The motivation to adopt these state mandates stems from a need to reduce the dependence on more traditional fossil fuels that are high in carbon emissions and contribute to greenhouse gases. Reducing the reliance on fossil fuels that are predicted to be more expensive and volatile, such as natural gas, reduce dependence on “foreign” sources of fuels, such as fuel oil, and invest in cleaner sources of electricity that are needed to ensure compliance with any of the impending national legislative decisions that are under debate. These mandates are often justified as a means of providing the long term lowest cost of electricity for consumers. Supporters have stated repeatedly, that renewable energies will be less expensive in the long run when compared to the costs of new coal-fired generation facilities in particular. Thus, advocates would have us believe that pouring taxpayer money into renewable energy like solar and wind would create an estimated 5 million new jobs, end our reliance on imported oil and give us clean air. As welcome as those results would be, they're founded on the illusion that renewable fuels are an energy panacea and that the market is ignoring an easy answer to our problems, which of course, our wise politicians can see. When you look at the facts it does not support this. These energies constitute a part of our energy mix in the future, but they represent only a tiny fraction of our energy needs and won't lead us out of the economic and environmental backwoods. In conclusion, renewable energy solutions are not only needed but often the public wants them to be implemented. But it must be at a rate as to not cause energy rates to rise substantially, and when rates do rise, those at or near the poverty line need to be protected from those rates. In the future, we need to make sure that we all can benefit from conservation and clean energy if