Hacker News Reader

Comment by Touche | Hacker News Reader

Missing from this article is the justification being given. They must have one, what is it?

“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

Are 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.

Not 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-pow...,

Which states it's not expected to pass

I'm not from Wyoming, but laws that mandate certain electricity sources are pretty common: http://ncsolarcen-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2...

Not 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.

People downvoting you don't understand how Western states work- California money has a pretty big effect in the big square states.

They 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.

> 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.

If 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.

I'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.

Much 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-i...

A smart legislature would see the writing on the wall and work to diversify their sources of tax income.

It'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.

Oh of course, but it is easier to hide that.

Wyoming 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-alr...

Lobbyists 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!

Utilities 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.

> 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.

That 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.

Wyoming 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.

Not utility companies. This law would be a pure negative for them -- it establishes penalties for generating/using the "wrong kinds" of power, without any benefits.

If you want to point a finger at lobbyists, point it at the coal industry.

That might be the reason but likely not the justification. The justification is the thing they tell the public in order to get something passed.

Jobs! and Profit!

Digging for coal puts Americans to work, but more importantly, brings profits to coal companies.

That is the justification.

The 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.

> 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.

While 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.

It's because they're assholes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com