Thank you Gentlemen! Facts are facts, and you cannot escape the math. Over the years I have had many conversation started with those defending the green nmmovement. Responses vary, from the costs don't matter if we are saving the planet, to Nebraska has lots of wind and costs have remained low there. Someone will always bring up oil & gas subsidies as if it has anything to do with the conversation. Regardless the patterns are clear, and the ones yelling loudest about energy prices are the same States that enforce these policies. They want the government to fix it, they want their green energy and low prices too. Even the Wizard can't fix that Dorthy.
Could you tackle the amount of “dirty energy” as a byproduct of “clean energy”. A fair comparison is needed to refute the claims that wind/solar are somehow cleaner?
Hi Dave, we looked into that briefly a few years ago but getting reliable data on energy and material consumption for every energy source turned into a nightmare. Happy to run the numbers on the systemwide emissions and material consumption if you know of good primary data on each energy source.
Governor Healy of Massachusetts to John Nolan CEO of Eversource, “I am shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in this place!”…wind and solar dude with cash in hand arrives…”Your winnings madam governor!” “Oh thank you!”
When you have a well functioning , highly reliable system in place and try to replace it with a system that has well known flaws expect it to be expensive and unreliable
I liked the graph showing people leaving mandate states. The mandate probably isn’t only factor. States dumb enough to enact the mandate are probably doing plenty of other stupid shit, too.
When you look at this as electric rates above and below the U.S. average, there is a strong correlation between red and blue states which also aligns with mandate and no mandate states.
Well done as usual Energy Bad Boys… I don’t know about y'all but the following statement from your article should piss off 90% of Americans in the clean hypocrisy mandated states: Overall, from 2020 through 2025, mandate states sought 32 percent higher rate increases than non-mandate states. Unfortunately voters in these states are clueless about such policies and how it impacts their personal lives. Many millions of these Americans should keep their fingers crossed 🤞 for Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security federal law to be enacted next year. ARC ES law will curb federal government’s overreach in mandating wind solar and batteries onto states & puts the proverbial monkey 🐒 on the state legislatures themselves, giving the voters a much better opportunity to see who is and who is not for their energy affordability & lower utility bills, cost of food, cost of fuel, & cost of living … I know who I’d vote for …
And how much are oil companies funding the 'green' movement to raise costs overall while receiving taxpayer funds that increase the costs? And how much did the same companies work to 'kill' nuclear over the past decades? There is plenty of collusion to go around.
Let's try this a second time. I will just summarize what my original post was about.
In your "Major Revisions" graphic you show Wyoming not having either an RPS or CES, but there are many things that can work effectively the same, are likely to be expensive, and which sneak in under the best of rationales. Here is an example.
In 2020, the legislature added a section 18 to Title 37 which is the enabling legislation for our Public Service Commission. It was an attempt to maintain some coal combustion plants in the face of an adverse climate from Washington D.C., by definition and mandating carbon capture use and storage on new (if any should get built) or existing plants by a future date.
37-18-101 a) Defined clean thermal power as that which would have a CCUS unit capable of capturing 75% of emissions
37-18-102 a) mandated that by July 1, 2033 plants supplying electrical energy to some minimum number of customers using coal or gas would include a CCUS unit to become "clean" energy
So Wyoming has no RPS or CES, but does have a generation standard that will spring into action at some point in the next six years or so. It would function much like a CES.
There was a short lived attempt to neuter section 18 early in 2025, but only a couple of us in favor came to the Senate hearing and were allowed so little time (2 minutes each) to speak we could hardly get a case presented, and we were overwhelmed by the many speakers emphasizing the need to combat climate change. The attempt failed.
A CCUS unit will absorb about 25%, or maybe a bit more, of coal station output. A bit less for gas combustion. I had hoped to point out that just when views in the FERC, NERC and the Federal government involving thermal plants was changing to see combustion as vital to making the grid operate, we would be in effect closing one out of every four stations. I had calculated that a CCUS would raise the cost of power supplied by a station having such a unit by about 80% -- a combination of direct expenses going into the rate calculation and also taking into account the volumetric risk of having less commodity to sell and cover expenses.
One other factor that affected people's thinking in the process of enacting 37-18 was a belief that the carbon dioxide would becomes a valuable commodity in its own right. However, the major market for CO2 here is enhanced oil recovery. With station power constantly ramping up and down to balance wind/solar there'd likely have to be a buffer in between the CCUS and any oil customers, the additional compression demands of which would wipe out economic use.
The road to higher utility rates is paved with good intentions.
One of the best insights of your work is to not differentiate by the amount of renewables in grid, but rather differentiate on renewable mandates which could force its irrational deployment. Excellent
Unfortunately, that could also open up the concern that the poor performance is part of other policies typically implemented by mandating states. Not sure if your data could be partitioned in that way, but it would be interesting.
One thing I find interesting is that Texas is listed as a non-mandate state, but it is near the top of increases in rates for non-mandate states and also a huge builder of wind energy.
Seems to correlate pretty well, mandate or no mandate. Just build wind and your rates go up above the average.
It would be instructive to examine in detail a general rate case to see how rates are related to RPS, CES, and to other mandates that function somewhat similarly. In fact, one rate case I know about deeply raised such a ruckus that the utility changed its story about why rates were rising two times a long the way.
Oops. I guess I could retype it, but I have dinner to prepare right now. At any rate, you guys are doing great work -- except for the occasional deletion.
Thank you Gentlemen! Facts are facts, and you cannot escape the math. Over the years I have had many conversation started with those defending the green nmmovement. Responses vary, from the costs don't matter if we are saving the planet, to Nebraska has lots of wind and costs have remained low there. Someone will always bring up oil & gas subsidies as if it has anything to do with the conversation. Regardless the patterns are clear, and the ones yelling loudest about energy prices are the same States that enforce these policies. They want the government to fix it, they want their green energy and low prices too. Even the Wizard can't fix that Dorthy.
Could you tackle the amount of “dirty energy” as a byproduct of “clean energy”. A fair comparison is needed to refute the claims that wind/solar are somehow cleaner?
Hi Dave, we looked into that briefly a few years ago but getting reliable data on energy and material consumption for every energy source turned into a nightmare. Happy to run the numbers on the systemwide emissions and material consumption if you know of good primary data on each energy source.
I wouldn’t be any help. It was just an idea, I’ll keep enjoying your weekly articles.
Energy Bad Boys - excellent follow up to your previous posts on electricity costs (and affordability). But none of this is new news!
We started asking questions in 2011, https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/cee/legacy/2010/Gulen_RPS_and_renewables.pdf.
And not just in US. https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/cee/legacy/2011/Rogers_Eeekonomics_Small%20windy%20island.pdf
By 2016, EIA was taking note, https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/cee/legacy/2016/CEE_Snapshot-Retail_Electricity_Price_Mar16.pdf.
Your work adds to the litany, with really good improvements, but one wonders - when will we all "get" it???
Governor Healy of Massachusetts to John Nolan CEO of Eversource, “I am shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in this place!”…wind and solar dude with cash in hand arrives…”Your winnings madam governor!” “Oh thank you!”
Thanks for the analysis, gentlemen. Sorry to be lazy, but I would love to see yearly rate increase request normalized by population growth.
Run the numbers and let us know what you find 😜
Really interesting, thanks for this.
When you have a well functioning , highly reliable system in place and try to replace it with a system that has well known flaws expect it to be expensive and unreliable
I liked the graph showing people leaving mandate states. The mandate probably isn’t only factor. States dumb enough to enact the mandate are probably doing plenty of other stupid shit, too.
Exactly
Climate Change benefits mankind. If you understand this, Net Zero, etc. looks really stupid.
See my article , "Don't Say Climate Change: It’s the Economy That Matters!": https://open.substack.com/pub/kclapp/p/dont-say-climate-change-its-the-economy?r=oa0co&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
When you look at this as electric rates above and below the U.S. average, there is a strong correlation between red and blue states which also aligns with mandate and no mandate states.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/video/2025/11/17/the_federal_arc_bill_explained_how_washington_is_rewriting_americas_energy_playbook_1147979.html
Well done as usual Energy Bad Boys… I don’t know about y'all but the following statement from your article should piss off 90% of Americans in the clean hypocrisy mandated states: Overall, from 2020 through 2025, mandate states sought 32 percent higher rate increases than non-mandate states. Unfortunately voters in these states are clueless about such policies and how it impacts their personal lives. Many millions of these Americans should keep their fingers crossed 🤞 for Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security federal law to be enacted next year. ARC ES law will curb federal government’s overreach in mandating wind solar and batteries onto states & puts the proverbial monkey 🐒 on the state legislatures themselves, giving the voters a much better opportunity to see who is and who is not for their energy affordability & lower utility bills, cost of food, cost of fuel, & cost of living … I know who I’d vote for …
Please define your acronyms, guys. RPS? CES?
Apologies, Paul. Mark is correct
No worries. I confess that I do it too at times.
Morning Paul,
Last I checked CA’s definitions were as follows-
RPS=Renewable Portfolio Standard
CES= Clean Energy Standard
We moved to Ohio partly because natural gas was classified as a clean energy for policy purposes- as is nuclear.
we moved away from a state that is trying to get rid of natural gas.
I also request this, please. I had to look these acronyms up and found this website that defines both:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/portfolio-standards.php
And how much are oil companies funding the 'green' movement to raise costs overall while receiving taxpayer funds that increase the costs? And how much did the same companies work to 'kill' nuclear over the past decades? There is plenty of collusion to go around.
That is a dirty secret that lot's of those opposed to the Ecofascist cult are very uncomfortable with.
Let's try this a second time. I will just summarize what my original post was about.
In your "Major Revisions" graphic you show Wyoming not having either an RPS or CES, but there are many things that can work effectively the same, are likely to be expensive, and which sneak in under the best of rationales. Here is an example.
In 2020, the legislature added a section 18 to Title 37 which is the enabling legislation for our Public Service Commission. It was an attempt to maintain some coal combustion plants in the face of an adverse climate from Washington D.C., by definition and mandating carbon capture use and storage on new (if any should get built) or existing plants by a future date.
37-18-101 a) Defined clean thermal power as that which would have a CCUS unit capable of capturing 75% of emissions
37-18-102 a) mandated that by July 1, 2033 plants supplying electrical energy to some minimum number of customers using coal or gas would include a CCUS unit to become "clean" energy
So Wyoming has no RPS or CES, but does have a generation standard that will spring into action at some point in the next six years or so. It would function much like a CES.
There was a short lived attempt to neuter section 18 early in 2025, but only a couple of us in favor came to the Senate hearing and were allowed so little time (2 minutes each) to speak we could hardly get a case presented, and we were overwhelmed by the many speakers emphasizing the need to combat climate change. The attempt failed.
A CCUS unit will absorb about 25%, or maybe a bit more, of coal station output. A bit less for gas combustion. I had hoped to point out that just when views in the FERC, NERC and the Federal government involving thermal plants was changing to see combustion as vital to making the grid operate, we would be in effect closing one out of every four stations. I had calculated that a CCUS would raise the cost of power supplied by a station having such a unit by about 80% -- a combination of direct expenses going into the rate calculation and also taking into account the volumetric risk of having less commodity to sell and cover expenses.
One other factor that affected people's thinking in the process of enacting 37-18 was a belief that the carbon dioxide would becomes a valuable commodity in its own right. However, the major market for CO2 here is enhanced oil recovery. With station power constantly ramping up and down to balance wind/solar there'd likely have to be a buffer in between the CCUS and any oil customers, the additional compression demands of which would wipe out economic use.
The road to higher utility rates is paved with good intentions.
One of the best insights of your work is to not differentiate by the amount of renewables in grid, but rather differentiate on renewable mandates which could force its irrational deployment. Excellent
Unfortunately, that could also open up the concern that the poor performance is part of other policies typically implemented by mandating states. Not sure if your data could be partitioned in that way, but it would be interesting.
One thing I find interesting is that Texas is listed as a non-mandate state, but it is near the top of increases in rates for non-mandate states and also a huge builder of wind energy.
Seems to correlate pretty well, mandate or no mandate. Just build wind and your rates go up above the average.
It would be instructive to examine in detail a general rate case to see how rates are related to RPS, CES, and to other mandates that function somewhat similarly. In fact, one rate case I know about deeply raised such a ruckus that the utility changed its story about why rates were rising two times a long the way.
Hi Kevin I’m sorry I accidentally deleted your thread when I was trying to correct a typo in my reply.
Oops. I guess I could retype it, but I have dinner to prepare right now. At any rate, you guys are doing great work -- except for the occasional deletion.
Sorry again haha
Liked then immediately deleted. Just like dating when I was a young guy!