Recent Issues

Bleeding Green

How Much Money will Pennsylvanians Waste on Alternative Energy Mandates?


Green jobs and the broken window fallacy

A new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University finds that Pennsylvania's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards will costs Pennsylvanians millions in higher energy costs.

80 Ideas for a Prosperous Pennsylvania

A Blueprint for Transforming the Commonwealth


80 Ideas for Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania must undergo a rapid transformation to reverse the poor policy decisions that have eroded economic freedoms and brought the state to its present condition.  To provide a roadmap for success in this critical endeavor, the Commonwealth Foundation has compiled a list of 80 policy recommendations for Gov. Corbett and state legislators to help lead a Pennsylvania comeback.  Each of these recommendations links to Commonwealth Foundation research with more information on

Gov., Legislature Should Repeal Costly Renewables Mandates

DECEMBER 30, 2010 | Commentary by PAUL CHESSER

Solar Subsidies Sink State

A lot can be spun from the results of the Nov. 2 elections, but one fact is uncontrovertible: Pennsylvanians are sick of centrally planned, highly regulated, gimmick-driven economic policy. It hasn't worked, and now they want results.

Recent Blog Posts

The $20 Billion Energy Tax

MAY 13, 2016

Solar Subsidies Sink State

More than ten years after its passage, Pennsylvania's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards continue to stunt our economy. The standards cost the state $4 billion annually, according to a study by the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University.

Researchers reviewed renewable portfolio standards in all states and found the law reduced Pennsylvanians' personal incomes by almost $20 billion from 2004 through 2009.

Data beyond 2009 is still forthcoming, but if the trend continues, alternative energy standards will have cost Pennsylvanians almost $50 billion to date. That's not too far off from the state's pension debt.

So what do these figures mean for each household in Pennsylvania? A loss of $10,000 in purchasing power. That's an enormous cost to bear for such a small benefit. 

A recent Tribune Review article highlighting the study aptly notes this isn't an indictment of renewable energy but a reality check.

As technology advances, renewable energy will become cheaper and markets will shift to renewables as a matter of course. Mandating the shift before the technology is ready simply wastes our resources.

Up until this point, government efforts to transition to a clean energy economy have been costly and unsuccessful. Ultimately, it will be entrepreneurship, not government planning, that will make clean energy affordable and reliable for all. 

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 00:24 PM | Comments

The Mirage of Green Jobs

OCTOBER 2, 2015

Promoters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon-emission regulation attempt to playdown the jobs it would kill with promises of “green jobs”. Yet these positions pay less and are largely dependent on unreliable taxpayer subsidies for solar and wind.

"We are applying for federal grants to retrain miners for jobs that will pay less than half of what they can make in the mines,” says Robbie Matesic, executive director of the Greene County Department of Economic Development. “The hardest thing is telling a third-generation coal miner that the layoff this time isn’t just a fluctuation in the market, but will be permanent.”

A combination of tightening environmental regulations and competition from natural gas has the coal industry struggling for survival. The latest EPA effort to combat global warming seeks to sharply decrease emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants, but it's projected to reduce the earth’s temperature by less than one-tenth of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.

Still visions of green jobs are routinely advanced by environmental interest groups, President Obama and other politicians as they push EPA’s “Clean Power Plan.”

“When you shift to renewables, you’re creating good green jobs in wind and solar,” says state Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware and Montgomery). “It’s really a job creator when you’re shifting to renewables.”

Sounds nice: You replace “dirty” coal with trouble-free “green” jobs. No fuss, no muss, just nirvana. But it hasn’t worked in the past, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s PowerSource:

“The solar sector in Pennsylvania has shed 30 percent of its workforce since 2012, when the state ranked fifth in the country with 4,000 jobs, according to (The Solar Foundation). Pennsylvania’s 2,800 jobs in 2014 placed it at 15th in the country and, when looked at as a percentage of the state’s working population, the state dropped to 37th…

“Factors in the shift include a Pennsylvania rebate program that vanished, a federal tax credit that is scheduled to wane and the fact that the state’s market for renewable energy credits — designed to incentivize projects and prove compliance with the state’s renewable goals — has suffered from oversupply with credits purchased from other states.”

The Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association estimates that each green job costs taxpayers $300,000 in subsidies.

Back in Greene County, Ms. Martesic sees more possibilities for displaced coal workers in metals and advanced materials manufacturing, although she says that the transition will take more than “a year or two” that regulators currently are allowing. She also says manufacturing will require “reliable energy” supplies. In other words, energy that’s available when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn’t blowing. 

With the possible demise of coal-fired plants that supply 40 percent of the state’s electricity, and the limitations of today’s renewables, it is disingenuous to ignore the significant job losses Pennsylvanians will experience if the EPA gets its way.

posted by GORDON TOMB | 10:07 AM | Comments

The Worst "Subsidy" Study You'll Never Read

APRIL 14, 2015

Energy Policy

The radical environmentalist group and corporate welfare lobbyist PennFuture has updated an absurd study about the "subsidies" Pennsylvania taxpayers pay for fossil fuels. While we oppose subsidies for any industry, most of PennFuture's "subsidies" are the absence of higher taxes on consumers.  

PennFuture's analysis show less than $60 million in actual direct subsidy for fossil fuels (some of which is for alternative energy programs). What they consider a "subsidy" is not taxing certain goods and services.

Most of their "subsidy" total comes from not applying the sales tax to gasoline and electricity. That is, taxpayers would "save" by paying more in sales tax at the pump and in their heating bills.

But wait, you must be thinking, don’t we have a gasoline tax and an electricity tax?

Why yes, yes we do. They are claiming we are subsidizing gasoline by taxing it, but not taxing it twice.

  1. Almost 44 percent of these "subsidies" are for NOT imposing the sales tax on gasoline. Yet gasoline is taxed separately under the Oil Company Franchise Tax. In fact, as of 2015, Pennsylvania has the highest state gasoline tax in the nation.

    Gasoline is exempted from the sales and use tax for that reason and that reason alone—it doesn't make any sense to double-tax a product. To suggest state taxpayers are "subsidizing" gasoline production by imposing a tax on gasoline (but not two taxes) is beyond ridiculous.

  2. Another 20 percent of these "subsidies" are for not imposing the sales tax on electricity and heating fuel. Again, these utility bills are taxed separately under the Gross Receipts Tax. Making consumers pay another tax on their electric bill or heating bill does not repeal a subsidy, and in certainly doesn't save taxpayer.

Both of these tax exemptions—making up almost two-thirds of PennFuture’s estimates of "subsidies"—suggest we should impose taxes on top of taxes on consumers at the pump or in their utility bills. Either PennFuture doesn't understand how taxes work, or are deliberately misleading their readers, but either way, they what they are suggesting is higher taxes on families.

Other "subsidies" include not taxing the government for its use of fuel (because we don’t tax the government for anything) and not imposing property taxes on the value of natural gas. This is a tax that would hit homeowners; it is not a subsidy for the businesses.

PennFuture seems to have no idea what a subsidy actually is. Ironically, they are lobbying for new subsidies, specifically $225 million in subsidies for alternative energy under Governor's Wolf budget proposal.

Worse yet, these subsidies will come from borrowed dollars. Governor Wolf wants to borrow funds and pay it back (with interest) using a new tax on natural gas severance. In other words, PennFuture not only wants to double-tax fossil fuels, they want to place a special tax on natural gas to subsidize cronies in the wind and solar power industry.

It's clear that these subsidization schemes not only punish taxpayers, but fail to create jobs. Pennsylvania continues to see anemic job growth, despite $2.9 billion in taxpayer-financed alternative energy loans and grants since 2003.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD, ELIZABETH STELLE | 02:02 PM | Comments