More power. More household investment.

01 / ENERGY

Assess sources without blanket exclusions

I support considering all energy sources rather than treating a category label as a substitute for evaluation. That does not mean every project is equally suitable. Cost, generation reliability, emissions, environmental effects, and the ability to deliver useful power need to be assessed together.

This is support for a broader supply framework, not a promise of particular utility prices or an exemption from project-specific review.

02 / ENERGY

Nuclear investment and Florida solar opportunities

I support long-term nuclear investment nationally and expanded solar opportunities in Florida. Nuclear and renewable energy are distinct categories; conventional uranium-fueled nuclear power is not classified as renewable.

Public background: The U.S. Energy Information Administration explains nuclear energy. Its environmental overview distinguishes a reactor’s lack of carbon dioxide emissions during operation from fuel production, construction, waste, and other environmental considerations. Those considerations still belong in project assessment.

03 / ENERGY

Direct more support to primary residences

I support directing more modernization assistance toward individually owned primary residences, including homeowner solar grants, rather than making large utility companies the principal recipients.

Grant amounts, qualifying ownership, income rules, eligible improvements, payment arrangements, installation verification, and interactions with other assistance still need to be defined. Solar is part of the position I support. Batteries, electrical-panel upgrades, insulation, and other categories have not been adopted as program commitments here.

My rationale is that assistance reaching households directly deserves serious evaluation. This page does not claim a proven larger economic multiplier or publish unsupported claims about any named utility’s subsidies.

04 / ENERGY

Separate household assistance from the grid

Household grants and system-wide infrastructure need separate budgets and measures of performance. Support for household improvements does not remove the need to evaluate generation, transmission, and reliable electricity delivery.

The grant budget, funding source, and expenditures that might be reduced or redirected remain unresolved. Reallocating existing spending and authorizing additional spending are different decisions, and neither is assumed to be cost-free.

I support evaluating these costs alongside fiscal responsibility, without counting the same savings twice. Administration should report what assistance costs and what it delivers, including verified installations, payment timeliness, and unresolved cases.