I am not sure how this was suppose to work out. But when the Department of energy and several state government proposed that certain percentage of energy resources will stem from clean energy, there was going to be some legislation to support that objective. The Washington Times reported that the mandate from the state of Colorado to produce 30% of clean energy is unconstitutional. American Traditional Institute filed a complaint to clam that the mandate violated Commerce Clause. In essence, this proposed legislation by Colorado government, is a burden to the economics for its residents; in the sense that it forces the purchase of renewables energy services against other energy resources that are “less expensive” and “less polluting”. Really?
The article claims that emission pollutants increase due to the presence of renewable energy resources; such as wind power demanding backup generation of fossil fuel on the grounds of inconsistency and unreliability. That is to say, the “flickering” power generated by such fuels as backup for wind forms more emission than a steady fossil fuel generator would.
Isn’t the fossil fuels itself the pollutant to begin with? This a serious assertion that renewable energy resource is a costly service than the traditional energy resources; while also claiming they are pollutant products and job killers. Stating the these residents are victims if they “bend” to subscribing clean energy resource is quite an exaggeration.
It would be very satisfying to have any data to support these claims. I don’t see how wind-power and other clean energy elements are somehow pollutants, since they don’t generate any emission. I would also assume that renewable energy providers will have to compete with other markets to gain more customers, which should mean that having a higher energy price will be repelling to customers, not to mention unsustainable for their companies. Nevertheless, Obama’s administration and department of energy would not go as far as promoting clean energy and heavily invest for such development if they are pollutants or a luxury alternative for only a select population to purchase. In addition, this is also a new realm of job creation under manufacturing and industrialization for the country.
This trend in recent technology is about emergence of batteries and equipment that pertain to the engineering of electric cars. That is the same development with wind-power, solar-power and other renewable resources. These are among the options on alternative energy resources that are initiated to increase renewable energy usage that basically offset carbon footprints and serve the environment better.
The relevance to this issue is that the outcome of this filed complaint will have ripple effects to the other 29 and other prospective states that enable renewable energy standards. Development of wind farms and solar panels are not to enforce mandates to customers but rather encourage people to more affordable clean energy. Clearly, this article confuses the agenda of clean energy. China, Germany and United States are the top 3 in clean energy investment, so they must have more facts and conviction that clean energy is the new direction of energy consumption and technology. On the issue of Commerce Clause, I believe that the free energy regulation on these 30 states permit the approval of renewable energy standards and not to purchase expensive amenities. Renewable energy credits (RECs) have comparable rates as your current energy supplier or most likely, cheaper.
Understand that eco-living is smart living. Majority of energy efficiency or sustainable living is to save money and ultimately improve your way of living. So it would not be in favor of renewable energy ventures to have these counter-beneficial implications to the environment as a whole.
Contact us for more information about renewable energy credits!.
Tags: affordable energy resource, cheap energy resource, clean energy, Maryland alternative energy, sobuka, solar lease, solar power
