Question 6 would cost Nevada money and jobs

We warned in an editorial days before the 2018 election that if voters approved Question 6 — a constitutional amendment mandating 50 percent of Nevada’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030 — that it would cost Nevadans money and jobs while producing no discernible benefit.

The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote.

In order to become binding, the voters must approve Question 6 again during this General Election.

Perhaps the voters didn’t believe the dire warnings from opponents two years ago, but Nevada voters should now pay heed to what already has happened in neighboring California, which has embraced the renewable energy false promise.

A Wall Street Journal editorial today recounts the damages incurred due California’s renewable decisions.

Not only did Californians suffer rolling blackout this past summer because of over reliance on unreliable renewable solar and wind power, but they are paying more for power when it is available.

The WSJ editorial notes that since 2010 power rates in California have jumped 30 percent for homes and 37 percent for manufacturers. Meanwhile, in Nevada, which gets three-fourths of its electricity from natural gas-powered generation, household rates have fallen 3 percent and manufacturing rates are down 17 percent.

As for jobs, the editorial recounts that due to higher power costs California in the past decade has seen manufacturing jobs increase a mere 6 percent, compared to an increase of 55 percent in Nevada.

Locking renewable power requirements into the state constitution will assure Nevada will experience the same loss of money and jobs as has happened in California. Smoke blocks the sun from photovoltaic panels at a California power plant in September. (Bloomberg pix via WSJ)

Leave a Reply