In a potentially crushing strike against advocates for renewable energy mandates, a federal court ruling recently raised the issue of constitutionality of major provisions of many states’ renewable energy mandates. RELATED ARTICLE: http://thecrownmanag.livejournal.com/ http://thecrownmanagement.quora.com//

2. In a potentially crushing strike against
advocates for renewable energy mandates, a
federal court ruling recently raised the issue of
constitutionality of major provisions of many
states’ renewable energy mandates.
On June 7, 2013, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission’s (FERC) position against the state
of Michigan (and other petitioners) in a
disagreement over FERC’s proposal to
distribute costs for new power lines to supply
millions of megawatts of wind power in the
Great Lakes area. Michigan believes that this
plan would, in essence, require them to pay for

3. Speaking for the Court, Judge Richard Posner
ruled:
“Michigan’s first argument—that its law
prohibits it from crediting wind power from out
of state in favor of the state’s obligated use of
renewable energy by its utilities—trips over an
unbreakable constitutional precedence.
Michigan cannot, without violating Article I of
the commerce clause of the Constitution,
discriminate against out-of-state renewable
energy (emphasis added).”

4. Just like Michigan which has a clear ban on
wind produced in other states from being
allowed into their mandate, other states also
“discriminate” against out-of-state renewable
power. When counting mandate compliance,
several states count in-state power at a higher
rate than out-of-state power, a practice
popularly labelled as “multipliers”:
Delaware has a 300% credit multiplier for
customer-sited, in-state photovoltaic (PV), a
350% multiplier for a specific offshore wind
project, and a 150% multiplier for all other in-

5. Michigan provides an extra 0.1 credit for
projects that use state-available components
and its local workforce;
Missouri grants a 1.25 multiplier for all in-state
generation.
Kansas uses a 1.1 multiplier for all in-state
resources;
Moreover, some state renewable policies have a
list of renewable energy grades, where certain
power sources can only be utilized to fulfill a
part of the mandate. Others have grade levels
dedicated particularly to in-state power
generation that may now be doubtful in view of
the recent decision by the federal court:

6. New York’s Tier II covers customer-sited
resources.
The new ruling is significant since one of the
main points raised by mandate proponents is
the creation of jobs in the concerned state.
Certainly, these claims merely consider the
overall “green” jobs provided, while totally
neglecting the loss of net jobs resulting from
increased electricity rates arising from these
mandates. The federal court ruling might just
end up nullifying the argument for in-state
green-job employment since renewable power
can be imported out-of-state to comply with the
mandate.

7. In the end, what this ruling has done is to
unravel the problems and complexities with a
market for renewables that has been created
through government policies.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
http://www.thecrownmanagement.com/constit
utionality-of-renewable-energy-mandates-in-
question-2/