I just read another one of those "Ban the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative" columns, frequently written by groups that have billions invested in fossil fuel consumption. According to industry naysayers, RGGI is bad for business. This is true only if you are in the business of selling energy to New Hampshire. As president of LighTec Inc., a New Hampshire energy efficiency company, I'd like readers to hear about the benefit of RGGI to our municipalities and businesses, enabling job-creating growth while reducing greenhouse gases.

Are RGGI's opponents suggesting a better idea, one that would be as environmentally responsible and curb the annual drain of more than $3 billion from our economy? Are they forgetting that this is a regional initiative? If we withdraw, the state will lose a valuable source of revenue.

RGGI is the nation's first market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It uses the money raised by auctioning pollution rights to subsidize energy efficiency programs that lead to further reductions in C02 output.

Good for the region

RGGI is a smart idea to help manage an intractable, long-term energy and environmental problem. Furthermore RGGI is good for New Hampshire and the entire Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region, which is increasingly energy-scarce. We have no easily extractable fossil energy sources in New England. This is not how we make our livings. New Hampshire is a state with a highly educated and innovative workforce, trained by some of America's best colleges and universities. Our RGGI law helps this army of engineers, entrepreneurs, and trades people start companies and jobs in fast-growing energy efficiency professions.

Increased energy efficiency is our most cost-effective way to stay competitive in the region and world, while saving money. It makes no economic sense for a state burdened with high electricity and fossil fuel prices to repeal a law that invests in lowering our need for high-priced energy. RGGI funds go directly into creating jobs that will reduce our energy dependence and make our manufactured products more competitive in world markets.

RGGI, along with electric utility efficiency programs, have proved that investments in energy efficiency are the best way to reduce electricity costs.

New Hampshire's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is performing a clearly measurable economic benefit to New Hampshire municipalities, home owners and businesses. Killing RGGI would be harmful to New Hampshire's economic growth.

Taxpayer savings

Let me give you a sense of where some of the RGGI money has been invested. Consider the town of Hollis, where the selectmen and school board approved an energy efficiency project that had been stalled for three years. Only 12 percent of project cost was picked up by RGGI but allowed the project to go forward. The resulting energy improvements to the Hollis schools and town buildings freed up over 150 kilowatts of electricity demand and will provide Hollis an annual savings of $63,000. This is equivalent to removing the electricity load of 30 residential homes from New Hampshire's power distribution system. Did I mention the emissions reductions? Hollis will reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 200 tons per year.

The taxpayers of Hollis are far from alone in receiving big energy cost reductions from RGGI. Many other towns, school districts and business are doing likewise.

Although RGGI was not expressly intended to be an integral part of the New Hampshire's resource and economic development policy, this can become the reality.

Recently George Bald, commissioner of the Department of Resources and Economic Development, pointed out that New Hampshire's economic growth and resource policy go hand in hand. New Hampshire's natural resource is its environment. 

RGGI opponents have no alternative