Hypothetical New "Mandate"

[Warfish]

Congress passes a new Law mandating that every property owner (Home, business, industry) purchase and install on their property enough solar panels so that at least 25% of their energy consumption is filled via solar power.

Panels can be bought from any private panel maker who has been certififed by the Government.

Property owners have 2 years to come into compliance. Participation is mandatroy, no exceptions, except for the States of Florida, New York and Montana (who are excluded from the requirement), and any Historicly Disadvantged Business Owners (who will get Federal grants to meet the requirement).

Failure to meet the new requiremnet would result in a fine of $50,000. Failure to pay the fine and to come into compliance would then result in a criminal conviction and jail time, in addition to added fines.

Is such a mandate legal under the commerce clause?

Would you support such a mandate, if the Government promoted it as the best way to reduce foreign oil consupmtion, reduce greenhouse emissions, stimulate the economy and support domestic manufacture of solar technology (no requirment in the bill that the panels be U.S. made of U.S. Company provided).

[JetPotato]

Everyone has a right to solar power

[FF2®]

No.

[MnJetFan]

So long as the owner pays the price full price that is!

[Trades]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4249868]Congress passes a new Law mandating that every property owner (Home, business, industry) purchase and install on their property enough solar panels so that at least 25% of their energy consumption is filled via solar power.

Panels can be bought from any private panel maker who has been certififed by the Government.

Property owners have 2 years to come into compliance. Participation is mandatroy, no exceptions, except for the States of Florida, New York and Montana (who are excluded from the requirement), and any Historicly Disadvantged Business Owners (who will get Federal grants to meet the requirement).

Failure to meet the new requiremnet would result in a fine of $50,000. Failure to pay the fine and to come into compliance would then result in a criminal conviction and jail time, in addition to added fines.

Is such a mandate legal under the commerce clause?

Would you support such a mandate, if the Government promoted it as the best way to reduce foreign oil consupmtion, reduce greenhouse emissions, stimulate the economy and support domestic manufacture of solar technology (no requirment in the bill that the panels be U.S. made of U.S. Company provided).[/QUOTE]

It all depends on how long it would take me to start up a solar panel installation company and get it government certified. If the mandate won't come into play for a year I think I can make that work.

[bitonti]

in the first sentence of your post congress passed a law. that means the people were represented.

would I support it? no because the rate of solar power technology is increasing such that in 10 years it might be vastly cheaper.

but the scenario you paint would be legal and democratic.

[long island leprechaun]

What would they do in Denmark? ;)

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=bitonti;4254958]in the first sentence of your post congress passed a law. that means the people were represented.[/quote]

Yes. The same way we were represnted by our elected leaders in the Obamacare Legislation. I have no disagreement there.

[QUOTE]would I support it? no because the rate of solar power technology is increasing such that in 10 years it might be vastly cheaper.[/QUOTE]

Scientific consensus says we cannot and should not wait ten years, the future of our planet may well be decided upon before then at current rates.

Like the healthcare mandate, which was described as an emergency, teh environemnt has widely been described as an entreme emergency in terms of the need for immediate action.

[quote]but the scenario you paint would be legal and democratic.[/QUOTE]

So you're in agreement, that the power of congress to mandate any and all commerce upon the citizenry has no effective legal/constitutional limitation beyond being voted on and passed by congress itself then.

[QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4254963]What would they do in Denmark? ;)[/QUOTE]

I don't know honestly. So save me the google-time and tell us. But note, Denmark does not operate under the U.S. Constitution, hence what may be legal there may not be legal here. Not saying it is or is't, just pointing out that fact. We're not One-World Govt. just yet.

[Trades]

Solar is not even close to economically viable at this point.

[QUOTE]
[B][URL="http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/28/solar-power-it-makes-no-sense-for-the-us"]Solar Power - "It makes no sense for the U.S. to try to out-compete China for domination of a money-losing industry."[/URL][/B]

[URL="http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey"]Ronald Bailey[/URL] | November 28, 2011
[IMG]http://www.homesolarinfo.com/images/Bell-old-solar.jpg[/IMG]Over at [I]Bloomberg[/I], former Microsoft executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures Nathan Myhrvold has a sharp commentary on the stupidity of subsidizing inefficient power technologies:
[INDENT]This month, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched a formal[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/u-s-commerce-department-opens-dumping-investigation-of-china-solar-cells.html"]investigation[/URL] into complaints, lodged by the U.S. solar-cell manufacturers, that the government of China is funneling loan guarantees, grants and subsidies to its solar-cell companies.

Apparently, the Commerce Department is shocked, shocked to learn that a government would subsidize the solar industry.
A few days later, the New York Times described a “[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2"]gold rush[/URL]” under way in the U.S. as builders of wind and solar farms cash in on grants and loan guarantees offered by both the federal government and various states. These incentives effectively allow players at every level of the renewable-energy industry to lock in profits of 10 percent to 30 percent a year for the 20- to 30-year life of their plants -- not bad considering 10-year Treasury bonds are paying only 2 percent.

Both of these developments are symptoms of a larger problem with the world’s current approach to renewable energy. The range of prospects being tried now is dizzying -- from high-tech windmills to biofuels, from corn to algae, from silicon photovoltaic cells to boilers heated by thousands of reflected sunbeams. But they all share one thing that makes them appealing to investors: taxpayer dollars. One of the ugly secrets of the renewable-energy industry is that its products make no economic sense unless they are highly subsidized.
[/INDENT]He cites figures from the Energy Information Administration showing that levelized costs (includes capital and fuel costs for the life of the projects) of current versions of renewable energy technologies are much more expensive (and will remain so) than conventional sources of electricity generation.

[B]Comparing the Costs of Electricity[/B]

[IMG]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iY_lf1oJfdrw.jpg[/IMG]
Myhrvold makes this excellent point:[INDENT][B]Some people fret that China will reap the green jobs of the future, but no economically viable green-energy product exists. It makes no sense for the U.S. to try to dominate a money-losing industry, especially by guaranteeing profits to inefficient power plants for 30 years.[/B]

[/INDENT]Well, yes. Go [URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-27/energy-subsidies-stymie-wind-solar-innovation-nathan-myhrvold.html"]here[/URL] to read the whole article. For more background, see also my June 2009 article, [URL="http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/15/its-alive/singlepage"]It's Alive: Alternative energy subsidies make their biggest comeback since Jimmy Carter.[/URL]

[/QUOTE]

[bitonti]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4255008]
Scientific consensus says we cannot and should not wait ten years, the future of our planet may well be decided upon before then at current rates.
[/QUOTE]

there is no science that postulates a reliable solution for climate change. there's no number of solar panels that will reverse it. solar power should be viewed as an energy issue, a national security issue and a local green issue (reducing pollution from coal plants etc). Solar panels won't save the world.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=bitonti;4255085]there is no science that postulates a reliable solution for climate change. there's no number of solar panels that will reverse it. solar power should be viewed as an energy issue, a national security issue and a local green issue (reducing pollution from coal plants etc). Solar panels won't save the world.[/QUOTE]

Interesting and good to know.

[Vin]

Thank god this is just Hypothetical. Right, Warfish? :P

[quantum]

Are all the Gov't-certified businesses like Solyndra, whose principals are big Obama campaign donators?