The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make its first decision on the worst energy crisis in American history: The California energy crisis of 2000-01. The legal repercussions of this decision could change the way energy is bought and sold in America for generations. For good or bad. As a former member of the California Legislature when this disaster of a law was passed unanimously (yes, I voted for it), I saw first-hand how bad regulators turned this consensus law into such an epic disaster. ...As a state legislator in California when this law was passed, I've seen first-hand how much damage this law - and even more importantly, its implementation - has done, and could continue to do if the Supreme Court does not reverse the Ninth Circuit.

Driven by record high oil prices, as well as concerns about how burning fossil fuels affects climate change, wind power may continue its upward trajectory. This translates into the potential for growth for wind power companies -- and for their investors as well. But if you're thinking about investing in this industry, be aware of three risks.

If local citizens want to assuage their guilt about energy use and carbon footprints they must first prepare themselves for a few simple inconvenient truths. That's because some wind and solar true believers conveniently dispense with rational discussion concerning what's possible to achieve in meeting future electric energy needs along with what it will cost to make significant gains. Were it not for the huge taxpayer subsidies the "green" revolution promised for wind and solar would not be possible. ... Our Department of Energy wants to achieve that 20 percent goal by the year 2030 and some States even want a more ambitious goal. Fortunately there are people who recognize that in order to achieve these goals we will need to build twice as much capacity because it isn't always windy where it needs to be.

In five months, Americans will be going to the polls to elect a new president. Maybe he'll have a long-term energy plan that will work. Because right now, we don't have a plan; if we do, it's not working. ...But the sun doesn't shine all day, and wind doesn't blow constantly. What do you do at night and when there's no wind? Mandate all you want, but nature isn't going to play by our rules. And if you want "clean" energy, we have to consider nuclear power.

We like the idea of wind power because it seems natural and clean. Windmills, after all, are part of our pastoral vision of Americana - power, nostalgia and patriotism rolled into one. What's not to like? Only the economics. Wind power, despite the government's best efforts to create a market, continues to be dogged by the same problems it always has: high costs, limited reliability and bad location. No wind, after all, blows forever, and when it does, it's not blowing where people need power. Even now, West Texas wind farms sit idle, awaiting new power lines to take high-priced power to the people.

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax. ...If Congress is really going to impose this carbon tax in the name of saving mankind, the least it should do is forego all of this political largesse. In return for this new tax, Congress should cut taxes elsewhere to make the bill revenue neutral.

[L]et's take a closer look at the wind business to figure out why America isn't already running on free wind power. One reason of course is that Americans are spoiled and want the power to be on all of the time. ...That is a problem when the wind doesn't blow all of the time.But more importantly, if you do the math, the investment in this part time power plant alone, neglecting transmission, profit, and operating overhead, is $13,000 per home. I say part time, because we must remember that someone has to own the backup power plant that isn't making any money when the wind is blowing. Solar in some ways is even worse when it comes to the massive arrays and land necessary to place them on. And like wind, solar is not full time, science has not figured out how to keep it from getting dark at night. I am certainly not against technology, just so long as we get the whole story. Like ethanol, we can burn our food supply, but not without repercussions.

McCain spoke at the facilities of Vestas Wind Technology, an Oregon-based firm that manufactures wind-power systems. The irony of the setting was rich given McCain's outspoken opposition to pork-barrel spending. He even risked his presidential hopes by criticizing ethanol subsidies ahead of the all-important Iowa caucuses. Next to solar power, however, wind power is the most heavily subsidized form of energy. ..."Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels," McCain stated. What he's talking about is not quite clear since our current economy is about 75 percent dependent on fossil fuels and will remain that way for at least the next 25 years ...

The idea that wind power might someday supply a fifth of US electricity demand won't startle anyone who believes that the experience of Denmark could be translated to a much larger country. However, rather than viewing the DOE's "20% Wind Energy by 2030" study as confirmation of this notion, it should be recognized as a detailed scenario describing what would be necessary to reach that threshold. It spells out in considerable detail the improvements in wind turbine technology, transmission capacity, and load management that would be required. Much hard work remains to be done, to turn feasibility into practical possibility.

Those who want America to turn to alternative energy might ponder that "Everyone from the U.S. Energy Information Agency to the U.N." agrees," says the Journal, "that fossil fuels will still account for as much as 80% of the world energy needs through 2030, even with efficient gains and major growth in alternatives." ...Writing in The Weekly Standard on alternative energy, William Tucker says "those 30-story windmills " like the three proposed for Bettie" "produce 1½ megawatts apiece" about 1/750th the power of a conventional generating station. Getting 1,000 megawatts would require a wind farm of 75 miles square." He adds wind, hydro and all the "alternate" sources of energy are dubbed "green" because they are supposedly clean, renewable and sustainable, but in fact what being "green" really mean is they all require vast amounts of land.

The Environmental Policy Act signed into law in 2005 called upon the secretary of the interior to promulgate regulations by May 5, 2006 to site offshore renewable energy projects. And still there is no regulatory process under which the Cape Wind precedent-setting proposal for alternative use of the submerged public land, Nantucket Sound, is being reviewed. Therefore, the reviewing agencies are incapable of providing our/their informed consent regarding the Cape Wind application ...The Cape Wind project is being reviewed within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ...Absent standards and rules that will apply to the Cape Wind permit review, the public and agencies are denied meaningful participation in this NEPA process.

Of the world energy demand 87 percent comes from fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal. This fraction has not changed much since the 1970's and the first "energy crisis" while energy demand has more than doubled. By almost everybody's estimates by the year 2030, the total world demand will increase by 50 percent and oil, gas and coal will still provide 87 percent of the world's energy. ...We use them because they are the easiest, most flexible, most reliable and most efficient forms of energy. ...I have no aversion to wind or solar. I love the sun, I am Greek. But they are eminently unreliable and, even in their best case, without government subsidies, they make $200 to $2000 oil still attractive. It is that simple.

Not since President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed at the White House has there been as much hype for renewable energy sources as there is now. Congress once again is pushing for passage of legislation mandating a "renewable portfolio." South Carolina is wisely letting the free market determine whether renewables will catch on. But 25 states have adopted renewable energy requirements, committing nearly half of our country's population to obtaining as much as 25 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other "green" sources by 2020. Increasing our use of renewable energy is a worthwhile goal. But if we allow the heavy hand of government to mandate its use, we're setting solar and wind energy up to fail. ...Wind power has appeal not because it's clean, but because tax breaks and subsidies for wind are now so valuable for wind-farm owners.

Financing the $280 billion, five-year farm bill has been the issue. The Senate has added some $6.5 billion in additional expense that would trigger "paygo" rules the Democratic Congress reinstituted in the last two years. That rule, long seen as a successful way to impose fiscal discipline on Congress, requires new spending or tax cuts be offset by a reduction in spending or tax increases so as not to add to the federal deficit. The House and Senate should either apply paygo rules to the compromise bill or jettison the extra Senate costs. ...The Senate bill also includes a number of tax breaks to encourage wind energy, biodiesel fuels and even farmers battling with endangered species laws. Again, the $2.5 billion price tag seems extravagant in these tough times. There are a number of tax breaks and incentives in the Energy Bill Congress passed last year.

Only George Orwell could have invented - and named - the British Government's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) that came into operation yesterday. It is the latest in a long line of measures intended to ease the conscience of the rich while keeping the poor miserable, in this case spectacularly so. ...The British Government has been persuaded by the wind turbine manufacturers to commit a third of its annual renewables subsidy to this uniquely inefficient energy source, advertising over hill and dale the cabinet's horror of making a decision on nuclear power. ...If all these fancy subsidies and market manipulations were withdrawn tomorrow and government action confined to energy-saving regulation, I am convinced the world would be a cheaper and a safer place, and the poor would not be threatened with starvation. Just now, for reasons not all of which are "green", commodity prices are soaring. Leave them. Send food parcels to the starving, but let demand evoke supply and stop curbing trade. The marketplace is never perfect, but in this matter it could not be worse than government action. Playing these games has so far made a few people very rich at the cost of the taxpayer. Now the cost is in famine and starvation. This is no longer a game.

As Mr. Bryce sees it, "in the post-September 11 world, many American have been hypnotized by the conflation of two issues: oil and terrorism." As a result, "Americans have . . . swallowed the notion that all foreign oil . . . is bad." Thus, "the common wisdom is to seek the balm of energy independence. And that balm is being peddled by the Right, the Left, the Greens, Big Agriculture, Big Labor, Republicans, Democrats, senators, members of the House, George W. Bush, the opinion page of the New York Times, and the neoconservatives." ...All of these actors, with various supporting casts, are involved in misleading American voters about our nation's energy needs and the possibilities of weaning ourselves from foreign sources. But in fact, writes Mr. Bryce, in a $5 trillion-per-year interconnected global energy business, that is neither possible nor even desirable. "There are three main reasons: energy use keeps growing; energy efficiency won't necessarily mean a reduction in consumption; and most important, renewable energy and alternative fuels simply cannot provide the volume needed to replace traditional fossil fuels at any time in the foreseeable future."

Not since President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed at the White House has there been as much hype for renewable energy sources as we are witnessing now. Congressional leaders once again are pushing for passage of legislation that would mandate a "renewable portfolio." South Carolina is wisely letting the free market determine whether or not renewables will catch on. But 25 states have adopted renewable energy requirements, committing nearly half of our country's population to obtaining as much as 25 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other "green " sources by 2020. ...Wind power has appeal, but not because it's non-polluting. Tax breaks and subsidies for wind are now so large that their value to wind farm owners - not any possible environmental benefits - is the primary motivation for building a wind farm. Over the past decade, large-scale wind farms have been built in Texas, California, Kansas, Wyoming and other states. But at best, the wind blows only 40 percent of the time. Wind is so unpredictable that electricity shortages have hobbled businesses and industries in both Texas and California, the two states with the most wind energy capacity, mainly because the wind stopped blowing and wind turbines were operating at only 5 percent of capacity.

What's telling is that the European interest hasn't wavered even though U.S. federal subsidies for clean energy are slated to expire this year and have yet to be extended. Historically, the federal tax-credits have been make-or-break for the industry. Now, though, it appears other factors weigh more heavily. EDP is so anxious to expand in the U.S. that it ordered more wind turbines from India's Suzlon this week, even though those Suzlon machines have had technical glitches. The big drivers? State incentives for renewable energy, like those in Texas; a slow but inexorable shift in the U.S. toward cleaner energy; and the high-quality wind resources in the U.S., which dwarf those of Europe (and other parts of the world.)

While wind energy is being wildly supported by many in the U.S., there have always been drawbacks to the performance and costs of these machines. The U.S. has had a heavily subsidized romance with them for nearly 40 years and too few of the state and federal policy makers have taken a close look at what the tens of billions in subsidies have actually done for the taxpayers. These wind energy programs have made many companies such as Florida Power and Light very wealthy because of the heavy subsidies, tax credits, and accelerated depreciation allowance. Additional benefits come from local taxing authorities. This source of energy remains very unreliable and limited, having produced only about 1% of the nation's energy for decades.

Renewable energy alone cannot reliably meet Nevada's growing energy demand. To keep the lights on day and night, during windy and calm days, Nevada needs base-load electricity generation, and that is best supplied through a mix of available energy resources. This type of generation provides a constant flow of electricity. Renewables, for the most part, provide an intermittent source of electricity, which can be helpful during peak use, but not 24/7. ...Instead of attempting to stop using our most abundant resource, we need to be supporting progress in making coal cleaner and a viable source of secure and affordable energy.