Energy efficient?

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on May 31, 2007 - 6:55am.
Tags: | | |

The Senate budget would dismantle the State Energy Office.

The office, which helps government, business and the public tackle environmental problems, has been funded by federal money from a court settlement with gas companies in the 1970s.

But that money is running out. Now, some senators are questioning whether the office is still needed. (AP)

Sen. Janet Cowell said that shifting some of its duties to a new position in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources would actually give energy effiency a higher profile.

"I think there was a feeling that the energy office was off to the side and that it was just an afterthought," Cowell said. (Char-O) 

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Energy efficient?

Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on May 31, 2007 - 11:45am.

We get paid slightly more than that.

— RTB

» login to post comments

Re: Energy efficient?

Submitted by gercohen on May 31, 2007 - 11:28am.

the linked CharO story said:

"The savings from transferring salaries and cutting the positions would be only $5, according to state documents, causing some to scratch their heads.", which resulted in their desk writing the headline "$5 in savings".

I know the reporter is not responsible for the head, but that certainly was the big news from the story, and his story did say the move saved only $5.

the poor CharO reporter apparently went to the Senate budget report
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Budget/BudgetReport5-30.pdf
page 93-94, and saw
Eliminate State Energy Office -5.0 -5.0

and thought this was the $ savings. Sorry, that is the number of JOBS eliminated. We use a $ sign to show $ savings. I can understand how he may have misunderstood, however.

Now, if McClatchey lays off staff, do you save $1 per reporter?

» login to post comments