Spivak's comment justified pump installations because of positive externalities. Which is a good justification; but as far as I know nothing similar exists for $150 million of spend on solar panels. Is there a benefit here I can't see? Do these panels protect against storms or something?
> In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.
Possibly. It is still a better plan than what the article suggests. Buying these panels looks like a mistake from all the angles I can think of. If Pennsylvania's legislature has the numbers and view that it worth making uneconomic decisions for these households there isn't a good reason to leave the non-renewable sources of power operating. In the converse, if they don't have the number or the view then they just shouldn't be making uneconomic spending decisions when they could give the people involved the money as welfare, but more of it.
This appears superficially like it is an unprincipled position that creates no particular benefits but in a wasteful way. Maybe it isn't, but if it isn't it'd be helpful if someone outlined why not.
When did this become a factor?!
> better alternative plan is ban coal
In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.