VOSD Podcast: Plug-in Blues17%

By Matt Skraby36% https:47% voiceofsandiego.org36% #43% schema42% person43% 0372b869e07f31151d6586e7b09d2e6136%

7/11/2026, 3:18:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 263 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.7% and a BS Rank of 17% (11,815 of 14,190 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.30% of the article peer group.

People outside their balconies on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis)

Rooftop solar is all the rage, but what if you don’t own the space above your home?

Environment reporter MacKenzie Elmer joins the show this week to discuss SB 868 , a bill that would make it easier to for renters and condo owners to use plug-in solar panels.

Yes, but: SDG&E isn’t totally fired up about the legislation. The company is raising concerns about worker safety but supporters of “balcony solar” say it’s safe.

Here’s Elmer explaining what went down at a recent meeting. ( Editor’s note: Edited for length and clarity. )

Elmer (38:30): “The utility company, SDG&E … they sent a representative to a committee hearing in the Assembly. She sat up there and she said, ‘I have multiple incidents where … our workers found that solar had been sending power back through the grid when we thought that the line was actually down.’ The utility’s lines need to be down, no electricity can be flowing through them in order for it to be safe for the workers to work on the line. So that’s the concern.”

Also on the show: Education reporter Jacob McWhinney breaks down a proposed $3.5 billion general obligation bond for the 2026 ballot . This would be the district’s fifth bond in 18 years. He explains the gutsy proposal possibly coming to a ballot near you.

Listen: Apple | Spotify | PodLink

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

263 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker33%attributed speech177writer words
Selected voice

MacKenzie Elmer

0%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.