
New Wyoming bill forbids utilities from using renewables - xkcd-sucks
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2017/0119/New-Wyoming-bill-forbids-utilities-from-using-renewables
======
ghouse
The 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.

~~~
diogenescynic
And yet if Wyoming wanted to grow its economy, they could add more ski
resorts, winter sports facilities, hotels, and other tourist related
businesses. They are doubling down on the wrong ideas.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Do you think those blue collar coal workers are going to be amenable to
switching careers so they can service wealthy ski resort visitors? All while
making much less money?

On a personal note, I've always been troubled by the over-representation of
unnecessary services and useless gadgets in the US economy. Luxury ski resorts
and $400 cookie baking devices (with connected smartphone app) are not noble
products, and they demoralize the workers who provide/build them.

I know this might not be a popular sentiment to those on HN who Uber home from
their San Francisco office to pick up their Blue Apron delivery and pre-order
their new iDevice, but there it is.

~~~
narrowrail
As someone that lives in the region (and used to live in Jackson), resorts can
be quite lucrative. Black lung is not a great condition to acquire. My ex was
a bartender pulling down $400/night. The service economy is basically a sales
training job where connections can be made, and advancement is a possibility.
I'm a telecommuter, but I know many people that live/work in these areas and
do ok. It should be a known cost to living in such great environments with
heavy tourism.

~~~
username223
You know service workers both living _and_ working in Jackson, and doing okay?
Those lucky few! Jackson refuses to build more affordable housing (because
tourists and rich locals think poor people are gross). Therefore you see many
of the people who work there commute daily from Idaho, and many of the
seasonal employees camp out in the national forest behind the Strategic Elk
Reserve. Jackson is a terrible model (Vail is similarly bad).

That said, coal and fracking seem like a bad idea for Wyoming's future. It has
plenty of wind and empty land.

------
bediger4000
How 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
Where are solar panels made? Are they being dumped on the market?
</rhetorical>

~~~
pjc50
Why ignore renewables that are being subsidised by _another country_?

~~~
cloakandswagger
There's a reason anti-dumping laws exist.

------
diafygi
I 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.

~~~
the8472
> (a) Move to Wyoming and outvote the existing population

Pollution and global warming are not a local effects. Therefore it should not
be solely their decision. It should be regulated at a national or
international level instead since it affects everyone. And well, obama tried
but it didn't last.

So we should escalate:

(e) The international community takes action and imposes trade sanctions on
wyoming or america. And if that fails resorts to an invasion.

~~~
cloakandswagger
>And if that fails resorts to an invasion

It always astonishes me when statists are so clear about their violent
propensities.

~~~
istjohn
Destroying the earth is violence.

~~~
cloakandswagger
Let me see if I understand: Industries are destroying the environment, which
supports human life, and you want to stop this presumably because human life
has some intrinsic value.

Your answer to this is to use the force of the state to destroy those
industries, and if they resist you will literally kill the people opposing
you. Do those lives have less value than others? Or is this a twisted greater
good type of thing, where you think climate change is happening so quickly
that we should jump to dropping bombs to stop it? (hint: it's not)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Really? You've not been paying attention then. Further the risk exists that we
cross a tipping point before we even know it. There are sensible arguments for
stopping polluting industry now, by any means necessary. Glib rationalization
isn't a counter-argument. Science would be, if we had good enough models to
know.

------
bwb
WTF, 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.

~~~
rhizome
_They used to stand for letting people live and not be bothered by the
government_

When was this?

~~~
bwb
The 80s maybe?

~~~
kelukelugames
Uh...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority)

------
dmichulke
_When the wind of change blows, some men build walls and some build windmills_

\- Chinese proverb

------
anon1253
Oh 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
Who 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
That'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?

------
padseeker
Remember 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?

------
Hondor
It'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
$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.cf...](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a)

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.

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

~~~
woofyman
“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
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.

~~~
jessaustin
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.

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

~~~
jessaustin
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.

------
gumby
This 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.

------
CalChris
Meanwhile China is shutting down coal plants.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-
environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/energy-
environment/china-coal.html)

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

      China is shutting down coal plants
    

No, they are cutting back on some _new plant construction_ , as that article
says.

~~~
CalChris
No, 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-t...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-
to-close-all-major-coal-power-plants-to-curb-pollution)

~~~
masonic
That 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
As 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
Since all I knew of Wyoming is "Yellowstone", would geothermal be feasible
there? It's renewable and cheap whenever possible.

------
startDaemons
The 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."'

------
deftnerd
Many 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
This 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.

------
woodandsteel
The 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.

------
gersh
I'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.

------
ransom1538
This 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-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/18812/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-
oregon-and-new-jersey)

------
ridgeguy
Given 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
That would be "non-eligible" resources, of course. Sorry for the typo.

------
sandworm101
Solar 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
The money in Wyoming is in extractive industries.

------
js2
ALEC at work? [http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-
us...](http://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-alec-plans-to-reshape-us-energy-
policy-in-2014/213358/)

------
caf
So... 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?

------
coldcode
Introduced. Not passed yet.

------
crb002
It 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.

------
xg15
So 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
The 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
Indeed - 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_Un...](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Coal_mining_jobs)

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.

------
gragas
This 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)

~~~
Kronopath
This is addressed by the article:

 _Those "eligible resources" are defined solely as coal, hydroelectric,
natural gas, nuclear, oil, and individual net metering._

 _The latter includes home solar or wind installations in which the owner
feeds excess electricity back into the grid, and is paid a predetermined,
fixed fee for the power._

 _But these small-scale sources of renewable energy are meant for private use.
They just happen to produce extra power that can be utilized by the grid._

 _Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill 's list of
"eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in
any way if the legislation passes._

And if you go back to the primary source[1], that is, _W.S.
37-16-101(a)(viii)_ , you can corroborate this, as "Net metering system" has
restrictions such as:

    
    
        7 (B) Has a generating capacity of not more
        8 than:
        9
        10 (I) Twenty-five (25) kilowatts for a
        11 residential facility;
        12
        13 (II) One (1) megawatt for a
        14 nonresidential facility, if allowed by the electric
        15 utility, but an electric utility may not disallow
        16 nonresidential use equal to or less than twenty-five (25)
        17 kilowatts.
    

And:

    
    
        2 (E) Is intended primarily to offset part or
        3 all of the customer-generator's requirements for
        4 electricity
    

So the activists are right: this is effectively making it illegal to set up
any _large-scale_ wind or solar farm.

If any of you reading this live in Wyoming, _please_ bring this up with your
representatives. It's deliberately interfering with the free market in order
to artificially inflate the value of coal by making it illegal to sell large-
scale alternative energy sources, sponsored by representatives of coal-
producing counties.

[1]:
[http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2016/bills/SF0093.pdf](http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2016/bills/SF0093.pdf)

~~~
masonic

      making it illegal to set up any large-scale wind or solar farm...
    

_when that electricity is then sold to Wyoming consumers_. Export to out-of-
state consumers (the vast majority of consumption) is unaffected.

~~~
Kronopath
Fair enough. Though it makes it pretty unappealing to set up a renewable
energy source in Wyoming, or even in the general vicinity of the state, if you
can't actually sell to people or utilities nearby. At that point, the only
good reason to set up a renewable energy plant within Wyoming is if you have
some extremely good geographical/climate/geological reason to do so.

Note also that this bill also blocks geothermal energy, which I would expect
should be pretty attractive as a source of energy for the home state of
Yellowstone and Old Faithful.

------
lightedman
Drop 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
Well 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.

