The op-ed “Pa. communities should be allowed to choose clean energy” (April 7, TribLIVE) neglected to mention just why the United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and fails to mention the costs of burdensome government mandates and mischaracterized legislative proposals.
First, Pennsylvania’s embrace of competitive markets has resulted in the second-largest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the power generation space among any state since 2005, and, economywide, Pennsylvania has reduced its emission across all sectors more than all states combined that participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The private sector in Pennsylvania is investing billions of dollars every year into low- and no-carbon energy technology. Businesses and individuals can choose the best energy resource for their needs, which will lead to faster and more cost-effective environmental improvements.
Second, bills to keep this ability in place are pending in the Legislature to ensure consumers have access to energy options. These policies will ensure that property owners have access to the energy resource that best suits their needs.
According to a ICF conducted the study, banning natural gas use in homes would increase households’ annual costs by nearly 50% while only reducing overall emissions by 1%. A mandate like this would also increase the cost of building a home by as much as $15,000
Inflation is reducing Pennsylvania families’ paychecks, and it is particularly affecting low-income families. Innovation and competitive markets — not costly government red tape and energy taxes — are more effective approaches to energy policy.
Kevin Sunday
Harrisburg
Kevin Sunday is the director
The government affairs
Pennsylvania Chamber
Business and Industry
