BigWind attacking Ohio and it wants to move closer to YOU

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 8.29.01 AM

Following a pleasant lull, several troublesome initiatives are back. The first is the renewed effort by unknown renewable profiteers to put an issue on the Ohio ballot to raise $1.3 Billion annually for 10 years to pay themselves to build wind and solar projects. The program would be incorporated in Delaware and administered by an unknown commission. This initiative would be made possible by amending the Ohio Constitution. (Ground Hog Day anyone?) In the recent election, Ohio voters turned down the efforts of marijuana advocates to hijack the Constitution for their own purposes and also voted to stop similar initiatives in the future. We did not know the “future” would come within weeks of the election. This time the hijacker is “clean energy”. In an important Editorial, the Columbus Dispatch attacks the Ohio Clean Energy Initiative labeling it “preposterous” and saying it presents the opportunity for “fraud on a colossal scale”. Uh huh, what else is new? The Dispatch editors write:

“In addition, alternative-energy sources that are seeking public investment by definition have not attracted the needed funds from private investors. That’s typically because the energy is more expensive and less efficient and reliable than traditional sources, making it impossible to compete unless the business is subsidized or operates in an artificial, protected market created by government mandate.”

This is a refreshing bit of news given the blind support for wind and solar mandates by much of the Ohio media. It now remains for the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Ballot Board to rule on if and how the Ohio Clean Energy Initiative will or will not appear on a future ballot. If they determine the proposal represents a monopoly outlawed under Issue Two, maybe OCE will finally give up.

Closer to home, the wind developers are agitating again to repeal the setback rules. On Wednesday, the Ohio Power Siting Board at last adopted the rule requiring setbacks to be 1,125 feet from the property line. Prior to the OPSB meeting, Senator Bill Seitz convened a small group to discuss the differing positions on setbacks. Iberdrola(in Van Wert/Delphos areas), Apex(inVanWert and Spencerville and Ohio City areas) and AWEA were represented at the meeting along with representatives from Greenwich Neighbors United and Union Neighbors United. Chairman Andre Porter of the PUCO/OPSB was also present. At issue was whether there could be some kind of compromise position on setbacks and waivers. The wind representatives argued that if no home was on an adjacent property, a more reasonable setback would be 1.1 times turbine height (including blade at the tip). Citizens asserted that just because a house is not on a property does not mean the property is not in use for recreation (hunting, golf, riding) or that a future use was not planned for the property. Likewise, farmers should be safe in their fields. Farmers should also be able to safely use aerial spray services. Sen. Seitz advised Chairman Porter that, after studying global setback standards, Ohio’s were not extreme and could even be considered on the short end. Chairman Porter announced he will convene a group of “stakeholders” in January to revisit a number of the wind rules. (Ground Hog Day again – remember the Ohio Wind Working Group?)

The wind industry proposed allowing County Commissioners to reduce the setbacks in their county. Sen. Seitz was very firm that he would never condone giving that power to County Commissioners but that he might entertain giving the power to Township Trustees who would most likely have to live with the effects of such decisions. On Wednesday, November 18th , the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee has scheduled its second hearing on HB 190. It is possible a substitute bill may be introduced that includes some of the wind industry’s desires to change setbacks. Iberdrola asserts that the107 turbine Blue Creek project in Van Wert would only be able to have 10 turbines under the current setbacks. We question that. They also claim that expansion of Blue Creek is not possible due to a number of hold outs who will not sign waivers. In addition, they claim that people in Putnam County near Leipsic are very supportive of having a wind farm…

…The just-certified “green energy” proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution remains a bad idea, as backers make a fourth run at getting the issue before voters.The Ohio Clean Energy Initiative would require the state to issue bonds totaling $1.3 billion a year for 10 years. The money would be directed to investments in alternative-energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, with decisions made by a secretive commission incorporated in the state of Delaware. Ohio taxpayers and legislators would have no say in how the money is awarded….

 

Source: Bad idea gets worse | The Columbus Dispatch

BigWind attacks Newsweek. Did they divert attention FROM the facts

Newsweek created quite a stir this week when AWEA ‘called them out’ for not vetting a college prof who wrote an op-ed piece about problems with wind energy. The attacks thrown at them, along with the defensive position that Newsweek has, subsequently , taken the story away from the facts. But isn’t this what BigWind is all about? Diverting you AWAY from the facts? The comments below this article are enlightening and chock full of facts. We have share some with you…

Texas prides itself on being a national leader, whether it be in barbecue, football or wind energy. That’s why when someone misguidedly attacks one of our strengths—as Randy Simmons did in an opinion article republished by Newsweek last week—as a Texan, I can’t remain silent.

Simmons’ op-ed on the “true cost of wind power” is the same tired slant we have heard from fossil fuel interests time and time again, which should come as no surprise when you learn who’s really behind the piece. Simmons lists his title as professor of political economy at Utah State University, but he doesn’t mention he is the Charles G. Koch professor of political economy. He’s also a senior fellow at the Koch– and ExxonMobil-funded Property and Environment Research Center. In other words, he works for oil companies.

So let’s expose this op-ed for what it really is: a fraudulent attempt to discredit clean, affordable wind energy and protect polluting coal plants….

Comment thread:

Kevon Martis: The author also disingenuously paints a false either/or scenario with respect to wind and fossil fuels. The truth is far different: wind energy binds ratepayers to fossil fuel generation in perpetuity, particularly gas-fired generation like that the produces more than 50% of Texas’ electricity. AWEA board member GE made that clear in testimony to the Obama White House: 

“Energy generation from renewable sources like wind and solar have zero
emissions and very low variable cost of generation. However, if flexible
generation assets, such as gas turbines, are not available, these renewable
technologies will not be deployed. In other words, gas turbines are an essential
component of renewable energy sources’ ability to penetrate the market.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060_07232013-1.pdf

And no one knows this better than the “fossil fuel front men” that inhabit the board of the American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/About/content.aspx?ItemNumber=779

Duke, E.On, AEP, Invenergy, FPL/NextEra: wall to wall fossil fuel.

That’s at least 3 strikes against this totally deceptive author….

Bruce Morgan Williams: FALSE. Recent studies by NREL, LBL, PJM, GE, and several universities have proven that we can integrate large amount of renewables and reduce fuel consumption significantly. It’s already happening. You post some political editorial BS that ignores real world data, and I post links to in-depth industry studies by grid operators.
You are either a Rube of a Shill (If you’re not sure, you’re a Rube)

http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/subcommittees/irs/pris.aspx

Kevon Martis: Bruce Morgan Williams Actually the quote is from GE. You do know they are the biggest US wind turbine manufacturer and an AWEA board member? And the PJM study stipulates billions of dollars of new gas-fired generation right up front.


And it was done by GE as well.

The NEWIS study for ISO-NE (also by GE) says the same thing: gas is needed to integrate wind.

And NERC is saying the same thing about CAISO: nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability Assessments DL/NERC-CAISO_VG_Assessment_Final.pdf

Now show me where I posted editorial BS Bruce.

“Generating electricity from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels offers significant public health benefits. The air and water pollution emitted by coal plants is linked to breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy has been found to reduce premature mortality and lost workdays, and it reduces overall healthcare costs.”

Here is another whopper.

Notice how this quote conflates “coal” with “fossil fuels” and health impacts?

Here is the deceptive part: the alleged health impacts from coal emissions are derived from PM2.5 and/or Hg emissions. But natural gas-a fossil fuel- emits essentially none of those.

This author appears to be determined to deceive his audience at every turn….

Interesting that the wind promoters have decided to talk about water use in the generation sector as if reducing that use would end droughts.

Consider:

“When talking about water for power generation, two important terms must be explained and understood: water use and water consumption, said Dr. Susan Stuver, research scientist with the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) and Texas Water Resources Institute (TWRI).

“If you’re using water and putting it back where it came from, it’s water use,” Stuver said. “A power plant is not consuming millions of gallons; it just needs (the water) once and then puts it back, and keeps using the same water over and over again.

“Water is drawn from the reservoir, used to cool the power plant and is then returned to the reservoir where it can therefore be used for other activities such as habitat for wildlife or recreation.”...

The problem is that wind energy costs at least $80/MWh to produce and often much more in many markets yet can only save $25-35/MWh of coal or gas fuel costs. In the meantime it is reducing the profitability of existing dispatchable power plants which normally would be fine if wind were a replacement technology for coal or gas generators. But it is not. Wind energy has a parasite/host relationship with primarily gas fired generators and when the parasite siphons off enough of the revenue stream of it’s requisite host it either dies-thus killing wind too-or the host demands new revenue removed from energy sales to keep it alive and the grid stable. That is a poor economic construct.

John Thomas Jordan Jr: Sorry not buying in. I don’t have a problem subsidizing renewable resources of any kind, we already subsidize traditional energy directly and indirectly. I also don’t have a problem with using all the above. As we develop more and better means of storage which won’t happen if there is no demand the reliance on other types of energy will shrink and the market will determine who is the ultimate winner.

Kevon Martis: John Thomas Jordan Jr. I see you are a union guy. Consider this: the steel industry spends $18 billion per year on electricity. They employ 100,000 people who are largely union. A 10% increase in the price of electricity takes $18,000/employee/year off the table for fringes and benefits. Wind energy’s wholesale PPA price is typically 80-120% higher than the wholesale value of electricity in most markets. Good luck with that next pay raise…

David Davila:  live in the Banning Pass, where wind power has been for decades. I really wish those that support it take a very close look at the existing farms here. Many are obsolete and don’t even work. They can’t be upgraded easily, all foundations, structures and wiring must be removed before an upgrade, that’s why many owners just walk away and abandon them. Many leak oil like a sieve that blows all over the desert. I also read these articles and wonder whether the authors ever calculate the energy deficit that they start with. +/- 5 tons of copper, +/- 80 tons of steel and +/- 150 gallons of oil and there are many other materials need as well that increase that consumption of energy before they produce a single watt. These materials were not mined, created or smelted using wind power. The authors do not even mentioning scraping vast amounts of pristine desert, local wildlife be damned. Want a permit for a large construction project? Good luck. Want one for a wind or solar farm and they can’t write them fast enough. Nice job looking at numbers and linking to them, horrible job taking all factors into account…

The True Benefits of Wind Power.

BigWind costs the US taxpayer MORE $ when they produce MORE energy? YES

Fox Business reports that the states with the largest use of wind power have the highest utility bills. They note private investors are encouraged to hold on to their own money while the government (you and me) provides the life support for wind through the Production Tax Credit.    The outcome of the election may pull the plug on the PTC.   Enter the League of Conservation Voters.  Fox reports “It would be an understatement to say that the outcome of the 2014 elections is important for wind energy producers. In an effort to see PTC friendly Harry Reid as Majority Leader,the wind industry has essentially turned the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) into their own personal Trojan horse.

Much of the LCV leadership has deep ties to the wind energy:

•       Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) serves as the Treasure of the LCV.

•       Peter Mandelstam, former AWEA board member and founder of Green Sails wind energy company also serves on the LCV board.

Unsurprisingly, much of the LCV’s campaign activities have been aimed squarely at renewal of the PTC. The organization brags  that it will spend over $25 million supporting pro PTC candidates  and attacking their opponents before November elections. Should LCV’s campaign fail, loss of the PTC could prove fatal to some wind companies. 

We have seen Ohio LCV hand at work in Ohio with LCV support of Rep. Mike Duffey (R-Columbus) who opposed SB 310.  We are quite certain that we shall see more of the Ohio LCV as the legislature’s Study Committee gets up and running…. 

…For government-backed industries such as wind energy, the relationship is directly the opposite — the more they produce, the more it costs ratepayers and taxpayers. Recent analysis shows that states with the largest use of wind power have the highest electricity bills. Such factors have caused private investors to largely bypass wind companies and leave them largely dependent upon the government for their survival.

Wind energy companies rely heavily upon a government construct known as the “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) to support their bottom lines. The PTC is a federal program that provides billions of dollars annually to subsidize renewable energy facilities such as wind farms. Generally speaking a clean technology facility receives a tax credit for 10 years after the date the facility is placed in service with the tax credit amount ranging from $0.23 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for wind to $0.011 per kWh for qualified hydroelectric….

It is presumed that a GOP controlled Congress would see the PTC on the chopping block in 2015 and a Democrat-controlled Congress will fight for renewal.

It would be an understatement to say that the outcome of the 2014 elections is important for wind energy producers. In an effort to see PTC friendly Harry Reid as Majority Leader, the wind industry has essentially turned the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) into their own personal Trojan horse.

Much of the LCV leadership has deep ties to the wind energy:

•       Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) serves as the Treasure of the LCV.

•       Peter Mandelstam, former AWEA board member and founder of Green Sails wind energy company also serves on the LCV board.

Unsurprisingly, much of the LCV’s campaign activities have been aimed squarely at renewal of the PTC. The organization brags  that it will spend over $25 million supporting pro PTC candidates  and attacking their opponents before November elections. Should LCV’s campaign fail, loss of the PTC could prove fatal to some wind companies.

As Warren Buffet recently told his loyal investors, “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit. “…

It May be Lights Out for the Wind Energy Come the Midterms | Fox Business.

Are wind developers part of your ‘public’ at county commissioner meetings?

This week Everpower spoke on the record to the Springfield News Sun about their future plans.   Everpower spokesman, Michael Speerscheider, had this to say:

 “ It’s still too early to say whether the legislation will mean the end of the Buckeye wind farm,” said Michael Speerschneider, a spokesman for Everpower. The project is in jeopardy because the state legislation will freeze current mandates for renewable energy, he said, making it harder to find a buyer for the electricity produced by the turbines. Everpower doesn’t have a timeline for when it will decide whether to move ahead or kill the projects. “It’s very early,” Speerschneider said. “We’re still trying to figure out what it all means and if we can work through it. It could very well be something that leads to having a lot more difficulty in completing the projects.”

 

The American Wind Energy Association (“AWEA”) stated they plan to be actively engaged in the process of the new legislative Study Committee and their spokesman states “We’d say it starts a two-year debate and we plan to win the debate,” Kelley said. “I don’t think we can afford to wait two years.”

Meanwhile, Senator Keith Faber  states in the article that: “The renewable mandates might make sense, he said, but the state needs to determine whether the wind farms are a good investment for consumers.

“They’re getting multiple subsidies,” Faber said of the wind farms. “The question is when is enough enough and when should they be viable.”

This is the first time we have heard Senator Faber express concern about the subsidies that federal and Ohio taxpayers and ratepayers have paid out to support wind development.  Under current law, renewable energy is eligible to seek local tax abatement of the public utility personal property tax for projects where construction begins prior to January 1, 2019.  But we believe the mandate is also a form of subsidy so it is difficult to understand exactly what Senator Faber means.   On more than one occasion, Everpower has expressed concern over whether they could go forward without the federal Production Tax credit, or whether failure to be granted PILOT payments would make the project infeasible.  Those two issues didn’t come up in the context of today’s story even though the PTC is currently expired and Everpower has yet to make application for PILOT in Champaign County.   

In the meantime, Everpower’s local team of Jason Dagger and Michael Pullins were busy advising the Champaign County Commissioners on local economic development.  In a public hearing to which only four members of the public went, Dagger and Pullins comprised ½ of the “public”.  They opined as follows:

“Buckeye Wind Farm Project Manager Jason Dagger said this was a tremendous asset to move money back toward economic development.  “I would encourage you to move more (money) towards economic development if there’s ever the possibility to do that because I think that is a driver for this county,” Dagger said. “We need to see groundbreakings in general. Whether they’re renewable energy or general businesses that need to expand in the community, we need to see folks out there attracting them in here and showing the assets that we have.”  EverPower Consultant Mike Pullins suggested the county should partner with surrounding counties to leverage resources toward economic development.”

Could they be working on warming up the Commission for their plea for tax abatement as a “driver” for their debatable economic development?   Is wind development really a positive for a economic development? See our next blogs and decide for yourself…

Everpower Renewables has spent as much as $10 million in Ohio to get a trio of wind projects ready for construction, including in Champaign County, but two recently signed laws are making the firm reconsider if their investment is still worth the effort….

via Long fight over wind turbines, energy laws | Springfield, OH News | www.springfieldnewssun.com.

Citizens applaud Ohio Senate for increased BigWind setbacks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, May 22, 2014 Contact: Kevon Martis, Executive Director Interstate Concerned Citizens Coalition (517) 403-2438

Citizens Hail Action by Ohio Senate to Correct Predatory Wind Turbine Setback Law Measure Sustains Wind Project Possibilities

Citizens of northern and western Ohio applauded action by the Ohio Senate to help protect property rights and values of homes in areas targeted for wind development. Current setbacks for industrial wind turbines, which reach up to 500 feet in height, were established by the Strickland Administration to be measured from the foundations of the homes of neighboring property owners. Senator Keith Faber, whose district is heavily impacted by wind development efforts, has recognized that effects of industrial wind turbines on neighboring property can devalue those properties, create health and safety hazards for the inhabitants, and render some virtually unsalable.

“We applaud the movement of turbine setback from homes to property lines, but remain baffled that the safety perimeter remains at 1,125’ plus one blade length (roughly 1,300’), while documentation from the safety manuals of turbine manufacturers Vestas and Nordex both recommend employees remain at least 1,640 ft. from turbines under some circumstances. That’s more than a football field further away than the new provision requiress.”

Wind developers are private for-profit businesses that should be required to negotiate easements and compensate neighboring properties for intrusion. Homeowners have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home,” said Kevon Martis, Executive Director of Interstate Concerned Citizens Coalition on behalf of the residents of northwest Ohio. “Senator Faber respects the rights of homeowners and nothing in this wind turbine setback will prevent a developer from pursuing a wind development. It does, however, restore the balance of power between ordinary people and powerful well-heeled developers.”

In a response from the American Wind Industry Association, they claim that respect for property rights and protection of rural home values will somehow destroy the wind industry. Such claims are exaggerated. AWEA regularly states that there are no adverse impacts on nearby property values and that the reports of negative health effects are not credible. If AWEA’s claims are true, there should be no problem negotiating affordable easements with neighboring property owners rather than simply taking property rights with no permission and no compensation.

“It is alarming the wind industry is publically balk at measures to protect Ohio homeowners.” remarked Mr. Martis. “Is this industry so greedy as to publically admit they wish to put Ohio rural citizens at risk?”

All across Ohio, rural citizens are cheering the leadership of Senator Keith Faber and his willingness to step forward, yet still puzzled that the industry’s own safety standards are stricter.

Will Ohio SB310 begin a ‘domino’ effect to repeal BigWind mandates?

Today will be a busy day as around 30 witnesses will testify in the Ohio House Public Utilities Committee concerning Senate Bill 310.  Today’s Columbus Dispatch reports that the bill may spark a national movement toward repealing mandates for renewable energy.  Americans for Prosperity has thrown their support behind the bill. 

The Urbana Daily Citizen reports that two appeals were rejected by the Ohio Power Siting Board.  Both appeals were directed toward Everpower projects: Buckeye Wind and Scioto Ridge.  In Scioto Ridge, the citizens were trying to address the fact that they had no real opportunity to  register objections to the project because most are summer people in the Indian Lake area.  Everpower waited until after Labor Day when they were gone, to hold a public hearing.   In Champaign County, the County and Townships had objected to amendments in the Buckeye I project that moved the staging area further to the east and made modifications to roads and underground lines.  Today, one of the witnesses who will testify  in support of Senate Bill 310 is a County Engineer who has similar concerns about damage to local infrastructure that may be beyond the County’s financial ability to repair…

Ohio is on the cusp of becoming the first state to significantly ease its renewable-energy standards, a milestone that would be noticed in statehouses across the country where similar debates are being waged.

Proposals have gained traction in Kansas and several other states and have at least been introduced in a dozen or so others.

But none has had as much success as Ohio’s Senate Bill 310, which has passed the Senate and appears poised to pass the House as soon as this week.

The Ohio bill would place a two-year freeze on annual increases in standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency. It also would repeal a rule that says utilities must buy half of their renewable energy from in-state sources and would make it easier for utilities to buy low-cost hydroelectric power and count it toward the standards.

Many of the same groups with an interest in the subject are active in multiple states. The American Wind Energy Association, Sierra Club and others are fighting to maintain rules that say utilities must obtain a certain amount of their energy from renewable sources. Meanwhile, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, and Americans for Prosperity are helping to push for change in the rules….

via If Ohio eases green-energy rules, will it spark national trend? | The Columbus Dispatch.

Will Ohio rollback BigWind’s mandates???????

The Ohio House Public Utilities Committee was greeted by fifty witnesses wishing to testify on Am. Sub. S. B. 310 yesterday.  The group was a mixture of both supporters and opponents and only a small number were able to be heard.  Many were asked to hold over until next week.  Among those who were not heard were the wind developers.  Copies of all testimony submitted can be obtained on the Committee website at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/public-utilities.  

Iberdrola rests its support for the renewable mandate on climate change and the idea that the fuel   – wind – is free. Iberdrola objects to how renewables are characterized:   “The Energy Mandate Study Committee’s foregone conclusion is telegraphed in the legislation that creates the committee and uses terms like unreliable, unaffordable and unrealistic.” Ominously, Iberdrola warns that “If you proceed with passage of SB 310, you are jeopardizing the viability of two additional investments in Ohio we are planning that would total about 250 MWs of generation capacity…”   These two unannounced projects are in addition to Blue Creek Dog Creek and Leipsic Wind.  We have no idea where the two new projects are targeted to be.

EDPR, developer of Timber Road in Paulding County, testified that project was the “direct result” of the mandate. Like Iberdrola, EDPR has unknown projects of 400 MW’s in the very early stages of planning.  Where?

Everpower’s Michael Speerscheider gives testimony  indicating his belief that tax abatement through the PILOT is a foregone conclusion because he states the amount the company will be paying for Buckeye I, Buckeye II and Scioto Ridge.  Everpower acknowledges “The investments that EverPower has made in the state have been made possible by the policies that the Ohio General Assembly put in place.”   (That policy is an unconstitutional mandate to build in-state renewable energy.)  Speerschneider cites numerous industry sponsored research papers to support the notion that renewables do not increase costs and that the subsidies they receive are far less than what other companies receive.   In saying this, Everpower tries to equate tax credits and tax abatement with oil depletion allowances or investment tax credits available to any company as part of the tax code.  This is a phony argument but, remarkably, he goes on to say “Denouncing wind energy because it relies on some level of government incentives is intellectually and ideologically dishonest.”

While not testifying, the American Wind Energy Association’s  (AWEA) lobbyist Dayna Baird filed a comment on yesterday’s story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer saying: “ First, AWEA is supportive of a compromise amendment to SB 310 that makes significant changes to the renewable energy standards .”    We do not know what the proposed “compromise” amendment might be but we are pretty sure it would eliminate the two-year freeze on the mandate while the Committee undertakes its review of Ohio’s mandates.

 Amidst all of the cheerleading for why the energy efficiency and renewable mandates are good for Ohioans and good for business, the annual survey of 500 Chief Executives was announced showing that Ohio has dropped five spots to number 26 as the best place in America to do business.  Regulations and taxes put us in the bottom half of the country with places like New York and California while our neighbor Indiana, with no energy mandates, was rated 6th best in the country.  Hmmmmmm…..

Twenty-nine states and the District of Colombia have passed renewable energy mandates that require consumers and businesses to consume minimum amounts of wind, solar, and other green energy. A handful of states have also enacted laws that require states to reduce their total energy consumption. These mandates have increased energy prices, causing many legislatures to reexamine their value.

While legislative efforts began and stalled in a handful of Republican states like North Carolina and Kansas, Ohio is positioning itself to be the first state to rollback its mandate, known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS, and energy reduction program. As is generally the case, the mandate begins small and relatively painless but quickly ramps up, requiring utilities to use more and more renewable energy….

A study by the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Brycerevealed that, “in 2010, the average price of residential electricity in RPS states was 31.9 percent higher than it was in non-RPS states. Commercial electricity rates were 27.4 percent higher, and industrial rates were 30.7 percent higher.” Indeed, “in the ten-year period between 2001 and 2010—the period during which most of the states enacted their RPS mandates—residential and commercial electricity prices in RPS states increased at faster rates than those in non-RPS states.”…

Since Ohio is part of the multi-state PJM power market, any reduced energy prices resulting from reduced energy usage are spread throughout the entire PJM system while being financed entirely by Ohio ratepayers. Dr. Jonathan Lesser quantifies it this way:

80% of the price suppression “benefits,” to the extent they might exist, flow to customers outside Ohio and customers of Ohio municipal utilities and cooperatives, which are exempt from the electricity usage reduction mandate and the mandate tax. Thus, 80% of the alleged benefits accrue to “free riders” who do not pay for those benefits.

If left unchanged, the Ohio energy reduction mandate has actually created a situation where residential consumers could pay close to $4.00 extra per month for a retail reduction benefit of only $0.37 cents per month, according to Dr. Lesser….

via Ohio Moves to Rollback Costly Green Energy Mandates – Forbes.