• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Home 20723
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • More
    • Opinion
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Opinion

Our Answer to Question 6: No!

Our Answer to Question 6: No!
NN&V Staff
October 3, 2018

Question 6 in the coming election asks whether Nevada’s Constitution shall be amended to require that, beginning in 2022, all Nevada sellers of retail electricity increase the amount of “renewable” energy resources they use so that at least 50 percent of their electricity comes from those resources by 2030.

We have long supported increasing diversity in energy supplies via economic development of renewables.  But the mandates proposed by Question 6 are a big mistake and we strongly counsel voting against it.

Over 40 years ago, Ron wrote a masters thesis assessing the economics and performance issues for the full range of electric generating technologies, from nuclear, coal, oil and gas to solar, geothermal, wind, cogeneration and other alternatives.  Subsequently, he testified numerous times as an expert witness in various states in favor of both general renewables policies and specific technologies and projects.

He testified on these matters as a staff witness at the California Energy and Public Utilities Commissions, for public agencies and other commissions, environmental and public-interest intervenors, renewable developers and utilities across the country and even in Hawaii.  He also observed critically the progress and development of the renewables industry and the experience with it around the country and internationally.

So, why no on Question 6?

First, this is exactly the kind of matter that does not belong in any government constitution.  It is a highly technical matter for which the underlying economics and other factors are subject to unexpected great change that undermines the case for a particular technology.

Government constitutions are best and most effective when they address mainly the structural and procedural basics of government and the fundamental rights and protections of individuals.  The American constitution is the best functioning and most ideal model precisely because it is the shortest and is confined to those basic matters.

If this measure is enshrined in Nevada’s constitution, due to the amendment process, it would take at least six years to correct any flaw we subsequently find that needs fixing.  Meantime, we’d be stuck with it.

A particular example from energy economics is instructive here.  About 1980, natural gas became so expensive in world markets that it was being mostly abandoned by electric utilities for electricity generation.  Much government policy treated it as too valuable as a chemical feedstock to be used as an energy source of any kind.

By the mid-1990s, there was a glut of gas, and prices collapsed.  In the last decade, its prices have again plummeted due to new producing technologies that were unforeseen, and it has become the fuel of choice.

Policies adopted 40 years ago to discourage using natural gas for energy supply and set prices for renewable technologies have cost consumers large amounts.  This is a classic example of the inability of policy makers to anticipate important future developments and the overreach and hubris of much planning and policy.  Question 6 may be a bigger disaster for Nevada.

Another problem is that “renewable energy sources” are not even defined in the proposed constitutional amendment.  While the measure’s proponents have an idea of what they mean by the term, it is very likely to lead to extensive and wasteful litigation.

The proposed measure would require Nevada’s legislature to pass legislation implementing its constitutional intent.  But there are no standards to determine what legislative measures would be necessary, appropriate and sufficient.  In short, it is really a bonanza for lawyers to litigate.

Further, the legislature’s fiscal analysts confess they cannot say how this measure would be implemented, nor what implementation would cost the state or consumers.  Legislators lack the expertise and focus to decide such matters, so they will be subject to undue influence by lobbyist and their big business clients.  That’s the reason public utility commissions were invented and embraced by almost all states to handle such matters.

Experience in other states is generally not very helpful in predicting the effects in another state, because the important facts vary greatly from one situation to another.  With one exception: Broad, bold policies are most likely to lead to economic disasters, while careful consideration of specific projects and technologies as they are proposed are least likely to do so.

So, no on 6.

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Opinion
October 3, 2018
NN&V Staff

Related Items

More in Opinion

Governors ask Biden for ‘honest, accurate’ information on illegal immigration

The Center SquareOctober 4, 2023
Read More

Amodei Statement on Debt Ceiling Bill

Chuck MuthJune 1, 2023
Read More

Tark: Trans “Rights” … and Wrongs

Chuck MuthMay 26, 2023
Read More

Stone: The Truth About AB 250: Will Patients Really Benefit?

NN&V StaffMay 26, 2023
Read More

“Ungrateful Miscreants”: Miller, Segerblom Insult Local Small Business Owners

NN&V StaffMay 24, 2023
Read More

Quarter-Million Dollar Ad Campaign Targets Nevada Legislators for Trapping Hispanic Families in Unsafe Schools

NN&V StaffMay 22, 2023
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Muths truth

Copyright © 2023 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Sexual Assault Kits Sent for DNA Testing
Firewall To The Democrat Party Disgracing