ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Solar law should be helping Pa.

| Friday, March 9, 2018, 8:57 p.m.

In late 2017, Gov. Tom Wolf signed into law Act 40, which was supposed to “close the borders” with respect to credits for solar-energy capacity. This law was to require utilities to credit only in-state solar-energy facilities in meeting their solar renewable-energy capacity requirements. Currently, utilities may credit solar facilities that are out of state but within the regional electrical grid.

However, interpretation of this new law has become an issue. Members of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) are interpreting the law to allow “grandfathering” of existing credits for out-of-state solar facilities, effectively gutting this law and undermining its goal of spurring solar development and increasing solar-related jobs in Pennsylvania.

This interpretation is environmentally problematic as well. Pennsylvania is a major greenhouse-gas emitter. Globally, we must transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible to avert the worst effects of climate change. Properly implemented, this law will help Pennsylvania do its part in reducing emissions.

The Pennsylvania PUC must interpret and implement this law to enhance development of solar capacity within our state so that current and future Pennsylvanians can reap the benefits of more solar-energy jobs and a healthier, more livable environment.

Richard D. Ankney

Squirrel Hill

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me