Framing the Dialogue

Parsimony – Good Green Jobs

green jobsI have to wonder if elected representatives, upon taking their seat in the legislature, are given a notebook with official buzz words to use. I doubt that there is such a document mostly because its existence would become known and published. Based on news reports newly elected officials are promptly “initiated” by senior elected officials and put in their place; nothing written; nothing recorded. This episode of parsimony features a Pennsylvania politician proposing to increase (i.e. FORCE) power companies to purchase more solar and wind power…

Would Increase PA Renewable Energy Mandates

Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware), Minority Chair of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, Friday introduced House Bill 100 which would increase the amount of electricity companies such as PECO and PPL must obtain from renewable sources such as wind and solar. [“renewable” is another of those buzz words]

Rep. Vitali said the purpose of the legislation is to help address climate change and create good, green jobs. [Climate change is the latest evolution of Global Cooling, then Global Warming and now Climate Change which covers whichever way the weather blows. Good Green Jobs, another buzz term, who could be against jobs right?]

“Superstorm Sandy was a reminder of the consequences we face if we ignore the climate change issue,” said Rep. Vitali, Democratic chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. “We will not solve this problem without increasing our use of renewable energy.” [So the use of more windmills and solar panels would have prevented Superstorm Sandy ? It amazes me when a politician makes such a statement and is not immediately asked for proof of such claims. Where is the science behind such claims? Perhaps “climate change” made Superstorm Sandy much milder than it could have been? Perhaps had we done more to control greenhouse gases it would have been Hurricaine Sandy and Tsunami Sandy hitting New Jersey and New York.]

The bill would amend the Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act by requiring Pennsylvania electric companies to obtain 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2023. The AEPS now requires electric companies to purchase 8 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2021. For 2013, Pennsylvania’s AEPS requires 4 percent to come from renewable energy sources. [Rather than raise taxes and just provide more subsidies for solar and wind power this requirement is a back door way to increase taxes. Okay it will not raise “taxes”, but it will cost Pennsylvanians money in the form of increased energy bills. The cost of producing wind and solar is much higher than nuclear, coal, or natural gas so when politicians FORCE energy suppliers to purchase more expensive energy those costs are passed on to the consumer. You know your home energy costs are going to go way up.]

Currently, 0.05 percent of Pennsylvania electricity must come from solar energy, and that would increase to 0.5 percent under the AEPS in place by 2021. Vitali’s bill would increase that amount to 1.5 percent by 2023. [The change sounds rather minor when put this way, but if I said that the requirement would TRIPLE the amount required it sounds like a lot more.]

Rep. Vitali also noted that in contrast to Pennsylvania’s law, New Jersey will require 17.88 percent of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2021 and 4.1 percent from solar sources by 2028. For 2013, New Jersey requires 7.1 percent to come from renewables. [So one of his arguments to support his legislation is that New Jersey requires more. I’m not sure if he is saying we need to be more like Jersey, or saying “see we’re not as bad as Jersey.” Why not compare Pennsylvania to Texas which has a much better economy than New Jersey?]

Rep. Vitali said his legislation has another benefit – it would create good, green jobs during a time when unemployment in Pennsylvania remains high. [Good, green jobs! We all want jobs right? Unemployment is high and we need jobs! Who could disagree with that? I might ask what will the impact on existing jobs be when employers and manufacturers now have much higher energy costs? What happens when the cost to manufacture a widget is now more than most consumers are willing to pay for them? Any chance that will result in fewer jobs; EXISTING jobs? OH, you should look into where solar panels and windmill parts are manufactured. It is doubtful that Pennsylvania would see anything but some temporary construction jobs as a result.]


Leave a comment

Use basic HTML (<a href="">, <strong>, <blockquote>)