Net metering bill fails in Wyoming Senate
Wednesday evening, the Senate voted 17-11 against Senate File 111, 'Net metering revisions.' According to bill sponsor Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, similar bills have passed in the Senate, but have faced challenges in the House.
'Net metering' means measuring the difference between the electricity supplied by an electric utility and the electricity generated by a small customer who generates their own electricity, that is then fed back to the electric utility over an applicable billing period.
SF 111 would have revised how net metering compensation applies to new small customer generators, authorizing the Public Service Commission to use a different system of compensation for excess energy production, if that service was being subsidized by other customers. Under SF 111, existing small customers who owned an electrical production system before Dec. 31, 2025, would have been be exempted at existing rates.
"This doesn't hurt utilities. This comes out of other customers (pockets) who have to pay higher rates to cover (utility) costs," Case said on the Senate floor Monday.
However, during committee testimony Jan. 27, members of the public called the proposed legislation a solution in search of a problem.
John Burrows of the Wyoming Outdoor Council said the bill directs a foregone conclusion that rooftop solar owners are being subsidized by other ratepayers. The idea that rooftop solar owners are 'not paying their share' of the utilities' network cost, he said, does not adequately portray the system in place.
On the other side of the Capitol, the House passed its own net metering bill, House Bill 183, 'Net metering amendments,' on three readings. That bill would amend the generation capacity for net metering systems. HB 183 will head to the Senate for introduction there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
43 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Putin is not ready to meet with Zelensky, and may never be
Agreement at the White House Monday on the next step – a bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – seemed broadly unanimous. Then came the Russian response. 'The idea was discussed that it would be appropriate to study the opportunity of raising the level of representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian sides,' said Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, briefing reporters on US President Donald Trump's call with Putin. No mention of either leader by name, or any indication the 'representatives' could be raised to that level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a more conciliatory tone in a state TV interview later Tuesday. 'We do not refuse any forms of work – neither bilateral nor trilateral,' he insisted. But: 'Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared with the utmost care.' In Kremlin speak, that means they are nowhere near ready to agree to this. And that should come as no surprise. This is a war that Putin started by unilaterally recognizing a chunk of Ukrainian land (the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics) as independent. He has argued Ukraine is 'an inalienable part of (Russia's) own history, culture and spiritual space,' and its separation from Russia is a historical mistake. So if this meeting happens – as Orysia Lutsevich, the director of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program puts it – Putin 'will have to accept the failure of sitting down with a president he considers a joke from a country that doesn't exist'. It would also, she argued, be a huge reversal in tone that would be tough to explain to the Russian people. '(Putin) so much brainwashed Russians on state television that Zelensky's a Nazi, that (Ukraine's) a puppet state of the West … that Zelensky's illegitimate, why is he suddenly talking to him?' The Kremlin not only routinely questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader, fixating on the postponement of elections in Ukraine, illegal under martial law, but in its latest 'peace' memorandum requires Ukraine to hold elections before any final peace treaty is signed. Putin and other Russian officials rarely refer to Zelensky by name, instead preferring the scathing moniker of 'the Kyiv regime.' And don't forget it was Zelensky who traveled to Turkey for the first direct talks between the two sides in mid-May, only for Putin to send a delegation headed by a writer of historical textbooks. Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and founder of which provides news and analysis on Russia, argues that while Putin does not view a meeting with Zelensky as critical in a war that for Russia is more about confronting the West than Ukraine, he could still take the meeting if he thought it would be successful. 'The key demands must be on the table and Zelensky must be ok to talk about it,' she told CNN in an interview Tuesday. As of now Zelensky has ruled out those key demands, which include giving up territory Ukraine still controls. But Putin, she argued, sees Trump as the key to changing that. 'Trump is seen as an enabler of (the) Russian vision of the settlement and for that the United States is supposed to work with Kyiv to push them to be more flexible, to be more open to Russian demands.' Stanovaya suggested Russia may try to keep the US on side by doing what Ushakov suggested, and suggesting a new round of Istanbul talks, but with a higher-level delegation, perhaps including Ushakov himself, and foreign minister Lavrov. But he won't risk an 'ambush' by sitting down with Zelensky only to find all his demands rejected. Trump ended his day on Monday by posting on Truth Social that he 'began the arrangements for a meeting … between President Putin and President Zelensky.' By the time he had woken up and dialed into the breakfast show on Fox News Tuesday morning, it seemed to have dawned on him this was not a done deal. 'I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky, and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots. We're, we're 7,000 miles away,' he said. Putin has no reason to acquiesce at this point. Having made zero concessions, he has been rewarded with a grand summit in Alaska, the dropping of a demand by Trump to sign onto a ceasefire before a peace talks, and the crumbling of all sanctions ultimatums to date. Having slightly dialed down the scale of nightly drone attacks on Ukrainian cities so far in August, Russia ramped them up again Monday night, firing 270 drones and 10 missiles. If Trump's pressure on Zelensky hasn't yet yielded the results Moscow wants, there's always military force to fall back on. The only wild card for Russia at this point is who Trump will blame when this latest peace effort fails.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns order that stripped some protections from pregnant Texas state workers
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld a law strengthening the rights of pregnant workers, vacating a judge's earlier order that had stripped those protections from Texas state employees. The ruling was a victory for advocates of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that passed with bipartisan support in 2022 but quickly became embroiled in controversy over whether it covers workers seeking abortions and fertility treatments. A federal judge last year blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, ruling that its passage was unconstitutional because a majority of House members were not physically present to approve the law as part of spending package in December 2022. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit appeals court disagreed, finding that the law was properly passed under a COVID-19 pandemic-era Congressional rule allowing members to vote by proxy to meet the quorum requirement. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act strengthens the rights of women to receive workplace accommodation for needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, such as time off for medical appointments and exemptions from heavy lifting. Its passage came after a decades long campaign by women's advocacy groups highlighting the struggles of pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage roles, who were routinely forced off the job after requesting accommodations. The Texas case differed from other lawsuits that have narrowly focused on federal regulations stating that abortion, fertility treatments and birth control are medical issues requiring protection under the new law. The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, instead took aim at the entirety of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, drawing opposition from Republican lawmakers including former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who defended the pandemic-era proxy voting rule. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has continued to fight Paxton's lawsuit, which if successful, could help open the door to legal challenges of other pandemic-era laws passed by proxy. Paxton's office did not reply to emails seeking comment, and it was not clear whether he would appeal Friday's ruling. The Justice Department declined to comment. 'This is a big win for women's rights. We are really happy to see that the Fifth Circuit agreed with us that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed constitutionally and will continue to fight for the PWFA to stay legal,' said Inimai Chettiar, president of a Better Balance, an advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign for passage of the law. Texas state employees are not immediately protected, however, because the appeals court ruling doesn't become final for several weeks to give time for a possible appeal, Chettiar said. Conservative officials and religious groups, meanwhile, have been largely successfully in challenging the regulations passed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which established that workers seeking abortions are entitled accommodations. In May, a federal court struck down the abortion provisions of the EEOC regulations in response to lawsuits brought by states of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses. The Trump administration is almost certain to comply with that ruling. President Donald Trump in January fired two of the EEOC's democratic commissioners, paving the way for him to quickly establish a Republican majority at the agency. EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, a Republican, has signaled her support for revising the regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority by including not only abortion but fertility treatments and birth control as medical needs covered by the law. Solve the daily Crossword
