The front end of the deal is reasonable - incentives to bring billions of investment into domestic production of a growing commodity. It won't create anywhere near 16,000 jobs, though it may cost that many in other sectors because the back end of the deal is horrible. Paying more than 10 times the going rate for the power that Samsung will generate is an awful decision, since we're obligated to buy it even when we're paying other regions to take our excess power now.
The global track record of governments investing into green jobs is not good at all. Billions are spent to create a few hundred jobs while choking out thousands. Companies that had taken hundreds of millions in subsidies go broke because the deals only make sense if the value of their goods is not under pressure of competition from the rest of the world and dropping continually, and if even more government subsidies are used as incentives for people to purchase those products.
To be clear - I support the intention of the front part of the Samsung deal - but strongly oppose the back end of it. It might be $40 or $50 or $65 a year in the early years, but that will triple or quadruple within a decade because governments can't go around selling things for 0.10 that they paid 0.80 for. That's a one-way road to going broke.