Environment

Seattle Solar Project is Taxpayer Ripoff

| by NCPA

Last December, a request for $7 million from the federal stimulus
package to put solar panels on Seattle's Qwest Exhibition Hall appeared
on the U.S. Conference of Mayors list of "shovel ready" projects…as did
the city's request for $1.2 million to install 25 kilowatts of
renewable energy in "comfort stations" and restrooms in Magnuson Park.
These two projects demonstrate how little attention is paid to the
actual costs and benefits of environmental projects and how politics
plays the primary role in decision-making, says the Todd Myers of the
Washington Policy Center (WPC).

Neither come close to penciling out in a reasonable time period, says Myers:

--The
Qwest solar panels would recover depreciated costs only after 40 years
and the panels on the "comfort stations" at Magnuson Park would take
about 50 years without taking into account some of the government
subsidies.

--To make up that gap, the City simply looks for tax
subsidies to make up the difference; these dollars, however, are not
free money.

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

--Moreover, since these projects are not subjected
to any sort of cost-benefit assessment, the funding is not tied to any
real result.

--As a result, Seattle could spend millions on projects but find that they had done very little to help the environment.

Projects were chosen because they are visible and have positive political benefit, says Myers:

--When politicians see money as free, they spend it on what is important to them: political capital.

--Both of these projects fail any reasonable cost-benefit analysis.

--They were advocated, however, because they provided opportunities for politicians to claim credit for reducing greenhouse gases.

Until
the city and others who advocate such projects take a more serious look
at their costs and benefits, they cannot claim to be friends of the
environment and certainly cannot claim to be spending taxes wisely,
says Myers.

Source: Todd Myers, "Ratepayers and Taxpayers Pay for
Seattle's Solar Agenda," Environmental Watch (Washington Policy
Center), April 2009.

For text:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/environment/envwatch/April2009EnvironmentalWatch.pdf

For more on State and Local Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_Category=40