NH INSIDER

Mike Kaelin signs just started popping out of the concrete like weeds. Then I read an article where he goes after Sheila Roberge, whose Senate seat he seems intent on taking. So now I'm wondering, who is this guy.

Turns out he's Green. In an August 8th editorial in the Union Leader, emploring us to explore ways to cut energy costs, this Lyndborough rep makes a case for green pastures, but from the very first paragraph I run into problems with his numbers.

Roughly 30 to 40 percent of our energy usage in the home is for lighting.

 Roughly?  Roughly?

I'm not sure where he gets his numbers but the closest I came was commercial office buildings, whose lighitng consumption--according to Energy Star--tops out at 25-30%.  The US DOE pegs the residential usage number at at 11% while another source put it at 5-10%.

Hardly an auspicious beginning.  We're talking about a 25-35% exaggeration on residential energy use.  Heck, I'm already saving money based on Mike's numbers and all I had to do was google "residential lighting use."

Next up we have wind power.  Mike's wishing upon 1100 megawats of wind power from the north country.  He's excited at the prospect of closing a coal plant with a similar output.  I'm excited too, except that to get that 1100 megawats from wind we need to cover several towns (Blade tip to blade tip) with windmills, and even then there is no guarantee that we'll get what we need.  Oh, and it will cost a bloddy fortune, and not just for the turbines that can run up to $70K each; special transmission lines are required, as well as all the legal fees when the battles start over dressing the touristy landscape with giant metal wind turbines.  And yes, taxpayer--you get to pay for all of that and more!

Mike is real proud of RGGI, which he voted for, but it's cap and trade. EU businesses are dying to get out from under Cap and trade and they are preapred to leave Europe to do it.  It sets a carbon tax which launders cash from businesses and citizens--through the energy companies--into the government.  I have argued elswhere that this is simply a broad-based shadow tax--which it is; no one can escape it, and there is no reason to believe the State's promise to offer rate relief is genuine, or that it even matters.  If you didn't take the money from me in the first place I wouldn't need the rate relief--(not to mention everything I buy would be cheaper because businesses wouldn't be offsetting their rate increases against cost of goods) and all this after a government handleing fee. 

But no, citizens of New Hampshire are apparently not smart enough to make wise-decisions about good energy and bad energy.  So we are being denied the fruits of our labors at the hands of a state mandate, (Mr. Kaelin, and Mr. Lynch--among others) for a game of taxpayer smoke and mirrors.  But Mike is proud of it.  I'm Happy for him.

HB1628, a Kalin sponsered bill that Lynch signed into law offers money to residents who are smart enough to buy green energy technology for their homes but just can't afford how smart they think they are.  So HB1628 will give up to 200,000 people up to $6,000 dollars per system max to help them go green.  (A tiny dent in the grossly expensive undertaking)  So Mike is basically giving your tax dollars to other people instead of looking for ways to let them keep their own money to offset their personal desire to invest in renewables on their own.   That's a max of 1.2 million dollars by the way, so it really isn't easy being green, not without first bilking taxpayers for the privelage.

Now to be honest, Mike's ideas about conservation sound great, but his motivations are perhpas misplaced. 

He's all for more efficient bulbs, yet his answer was to misguide us about consumption in his article. And if we look at his record, he also sponsered legislation that would eventually limit residential lighting choices to consumers by tying New Hampshire to the EU standards for lead-free material. (HB1417).  Mike tried to mandate the types of light bulbs we could make in New Hamshire.  Do you really want your legislators telling you what your light bulb choices are, particularly when at present the alternatives are quite a bit more expensive?  Shouldn't you be free to decide how to spend your money? 

He also points out that half of New Hampshire's energy is already exported (most of it nuclear) but never mentions that rate payers in our state see no rate benefit from this massive exportation of a recognized renewable energy source.  I think it might be higher than half, but why are we paying above the national average when we already make twice the energy we use?  Instead of pulling some back, he's offering cash for renewable systems, and talking about adding expensive wind projects that would cost taxpayers and New Hampshire businesses billions of dollars, with little hope of getting past the litigation process we'd confront to erect a farm big enough to do the job he suggests.  (75 miles square at a minimum)

Mike has clearly used his time on the Technology and Energy commitee to communicate his views on conservation--which I applaud (minus the iffy numbers on consumption)--but once we get past suggestions, the government role should be limited to making the business environment conducive to innovation, and to offer consumers the tools to make good choices.  Mikes record tends to demonstrate a desire to tax energy more so government can define our choices for us.  That makes the business environment less attractive.  That's not exactly what I'd call a 'Live Free or Die' approach.