-
Mann Acts
September 14, 2011 | 72 comments
-
Suing NASA and UVA
August 19, 2011 | 58 comments
-
Facts on Frack Attackers
August 3, 2011 | 71 comments
-
Indefensible
July 27, 2011 | 59 comments
-
Inhibiting an Oil and Gas Boom
July 22, 2011 | 81 comments
The Public Policy
What’s Wind Got to Do With It?
Putting “renewable” sources of energy on trial.
Last week our organization, American Tradition Institute, sued the State of Colorado in federal court because we assert that its Renewable Energy Standard law violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
The mandate requires that major utilities in the state (mainly Xcel Energy, which favors the law) to obtain 30 percent of their power generation from “renewable” sources, such as wind or solar, by the year 2020. It shouldn’t be difficult for anyone who is slightly familiar with the Commerce Clause to understand why a state law that restricts the sale of a product (electricity), which is delivered on a grid that crosses state lines, would violate that clause. We seek 12 claims for relief under the Commerce Clause, which you can read in our complaint. Many of them have to do with forcing Xcel to purchase power from “renewable” sources — with favoritism for those in state — which discriminates against electricity generators from out of state. This impermissibly burdens interstate commerce.
What has confused some people, including myself a little bit, is our Law Center director David Schnare’s explanation that we are “putting wind energy on trial.” What does that have to do with the Commerce Clause?
Well, there’s a history. A 1970 Supreme Court decision in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. established a “balancing test,” which said if the effects on interstate commerce are only “incidental” compared to the local benefits a statute establishes, then it will be upheld. But if the burden on interstate commerce “is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits,” then it is unconstitutional.
Hence the problem for Colorado: Wind energy, which the American Wind Energy Association says now provides 5.8 percent of the state’s electricity (and 72 percent of all Colorado’s renewable energy), offers no local benefit compared to other generation sources. In fact, because wind energy produces dirtier, less dependable and more expensive electricity than the alternatives, it is a detriment.
Most people use electricity without regard for how their utility generates it. They just want it on. But for manufacturers and businesses that depend on timely production and delivery schedules, the losses due to even the slightest interruptions in power supply are in the millions of dollars.
Because the expectation is for electricity to be uninterrupted, the only other aspect where its “quality” can be graded is in its generation. For a long time environmentalists have told us that “renewable” sources like wind and solar deliver superior power because it is cleaner in its generation. That has not proven true.
Studies of Colorado and Texas by BENTEK Energy, LLC, in addition to a study of the Netherlands, found the coercion of utilities to accept wind power means they must suddenly turn on coal and natural gas generators when wind stops blowing — and then off when it does — and then on again, etc. These fossil fuel combustion generators create more pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and those dreaded greenhouse gases) when they are operated in this fashion than they would if they ran continually. Also, wind’s intermittency puts the electrical grid at greater risk of blackouts and brownouts.
As Kent Hawkins of MasterResource.com noted, “There are not only more emissions with [Renewable Energy Standards] than without them, but also there is duplicate capacity installed (wind) at significantly higher costs, which adds notably to the costs of electricity.”
So you see that under the Pike balancing test, no “local benefit” can be cited in order to overturn a determination that Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standard is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
And that is what putting wind on trial has to do with it.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/13/whats-wind-got-to-do-with-it
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
The Bishop| 4.13.11 @ 7:18AM
Not even mention the unnecessary bird carnage. Doesn't that cause a tip in the ecological balance, not in the birds' favor?
Tomas| 4.13.11 @ 2:25PM
A few years ago we returned to our home for a visit with old friends. Our drive takes us through the northern hills of the Adirondack Mountains in New York state. The area is beautiful. The autumn sees an explosion of color unlike any I have witnessed in my life.
As we approached a more secluded portion of the road, we started to see them. Windmills. The close we got, the more numerous they became. Passing them - dozens of them - was such a shock. This once-beautiful area in northern New York state was now ruined by the specter of these huge windmills piercing the horizon.
On our way back, we decided to take a more southerly route. About ten miles away from our outbound highway, we expected to miss the windmills... to get to see the beauty of the region unscathed.
We were wrong. The windmill "farm" extended from the northerly route ten miles to the southerly route. The horizon to the south is far broader, extending to the Canadian border. What was once an idyllic view of forests, farmlands, and rivers has been destroyed.
What price progress?
Too high a price....
-
Bob K.| 4.13.11 @ 7:11PM
You know that you can't lose money if you are invested in a Wind Farm?
The nearest electric utility is required by law to purchase the electricity made by the wind farm.
Great investment if you can get into it!
Here in PA, they simply expand their coverage where they sell the electricity. Electricity made by wind in NE PA is sold in Northern Virginia near Washington DC.
Wind Farms also are shut down if the wind is less than 15mph or more than 55 mph.
Maddox| 4.13.11 @ 8:07AM
The people who are pushing this ridiculous notion should be put on trial. This is another theft (scam) perpetrated by liberals and others trying to prosper off idiots who want believe they can save the world.
AnyoneButNewt| 4.13.11 @ 8:27AM
How long are we all supposed to participate in this collective willing suspension of disbelief, that somehow wind farms are going to save the earth? And when is the "drill, baby, drill" crowd going to wake up and take control of the arguement?, ie, "Name one American industry that is FOR waste and inefficiency?" I mean, we are all living like its 1969 and rivers are catching on fire. And lastly, when billionaire blowhards like Sting and Nancy Pelosi give up their private jets and liberals in metro DC give up their carbon-guzzling McMansions and move back to the glory that is The District Of Columbia, then we'll talk. (Save it, AB, I know, Bush did it).
born_n_texas | 4.13.11 @ 9:08AM
another liberal "renewable resources" dream meets the reality of economics and........FAILS again. Face it, we have nothing yet that can compete with coal, natural gas, nuclear for the generation of electricity and oil for transportation.....PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!
Harry the Horrible| 4.13.11 @ 9:21AM
IIRC, nuclear power is renewable - you can create fuel in fast breeder reactors. So why aren't we going nuclear in a big way?
Stammon| 4.13.11 @ 12:04PM
Because the Gia loving poli-sci majors know that nuclear energy is evil. What they really want us to do is restore the midwest to buffalo and indian camps. I like camping, but holy crap, I am not happy to die of old age at 42 and watch 7 out of 9 of my children die before they are 5 years old.
Oh wait, don't we get free health care with our wind farms?
The Bruce| 4.14.11 @ 12:49AM
Because too many people watched "The China Syndrome?" That's basically it. Liberals have been fear-mongering nuclear power for decades.
At least France paid no mind (this is the one instance that I'd like this country to emulate France).
Of course, the situation in Japan doesn't help matters. I'm not sure if it matters that 99% of the United States isn't going to be hit with both an earthquake and a tsunami. People see what is happening in Japan and have an instant knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power, thanks to the media.
In the future, solar power will probably be a good alternative for powering our homes, as costs come down and efficiency increases, but we're not even close to being there yet. In the future, I believe that coupling solar power at the home with a reliable backup like nuclear power will be the solution.
Oh and, point of fact, the number of people that have been killed in the United States as a result of working/living in and around a nuclear plant is ZERO. The number of people killed installing/maintaining a wind farm is currently 35 (not counting the birds, of course).
The Big E| 4.13.11 @ 9:23AM
I remember in the 1970's, part of President Carter's "energy policy" was to built a giant windmill on top of a mountain in a town near where I grew up. It was, at the time, the largest windmill ever constructed. It was huge, ugly, ruined the view, never produced as much electricity as it used, and usually broken or shut down due to interference with TV and radio signals. It also produced a low frequency hum which made some people nauseous. After a couple of years, it was pulled down.
Then, one day last year, I came into my office and a friend of mine asked how I liked the new view. I outside my window, on a ridge just across the valley (and in the same town which was home to Carter's failed experiment), stood a brand new, 135' tall windmill erected over a weekend by the local State University.
In the year since, I have noticed that it doesn't run when the wind's too weak (a light breeze), and doesn't run when the wind's too strong (slightly more than a light breeze). Most days, I don't see it run at all. It just stands there, a monument to people who are, as Jerry Clower would have noted, educated far beyond their intelligence.
When it was erected, the University made a lot of claims about how much electricity it would generate. They claimed it would save the University enough electricity to free up other resources to provide the electricity for some specific number of homes (I don't remember the number). Oddly enough, I've heard nothing from the University since about how much electricity it is ACTUALLY producing, and it seems to me that since it runs only about 1 day in 3, it's probably not producing very much.
PJ| 4.13.11 @ 10:07AM
"...never produced as much electricity as it used...."
I believe there are credible studies that make your statement true.
StarbucksDave| 4.13.11 @ 9:44AM
The best was the late Sen. Kennedy's fight to prevent the wind mill farm from being built where he would have to look at it from his house. It was O.K. if you and I had to live next door to this abomination, but heaven forbid that his Holiness should have his view of the sea disturbed.
Ned| 4.13.11 @ 1:16PM
Heck, Dead Ted couldn't even SEE the proposed wind farm from their compound... it was miles out at sea, and floating! He just didn't want to have to steer his frickin yacht around the thing...
oldfart| 4.14.11 @ 8:39AM
Thats right - whe would have crashed into one because he would be SUD - sailing while drunk
Melvin| 4.13.11 @ 10:00AM
The big reason wind power is being pushed is because of the EU and European lobbyists who fill our politicians heads with electrical grandeur.
Another way of looking at this is to follow the money. How many Congressmen, Senators, family members along with political cronies have invested in European Wind Power Companies?
These companies receive subsidies whose dollar amount we could not comprehend because it is so large.
PJ| 4.13.11 @ 10:16AM
Your reasoning would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that the biggest American manufacturer (& maybe #2 in the world) of these monstrosities resides in the pockets of the Obama & Co. You know ---that company whose chairman takes plane rides with Obama & whose motto is "We bring good things to life." Yep, that's right--------GE!!!!
The Big E| 4.13.11 @ 2:07PM
You know, that's an excellent point. GE was one of the largest contributors to President Obama's campaign in 2008, and of course, its the "Chicago way" to take care of your political friends.
GE's Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, was appointed by President Obama to the President's Economic Recovery Advisement Board, and to the chairmanship of the President's outside panel of economic advisers.
GE has invested billions in "green" energy, and I would be willing to bet that one major reason why GE was able to pay no income taxes on its $14 billion dollar profit last year was due to the use of tax credits related in some form or fashion to its "green" energy investment.
Of course, "green" energy is not competitive in an open market, but if prices for competing energy sources, such as oil for example, are kept artificially high by government policies . . .
Am I the only one that wonders about this connection?
Redstateboy| 4.13.11 @ 10:39AM
Awesome piece and Bravo for putting Liber-ulism on trial for the stupidity of it all. It seems Liberalisms un-intended consquences once again abound. Can we not put an end to these people?!
RabidAmerican| 4.13.11 @ 5:12PM
Actually, the price of gasoline is still the $1.79 per gallon it was January 2009. It's really just that you now have to use $4.00 face-value to buy that $1.79 gallon. Why? Ummmmmmm, ask the Fed--it's called inflation, er, 'quantitative easing.'
Keep those printing presses humming! BTW, the Fed makes real money as it 'buys' excessive government spending (debt).
Inflation=the most insidious form of taxation ever devised. Do the math and see how much more you're voluntarily paying in taxes.
Red Ryder| 4.13.11 @ 10:50AM
Gasoline now costs more than $4.00 a gallon--and it may hit $5.00 by Memorial Day. Every time someone mentions the high price of gasoline, our reliance on foreign countries for oil or the need to further develop our own energy resources, President Obama starts trumpeting "green" technology. For him that seems to be a conditioned response. But in fairness I thought I should give it a try. So, I mounted a wind turbine on the rear of my car and put a solar panel on its roof. It hasn't improved my gasoline mileage one bit!
Mike| 4.13.11 @ 11:20AM
Back in 2003 an aquaintance of mine worked at the GE Wind Turbine plant in Pensacola. He was out of work and irratable because GE would not produce a single wind turbine until the government subsidy was re-approved. No subsidy no wind turbines. Nuff said.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
George S| 4.13.11 @ 11:28AM
While your argument will prevail, unfortunately you will set the stage for the federal government taking regulatory control over the electrical grid that is now managed by "multiple entities" managed by a "regional forum". The commerce clause sustains your complaint but the ruling may very well give the Court the opportunity (or the blueprint) for the government to take control of the grid. Then they can mandate whatever sources of energy will back the grid and the guarantee of uninterruptible power will go out the window. I cannot see how a group of state authorities will survive the government's own commerce clause counter challenge.
Stammon| 4.13.11 @ 11:59AM
This is what happens when you let english and poli-sci majors dictate public policy.
Bob K.| 4.13.11 @ 12:56PM
It doesn't matter what their college majors are.
Bureaucrats dictate public policy, write it and enforce it at the behest of the politicians who employ them. That is how they keep their jobs.
Bob K.| 4.13.11 @ 1:02PM
Didn't Governor "Moonbeam" just sign a law in California yesterday mandating that a certain percentage of the Energy used in the State come from Solar and Wind Power?
It won't be used there very long before for the rest of the USA to find out how much this nonsense will cost!
Skippy| 4.13.11 @ 4:06PM
About 20 years ago California passed another law mandating that, by year 2000(or so)a certain % of vehicles registered here MUST be zero emissions. We'll show those damned carmakers, we'll pass a law!
Oops.
As the law was about to kick in, the legislature quietly repealed it.
The reason?
Umm...nobody had invented a zero emission car yet.
Expect a similar occurence a decade hence when the pixie-dust unicorn green energy hallucination wears off.
Laws are funny things.
Often, when they strike the windshield of the real world, they go splat!
JayDick| 4.13.11 @ 1:11PM
I swear wind and solar energy are worse than religion to these environmentalists. No studies or factual analyses seem to make any difference.
Al Adab| 4.13.11 @ 3:30PM
Plenty of wind, in the form of hot air, in DC. With Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz and Weiner (what if W-C married Weiner?) spewing untruths with a vengence we could wind power the whole east coast.
NEGRO X| 4.13.11 @ 6:41PM
If you support wind power get on your knees behind me.
Tony in Central PA| 4.13.11 @ 8:12PM
Gamesa, a Spanish company that came to America when European wind subsidies dried up, built a number of 400 foot tall turbines atop the ridge over my town last fall. Its been six months and not one of them is turning. They are building another farm ten miles north that appears to have stalled construction.
The local paper said that no energy company wants to buy and maintain them. I wonder why ?
Richard Baker| 4.14.11 @ 2:02PM
Bad science and economics will consign these frauds to the "dustbin of history." Amen.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:24PM
is good