Nevada overwhelmingly passed a renewable energy initiative Tuesday, putting the state one step closer toward mandating a higher amount of wind and solar be used in its energy portfolio.
The campaign to pass Question 6 won by a nearly 20-point margin, taking 59 percent of the vote to the “no” campaign’s 40 percent.
“Tonight the people of Nevada confirmed what we’ve known all along: We have a right to clean air and clean energy,” Katie Robbins, the YES on 6 campaign manager, said in a Wednesday morning statement.
Question 6 was passed by a large number of Nevada voters on Election Day. The ballot initiative calls for electric utilities to acquire half of their electricity from renewable sources — such as wind, solar and hydroelectric — by 2030. The proposed mandate is a major step up from its current renewable portfolio standard of 25 percent renewables by 2025.
Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist from California, has devoted nearly $6 million to back Question 6 through his NextGen Climate Action organization.
While the Coalition of Energy Users has served as the main opposition against the proposal, a minimal amount of effort was spent opposing Question 6 during the campaign.
Besides the climate change argument, supporters of the initiative argue that a wind and solar mandate will work well in Nevada — a state with more sun than the rest of the country. Opponents counter that such a dramatic increase in renewable mandates, which can be unreliable sources of energy, will increase electricity costs.
However, Question 6’s victory on Tuesday doesn’t mean state regulators will immediately begin enforcing stricter energy mandates.
Under Nevada law, constitutional amendments require passage by voters in two consecutive elections — meaning Question 6 will need to win again in 2020 to become the law of the land.
Read more at Daily Caller
Nevada voters had better wake up by 2020. Germany added 30% renewables to their energy mix and it tripled their power rates. This is not a linar relationship. Doubling the percentage of renewables more than doubles the cost. Unlike a 100% mandate, a 50% mandate is still doable because it allows back up fossil fuel power plants for when the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow. This comes at a cost since in addition the higher cost of renewables, there is double the capital and double the maintenance to keep a duplicate system running.
This mandate does absolutely nothing for cleaner air since carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
50% renewables, Huh. Where does the 50% of supply come from when its dark and the sun isn’t working so well? Mr Musk’s batteries? Wait till you see the bill for that. I hope they suffer for their abject ignorance and stupidity, both in believing politicians and not checking the simple facts of electricity supply. You can’t fix stupid, and clearly Nevadans are the thick end of the wedge. But we DO need a worthless example of renewable fraud and public stupidity so more value adding Washingtonians and Arizonans with real jobs who pay taxes can point and laugh at them, and maybe a few Americans will atua;y understand the physical realities without having to fail themselves. Almost all renewables are a wholly avoidable and studied failure before they start, that enrich insiders with regressive subsidies at everyone else’s energy poverty to no real climate or energy supply effect. All technically and economically obvious, and easilly demonstrable on the costed facts of energy science ex ante, so voluntary energy suicide by the helpful fools of Nevada.
Hurry up and fail so others can learn from your…. oh no, they don’t ever learn do they?