Now that is an interresting new bill from wyoming

[Aepervius]

legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf

The way I read it (as other outfits do), is that by 2019 100% of the electricity in Wyoming has to be distributed by one of the listed source, which exclude renewable like wind or solar (but include hydroelectric).

But I was wondering if I was missing something ?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Net metering system?

 

[Aepervius]

Net metering system?

net metering => Electricity produced by private person, when they produce more than they consume for example, has then a negative value (where the utilities pay the private person).

 

[PhantomWolf]

But I was wondering if I was missing something ?

A proper link? A quote from the bill to actually create a reference and context for your OP?

 

[Thermal]

net metering => Electricity produced by private person, when they produce more than they consume for example, has then a negative value (where the utilities pay the private person).

So at least private wind and solar overproduction inputs back to the grid

 

[Armitage72]

A proper link? A quote from the bill to actually create a reference and context for your OP?

This is the link.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf

The relevant sections are:

In compliance year 2019, each electric utility shall procure a minimum of one hundred percent (100%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources.

and

"Eligible generating resource" means an electricity generating resource either located within Wyoming or delivering electricity into Wyoming from another state that produces electricity from one (1) or more of the following sources or system:
(A) Coal;
(B) Hydroelectric;
(C) Natural gas;
(D) Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 37-16-101(a)(viii);
(E) Nuclear;
(F) Oil.

 

[bruto]

I thought at first that this bill might be a well meaning attempt to prevent the sale of REC (renewable energy credits), which in the opinion of some allow polluters to continue making dirty energy by buying the credits for clean energy they don't actually use. But a little further investigation suggests that this is, in fact, what it appears to be: a stupid and reactionary bill designed to penalize renewable energy and promote the preservation of coal power, promulgated by coal interests and climate change deniers. Utilities can continue to make renewable energy. They just can't sell it at home.

I think we're going to see a lot of that for a while. It's open season on reason.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So if tomorrow someone invents a new clean energy source that outperforms all existing energy sources in efficiency and safety Wyoming won't use it?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Did the bill pass?

 

[acbytesla]

I thought at first that this bill might be a well meaning attempt to prevent the sale of REC (renewable energy credits), which in the opinion of some allow polluters to continue making dirty energy by buying the credits for clean energy they don't actually use. But a little further investigation suggests that this is, in fact, what it appears to be: a stupid and reactionary bill designed to penalize renewable energy and promote the preservation of coal power, promulgated by coal interests and climate change deniers. Utilities can continue to make renewable energy. They just can't sell it at home.

I think we're going to see a lot of that for a while. It's open season on reason.

This is the link.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/SF0071.pdf

The relevant sections are:

In compliance year 2019, each electric utility shall procure a minimum of one hundred percent (100%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources.

and

"

Eligible generating resource" means an electricity generating resource either located within Wyoming or delivering electricity into Wyoming from another state that produces electricity from one (1) or more of the following sources or system:
(A) Coal;
(B) Hydroelectric;
(C) Natural gas;
(D) Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 37-16-101(a)(viii);
(E) Nuclear;
(F) Oil.

It is EXACTLY that. *Note It doesn’t say wind or biofuels other possibilities. Why put in to law limits unless you're trying to restrict potential competition?

 

[Trebuchet]

Don't worry, Trump is going to get rid of all that pesky gubmint regulation!

The "minimum of 100%" part is an interesting touch. What's the maximum?

 

[crescent]

It is EXACTLY that. *Note It doesn’t say wind or biofuels other possibilities. Why put in to law limits unless you're trying to restrict potential competition?

Which is especially odd because Wyoming is covered in windfarms. Several new electric transmission lines are being built to export that electricity through Utah and Nevada to the Las Vegas area.

 

[bruto]

So if tomorrow someone invents a new clean energy source that outperforms all existing energy sources in efficiency and safety Wyoming won't use it?

Exactly. Such an energy source would be bad for the coal industry. If a Wyoming producer makes it, they can sell it somewhere else, but not in Wyoming.

Did the bill pass?

From the little I've read, it appears they were waiting for the results of the last election before voting on it. I think it's coming up this year.

I'm suddenly reminded of a Jules Feiffer cartoon from long long ago (far too long ago considering the news of the day) in which the solution for pollution is a big advertising push in which, as I recall, the motto is "Floating brown specks are good for you." It was a joke in 1965, but in the new age when fact is fake and lies are true, progress has found its own new direction too.

 

[Civet]

This looks pretty abominable to me, but I feel like I might be missing something. It seems a little "on the nose". Almost like a real-life Onion article. Any of the forum's more conservative members want to tell me why this might be a good idea?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Any of the forum's more conservative members want to tell me why this might be a good idea?

An even better question might be to ask forum members who live and vote in Wyoming why this might be a good idea.

 

[tyr_13]

An even better question might be to ask forum members who live and vote in Wyoming why this might be a good idea.

Why? Does coal pollution stay in Wyoming? (The answer is 'no' by the way.)

 

[bruto]

Coal smoke blows away. Coal money settles locally.

 

[Distracted1]

I was under the impression that the leadership of Wyoming was against "stifling government regulations".

 

[Giordano]

I was under the impression that the leadership of Wyoming was against "stifling government regulations".

Oh- for some reason that's all changed. Now it is okay for conservative Republicans to tell businesses what to do. Especially if is involves rules that are pro-global warming/anti-minority, etc.

BTW- here in California we will be happy to buy any "green" energy the Wyoming government does not want.

 

[marplots]

I'm reading the definition a bit differently.

Eligible generating resource" means an electricity generating resource either located within Wyoming or delivering electricity into Wyoming from another state that produces electricity from one (1) or more of the following sources or system:
(A) Coal;
(B) Hydroelectric;
(C) Natural gas;
(D) Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 37-16-101(a)(viii);
(E) Nuclear;
(F) Oil.

An "eligible generating resource" that is located in Wyoming can be of any type. Only imported electricity has to be from "one or more of the following" and it doesn't say "exclusively from the following" - meaning it can be a mix that includes "one or more" along with anything else.

I'm not reading that definition as an exclusion, but just the normal kind of definition you would add to a bill. That is, not a way to restrict or make law, but only to define a term as an aid to understanding other parts of the bill.

But I see where it can be read differently. Does the rest of the legislation clarify things? For instance, does the bill state some purpose that would be served if we exclude wind/solar from the mix? What is the legislative intent?