Issues

Costly energy mandates could mean more $ out of your pocket

Abundant and affordable energy is critical for individuals, families and businesses. That's why Pennsylvania must take reasonable steps to ensure adequate supplies at affordable prices in the future.

The last thing Pennsylvania should be doing is making policy decisions that could make energy more expensive. But that's exactly what state lawmakers are doing in their consideration of House Bill 80.

House Bill 80 would extend renewable energy mandates established under a 2004 law - the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act. The bill would also increase the solar energy mandate, and create an additional mandate for coal fired power plants using something called carbon capture and sequestration technology.

This all sounds good, right? After all, Pennsylvania does need all forms of energy to meet growing demand (even with conservation and efficiency efforts, demand is expected to increase 40 percent by the year 2030 due to new technologies, a growing population and larger home sizes), including renewable and traditional sources.

The problem is the additional mandates in H.B. 80 could raise electricity rates by as much as $9 billion in future years at a time when citizens and job creators can least afford it. In fact, both business and labor groups have concerns about the legislation's potentially adverse impact on electricity costs and jobs.

With the remaining rate caps on electricity coming off later this year and next year, and the uncertainties in the market as a result, now is not the time to increase the mandates for more expensive forms of energy. This is especially true since the mandates established in the 2004 law have not yet been fully implemented, and that law's impact on cost is not yet known.

Besides policymakers cannot accurately predict what technologies will exist or be economically viable in the future. The development of Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves, for instance, was not anticipated a decade ago, and now that industry holds great economic promise for the Commonwealth and its residents. When government, not market demand, selects which alternative energy sources to utilize, problems can arise as they did during the Carter administration. In the 1970s, the federal government sunk a significant amount of funding into synthetic fuels, which proved not to be a viable option and, as a result, a monumental waste of money.

Smart energy policy ensures that alternative energy exists within the framework of a free enterprise system that balances energy needs with viable sources to meet those needs. Increasing mandated percentages of particular technologies creates inflexibility in the energy market and removes business innovation from the equation. Rather than having government pick and choose the sources of alternative energy to mandate, families and businesses should be able to make energy choices from both traditional and renewable sources that are best for them.

Finally, with the federal government is poised to pass climate change legislation, it makes sense to wait for resolution on that front. Going beyond federal requirements would have an adverse impact on Pennsylvania's competitive climate and will cost jobs. That, like higher energy costs, is something Pennsylvania families cannot afford.

Contact your state lawmakers and tell them Pennsylvania does need a comprehensive energy policy - one that pursues all viable options and steers clear of government mandated energy requirements. Tell them to vote "no" on H.B. 80