As a result, the reports conclude Kansas’s requirement to obtain 20 percent of its electricity will cost consumers 4 million over the next eight years, while Oregon’s goal of 25 percent renewable electricity by 2025 will cost consumers 2 million by 2025.
“We wrote the model legislation and I presented it.
I didn’t have to give that much of a case for it.” Taylor dismissed the idea that his group pushed for the measure because it has accepted money from fossil-fuel firms: “The people who are saying that are trying to take attention away from the real issue — that alternative energy, renewable energy, is more expensive than conventional energy.” Todd Wynn, who directs ALEC’s energy, environment and agriculture task force, said the group decided to take up the issue because some of its members are worried about the mandates’ “impacts on their state’s economies and their constituents.” “It is not that ALEC is opposed to renewable energy in any way,” Wynn said.
The consumption of biofuels and nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, mainly because of state and federal government mandates and incentives for renewable energy. In general, renewable energy is more expensive to produce and to use than fossil fuel energy.
Favorable renewable resources are often located in remote areas, and it can be expensive to build power lines from the renewable energy sources to the cities that need the electricity.
James Taylor, the Heartland Institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said he was able to persuade most of ALEC’s state legislators and corporate members to push for a repeal of laws requiring more solar and wind power use on the basis of economics.