State should help fund rooftop solar

There is a piece of the puzzle to the energy affordability crisis, and that is expanding rooftop solar incentives for homes and businesses.

Both parties in the state Legislature are missing the mark, with Republicans wanting to refund green initiatives from NYSERDA which is only a band aid on the situation and Democrats who want more utility scale renewable energy which won’t reduce prices all that much.

A long-term fix is getting an increasing number of residents to install solar and battery storage.

Producing and storing your own energy is the best tool we have to fight back against greedy utilities.

It’s a huge win for everyone, as rooftop solar will reduce harmful emissions, reduce energy demand across the state and save residents thousands of dollars that can be spent in the local economy at stores, restaurants or even charities.

There are current incentives in place in New York state, but with tariffs and inflation, the price for everything, including solar systems, is increasing.

The governor and Legislature can improve the lives of tens of thousands, if not millions, by investing more in this technology to make it more affordable for the average New Yorker.

Rooftop solar and storage for homes and businesses is a common sense approach. The question is does the state have it?

State must continue path to green energy

The April 16 article, (“States ease climate laws to lower rising energy bills,”) examining Gov. Kathy Hochul’s attempt to reduce the cost of electricity for residential customers provides little information about how this plan will actually save us money.

After approving the huge increases in electric rates earlier this year, this indirect attempt at best seems too disconnected from our costs. The governor is relying on the utilities to voluntarily reduce rates just because they have less incentive to be proactive on reducing emissions.

As I understand it, our utility costs will increase by over $200 per year for the next three years.

Instead of reining in these out-of-control charges directly, she proposes letting them get away with more polluting to save us money?

Research shows that, “Fossil fuels generally cost more to produce electricity than renewables, making renewable energy the cheaper option in most global markets.

As of 2024, ~91% of new renewable projects, particularly solar and onshore wind, offer lower generation costs than fossil fuel alternatives.” (IREA, 2024) The cost of renewables has continued to decrease and should continue to follow this pattern.

There are also employment concerns as well. “US Electricity Sector: Solar energy alone employs more people than coal, oil, and gas combined for electricity generation.”

For every dollar invested, renewable energy creates approximately three times as many jobs as the fossil fuel industry.” (IEA, 2023)

Our state is walking away from a position as a leader in the renewable energy sector and failing the people of our state for little or no cost savings for citizens.

Jean M. Taylor, Ph.D.

Trump’s Iran long view shows its flaws

William Aiken’s April 20 letter, (“Consider long view of Trump’s Iran plan,”) urges readers to “take the long view” of President Trump’s Iran strategy. The long view is exactly what exposes the flaws in his argument.

First, the complaint about “schizophrenic” media coverage overlooks the simpler explanation: the administration said one thing on Tuesday morning and something quite different by Wednesday afternoon. Reporters noticed. That’s not bias; it’s good journalism.

The letter’s claim of an “unprecedented success” also asks readers to ignore independent, non-partisan assessments showing that President Trump’s goals for the war with Iran – putting an end to the country’s nuclear program, destroying its military capabilities and creating regime change – have not been accomplished.

Iran’s regime, proxies and weapons programs remain intact. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, long identified as a worst‑case scenario in Pentagon planning, somehow gets rechristened here as a strategic triumph.

In fact, Iran’s control over the economically crucial Strait of Hormuz has created a crisis that didn’t exist before the war began.

Aiken’s idea of a “Donroe Doctrine” claims recent U.S. actions break sharply from decades of expert mistakes. But the episodes he lists — Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Panama and Iran — don’t prove that. Analysts note these events weren’t connected, didn’t follow one plan, and never showed consistent goals, methods or results.

If anything, the conflict has taught Iran a lesson: States that have nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, are safe, while Iran has been attacked multiple times.

Now Iran has every incentive to quickly develop a nuclear capability.

Columnist misses points on tax rate

John Figliozzi’s April 19 column asks if Americans were better off when the top income tax rate was 95%.

He says yes, but his entire metric for reaching that conclusion is income equality. That strikes me as a rather narrow, shallow and even bizarre way to judge “better” to describe the human condition.

Precapitalist societies had a small number of well off elites and a huge number of very equal subsistence serfs and peasants. The idea of a growing GDP has only evolved in the past two centuries.

He avoids context as much as the facts. For instance, he says Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the market has been evangelized into a god that dare not be touched by regulation. Really? In college economic classes maybe, but not in the real world.

An AI search finds 188,343 pages of federal regulations with 1.09 million final rules. The most heavily regulated industries are manufacturing, finance/ banking, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, energy and transportation. That’s a pretty good short list of America’s most hated industries. How many more regulations should we have?

He says few people actually paid the 95% tax rate. They avoided it by putting money into financially unproductive tax shelters. Reduced tax rates spur investment and now over half of Americans own stocks directly or in IRAs or 401k accounts.

Lastly, he quotes Reagan as saying, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Actually that was Reagan quoting JFK’s justification for tax cuts.

The answer to his silly question is a resounding no.

The Gazette welcomes letters from all political points of view.

Regular letters must be no longer than 250 words.

Letter writers are limited to one letter every 30 days to ensure as many people have an opportunity to be published as possible.

Letters related to upcoming elections are limited to 200 words.

A letter mentioning any declared candidate for any local, state and federal office is considered election-related.

Declared candidates and candidates who have filed paperwork for the ballot are not permitted to submit letters or guest columns.

© The Leader Herald