> Lobbyists for utility companies looking to preserve the status quo paid the lawmakers to do it. Isn't that obvious?
That's an unlikely theory. If it is the Wyoming utilities that want to favor coal over renewables they don't need legislation to do that. They can simply decline to buy from renewable sources, which would accomplish their goal without any bad publicity or political controversy.
That would be true if 100% of Wyoming utilities acted in unison. But if one of them shifts to renewables, and that shift results in lower cost energy or an increase in productivity that results in a reduction of employees, it will force the others to do the same to stay competitive. This legislation is meant to prevent that from happening so jobs and profits are preserved in the short term.
Wyoming is not an electric choice state. Customers are stuck with the electric utility that owns the wires going to their house, so that utility does not need to stay competitive with utilities that serve other areas.
Utilities don't necessarily support this because it keeps the status quo. Utilities make money buy building new plants and charging ratepayers the cost of the plant plus a rate of return on capital. That's why utilities supported Pres. Obama's Clean Power Plan.
Not utility companies. This law would be a pure negative for them -- it establishes penalties for generating/using the "wrong kinds" of power, without any benefits.
If you want to point a finger at lobbyists, point it at the coal industry.
That's an unlikely theory. If it is the Wyoming utilities that want to favor coal over renewables they don't need legislation to do that. They can simply decline to buy from renewable sources, which would accomplish their goal without any bad publicity or political controversy.