Regarding Jim Rogers’ June 16 Point of View “Making the business case for solar in N.C.” and Jon Sanders’ June 17 Point of View “Counting costs of renewable energy rules”: These POVs make it appear that there are two sides in the debate over renewable energy in North Carolina; Rogers, pro-renewable, arguing a net positive impact to the economy while citing the RTP-based RTI International report, and Sanders, from the John Locke Foundation, arguing a net loss to the economy while citing Boston-based Suffolk University report.
To those unfamiliar with the debate, one could confuse this as two sides of the same coin. It is more like one side is arguing with a dollar while the other walks around with a penny trying to make us think they’re equal.
This is made all the more obvious when we open the Locke report and realize it was created in 2009 and reported what “could” happen, ignoring what actually happened between 2007 and 2014.
On the other side is the RTI report created in 2015 that reported what actually occurred between 2007 and 2014.
In the serious debate over energy policy, let us discern policy from politics.