If this doesn’t sell ’em, talk up our 10 o’clock music curfew!

An 8/27/12 SJ-R letter to the editor proposes Springfield has been remiss in publicizing its “clean energy” accomplishments.  Specifically cited was the benefit of caving in to the Sierra Club’s extortion, with its resultant contracts for wind power running through the latter part of this decade.

While it’s true Springfield’s government and CWLP aren’t exactly shouting the results of this decision from the rooftops, CWLP does in fact mention it on their website, thusly:

“Of the 628,359 MWH purchased by CWLP in 2011, 359,825 MWH was in the form of wind energy … CWLP paid $17,440,716 … for the wind energy and sold it for $5,409,741 … for a net cost to the utility of $12,030,975″

So, we’re losing $12 million a year now and into the foreseeable future, due to our elected officials’ forward-thinking decision to pay someone else over twice CWLP’s production cost for unreliable additional units of its core service, of which it produces a surplus, then turn around and sell them for a third of what they just paid.

Coincidentally, that’s about the shortage in CWLP funds that led to it being declared in technical default on its loans.  Alternatively, if we could apply those funds to the city’s massive pension funding deficit instead of subsidizing an economic and environmental boondoggle, we’d be caught up about the same time those wind power contracts expire.

So this and other examples of how our city runs could indeed be used to attract new businesses and young professionals.  To Bloomington.

This entry was posted in Economics & Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to If this doesn’t sell ’em, talk up our 10 o’clock music curfew!

  1. Bob Johnston says:

    I simply don’t understand the people who support these kinds of things. I don’t understand the thought process (if there is one).

    It’s a thought process, but not one constricted by reason and results. Thomas Sowell’s book “A Conflict of Vision” explored how liberals/statists judge on intentions (save the environment!, help the poor!, punish mean businesses!). Those of a more libertarian outlook go by observed results and human nature (if you pay unwed mothers’ expenses, you’ll get more unwed mothers). Never the twain shall meet.

    Corporatists, meanwhile, exploit these feel-good programs as they are a great source of stifling competition while reaping above average, guaranteed profits. So at least they’re rational.


Leave a Reply to Bob Johnston Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>