Offshore wind profits, election campaigns, Republican squabbling

Gas firms can make money — not wind?

Why are we agitated about renewable energy companies wanting to make a profit when ExxonMobil raked in a record $55.7 billion last year [“Press pause on offshore wind,” Editorial, Oct. 12]?

The gas industry is supported by taxpayer subsidies for expanding its infrastructure while raising ratepayer bills so much that over a million New York families and small business are behind on their payments. This is a surreal double standard.

It was a poor idea for offshore wind companies to place bids based on pre-inflationary estimates without escalator clauses to compensate for rising prices. Now, the Public Service Commission has denied cost adjustments, effectively axing projects that would have kept Gov. Kathy Hochul’s promise to bring clean energy to 2 million homes by 2030.

Pausing our renewable energy transition is against the public’s best interests. We need protection from volatile gas prices during the latest Middle East war, advantages of an economy-boosting new industry, and serious action to help avert increasingly common and expensive disasters.

Was the PSC’s decision just politically expedient, given the gas industry’s clout? Hochul should have weighed in on the side of New Yorkers.

— Amy Posner, Lido Beach

The Public Service Commission just blew offshore wind out of the water by denying a rate adjustment [“Wind subsidies at stake,” News, Oct. 11]. A few bucks more a month in electric rates to keep offshore wind on schedule is more than a fair price to pay, given the inflation that’s hit almost all industries. Without it, the “Empire 1,” “Empire 2” and “Beacon Wind” projects will be derailed, causing years-long delays in decarbonizing the grid and lost economic development opportunities.

Gas is not the cheap way out, with taxpayer-funded gas infrastructure expansion, the health effects of dirty power plants and no brake on expensive disasters.

Gov. Kathy Hochul shouldn’t talk up the state’s climate mandate while not stepping in to do the right thing for New Yorkers.

— Alden Pearl, Valley Stream

Candidate races should not be nasty

While voters certainly deserve to know whether there are any skeletons in a prospective official’s closet, they are done a disservice when a campaign turns nasty and seeks to instill fear rather than offer solutions and a vision for the future [“Suffolk exec race debate,” News, Oct. 12].

As a former trustee in Patchogue, I know from experience that government serves the public good most effectively when officials are willing to put aside partisanship and work for the good of their constituents.

Working through disagreements to find compromise frequently leads to better solutions. I truly believe today’s voters would be more interested in seeing campaigns articulate each candidate’s vision for tomorrow rather than being fed negative talking points with limited relevance for today’s issues.

— Lori B. Devlin, Patchogue

While GOP squabbles, House fiddles around

The monumental failure of congressional Republicans to set aside their differences, which resulted in Rep. Steve Scalise’s withdrawal from his one day as speaker-designee, is a testament to the dysfunction that continues in Washington [“Scalise ends bid for speaker,” News, Oct. 13].

It may not be the apocryphal Nero fiddling while Rome burns, but it’s close; the difference is that Rome is now Israel. And, of course, many issues no longer garner attention, so the people’s business cannot proceed: the budget, the border, Ukraine. The world doesn’t stop spinning.

Voters might remember this inability of the GOP to pick a leader.

— Richard Peters, Merrick

When eight rebel Republicans voted for the removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, he was removed because not a single Democrat voted for him. Had a handful of Democrats voted for McCarthy, that would have been enough to keep him as speaker.

If the Democrats really were concerned about this country and the importance of keeping Congress working, it would have been easy to do. Instead, they all voted against McCarthy, knowing he would not become speaker and knowing any replacement for McCarthy is likely going to be an even more conservative Republican. But that seems fine with them.

Most of the media will get all their sound bites about how dysfunctional Republicans are, drawing attention away from the border crisis and the economy problems that could be attributed to President Biden.

— Ray Seeback, Ronkonkoma

I suggest that Peter King, a former Republican congressman from Long Island, be elected House speaker. He is known to be a tough negotiator but a realistic one.

King has a history of finding compromises on difficult issues. He is a patriot who would be asked to serve about a year until the next elections.

— Peter Hanson, Nesconset