New Wyoming Bill Penalizes Utilities Using Renewable Energy (csmonitor.com) 502
An anonymous reader quotes a Christian Science Monitor report on "a bill that would essentially ban large-scale renewable energy" in Wyoming.
The new Wyoming bill would forbid utilities from using solar or wind sources for their electricity by 2019, according to Inside Climate News... The bill would require utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of Wyoming's electricity needs in 2018, and all of its electricity needs in 2019. Those "eligible resources" are defined solely as coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and individual net metering... Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill's list of "eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in any way if the legislation passes. The bill calls for a fine of $10 per megawatt-hour of electricity from a renewable source to be slapped on Wyoming utilities that provide power from unapproved sources to in-state customers.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:4, Funny)
Wind murders countless migratory birds every year, and the environmental impact of Chinese solar panels is similarly out of this world. There are no environmental regulations in China.
This is a good move by WY to help save the environment.
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:2)
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Funny)
I've had them miss my car by an inch and I think what saved them was the slipstream created by the car.
Maybe they're just distracted... check their bodies for tiny smart phones...
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the take-away is that birds are mostly blind?
No. The take-away is that birds evolved before there were large obstacles moving at 70 mph, and large transparent areas on cliff faces. They rarely run into parked cars, or windowless buildings.
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Insightful)
No, birds just run into things. I remember a study where someone tried to figure out why birds ran into windows so often. They found out that birds just run into things, like trees. I grew up on a farm where the birds liked to run into the farmhouse quite often. We'd hear them thump against the wall. Living in the suburbs now I still hear them thump, just not as often. This has probably less to do with where I live and more to do with the thicker walls on my current house compared to the house I grew up in.
Re: (Score:3)
They see a rival on the other side of the window, and take the aggressive approach to remove them. Naturally, the rival male likewise takes an equally aggressive response, thus the bird either has to abort (and thus has to "compete" for food later) or use full force to drive out the rival.
They especially do this during mating season.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they regularly run into things like parked cars and windowless buildings. Did you have data to back up your claim, or were you just lying and hoping nobody would contradict you? The reason they hit the windows in houses, not the house, is that they hit the house, and you don't notice, but when they hit the window, you notice.
The reason they hit windows is because of the reflection and the transparency. A window sometimes works like a mirror and many times will reflect a second tree that they are trying to get to. They don't just randomly run into things they can see. Zoos have a solution for this. Instead of using glass which is both reflective and see thru, they use little very thin vertical wire which would probably be worse for the birds if the birds ran into it but the birds don't because they see it just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the newer, larger turbines kill far fewer birds.
The big reason for this is that they are higher off the ground, where winds are stronger and more reliable. Most local birds fly low, and most migrating birds fly even higher than than the big turbines.
The "bird" objection to wind turbines has always been stupid and disingenuous (the people making it don't really give a crap about the birds), but it has become even stupider as turbines improve.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's not "Countless". Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually - a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats. So if it's really migratory birds you're so worried about, you'd better ditch your cellphone. And/or kill your cat.
THat FIgur Iz a lIE! FRom tHE CeLLPhonE CompANieS. SiGNed: thE CaTT!!!!
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/cats-wild-birds-mammals-study/1873871/
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Interesting)
10,000x more birds are killed by cats than by solar (?!?) and wind? Can you provide a citation for that? I'd like to use it in shutting-up idiots in the future (if true).
Oh, it's quite true. See this recent study [plos.org] for the numbers on wind turbines, and this one [nature.com] for cats*. This report [usnews.com] ranks various energy sources; perhaps unsurprisingly coal actually kills the most birds.
It turns out cats kill a lot of animals, making them "the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." According to that second study, though, most of the deaths are attributable to un-owned cats. The actual numbers from the studies are exactly those quoted by Anaerin above.
* Nature isn't open access but [sci-hub.cc]...
Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:3)
On a farm you need a few cats to keep the rodent popilation down, but it also means that a few birds are at risk.
Then the issue of birds dying - they may either be unhealthy or inexperienced. That's just part of nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumbest
Comment
Ever
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about the Bakken oil fields that run through Wyoming.
The US has a fossil fuel glut and renewable energy is not going to help that.
I helped litigate Big Tobacco and fossil fuel is the back story here.
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Also very, very expensive.Solar-thermal also only works in locations with close to no cloud cover - it works not at all in diffuse light, whereas solar-pv does.
Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score:5, Informative)
Gas turbine power plants are not exactly friendly to birds. I've walked across parking lots in the morning that looked like the dumpster at the rotisserie chicken place had been knocked over.
sPh
(insects are drawn to the warmth radiating from the exhaust stack wall. Birds dive after the insects, and if they dive through the exhaust, toasted bird)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's pretty unusual for a utility scale gas turbine plant, since it's a massive waste of energy and therefore money to dump out air hot enough to toast a bird. The plants tend to be built as combined cycle, with a gas turbine at the top (high peak temperature, medium rejection temperature) and a Rankine cycle (medium peak temperature, low rejection temperature) at the bottom of the theremodynamic cycle.
That gives you a much larger temperature differential than it's practical to achieve with either c
Wyoming = big coal country (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They just are trying to protect their coal industry so that it doesn't wind up the West Virginia of the western US.
That is short sighted. Wyoming has a lot of wind resources, and they could build UHVDC lines to export the power. Oklahoma and Texas are doing well with wind.
Re: (Score:3)
11% of electricity produced in WY does come from wind. Around 2/3 of generated electricity is already exported according to google searches. The biggest objection to wind farms is disruption of scenic views. The biggest problem with export is again building infrastructure to export the electricity and again scenic views.
People probably wouldn't object as much to the wind farms if the power was needed by the state's residents. When there is a large oversupply, it's a fair argument to not reduce our quality
Re:Wyoming = big coal country (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh (Score:4, Insightful)
If we don't burn ourselves up, we're headed for a really nice repeat of the dark ages.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
But I thought Republitards were all about government getting out of regulating businesses? Magic of the free market and all?
Oh, they are just hypocritical? I guess whatever makes America great again.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Funny)
I guess whatever makes America great again.
whatever, n. The je ne sais quoi that makes America great again.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans often pretend to be libertarians, but their talk on that subject seldom translates into action. Sometimes it happens to align with another agenda, and then they proclaim libertarian ideals loudly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Jan 21, 2019 headline: Democrat super-majority in US House and Senate pass historic legislation requiring states to generate 50% of their power from renewable energy sources to qualify for any federal aid.
Jan 21, 2021 headline: President Sanders signs historic Constitutional Amendment requiring states to generate 75% of their power from renewable energy sources to qualify for any federal aid.
Checkmate, Wyoming.
Re: (Score:3)
Jan 21, 2021 headline: President Elizabeth Warren signs historic Constitutional Amendment requiring states to generate 75% of their power from renewable energy sources to qualify for any federal aid.
FTFY - With Hillary swept to the dustbin of history, Elizabeth Warren has a better shot at POTUS in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Michelle Obama has a better chance of winning than Trump's reelection.
I think Michelle should follow Hillary's example by going home, getting elected to Congress, build up her political credentials as a senator or representative, and then run for president. We just had eight years of Obama. Although four years of Trump could make Michelle a shoo-in for 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you consider an ancient 1%er lawyer-to-huge-corporations like Warren a legitimate Democrat candidate shows just how bereft of leadership the Clintons have left the Democratic Party.
The problem with national politics today is that there are too many old fucks in office. Sadly, Hillary and Trump were the best old fucks that the parties could come up with in 2016.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought "Idoicracy" was supposed to be a satire.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought "Idoicracy" was supposed to be a satire.
Read "Mission Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard (ten books). That's supposed to be satire. I can't but help wonder if Trump read it and thought it was non-fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Earth_(novel) [wikipedia.org]
The real headline (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure how this would be legal. You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product. So how would a wind only operate? Sounds like Republicans for Excessive and Unnecessary Regulation. Doncha love a party that sticks to its ideals instead of pandering to big business interests?
Turns Out Legislators Can Do Dumb Shit (Score:2)
You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product.
Yes you can. It turns out that legislators can pretty much do whatever the hell they want. They could ban peanut butter tomorrow if they felt like it. They could even pass laws that violate the constitution and police can happily enforce those laws until a judge explicitly tells them to cut it out, with no punishment whatsoever.
This is one of the many, many reasons why the world's democracies often seem dysfunctional. And it's part of the reason why the emergency $700 billion bailout in 2008 included a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If the bill had a snowball's chance in hell of passing I'd agree with you. The fact that the mental midget that proposed it thinks it only has a 50 percent chance of passing means it's already dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge of history is absolutely amazing ... at just how distorted it is.
Re: (Score:2)
These are very persuasive sentiments. I wonder why the people of Wyoming don't listen to kind-hearted entreaties such as this?
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
We should lie to the special snowflakes and not call out their stupidity?
That's the new normal? Politicians in a state propose a stupid law and we should just praise the people who elected them because otherwise they might get upset?
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience they often propose a stupid, draconian or simply abusive law in the full expectation that it will get shot down. They can then claim they were stifled and shift blame to someone else, or introduce a lesser but still basically evil "compromise" bill that does get through. That latter one is a favourite technique for the current UK government.
Re: (Score:3)
runaway warming will jack with the economy a lot more than green initiatives. Oh, but that's 30 years down the road, you don't need to worry your little head over it.
Interstate commerce? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely, there is interstate commerce going on here, which would take the issue out of the hands of local politicians?
Also, it's anti-employment, anti-business. Renewable energy employs more people than coal. The only people to benefit are a small number of miners and a tiny special interest group (coal mine owners).
Re: (Score:2)
The state government is funded by mineral extraction taxes. There are no taxes on wind & sun. Understand that and you understand why the mindset out here is "Obama to Wyoming, Drop Dead." (Direct quote from a WY resident last year on NPR)
The wind farms will still be built, CO will happily buy every last watt.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, this insane bill is more of a hardball negotiation tactic to increase taxes on wind and solar installations... or else.
Put in that light, it almost makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Also the best way to handle this is to get the law struck down. Find a group of your neighbors and start knocking on doors. Show up with a pre-written bill and and 200k in sigs sends a big message.
That easy huh?
Re: (Score:2)
This is Wyoming we're talking about, not New Jersey or Connecticut. You're going to be doing a lot more driving to get those 200,000 signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying not to make it an interstate commerce issue by stating it this way. However, by forbidding solar and wind power, it would require the use of oil, coal or gas, which can be imported from other states. That makes it an interstate commerce issue. They have to use more of an fuel that can be bought from another state than they would if they allowed renewables.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah, yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Passing a bill restricting others market freedom or freedom in general is not "speaking your mind". It is using force and stealing from people. That is certainly worthy of jail or death.
Re:Ah, yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ah, yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Coal is killing the planet, wind and solar are not. Your dad probably complained about when asbestos and lead paint were being phased out, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Coal is killing the planet, wind and solar are not. Your dad probably complained about when asbestos and lead paint were being phased out, too.
He doesn't remember. He ate all that lead paint.
Congrats Wyoming! (Score:5, Funny)
Now if we could just get Wyoming to also pass a bill to put up a wall around the state, then send the bill Colorado. Then they could put a dome on the wall and send the bill for that to Utah.
No walls, no gates, no windows. Must contain the tard.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't George Carlin propose something like this? There were gates though, so that all the degenerates could be tossed in from the rest of the country, creating an free range prison. Had to choose a rectangular state, to save on fencing costs of course.
50% chance (Score:2)
and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing
... and a 100% chance of being a completely retarded idea!
Electrons (Score:2)
So how does this work? Is a domestic consumer is given an electron which has passed through a wind generator, there is going to be hell to pay, but a different pool of electrons must be used to export power from the state.
And sure, with a mix of energy sources, local consumption can be less than generation from coal.
Re: (Score:2)
So how does this work? Is a domestic consumer is given an electron which has passed through a wind generator, there is going to be hell to pay, but a different pool of electrons must be used to export power from the state.
And sure, with a mix of energy sources, local consumption can be less than generation from coal.
True, electrons are not fungible in the sense that money is – at least according to quantum mechanics. But in this application, the energy transmitted by the AC current of electrons in the power lines makes the point moot.
And anyways, selling energy to another state at location B, but that was generated at location A, is not technologically feasible. And so, we are back to treating things in the aggregate if this bill passes. It won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah in fact the electrons in the low voltage AC circuit can't have passed through a generator, so breaking the law seems impossible.
It's a tax (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
If that were the case, they'd be fining utilities for the costs of their pollution-generating injury-causing facilities that we are subsidizing by treating in hospitals instead.
They'd also apply a dollar charge for every barrel of oil that requires the Wyoming Navy to defend. Aircraft carriers don't come cheap.
Re:It's a tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
It's a middle finger to progressives.
This is the problem with the political right at the moment. They're not trying to correct the market or protect local jobs, they're trying to rile up their base by pissing off people concerned about global warming.
Re:All about the fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Often the "compromise" wanted is complete capitulation so the people who see themselves firmly on the "right" can appear "strong".
Stupid fucking games instead of trying to run something properly. Edge cases on minor issues getting attention just to deliberately start a fight instead of actual governance.
In a lot of cases it's not "left" or "right" but huge fucking egos trying to turkey slap everyone just to prove they have balls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Otherwise known as a "Mitch McConnell compromise". You give us everything we want, plus the transfer fee for the gaming license, and we get to go on TV and explain to our base that you capitulated.
sPh
Re:All about the fight (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.
Have you been sleeping the past 8 years? The right refused compromise on principle.
I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.
I didn't see the segment in question, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about Trump, a character so dangerous the GOP spent most of the primary desperately trying to stop him.
Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.
The left talks about that constantly, a huge part of the post-election conversation is trying to understand why the left lost touch with the white working class.
But as to "better policies" and "intelligent arguments", a huge part of the criticism of Sanders was that his policies weren't robust. The right has spent the last few year using high deductibles as a major criticism of Obamacare, all the while selling high deductible coverage as their replacement.
Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better".
"Warm and inclusive" is an odd description of mass deportation, immigration bans based on religion, promises to imprison your rival, and the constant demonization of the media.
I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is.
It can be very effective, whiny insulting campaign speeches won Trump the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.
Or perhaps, a subsidy for coal, oil, gas, nuke, and geothermal energy at the cost of solar and wind energy.
I'm ok with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as the CO2 from Wyoming is contained within Wyoming. They can build a dome and then suffocate if they like.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you planning a military invasion of Wyoming? If not, why should anyone in Wyoming care about your preferences?
Re: (Score:2)
why should anyone in Wyoming care about your preferences?
Why don't you ask North Carolina why they suddenly started caring? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they?
Re: (Score:3)
'America's Smokestack' ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wyoming is 'America's Smokestack' - a proud title to compete with India and Northern China for honors. Sure, tourism might take a hit, but the coal dollars will continue to roll in. Another slogan they like- Coal=Jobs; well how many jobs? You've seen those huge machines digging, transporting, processing the coal ... how many humans are actually working there? In almost every case, the employers bragging about jobs or potential jobs are lying and thinking about profits and potential profits for themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Even the stupidest lawmaker has to know we can't go back to the fifties. Coal is not going to be a big job maker ever again. Even if coal use goes up it does not mean we are going to get lots of jobs again. This is anti-conservative. The biggest conservationists I know are western conservatives who like unspoiled nature. Instead this is all about coal companies buying politicians.
Tables are turning (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like paid shills are posting under every renewable energy article about renewables not being viable without government subsidies. Well here you go. It seems that coal is now the one in need of government hand outs.
Re:Tables are turning (Score:5, Insightful)
And what would you call this proposed bill in Wyoming? It's an unapologetic subsidy to the coal industyr, because clearly the Wyoming government believes that the Wyoming coal industry will not be able to compete with renewables. Now maybe the justification boils down to "we get more taxes from coal than wind", but whatever that justification is, the intention is clear, Wyoming coal is seen as being at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore it will be subsidized by making renewable energy sources more expensive.
At long last (Score:3)
Many decades ago, Groucho Marx posed the question "Why not Oming?". Finally we have an answer.
This is how the market decides! (Score:3)
The currently profitable companies buy a legislature to outlaw competition.
I'm conflicted on this (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of solar power. It's expensive, unreliable, and lacking any kind of storage or backup power it is pretty much useless. If given enough cheap storage then any energy source looks good. Which is one thing that boggles me about those that say, "Just you wait, when we get good batteries any day now then you'll love solar power." If we had this magical battery technology then why would we bother using solar power to charge it? Wind, nuclear, and even natural gas would be better choices. They are cheaper than solar, and with a battery for load balancing they'd meet every need for power without expensive and dirty peak power plants.
I'm okay with wind. It's generally cheap when put in the right places. The problem is that with government subsidies they are not put in the right places. The subsidies are made to subsidize capacity, not necessarily output. So what happens is that windmills are put close to natural gas lines, so that the backup generators have fuel and they don't have to run a power line that isn't carrying power.
Nuclear is good. It's the safest energy source we know of, based on deaths and injuries per MWh produced. It's got the lowest carbon output, if one believes that is even a problem. It's cheap, reliable, and domestically sourced. Any law that makes building nuclear power sounds good to me.
A big problem for me though is that this messes with the free market. People should be able to choose where their energy comes from on their own. That means that not only is this bill a bad idea but so is those laws that made this bill necessary in the first place. Had they taken a gentler hand on this, by merely cancelling out the federal subsidies on these energy sources, then I could probably support it. They took it a bit far with these punitive taxes. But then this makes nuclear power look good.
I'm torn on this one.
Re:I'm conflicted on this (Score:5, Insightful)
FERC (Score:3)
The Wyoming State Legislature will soon make the acquaintance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And after that, possibly the Justice Dept. Essentially all bulk energy transfers fall under federal, not state, jurisdiction.
sPh
Then (Score:3)
We all know what the next step is. If renewable energy is not a threat to coal powered energy, it would just die out, and we would be using coal.
But if you have to go out of your way to punish the users, you are just admitting that competing with them is not winning.
Re: (Score:3)
I know politicians are not very bright, and some, if not many, are corrupt, but how can they allow this to pass, especially when the alternative is coal powered power plants!
Wyoming is a major coal-producing state.
In the view of politicians, when you say "the alternative is coal powered power plants"-- that's exactly why they want to pass the bill.
Re: (Score:3)
This is Slashdot. We light hair on fire every time anybody sneezes in a way we don't like. Of course, you could always read the bill itself [state.wy.us].
It actually does look pretty bad for renewable fuel efforts. I don't see any obvious loopholes, and it effectively imposes a tax on renewable energy by 1 cent per kWh, that the utilities can't pass on to customers. Pretty much, the only way to run a renewable energy installation in Wyoming is to pay for a nonrenewable energy facility somewhere outside the state, or make
Re: (Score:3)
Actually yes we are and should.
What is the alternative? Sit back and do nothing and then act shocked when it passes? How do you think stupid laws get passed? Conversely how do you think stupid laws get don't get stopped? The answer to both question is, by doing nothing.
As for the sources and motivations ... again ... without some level of "hair on fire"-ness no one will even know or be motivated to dig deeper and mobilize if needed.
Also, motivations don't really matter, execution does, so the only thing you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you transfer functions to government, they become subject to politics. So, public utilities may be forced to use coal, public schools may be forced to teach creationism, etc. You don't like that? Don't transfer these functions to the government.
Please read a high-school level Civics book, Tea Party troll.
Unless you have the time and skill to generate your own utilities (water, electricity, telephone, internet) – and to home-school your children, then you NEED to have a governing power of some kind. There is your traditional "Government," but alternatively also a private provider (profit-motivated), or a neighborhood association (AKA government). Unless you are the king and own everything, that is how it is everywhere on this planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: WY is a good place to be from (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In their view, the tax increase is more about politics — Wyoming lashing out at clean energy as payback for federal policy aimed at scaling back the coal industry on which the state has always relied.
Supporters of the tax increase say that the company is posturing — that Wyoming’s abundant winds are the renewable equivalent of its high-quality Powder River Basin coal. They point to studies showing that Wyoming eventually could provide half of the wind power in the nation, but they also emp
Re: (Score:3)
Not long after it became clear that the robust winds that blow down from the Rocky Mountains and across the sea of sagebrush here could produce plenty of profit in a world that wants more renewable energy, some of the more expansive minds in the Wyoming Legislature began entertaining a lofty question:
Who owns all of that wind?
They concluded, quickly and conveniently, that Wyoming did.
Then, with great efficiency for a conservative state not traditionally tilted toward burdening the energy industry, they did