Source: Bills target renewable energy standards in three states | Midwest Energy News Somehow, it makes sense: Source: Policy Tip Sheet: Kansas Renewable Energy Mandate | Heartland Institute Bob Wilson
Heartland: "Point 1: Government should not be in the business of choosing winners and losers in the energy arena." This can be translated into English. Only coal and oil merit preferential tax treatment. Renewable energy does not. It is not a surprising point of view, unless one is of the opinion that government should provide for 'the common good'.
Actually I agree with point 1....while fully disagreeing with Heartland's ploy to make that a statement against renewable energy. Specifically, California and an number of other states require the utilities to figure out and provide the most cost effective renewable energy. They set the amount of renewable energy needed, not the technology. This is the right function of government---policy decisions/funding mechanisms. If renewable energy is to succeed (and it MUST succeed), then the choice between PV solar, Thermal solar, wind, and any others must be continuously evaluated for the best performer in each situation. As a good example, look at my avatar. It was the US governments favorite choice for solar energy conversion. It also turned out to be the worst performer compared to power tower and PV technology. Hence the government picked the the loser, but put lots of money into it. Same is true with Solyndra. If renewable energy is to succeed, we really need technical experts making technology decisions and government to make policy decisions. Both need to be right. Both fail when crossing into areas of incompetence.
Quite a few states (I believe not incl. Virginia) have apparently pledged use much more renewable energy (eg; 20%) by about 2020. I have a hard time understanding how some of the states will be able to do this, so I have been expecting some push back. I feel Virginia could be doing more, but in this case I am glad we did not pledge something we cannot achieve.
The problem is the claim ". . . RPS mandates will cause 2020 electricity prices to be 45 percent above baseline estimates . . ." That would require the 20% power to cost ~5*.45 or ~2.2 times more expensive per kWhr. I don't follow the cost of wind or solar kWhr closely but 2.2 times stretches credibility . . . especially as economies of scale are showing up. Bob Wilson
Nothing requires the renewable energy to come from huge centralized power plants. Any state (even Alaska to some degree) and any utility can make the personal, local, cooperative, corporation, etc. use of PV attractive. Productive legislation focused on adding PV capability at any scale should count towards the renewable percentage. This includes removing as much obstructing legislation as well as properly aligning the economic incentives. One of the more interesting California successes (often hidden and sabotaged by their economic blundering) is that proper renewable legislation can change utilities from fighting against renewable energy to supporting it. That alone makes a huge difference.
