer curve number is for the ideal rate

That's a new term to me, thanks for bringing it up. Reading about it now though, it seems limited. There is more to taxation than raw receipts, and requiring a single rate seems unnecessary. We could exceed the Laffer ideal if we tax different things at different rates, as well as achieve broader societal goals if we tax the poor less than the wealthy, and encourage eating celery over frozen pizza.

Oh good call, yeah that would make sense.

Still makes me wonder what people think their time and gas are worth 0.15%, but to each their own...

If it were up to me, I'd add more sales tax tiers.

Unlike us, CT does normally charge sales tax on clothing but has an annual back-to-school season tax-free week, where clothing under $50/item is tax free. I think it would make perfect sense for us to implement something similar. Instead of all clothing being tax-free all the time, only charge sales tax on individual items over $50 or $100 or something. I see no reason why we need to subsidize higher-end clothing.

Similarly, RI charges the same tax rate on all vehicles but CT has a higher bracket for vehicles over $50,000 (7.75% vs their normal 6.35%). Maybe that dollar limit should be bumped up a bit more for 2023, but I like the idea. No reason the $100,000 Mercedes buyer can't pay a bit more tax. I'd be tempted to add another tier for <$30,000 vehicles to pay lower than normal tax too.

Beyond that, we already have the mechanism in the grocery store that defines what foods are SNAP eligible...the foods that are generally good things to eat. Why not tax the non-SNAP "not good" foods too?

Your user flair in here is "Newport" which may have caused the confusion, if it looked like the post was flaired "Newport" and not you?

Cousin Vitto runs a nice license plate dash removal shop, the state awarded him the contract

Why even bother lowering the sales tax rate? I'm certainly not going to notice saving 0.15%, but the state will feel the hit in aggregate.

If they're willing to take in less sales tax, how about take in less by exempting more categories like OTC contraceptives?

I don't see any reason why the hypothetical $60,000 car needs to be 0.15% cheaper.

Awesome!

Saw your update - was it as easy as I made it seem?

I guess I'm the frog in the boiling pot, because those prices don't even seem that bad to me.

Assuming Cranston traffic court operates like mine and that nothing has changed in like 5 years, the judge will very clearly tell you what to say to ask for clean driving record mercy. The script was even taped to the podium, and like 95% of the other 40 people in the room did the exact same thing.

Your name gets called, you say the line, the judge says yep got it. Totally routine, takes two seconds, nothing to be worried about.

If you haven't had an RI drivers license for over 3 years where they can see the clean history, you might need to get a copy of your driving record from the previous state.

More info here: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/rhodeislandtraffictribunal/PDF/KnowYourRights.pdf

> Not sure why you’re getting downvoted

I think it's because they're misunderstanding the point /u/Accurate-Historian-7 is making. Historian is saying that having a backup generator will protect you when the power goes out. Beezle is arguing against a generator as a solution to energy costs going up, which no one ever claimed them to be.

You have a good point as well - if you're in an apartment, you might not have a place to hook up and run your backup generator if the power goes out. Another way people in apartments are worse off. At least it won't be you paying for the work when a pipe bursts in your landlord's building, but that will be small consolation when you get kicked out for the construction and have to figure out somewhere else to live. That's a shitty situation all around, caused by the landlord's failure to plan ahead.

FWIW, if you have gas heat and hot water, they only need a tiny bit of power to run zone valves, circulators, and thermostats, so you could run them from your car or one of those lithium ion "generators" like the brand Jackery popularized.

If you have a balcony or somewhere protected outside, a cheap generator like this one would be enough to keep your fridge cold and your house warm, assuming you have the access and know-how to change around wiring.

> His comment about generators also puts the burden on individual people to remedy their own energy-supply / cost crises

That's not the point at all, they are recommending a generator as a backup power supply for when the grid goes down, which would be a money saver. Whether it's fossil fuel or nuclear or wind, when a tree falls on the line, your power is going out.

Even a nice $1k generator is a hell of a lot cheaper than water remediation and repiping a house.

> There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population.

Right, we agree so far.

> Whether they could afford them is not clear

Why isn't it clear? What are the possibilities?

To me, the owner will have a bunch of buildings that are costing them money sitting empty. They list them for $4,000/month. No one rents. $3,000/month. No one rents. They try to sell the building, but no one wants to buy a vacant apartment building. $1,500/month and people become interested.

That is supply reducing pricing.

If you don't think or aren't sure pricing will get lower, what do you think will happen instead? The owners just keep them listed for $4,000/month with 0 tenants, and just lose money into bankruptcy?

> you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain

If you think that's the topic you might be literally illiterate. Or, more likely, you're just misrepresenting it because in your imagination you think it makes it seem like your unwillingness to learn is you winning an argument.

> As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there.

Against my better judgment, I will do some reading for you and pull out a few of the cities referenced in the paper: Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis.