Judiy Focareta posted on 8/25/2011 10:58:00 AM
Elizabeth,
I understand that we can trade studies etc all day and not reach any kind of consensus. I believe that problems and solutions are always much more complicated that anyone cares to admit. That is why I think dialogue is important and oversimplification should be avoided. I believe that rarely happens. It was nice speaking with you. Judy

Elizabeth Stelle posted on 8/24/2011 2:48:00 PM
It’s a fallacy that government can create jobs by mandating spending. This is a classic case of the broken window fallacy: Basically, if someone throws a brick through a window some might think it is a good thing because the owner will have to buy a new glass window, creating work for a glassmaker. Of course, this is only the seen effect. The unseen impact is the opportunity cost lost, because the owner has to use money he would have spent elsewhere to pay for the window. Furthermore, this NERA study estimates the amount of jobs lost will far exceed the number of jobs created. Plus the jobs will be created in industries that are already heavily dependent on government subsidies i.e., not sustainable.

As to the health impacts, consider that according to EPA 99.9% of the premature mortality benefits attributed to reductions in particulate matter are in areas that already comply with EPA’s PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. This would indicate public health is already protected in these areas. This is just one example. http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/EPA-Proposed-Utility-MACT-Rule-July-2011.pdf

Judy Focareta posted on 8/24/2011 9:44:00 AM
Hi Elizabeth,
Thanks for sharing your resource. I agree that there are many aspects to consider and plan for. However I do not agree that the health affects are marginal. if you would like I can send you the volumes of health statistics supporting the deaths and decline of quality of life associated with exposure to air pollutants. I think that a great use of our energies would be to take a look at the benefits of reducing air pollution as well as the ramifications. There will certianly be some job losses.. But will they be counteracted by the jobs created for those manufacturing and installing the systems necessary to upgrade exisiting plants? Will companies benefit by having healthier workforces thus reducing work time lost and cost of health insurance? According to the Pa Utilities commission the chance of power outages is small to non existant. There are enough plants now that meet the existing regulations to take over for the ones who do not. And there are other sources of energy as well. It is nice having this dialoque with you. Judy

Elizabeth Stelle posted on 8/24/2011 8:51:00 AM
Hi Judy,

The majority of the job loss stats are pulled from this NERA study: http://www.americaspower.org/NERA_CATR_MACT_29.pdf

Another thing to consider is the negative health effects from power outages, see this filing from Southern CO. Utility: http://www.southerncompany.com/news/docs/Southern%20Company%20Utility%20MACT%20Comments%208-4-11_w%20cover%20letter.pdf and the declining quality of life caused by joblessness.

We should question whether these marginal health benefits worth the economic upheaval that could also result in a reduced quality of life for many Pennsylvanians.

Judy Focareta posted on 8/23/2011 2:58:00 PM
Elizabeth,
I am a health care professional who understands that the information about death and reduced quality of life from unhealthy air pollution is in fact quite accurate. There are many publications and scientific inquiries that support this. I am curious about some of the statistics that you state in your blog about job loss etc and am wondering if you can share your resources. I would be very interested in reading them.

Post Your Comment Here

Name *
E-mail *
Response *
Enter the characters as they appear in the box to the right *
	Want to make commenting easier?  Get a MyCommonwealthFoundation account here
	* = Required
	Please notify when other comments are posted in this thread