Tag: model bills

Proposed Model Bill Would Improve Electric Reliability

The venerable American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) recently held its 51st annual convention in Denver, Colorado.

ALEC is a nonprofit founded to promote Jeffersonian limited-government policies. It works with state legislators and the private sector to produce solutions for myriad issues facing state governments and their residents.

From Watts Up With That?

By H. Sterling Burnett

The venerable American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) recently held its 51st annual convention in Denver, Colorado.

ALEC is a nonprofit founded to promote Jeffersonian limited-government policies. It works with state legislators and the private sector to produce solutions for myriad issues facing state governments and their residents.

I have worked with ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Taskforce (EEA) for nearly 30 years. Among other things, it develops model legislation that states can adapt to their own needs.

This year’s EEA meetings saw the introduction of a number of impressive model bills. Two written by my organization, the Heartland Institute, would shore up the electric power grid in states trying to attract Big Tech/AI hubs. The bills aim to ensure that the electricity these power-hungry facilities require is paid for by the companies demanding it and is supplied on a reliable basis by traditional sources.

Ensuring that the power grid is not compromised by the added demand coming from Big Tech and AI will prevent socializing the cost of new demand onto ratepayers. And it will secure the power grid for residents and small businesses.

One model bill adopted by ALEC is long overdue: legislation requiring that state utility regulators set aside a position on their boards for a ratepayer advocate. That person would be dedicated solely to ensuring that utility plans brought before the commission minimize the cost of monopoly utilities’ new construction and rate plans, while firming up reliability.

Another model bill that ALEC adopted requires that sources of electric power be labeled to account for the full range of environmental and economic impacts. This allows for an apples-to-apples comparison of proposed and existing energy sources.

Yet another model bill adopted by ALEC that should prove particularly valuable to state residents is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act. The bill is based on an unassailable premise: that “energy security is paramount to economic growth,” and, accordingly, that affordable, reliable electric power from clean sources is fundamental to our families’ and communities’ future prosperity.

The “security” portion of the bill is twofold:

  • To establish the security of the electric power grid and supply, it requires that fuel sources “must be primarily produced domestically within the United States” and that “the infrastructure necessary to deliver energy to the customer should minimize reliance on foreign nations for critical materials or manufacturing.”
  • To establish security for people dependent on electricity for their daily lives, it defines acceptable energy sources as those “readily available 24/7.” So, power sources dependent upon the vagaries of the weather (wind) or the time of day (solar) need not apply.

Affordability is secured by provisions in the bill that examine the stability of prices over time, and the cost-effectiveness of providing heating, cooking, and generating electricity.

The legislation enshrines the need for reliability by requiring a minimum capacity factor of 50%, with the power supplied being dispatchable on demand.

The only quibble I have with the model bill comes in its definition of “clean” energy. The proposal says that a clean energy source “releases reduced air pollutants,” and then goes on to specify that nuclear and natural gas meet the definition. They do—but so do modern, state-of-the-art, coal-fueled power plants, which produce much lower emissions than older plants.

Coal also meets all the requirements of reliability, security, and affordability defined in the legislation. We have more coal than any fuel source, and the price of coal is less volatile than that of competing fuels. For America’s long-term well-being, coal needs to stay in our energy mix.

Having said this, I’m pleased that the bill was adopted. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good—or, in this case, the very good.

ALEC advanced some good model legislation this year, and there’s more in the hopper. All the bills advance the interests of states and their residents. Now it’s time for legislators to do right by their constituents and their economies by adopting versions of bills that fit their respective states’ unique requirements.

These pieces of model legislation are good for U.S. energy security, for electric power grid reliability, and for residents’ pocketbooks and businesses’ bottom lines.

What patriotic American would object to that?

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hsburnett@heartland.org) is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

CFACT model legislation sails through ALEC, now heads to states

CFACT’s three “model bills” cleared a big hurdle at a recent American Legislative Exchange Council meeting in Denver. The three bills — designed to strengthen grid reliability, protect ratepayers, and discourage land grabs by big companies and foreign governments – each cleared the Environment, Energy, and Agriculture Task Force committee with strong support and now move to final (and likely) approval. Model bills are important as they are sent, after approval by ALEC, to conservative and libertarian-leaning legislators in all 50 states to be considered for submission in their legislative bodies.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

CFACT’s three “model bills” cleared a big hurdle at a recent American Legislative Exchange Council meeting in Denver. The three bills — designed to strengthen grid reliability, protect ratepayers, and discourage land grabs by big companies and foreign governments – each cleared the Environment, Energy, and Agriculture Task Force committee with strong support and now move to final (and likely) approval. Model bills are important as they are sent, after approval by ALEC, to conservative and libertarian-leaning legislators in all 50 states to be considered for submission in their legislative bodies.

Former Wisconsin legislator Frank Lasee, who crafted the three model bills along with CFACT President Craig Rucker, was well pleased with the outcome. “We expected there to be a little pushback on one or two of them, and there was. But in the end, all of our bills received strong support, and we were definitely pleased with the outcome,” said Lasee.

The first CFACT model bill was introduced by South Dakota representative Julie Auch and titled the “Natural Asset Company Prohibition Act”. It was designed to stop companies (some foreign, including China) from profiting through the purchase and locking up U.S. lands for no meaningful purpose other than to stop farming, ranching, or resource extraction. The Securities and Exchange Commission toyed with the idea of listing NACs on the New York Stock Exchange last fall. However, their action created a firestorm led by the CFACT’s ally, the American Stewards for Liberty, which forced the SEC to withdraw its proposal. CFACT’s “Natural Asset Company Prohibition Act”, if ultimately adopted by numerous states, will serve as a disincentive to create and operate such NACs in important regions of the USA.

The second CFACT model bill champions the creation of a “consumer advocate” to represent ratepayer interests at Public Service (Utility) meetings in various states. Dubbed the Ratepayer Affordability and Reliability Advocacy Act, this bill was introduced by Representatives Jeanine Notter and Michael Vos of New Hampshire and received unanimous support from ALEC attendees. Many states already have such a consumer advocacy board, often called a CUB (Citizens Utility Board), but the bill has become necessary because many of these CUBs have become co-opted by climate activists who seek to promote political rather than ratepayer interests. CFACT’s model bill focuses a consumer advocate’s responsibility down to one purpose: To secure for utility customers the most reliable source of electricity at the cheapest price.

The third model bill, entitled Truth in Electricity Generation Labeling Act and introduced by Jack Colin of Utah, seeks to provide “Truth in Labeling” to power generation facilities. This has become important because, in many instances, renewable power facilities “sell” themselves as being able to provide 100 MW or so of electricity but, in actuality, only deliver about a quarter to a third of that amount in the real world. This bill would require them — as well as nuclear, coal, natural gas, and hydro units — to showcase not just their peak performance capabilities but also how much of the time purchasers can expect they will produce no output whatsoever.