Environmentalists are saying it’s easier to be green than they think
By Brian X. McCrone
PENNSYLVANIA - Mayor John Street isn’t known for his environmental prowess, but the bike-riding — and helmet-wearing — city
leader earlier this year dedicated $800,000 from city coffers to pay
for a “green” City Hall.
The extra energy money is going to pay for PECO Energy’s expanding wind energy program.
State legislators apparently are not as proactive.
After passing a $27 billion budget nine days past the June 30
deadline, the Legislature failed to adopt an $850 million Energy
Conservation Fund that would have begun paying into alternative energy
solutions for Pennsylvania.
“They saw this as a new tax instead of an investment of energy
for our future,” PennEnvironment official Nathan Willcox said
yesterday. “They seem to be happy just to leave it to the market to
solve our energy issues.”
The $850 million would have gone toward expanding alternative
energies such as wind and solar power, the money raised by a surcharge
on energy customers’ bills of one-twentieth of a cent per
kilowatt-hour.
State officials had estimated the average residential customer
would pay between $5 and $6 more a year. Large-scale users would have
paid a maximum of $10,000.
Rebates would also have been offered for purchases of energy-efficient appliances.
“There are pros and cons to the bill,” PECO Energy spokesman
Mike Wood said. “Certainly, it adds a little bit to the customers’
bills at a time when energy prices are rising. It generates a lot of
money that the state could use to stimulate alternative energies.”
But the bill’s other requirements, such as rebates and “smart
meters” to allow customers to see how much their energy costs, are
somewhat flawed objectives, he said.
“The people that need [energy efficiency] most will still
struggle to buy the more expensive, energy-efficient appliances and the
rebates don’t come until after you buy it,” Wood said.
