Greens Melt Down over Red-State Energy Deregulation

A recent spate of legislation in red states that levels the energy playing field has some environmentalists terrified that wind and solar power will be utterly unable to compete with conventional energy.

Wind and solar power, respectively, receive 69 and 326 times more in subsidies per unit of electricity generated than do other energy sources. Meanwhile, they generate about 10 and 3 percent of U.S. electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Texas is considering legislation, such as S.B. 624, that would put large-scale wind and solar farms on a level playing field with other energy sources, requiring them to win the approval of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, pay the same kinds of yearly fees that other energy projects do, and establish a minimal distance between energy farms and private homes. A measure that passed the statehouse in early May would also cause green-energy projects to lose special corporate-tax incentives that Republicans have derided as “corporate welfare.”

The environmentalists who favor special treatment for wind and solar power, as well as their pet companies, are furious about it.

“Every state has legislation related to the placement of projects, but what we’re seeing in Texas is far beyond anything we’ve seen anywhere else,” Jeff Clark, CEO of a green-energy trade group, told the Washington Post. “The aggressiveness of some of this legislation and the volume is unprecedented.” The same report quotes an academic who says that wind and solar developers “have been bad neighbors, barely communicating with nearby property owners and aggressively pursuing tax breaks.”

Seems that the green-energy industry is learning firsthand that, as a popular left-wing saying goes, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Campaign-finance-disclosure reports show that major environmentalist groups have donated time and money to pressure local governments, which can often be easily overwhelmed by dedicated groups of activists, to enact a green agenda.

Texas is far from alone, however. Montana’s legislature passed three laws that have certain environmentalists and their media enablers melting down. S.B. 228 prevents local governments from banning conventional combustion-powered cars or gas stoves. S.B. 208 prevents local governments from blocking the use of existing energy infrastructure or utilities, such as pipelines and natural gas, while H.B. 241 halts them from mandating that solar panels and electric-car-charging ports be automatically included in new construction. Each such bill makes it much more difficult for activists to use one of their favorite tactics: suing local governments into mandating an extremist green agenda or blocking new conventional-energy projects.

“This bill preemptively stops any locality from banning fossil fuels in the tools, appliances or equipment that utilize it,” Montana state senator Jason Small, a sponsor of S.B. 228, said when the bill was being considered. “And if you read the lines there, it also includes facilities and anything that burns or transports petroleum fuels.”

Environmentalists have long found that it’s easier to bully county or city governments than their state equivalents, but this has sometimes backfired in downright comedic ways. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in ballot-referenda fees when its proposed fracking ban was defeated nine consecutive times by the electorate of Youngstown, Ohio. This was not only costly but also futile because, even if the ballot measures had succeeded, the Ohio supreme court had already ruled that only the state government has the authority to ban oil and gas drilling in the state.

Red-state legislatures’ pushback measures aren’t always successful, however. Florida’s legislature passed a bill that would have rolled back solar subsidies by limiting the way in which solar companies shift their costs onto public utilities via net metering. Florida’s legislation would have ensured that electricity from rooftop solar panels was sold back to the power grid at standard rates rather than at artificially inflated ones. As it stands, net metering forces people who don’t own rooftop solar panels to pay more to maintain the state’s electrical grid by providing a guaranteed market for rooftop solar power at about typical rates. The state’s legislature saw the scheme as a “tax” on customers without net metering and passed the bill by a significant margin in both houses.

“The old rules have fueled a rapidly growing, multimillion-dollar annual subsidy paid for by the vast majority of Floridians who don’t have rooftop solar in support of those who do,” Chris McGrath, a spokesperson for Florida Power and Light, told Utility Dive. “While it would still potentially lock in hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges for non-rooftop customers, it importantly directs the Florida Public Service Commission to phase out this regressive tax and make solar energy more equitable for all Floridians, not just the fortunate few.”

Uncharacteristically, Florida’s governor vetoed the legislation, citing concerns about inflation, thus allowing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to continue. Similarly, a proposed Florida constitutional amendment in 2016, which would have enshrined the right to produce solar power and limited the amount of subsidies, failed to receive the support of 60 percent of voters that it required to pass.

Despite such setbacks, there has been much progress on energy deregulation in Republican-led states. There it will increasingly become the case that, if alternative energy sources are to be adopted — as they are in some states — they will have to demonstrate their merits rather than rely on government policy and favoritism.