Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Something I would love to see are some sort of subsidies for the average person to purchase things like solar panels or windmills.

I wonder sometimes how much effort energy companies are putting into suppressing this sort of thing.

 
That actually happened when we lived in the Virgin Islands. A lot of people went solar or erected wind turbines on their property with some reasonable subsidies from the government plus WAPA (Water And Power Authority) was eager to encourage people to help relieve the burden they were under.

flowergirl wrote:

"...without new legislation from Congress."  But wouldn't Congress have to pass the 60 billion to states and cities?

She plans to issue new regulations based upon authority already granted in the Clean Air Act.

But you are correct:
" Mrs. Clinton would need at least some action by Congress to meet her goals — legislators would need to appropriate the $60 billion she intends to spend on clean infrastructure grants to states, and the $30 billion to help coal communities.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers say she is confident that Congress would appropriate the money because it would be funneled directly to states. Experts are skeptical."

tennyson wrote:

We really do need to have a long term goal on our energy usage. There are a number of alternatives to existing methods that hold promise for a clean energy solution. We need to move forward on all of the technologies. 

Agreed. It is time to end the era of partisan gridlock and to get this nation moving again.

Conspiracy Theory wrote:

Something I would love to see are some sort of subsidies for the average person to purchase things like solar panels or windmills.

I wonder sometimes how much effort energy companies are putting into suppressing this sort of thing.

First off, admirable goals set by Clinton and I think somewhat achievable. But obviously a lot of questions need to be asked.

Without a carbon tax, or the government directly installing half a billion solar panels, the only way to reach that goal is to provide subsidies. Either to individuals to switch to renewable sources, or to companies to speed up research, development, and marketing of renewable alternatives. 

She could very well try and partner with the big energy companies to provide incentives to get further away from fossil fuels and deeper into renewables. After all, it's really only the Exxon-Mobil's of the world who have the size and scale to speed the transition along. 

Personally, I think that is what ends up happening. 

So then the question is, how politically feasible is it to subsidize "Big Oil" than they already are and what promises does the government get in return for the subsidies and where do those subsidies replace in the budget? Or do we just add to the debt?