Nevada is one of 29 states with electricity market central planning from the Legislature that demands a certain percentage of all electricity consumed in the state come from so-called “green” sources such as solar, wind, biomaas and geothermal. This is called a renewable portfolio standard.
Lawmakers in 22 states of those states are fighting to reduce or repeal their RPS because it increases power bills, while in Nevada not a single legislator has had the temerity to even suggest such a thing for the sake of ratepayers. Nay, our Legislature is considering a law to increase the RPS from 25 percent by 2025 to 35 percent — the highest in the continental U.S. I’ve asked my state senator and assemblyman, and they have demurred.
According to Herman Trabish, reporting at GreentechMedia, an obviously pro renewable website, ”
At least twenty-two of the 29 state renewables standards have been attacked by legislators or regulators in the last year or are now under attack.”
He goes on to low-ball the impact on consumers of this market manipulation, claiming, “
Research shows they add less than 5 percent, on average, to the cost of electricity bills and are an effective driver of renewables growth.”
Not only are lawmakers growing spines and challenging the “green” lobbyists, Trabish reports, in Colorado a 2011 federal lawsuit challenges renewable standards everywhere on the grounds they violate the Commerce Clause “
and should be voided because it discriminates against out-of-state coal-fired electricity.”
“The renewable energy standard creates a barrier to interstate commerce that’s impermissible under the Constitution — only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,” the Denver Business Journal quotes Kent Holsinger, the Denver attorney on the lawsuit, as saying. “Colorado said 30 percent of electricity that’s used in Colorado must be from these so-called renewable sources. That discriminates against other sources of electricity in and outside the state. The standard also creates a preference for renewable sources inside the state. We believe that’s a facial violation of the clause.”
Meanwhile, Nevada’s largest newspaper is reporting that Nevada’s first utility-scale wind farm could face up to a $200,000 fine because it does not have a federal “take” permit that would allow its turbines to kill golden or bald eagles up to a certain number. A dead golden eagle was found at the wind farm this past month.
The R-J story makes no mention of the fact that dead eagles at wind farms result in lengthy investigations, while dead migratory birds of any feather found at oil and mining sites can result in a quick indictment.
Our state legislators probably don’t want to rush things, their federal czar, senate majority leader Harry Reid, is on spring break and before that was preoccupied with closing control towers, vacillating on gun control, finding fault with Marine equipment and training, etc., so hasn’t given them their final marching orders. He earlier provided the notion for the state legislators but it’s about timing, he will give them the green light in the last few days of their session. Governor Sandoval stays low key and generally out of Harry’s way, that’s good and bad, the less we see of a politician the better but he should tell Harry that he’s the governor and should be the first consulted where the state is concerned. I doubt I’m the only person that notices that Harry shows up for photos at green energy sites and deliberations and the governor doesn’t. Or maybe it’s as simple as the governor avoiding the association to keep his reputation untainted by liberal progressive influences. All he has to do is keep his eye on New York governor Cuomo and New York City mayor Bloomberg making fools of themselves.
What a great state this could be if it was the law to only allow “lawmakers” to twiddle their thumbs!
Unfortunately, that is not all they do with their thumbs.
Scroll to the bottom and you find “Safe So Far”. Nevada is one of these states listed.
Troubling and irritating is the “unsafe” states listed are only dialing back or substituting one form of renewable for another, slightly more efficient, renewable.
This is clear. ANY attempt to curb utility scale PV or Wind is an ATTACK!
That is the real scary fact of life today.
This is what all the wind, solar, and climate crap boils down to. We the people are lied to and cheated by our own government and their cronies. Elected (and unelected) bureaucrats simply can’t be this dumb by accident. Which means they are corrupt. Call me cynical…
You are cynical … but spot-on correct.
Although I don’t support subsidies for wind power at this time, I think it’s very difficult to determine whether wind is indeed more expensive than coal, because both are heavily subsidized. For example, a Washington Post article claims that the government has lost about $28 billion in the last 30 years due to single bidder contracts in the Powder River basin alone. Makes Solyndra look sort of puny. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/powder-river-basin-coal-leasing-prompts-ig-gao-reviews/2012/06/24/gJQA7xSR0V_story.html
Add to that $613 million in 2010 for the Rural Utilities Service http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/powder-river-basin-coal-leasing-prompts-ig-gao-reviews/2012/06/24/gJQA7xSR0V_story.html
And an unknown amount for the routine use of tax-exempt bonds for coal fired power plants over the years http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Finance/revenue-bonds.php
Then there’s D.O.E. funding for “clean coal”, which is probably even more speculative than wind energy research.
A study by the Harvard Medical School estimated the external costs of coal at $500 billion/year. http://www.wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/HarvardCoalReportSummary.pdf
According to Sourcewatch, most coal mine reclamation funds are paid for by taxpayers. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies
The same report has a big laundry list of other subsidies if you care to read it
Who do I call or see to join the militia?