30 ms·
New Wyoming bill forbids utilities from using renewables
- Touche 10y agoMissing from this article is the justification being given. They must have one, what is it?
- dcherman 10y agoWhile I don't know for sure, it feels like it can be inferred from `As a large state with a small population and lots of coal` to be job protection and corporate lobbying.
- woofyman 10y ago“Wyoming is a great wind state and we produce a lot of wind energy. We also produce a lot of conventional energy, many times our needs. The electricity generated by coal is amongst the least expensive in the country. We want Wyoming residences to benefit from this inexpensive electrical generation. We do not want to be averaged into the other states that require a certain [percentage] of more expensive renewable energy.” Edit: quote is from Bill sponsor
- noobermin 10y agoAre there any Wyoming people here who can comment on the feasibility of this passing? This is crony capitalism, government choosing "winners and losers", at its finest.
- fovc 10y agoNot from WY, but have tried looking. The best source I've been able to find is: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/22/wyoming-bill-prohibits-power-c.html https://boingboing.net/2017/01/22/wyoming-bill-prohibits-pow..., Which states it's not expected to pass
- barney54 10y agoI'm not from Wyoming, but laws that mandate certain electricity sources are pretty common: http://ncsolarcen-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Renewable-Portfolio-Standards.pdf http://ncsolarcen-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2...
- jessaustin 10y agoNot from Wyoming, but this seems like a classic disagreement between the average state resident (or rather, the industry that has purchased her legislator) and some exceptional municipality. Since it's Wyoming I'm guessing Jackson Hole. Probably they wanted to have something nice to brag about to coastal rich people conflicted about vacationing in a red state, so they were going to require local ratepayers to purchase some percentage of "clean" energy. Outlawing this sort of local arrangement is just the sort of thing that state governments do. We've seen a lot of state laws outlawing public internet service, for example.
- panzagl 10y agoPeople downvoting you don't understand how Western states work- California money has a pretty big effect in the big square states.
- jessaustin 10y agoThey might also have assumed that I approve of states interfering with municipalities this way. No way: I'm for complete decentralization. Of course that means I'm also against municipalities decreeing that one type of power will be available rather than another, but I figure people can work at a local level or vote with their feet rather than enlisting state or federal interference.
- jedimastert 10y ago> The electricity generated by coal is amongst the least expensive in the country. Is coal less expensive than wind or solar? It probably is, but I don't know where to look up such data.
- int_19h 10y agoIf that was actually the rationale, the law would mandate utilities to use the cheapest available source, whatever that happens to be at any given point; not provide a fixed list of sources. So, it's really just an excuse.
- ue_ 10y agoI'm always astounded about what people will do for profit. To destroy the planet, or even to keep doing it, for the purpose of keeping people employed. The 'free market' doesn't fix this behavior. Thanks capitalism.
- pravda 10y agoJobs! and Profit! Digging for coal puts Americans to work, but more importantly, brings profits to coal companies. That is the justification.
- ue_ 10y agoThe fact that many in this thread are touting 'the free market' as a solution is unnerving. You still have profit motive under capitalism, and that doesn't stop you from exploiting people and destroying the environment. The government works for the bourgeoisie. It's not their impediment.
- stuckagain 10y agoIt's because they're assholes.
- cheetos 10y agoLobbyists for utility companies looking to preserve the status quo paid the lawmakers to do it. Isn't that obvious? Same reason direct-to-consumer sales of Teslas are banned in Michigan. It's the American free market at work!
- barney54 10y agoUtilities don't necessarily support this because it keeps the status quo. Utilities make money buy building new plants and charging ratepayers the cost of the plant plus a rate of return on capital. That's why utilities supported Pres. Obama's Clean Power Plan.
- tzs 10y ago> Lobbyists for utility companies looking to preserve the status quo paid the lawmakers to do it. Isn't that obvious? That's an unlikely theory. If it is the Wyoming utilities that want to favor coal over renewables they don't need legislation to do that. They can simply decline to buy from renewable sources, which would accomplish their goal without any bad publicity or political controversy.
- cheetos 10y agoThat would be true if 100% of Wyoming utilities acted in unison. But if one of them shifts to renewables, and that shift results in lower cost energy or an increase in productivity that results in a reduction of employees, it will force the others to do the same to stay competitive. This legislation is meant to prevent that from happening so jobs and profits are preserved in the short term.
- tzs 10y agoWyoming is not an electric choice state. Customers are stuck with the electric utility that owns the wires going to their house, so that utility does not need to stay competitive with utilities that serve other areas.
- duskwuff 10y ago
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> Wyoming is the nation's largest coal producer, fourth-largest natural-gas producer, and eighth-largest crude-oil producer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
- un-devmox 10y agoMuch of the state's budget is derived from the coal and gas industry. Hence, all our other taxes are low. For the past few years we have been in a budget crisis due to the drop in energy prices. The university and public schools in particular are having a real hard time as their budgets continue to be cut. I'm not sure whether or not if this will pass. Given the current political climate and how broke we are, I've got a bad feeling. edit: adding source of info about budget shorfall: http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gov-matt-mead-says-million-in-budget-cuts-painful/article_de550638-383b-11e6-96bc-73824251ca58.html http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gov-matt-mead-says-million-i...
- killbrad 10y agoA smart legislature would see the writing on the wall and work to diversify their sources of tax income.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 10y agoIt's not like this is free money, though; any increase in tax revenue will just be paid by the electricity consumers, in the form of higher rates, so if the motivation was just to cover the state revenue shortfall, a direct tax on renewable energy would be more sensible. But then again, indirect taxes are politically easier, while a "helping hand" to the local industry looks good on TV.
- megablast 10y agoOh of course, but it is easier to hide that.
- un-devmox 10y agoWyoming is already the only State to tax wind as far as I know. edit, adding a reference: http://www.hcn.org/articles/wyoming-considers-raising-an-already-unique-wind-tax http://www.hcn.org/articles/wyoming-considers-raising-an-alr...
- ghouse 10y agoThe coal industry is one of, if not the largest industry in Wyoming. As wind and solar become the least-cost source of new generation, the economic viability of coal generation is threatened. Rather than allow the free market to select the least-cost solution, so-called Republicans who think government shouldn't pick winers, are picking winners.
- 65827 10y agoMany of the west's coal power plants are powered from Wyoming coal. Lots of ways of life about to go away, lots of people desperately trying to protect the old. So strange to see this same theme repeated over and over in history, you'd think we'd learn after seeing this for so many centuries.
- city41 10y agoWhen it's your way of life that is threatened, it's hard to heed that lesson.
- 65827 10y agoMy way of life was just upended in October by machine learning, I didn't fight it instead I just switched careers. Not sure why others are so unwilling to do the same. I think this is a very important point, in the past illiteracy used to be defined as people who couldn't read, in the future I think it's going to come to mean the people who can't or are unwilling to adapt and learn, we'll look down on them with pity like we used to all the people who couldn't read back in the 70s.
- icebraining 10y agoI'm curious, what did you do before?
- jes5199 10y agosoftware engineer
- bediger4000 10y agoHow is this not the kind of regulations/laws/red tape oft decried by conservative, free market politicians? How is this not picking a winner, another practice oft decried by conservative, free market politicians? Is this just a case of "free market for me, but merchantilism for thee"?
- gaius 10y agoWhere are solar panels made? Are they being dumped on the market? </rhetorical>
- nine_k 10y agoOK, let's require that the renewable tech is only allowed if made on the US soil? Anything less wholesale.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- the8472 10y agoEven if we accepted that kind of reasoning, it is not applicable to wind, because shipping is really problematic due to their ever-increasing sizes, so they're usually produced locally.
- pjc50 10y agoWhy ignore renewables that are being subsidised by another country?
- cloakandswagger 10y agoThere's a reason anti-dumping laws exist.
- thephyber 10y agoLogical fallacy. Solar panels are not the only form of renewable that are hurt by this rent-seeking legislation. And I honestly don't even care if solar panels are created elsewhere for cheaper than market rates. That means the utility would be able to supply Wyoming energy subsidized by Chinese tax payers. Eventually China will have to deal with their own tax deficits. They have already started to cancel coal power plant projects[1]. [1] China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity (NYTimes, 2017-01-18) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/.../china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/.../china-coal-powe...
- diafygi 10y agoI work in renewables, and I encourage this community to not to ridicule people in Wyoming for their very clear majority choice. In their point of view, they are making the best choice for their interests, so calling them stupid only deepens their resolve. If you want renewables in Wyoming, there are four options (in order from most effective to least): (a) Move to Wyoming and outvote the existing population (it's not crowded, so it wouldn't take much). (b) Donate money and time on marketing, education, and advocacy campaigns to try and convince people in Wyoming to your point of view (somewhat difficult to do as an outsider, but not impossible). (c) Boycott fossil fuels from Wyoming (very difficult since they self consume a lot). (d) Wait for the existing generation to die and hope the next generation makes decisions in your favor. Currently, it sounds like HN has settled on option (d), but if your really want change, (a) and (b) are the things that work the best.
- whyileft 10y agoAlso, a bit of a bikeshed since energy usage in Wyoming isn't all that significant. That said, the use of the all too common dismissive comment stating that if you are not physically doing something about it then you are part of the problem is caveman thinking. Actively fighting and protesting can do more harm than good. Freedom of speech is sometimes more about combined civil public discourse as opposed to aggressive and manipulative tactics of seizing power and pushing propaganda as you have suggested.
- pjc50 10y agoIs this actually a majority choice, or is this just something the state government has decided to do?
- brianwawok 10y agoI wouldn't be surprised if it were the majority voice. If my career was coal and my entire life was coal, I would care a lot more about my life than the environment in 100 years. I think the rational thing to do in fact would be what they just did. Fight renewable and encourage coal. This is not to say that very locally rational choices can not be horrible on the global scale. Which is why I think a strong federal /global team effort is needed to make smart choices for the planet. The federal level could likely shut down this kind of law. I suspect Obama would have, but that Trump would not (hence the timing of the bill).
- CalChris 10y agoMeanwhile China is shutting down coal plants. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environment/china-coal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-environme... I know that Utah coal is exported to China since it gets shipped by rail to Port of Stockton. A local developer was trying to build a coal terminal in Oakland (Oakland Army Base which is basically attached to the Port of Oakland) but the city (mayor+sups) wisely shut that down. It is insanely stupid to have a coal terminal upwind of a populated area.
- masonic 10y agoChina is shutting down coal plants No, they are cutting back on some new plant construction, as that article says.
- CalChris 10y agoNo, they're shutting down coal plants. Bloomberg: Beijing to Shut All Major Coal Power Plants to Cut Pollution https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-to-close-all-major-coal-power-plants-to-curb-pollution https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-t...
- masonic 10y agoThat was only four, only in Beijing, and 22 months ago. The plants in the OP's story are what I referred to. They probably will decommission coal plants over time as more solar capacity comes online, probably east to west.
- rosser 10y agoAs terrible as this is, at least they can continue selling their renewables out of state. The winds in Wyoming are incredible (google image search: "Wyoming wind sock"; it's less an exaggeration than you'd think). The Fine Article also points out that ~90% of WY's electricity already comes from non-renewables (though, for whatever reason, they count hydro amongst those). Net, this isn't exactly changing the status quo for WY.
- bonzini 10y agoSince all I knew of Wyoming is "Yellowstone", would geothermal be feasible there? It's renewable and cheap whenever possible.
- codecamper 10y agoCalifornia & NY should just leave the US. That'd send the idiots down to the level of Albania, probably lower.
- moron4hire 10y agoSecession is illegal. We fought a pretty awful war to make sure of it. Also, don't assume for a minute that this sort of stuff is not also going on in California and NY.
- JohnTHaller 10y agoWe've got the same Republican section in NY state but it's the northern part. Their biggest complaint is that they're taxed too high and their level of services is too low. Of course, they're spread out up there compared to us in NYC, so their services cost a LOT more to deliver per service per capita. It basically puts us in a mirror situation with red vs blue states... mostly Democratic NYC population's taxes go to pay for the services of the mostly Republican upstate and the mostly Republican upstaters still complain that they pay too much for the services they get.
- codecamper 10y agoPeople that have too much time on their hands (in other words, people with money) tend to complain the loudest.
- mwfunk 10y agoIn this case it's the people with less money doing the complaining, if I read that correctly. The rural conservatives who are subsidized by taxes on urban areas complain that they are the ones who are getting screwed. That's red states vs. blue states in a nutshell, so it wouldn't be surprising to see the same pattern on a smaller scale between NYC and upstate NY.
- codecamper 10y agoCalifornia will use location data on their smartphones & send some drones over. The Wyoming kids won't know what hit them. Better yet, California can combine some data points & then update certain self driving cars, sending them over a cliff. Then there is the virus route. It has been shown that being a dim Republican is actually genetic. CRISPR to the rescue of humanity.
- deftnerd 10y agoMany states and utility companies are making it difficult for consumers to sell locally generated power to the grid. There is pain in the short term, but in the long term it'll just cause the renewable manufacturing industry to throw more resources at improving power storage as much as the power generation has improved over the last few decades. Tesla's Powerwall is a good step, but there are many other opportunities for companies to live in this field. Once storage technology improves, then more and more users can generate locally and store their own power and just use the grid as a backup power source. Interestingly enough, some jurisdictions don't allow people to go "off grid" entirely because of laws passed to ensure that all citizens have a source of power and potable water. Many of those laws don't take self-generation into account.
- int_19h 10y agoThis particular bill explicitly allows for "net metering systems", which I believe is a reference to selling locally generated power to the grid. So it seems to be specifically targeting large-scale renewables.
- dmichulke 10y agoWhen the wind of change blows, some men build walls and some build windmills - Chinese proverb
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bwb 10y agoWTF, I used to be closer to a lot of the republican ideology, but their move over the last 10 years to be so anti-science, anti-fact, anti-thinking it is repulsive. They used to stand for letting people live and not be bothered by the government, now they try to control women's vaginas and so much other shit that bugs me.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 10y agoThey used to stand for letting people live and not be bothered by the government When was this?
- bwb 10y agoThe 80s maybe?
- kelukelugames 10y agoUh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
- rhizome 10y agoNo way, it definitely would have to be prior to Reagan.
- jschwartzi 10y agoIf you go back far enough, it was the democrats who opposed abolition of slavery, and it was a Republican who went to war to keep the south from seceding over it.
- sandworm101 10y agoSolar and wind both need land. Wyoming is a land of farmers, people who extract thier livings from thier land. Where is the farm lobby? They should be defending against any law attacking a potential "crop". Are they all putting ideology ahead of profits? Are we that far down the rabbit hole?
- Spooky23 10y agoThe money in Wyoming is in extractive industries.
- xg15 10y agoSo nice of the republicans that they suddenly discovered their love for coal workers. I'm curious if they would keep that love if coal companies invested in automation and laid off workers, or if then, they'd suddenly rediscover the faith in a free market.
- philipkglass 10y agoThe US coal industry has been investing in automation and shedding workers for ages. The American coal industry's all time record year for output tonnage was 2008, and accomplished it with about half of the workers employed in 1980. The American coal industry shed a larger number of workers (though admittedly not a larger percentage of workers) during the Reagan administration than during the Obama administration. It didn't start with Reagan either. It's been going on pretty much continuously for as long as we have records. American coal employment was lower and tonnage output was higher in the 1950s than the 1920s also.
- porsupah 10y agoIndeed - the Center for Media and Democracy's wiki article on US coal mining has some interesting charts: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Coal_mining_jobs http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_Un... Starting in 1900, with 448,581 miners producing 268,684,000 short tons, the output's more or less risen steadily to almost four times that total amount, but the number employed in 2013 was 80,209, reflecting about 20x the productivity of 1900. As far as the point of employment goes, Wyoming claimed a relatively modest total of 6,673 mining (surface and underground) jobs in 2013.
- coldcode 10y agoIntroduced. Not passed yet.
- js2 10y agoALEC at work? http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-policy-in-2014/213358/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us...
- anon1253 10y agoOh downvote me into oblivion. But whatever the hell you're doing US, it's not good. It's not good for you, it's not good for the planet. It's not good for your citizens, it's not good for humans all around the planet. With all your overseas missions to "protect freedom" or some other utterly irrelevant excuse to satiate your military-industrial complex, you fail to do the one thing that might actually help. Progress. Progress beyond your dependence on fossil fuels, progress beyond the need to entice war, slavery, destruction for those who hold those mineral resources you value so dearly. Just think for a second: however much is left, however destructive it might be to the planet to extract and burn it(losses beyond imagination included), there is still a finite amount of it. You could be the front-runners in a revolution never seen before. The front-runners in an economy liberated from the need to see energy as "scarce". You're stuck in a mindset. "Energy is scarce". It's not, it's abundant. It's /everywhere/. Solar, Geothermal, Wind and Hydro-electric are not some hippy post-fact climate change conspiracy: they can and will provide you with unlimited and free energy. Just /think/ for just a second what that would do to your infrastructure. Grow food in deserts? Done. Free transport across the world? Done. Virtually free drinking water through ocean desalination? Done. Massive reductions in prices for food and other necessities? Done. But no, you want to live in a world where energy is scarce and you're the sole "protector" of its use and freedom. Cite "jobs lost" or whatever you can think of to protect your bubble; but this path you're on is not sustainable.
- webkike 10y agoWho are you talking to? All of the citizens of the US? The federal government? This is a state of Wyoming bill. Here's an analogy: You're basically directing criticism towards the European Union for something a member nation has done; the whole is not any individual part. You seem to have some legitimate criticisms of the US government or the country as a whole but this comment section is not the place for it.
- anon1253 10y agoThat's fair. But I do, and can, direct criticism towards the EU for one of its member states as well (however shaky the EU might be at this moment). It might not particularly effective, given, but in my book it's still valid criticism. Maybe it's my upbringing, I don't know, but I'd like to think about 'citizens of the world'. Pollution, innovations, technology and energy know, and should not, know boundries. While this particular bit was about Wyoming there have been similar stances in other states about taxing or otherwise limiting renewable energy. At some point it's necessary to abstract. To find the "general" in the particulars. It's a touchy subject, but maybe it's time to abstract this to the federal level or even higher?
- crb002 10y agoIt might make sense. If coal demand plunges they will have a glut. As long as they don't have to pay the costs of the pollution it makes sense for Wyoming taxpayers.
- woodandsteel 10y agoThe goal of the bill is to protect Wyoming's fossil fuel industries. But even if passed, it would largely fail to do that. That's because the great majority of the state's fossil fuel production is sold to other states and countries that are charging ahead with renewable energy. Instead of trying to stop the unstopable, the state government should be working on how to adapt to the new world where no one wants to buy their fossil fuel exports.
- ransom1538 10y agoThis is in the same bucket of stupidity as Oregon preventing you from pumping your own gas.[1] I do enjoy the comedy however. [1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/18812/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-oregon-and-new-jersey http://mentalfloss.com/article/18812/why-cant-you-pump-your-...
- gersh 10y agoI'd take this as a sign the fossil fuel industry is dying. Trying to ban your competition is usually a last resort for dying industries.
- gragas 10y agoThis is dumb. If you look at the bill itself [1], it explicitly states 11 (a) In compliance year 2018, each electric utility 12 shall procure a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%) of its 13 sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating 14 resources. 15 16 (b) In compliance year 2019, each electric utility 17 shall procure a minimum of one hundred percent (100%) of 18 its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible 19 generating resources. The key part here is that by 2019, each electric utility shall procure all of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from "eligible generating resources." Now, let's see how "eligible generating resources" is defined: 6 (v) "Eligible generating resource" means an 7 electricity generating resource either located within 8 Wyoming or delivering electricity into Wyoming from another 9 state that produces electricity from one (1) or more of the 10 following sources or system: 11 12 (A) Coal; 13 14 (B) Hydroelectric; 15 16 (C) Natural gas; 17 18 (D) Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 19 37-16-101(a)(viii); 20 21 (E) Nuclear; 22 23 (F) Oil. Oh no! It looks like "solar" and "wind" aren't on the list of eligible energy resources! Aye, take a closer look: both solar and wind energy fall under "net metering system," so in reality, climate activists are bashing their heads against the wall. They have the right sentiment, but they're only fighting against the bill because they didn't read it. :-( 1. http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf
- matt_wulfeck 10y agoIt must be hard to be a politician on either side of the aisle. There's a group of people who are looking for ways to attack you, regardless of whether it's for a good reason.
- woofyman 10y agoIt prevents utilities from selling power generated by solar and wind farms in Wyoming.
- ghouse 10y agoNatural gas, hydro, and coal may fall under "net metering system" too. The law plainly says that beginning in 2020, electric utilities in WY may not procure any power from solar and wind (unless they're located behind their customer's retail meter). Why name technologies at all unless you're trying to pick winners (or select losers)?
- caf 10y agoSo... Wyoming exports most of the electricity it generates, this doesn't apply to exported electricity, and electricity is fungible: in other words, this is just meaningless culture-war posturing, then?
- lightedman 10y agoDrop the sensationalist BS headline please. "Individual net metering" is explicitly mentioned. Net metering = individual solar panels owned by property owners. AKA The utility can't build solar but they can use the solar from any household that connects their own solar to the grid with net-metering tie-ins. This means that renewables of some sort are in fact allowed. All it took was reading to the 9th tiny paragraph.
- mwfunk 10y agoWell sure, it would be much harder, and even more anti-free market to ban private individuals from setting up their own renewable energy sources on their own property. That would be telling people what they can or can't do on private property, which is a whole other legal ball of wax than telling regulated utilities what they can or can't do. But utilities would be forbidden from maintaining solar and wind farms to provide energy to their customers. Your interpretation is correct, but it doesn't change any of the things that are bad or anti-free-market about this. I can see how someone might misinterpret the headline, but that requires an almost intentional misreading, regarding a fine point that doesn't impact anything that people are concerned about here.
- gumby 10y agoThis is not as bad as it sounds. In fact the answer is in the article: > Wyoming already generates more electricity than it consumes. > The state already has wind farms, and a 3,000-megawatt installation is under construction in Carbon County. People will still build wind farms, they'll just export the electricity. This is no different from Germany going "nuclear free" (they still import energy from nuclear plants in France and the Czech Republic). California is a leader in green energy, of which quite a bit comes from hydro of which CA has almost none...but Washington does. Etc etc. Still, grandstanding does send a message and this one is a stupid one.
- Hondor 10y agoIt's not forbidden, it just has a ~10% tariff (fine). $10 per MWh compared to the current price of $120 per MWh. If solar or wind ends up actually cheaper than coal, it'll probably be by more than that 10% so it'll still be economical to use them. Furthermore, the fine doesn't apply to exported electricity, which is most of it: "Wyoming sends two-thirds of the electricity it generates to nearby states" [1] [1] https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=WY https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=WY
- philipkglass 10y ago$120 per MWh (well, $115.60) is the residential retail price in Wyoming, not the price that electricity producers get at point of generation: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf... The wholesale price a new American wind farm gets for its output in a region with good resources is maybe $30-$40/MWh. (Or $40-$50 if the wind farm lasts 25 years and collects the federal Production Tax Credit for its first 10 years.) The extra $10 in taxes makes a bigger difference at the wholesale level.
- padseeker 10y agoRemember when the state legislatures in "Conservative" "Republican" states like Texas voted to ban Tesla sales in their state? Lots of people in Wyoming and Texas vote "conservative" and conservatives are supposed to advocate for the free market. And those people claim to be "conservative" want capitalism and the free market UNTIL the free market threatens to put their jobs at risk. Maybe they were never really conservative in first place?
- ridgeguy 10y agoGiven that the US grid is highly interconnected, would this legislation require Wyoming utilities to avoid using renewable-generated electricity from sources outside Wyoming? This would seem to require that Wyoming's utilities isolate the state's grid to prevent using "eligible resources", according to the bill.
- ridgeguy 10y agoThat would be "non-eligible" resources, of course. Sorry for the typo.
- startDaemons 10y agoThe bill was (according to it's creators) designed to make the utilities reserve the cheapest power for Wyoming residents rather than exporting it all to states where they could get higher retail prices and bigger profits, leaving Wyomings the less reliable and more expensive renewables. In case you missed it the bill only affects energy sold to Wyoming residents, that's only 584,153 people (!). The utilities can sell renewable energy outside the state with no penalty. 'When asked about the motivation for the bill and concerns about it driving away future wind generation, bill sponsor Republican Rep. David Miller from Fremont County said, "Wyoming is a great wind state and we produce a lot of wind energy. We also produce a lot of conventional energy, many times our needs. The electricity generated by coal is amongst the least expensive in the country. We want Wyoming residences to benefit from this inexpensive electrical generation."'