The old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right," applies to Gov. Sarah Palin's veto of $28.56 million in federal funding to help improve the energy efficiency of public and private buildings across Alaska.
It's wrong to deny Alaskans -- who pay some of the highest energy costs in the nation -- the opportunity to promote savings in their home and business heating and electricity bills.
And it's wrong of the governor to mislead the public about what the U.S. Department of Energy asked in return for the money, part of federal economic stimulus legislation.
The governor, in her May 30 opinion column in the Daily News, said: "The feds required me to certify these codes 'will be implemented' or pushed on local communities."
Not quite.
A May 19 letter to the governor's chief of staff from Steven Chalk, the Department of Energy's principal deputy assistant secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said the governor could meet the certification requirement simply by taking action "within the extent of his or her authority" to promote the adoption of municipal energy-efficiency codes. The letter said nothing about "pushing" the standards on local communities. This is simply about promoting good energy-saving (money-saving) construction. Any code adoption would be up to each municipality.
The governor also said in her opinion column that in one option for meeting DOE requirements, "the state (will) ... adopt and pay for a plan of 'active' enforcement."
There is no mention that the state must pay for active enforcement in the department's May 19 letter to the governor, setting out requirements for Alaska to receive the $28.56 million.
The governor continued: "The federal residential building code does not allow exemptions, such as we use in Alaska. ... The Department of Energy ... still wanted an agreement to push model codes on all Alaskan communities."
Not so. The May 19 letter explained states and municipalities have flexibility to adopt energy-efficiency standards to meet local conditions, so long as the standards achieve energy savings equivalent to standards adopted by the building industry.
Furthermore, the department has said that states only have to work toward achieving compliance with energy-efficiency standards -- there will be no tests, no measurements, no tallies of new and renovated buildings. All the federal government wants in return for $28.56 million is that Alaskans make a good-faith effort to adopt and follow energy-efficiency standards that would be reasonable for their communities, and that the state help promote energy-efficient building practices.
One of the governor's most discouraging statements in her opinion column was: "The new codes could cost Alaskans thousands of dollars per new home and renovation."
Yes, building better homes and offices can cost a little more up front, but the savings in heat and light bills can be immense over the life of the structure. Is the governor suggesting that something good automatically becomes something bad just because the federal government supports it? I know Alaskans have long resented federal rules on many subjects, but rejecting money to upgrade our homes, offices and public buildings just to show how stubborn we can be is cold, very cold indeed.
The governor concluded: "Beware of Washington, D.C., trying to cajole local community leaders to eliminate the choices Alaskans have when building or renovating homes and businesses."
No one is talking about taking away choices, Alaska property owners still could choose not to upgrade their furnaces, windows, insulation and doors. They still could choose not to take advantage of tens of millions of dollars appropriated by the Legislature to weatherize their homes. They could choose to spend more money than needed to heat their homes and offices.
But those are not very smart choices, and it's a shame the governor made the wrong choice in vetoing $28.56 million that could have helped Alaskans save many times that in energy costs in the years ahead.
Rep. Mike Hawker, an Anchorage Republican, serves as co-chair of the House Finance Committee. He has served in the House since 2003.
By REP. MIKE HAWKER