The following was sent from the Chuck Eaton for PSC Campaign. In the interests of the educated voter, we have linked to columns from both Mr. Eaton and his opponent, Steve Oppenheimer. Mr. Oppenheimer’s column can be found here.
Solar energy has become a polarizing ideological debate, with many on the left treating it as a religious crusade, while many of us on the right believe it’s a boondoggle designed to favor Obama supporters.
The bad name solar energy has in Republican and conservative circles is based on the way it’s been over-hyped and oversold by the left and, in some cases, by those with a financial interest in the technology.
In Republican politics, solar energy is synonymous with failed big government policies, in part because of money schemes like Solyndra and taxpayer-subsidized automobiles.
I believe that solar technology is not inherently liberal; it’s the way in which it is implemented that marks solar programs as liberal or conservative.
With the cost of solar installations falling dramatically, some say as much as 75%, we can now discuss deploying solar power without the subsidies, waste, and cronyism that seems to pervade government solar initiatives. The only way we can responsibly implement more solar power is to require that it does not increase rates, and that solar programs include competitive mechanisms to ensure the lowest cost.
From my perspective, solar energy should be evaluated on its own merits as a source of safe and reliable electricity at competitive prices. For energy independence and lower rates, solar can be part of a diversified energy portfolio if the price is right.
The Georgia Public Service Commission has been criticized by the left for not developing enough solar capacity on a timeline to satisfy their ideological desires. Since solar is almost 100% capital costs, with relatively small ongoing costs and no fuel requirement, the dramatic drop in solar panel costs will save Georgians millions of dollars over states that implemented solar earlier when the technology was less mature and much more expensive.
By being cautious and responsible, instead of following liberal special interests groups, the Georgia Public Service Commission can now consider adding solar to our power portfolio at much lower costs to Georgia families. This helps keep our rates low and gives our state a significant economic advantage in attracting jobs over other states that have implemented solar before it was economically viable.
As we have seen with the repeal of the sales tax on energy used in manufacturing, which the members of the Public Service Commission supported, and Governor Deal signed into law, lower energy costs not only benefit families, but it can help Georgia attract more new jobs.
I’ve been working on a new solar program with Georgia Power. The details will be released soon, but if a majority of the Commission votes to approve the measure, it will be built on the 50-megawatt program previously implemented.
In discussing this solar initiative, I laid out a three parameters: first, it shouldn’t cause higher rates; second, it must be a good strategic fit; and third, bids to provide utility scale solar power should be subject to a competitive bidding process to ensure the best value to ratepayers.
If the plan is implemented, Georgia will have affordable solar power generation without compromising the reliability of our system or rewarding politically favored companies. Implementing solar without government mandates allows us to focus on where solar makes the most economic sense.
As the Obama Administration and its Environmental Protection Agency continue to force electric rates up through burdensome policies, solar will play a larger role in our electric supply. In Georgia, economical use of solar can help us hedge against the increasing costs of future regulations from the federal government, while it leaves more money in the pockets of families, and helps attract more jobs.
[...] The following is a press release sent from the Steve Oppenheimer for PSC campaign. In the interests of the educated voter, we have linked to columns from both Mr. Oppenheimer and his opponent, current PSC Commissioner Chuck Eaton. Mr. Eaton’s column can be found here. [...]
If government regulations exist to drive up electric power bills and if local, state and federal governments tax electrical power thru shadow taxes and fees, how do you believe you are actually helping georgias citizens? Wouldn’t we be better served if you removed regulations and shadow taxes and lowered our electric rates by half plus the savings of not having to buy new energy equipment?
Whos interest does this really serve? Would really like to understand. Thanks for your time.
Dear Thatsjustpeachy,
In addition to your post I was wondering Why do so few conservatives seem to question American foreign policy and believe any and every lie that is repeated media regarding potential foreign threats? If you don’t trust the government to interfere in the economy or run their domestic social programs then why on earth would you trust them with the largest military in the history of the solar system? The same arguments against government intervention domestically and economically apply.
If you take the pro war/pro imperial position you are by extension automatically going to be bad on the economy and civil liberties because in order to execute your foreign policy you must necessarily allocate resources to unproductive means (destroying property and killing people overseas). Not to mention the hatred you engender by an aggressive foreign policy that leads extremists to attack and as a result the government cracks down on our domestic liberties.
There just is no way to be a limited government advocate and an imperialist simultaneously. It’s a contradiction.
Kindest Regards