Thread replies: 28
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Kasich vetoes bill that would have made renewable energy voluntary 2016-12-30 07:04:22 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Kasich vetoes bill that would have made renewable energy voluntary 2016-12-30 07:04:22 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 21769832-mmmain.jpg (45KB, 620x822px) Image search:
[Google]
45KB, 620x822px
Kasich vetoes bill that would have made renewable energy voluntary
Anonymous
2016-12-30 07:04:22
Post No.
[Report]
Gov. John Kasich today jumped into the breach between conservative lawmakers and green industries and their environmental allies with a veto of legislation that would have made state renewable and efficiency standards voluntary for the next two years.
>The veto of House Bill 554 means Ohio's traditional utilities as well as any other power company selling electricity here must supply an annually increasing percentage of power generated by wind, solar and other renewable technologies until that percentage is 12.5 percent in 2027.
>The standard has been frozen at 2.5 percent since 2014 while lawmakers studied the issue. The veto means the standard grows by 1 percent to 3.5 percent in 2017 and then annually by 1 percent for several years until it reaches 12.5 percent in 2027.
>To comply with the standards, power companies can build their own wind and solar installations or contract to buy the green power from independent companies that build them. Most power companies have bought the power.
>Lawmakers in 2008 put the mandates in place -- in a near unanimous vote of approval -- in order to jump-start the renewable energy industry, which then grew as expected until bitter legislative debates in 2013 and the 2014 freeze.
>In his message to lawmakers accompanying the veto, Kasich wrote that HB 554, as it was passed, ran the risk of eliminating the "energy generation options . . . most prized by the companies poised to create many jobs in Ohio in the coming years, such as high technology firms." He was referring to companies such as Amazon and Google.
>Kasich was also critical of the impact the legislation would have had on businesses that work in the broad energy efficiency markets, whose technologies, he said, have helped Ohio businesses and consumers save more than $1 billion.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/kasich_vetoes_bill_that_would.html
>>
>The veto also means FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and the other traditional utilities must offer customers energy-efficiency programs in order to meet increasingly stringent standards to help them reduce power consumption by using new technologies.
>The efficiency standards require that by 2027, utilities reduce peak demand by 22 percent compared with the highest demand in 2009. The standards increase 1 percent annually until 2020 and then by 2 percent annually through 2027.
>The state's largest industries were able to win the right to opt out of the efficiency programs two years ago by arguing that they were more expert at efficiency than the utilities. Large commercial customers would have been permitted to leave efficiency programs under the vetoed bill.
>>
>>95742
Kasich is a damn RINO.
>>
>>95753
And you deny reality.
>>
>>95753
Call him what you will; he's a patriot for voting on his beliefs regarding the interests of his constituency rather than the party line.
>>
>>
>>95791
Probably by 2035 if solar efficiency increases stay to mid low estimates. It sucks to invest in initially but lets be real we will need these and nuke plants if we want to cut ties with the Saudis
>>
>>95753
the definition
>>
>>95795
right. I'm sure we can keep building windmills and solar panels forever.
they're renewable right? (no)
>>
>>95920
Well you need technology to transduce energy from one form to another no matter the source. A windmill requires a turbine and so does a coal power plant.
But the world of difference exists between having to extract and burn fuel here and leveraging energy that freely exists in our environment.
>>
>>95795
Screw green tech. No government money should go towards eyesore windmills, useless solar panels, and corrupt scientist and green industries. Trump should place heavy taxes and regulations to kill this liberal green BS, just like I'm proud to say my state, Texas, did with Musk's socialist car.
>>
If it were actually better they would just use it instead of asking the government to force it. This isn't the same thing as asking cars to be more efficient.
>>
>>95934
They are better, companies just aren't legally allowed to consider anything but short-term profits.
>>
>>95926
woah
>>
>>95929
>But tax breaks and subsidies should keep going to oil and gas companies who already make obscene amounts of profit
Kek
>>
>>95958
>Better*
*More expensive, less efficient
Yeah definitely better, do you even know what profits are? How is solar better if it means lower profits?
>>
>>95991
less polution, more modular, renewable, depending on the location it may pay for itself over time
>>95934
Subsidies can constitute an investment into a technology that's projected to potentially become more sophisticated and thus competitive with time.
Perhaps private investors aren't ready to take the plunge just yet due to some unknowns that remain.
>>
>>95989
The oil and gas industry actually deliver output and jobs. Green tech is just a scam!
>>
>>95742
▲
▲ ▲
>>
>>95753
>having a basic understanding of science means you can't be a "true Republican"
And you people are proud of this?
>>95791
>you're not getting that renewable energy standard anytime before 2050
12.5% is a very reasonable target. If for some reason they can't reach it, these laws allow utility companies to use electricity generated out of state. So for example a wind farm in Illinois can provide power for Ohio, which would go toward the 12.5%
>>95929
>corrupt scientist
how are the scientists corrupt? You science-denialists are the biggest "feelz over realz" group there is
>waaaahhhh facts hurt my fee-fees so Trump should make science illegal!
>>
>>95791
It's actually pretty windy in Ohio. Whirlpool seems to think it makes sense.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2016/10/27/Whirlpool-s-wind-turbine-project-starts.html
>>
>>95991
>How is solar better if it means lower profits?
It's called "externalities", an Econ 101 term. They're the things you didn't include when you calculated your profits -- things like progressive expenses (maintenance, resource costs, etc) and actuarial costs (pollution, resource management, local politics, etc.). These take a bit more effort to calculate but the big companies and insurers do it all the time.
The turnaround btw can be as short as the one year it can take for OPEC to decide to drastically reduce supply causing gas prices in the US to double, which might be why Exxon would calculate "CEO was an asshole to the Kuwaiti Emir last week" as a negative externality cutting several million in profits; or 50-100 years as sea levels rise which has raised the cost of flood insurance for buildings in certain areas of the world.
>>
>>
Look at all the Saudi supporters int his thread. I bet you oil faggots love sucking on that muzzie dick.
>>
>>95991
Because "Higher profits" is a fucking terrible definition of better. By that definition, fucking over the environment and causing thousands of deaths is better, because even though what you're doing is illegal it results in higher profit for the shareholders, nevermind that if the legal system actually worked, the executives responsible would be executed or go to prison for life.
>>
Nuclear energy is best energy.
>no carbon emissions
>no autism windmill eyesores
>provides baseload electricity
>more infrastructure and maintenance jobs than green energy
>triggers saudi oil fags
>triggers emotional hippies
>>
>>96110
NB4 "cold fusion".
>>
>>95999
Because green tech totally doesn't generate jobs?
lol
Thread posts: 28
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1