“States that embrace renewable energy are far more likely to save money for electricity consumers than those relying on fossil fuels or nuclear power, a POLITICO analysis of federal and industry data shows — findings that undermine one of the Trump administration’s main justifications for its aggressive rollback of federal clean energy policies.”
“A wind power farm in the mountains of far-Northern California was the first through the door of a new permit streamlining program that came with a lofty promise to renewable energy developers: Once a permit application was complete, the California Energy Commission would make a final ruling on the project within 270 days.
It’s been more than 650 days since Fountain Wind completed its application. But the agency still hasn’t made a final ruling, after fierce local opposition successfully derailed the permit review.”
Man-caused climate change is real, but it isn’t an existential crisis. It’s not going to destroy human civilization like a nuclear war would. Climate change will greatly damage economies and kill a lot of people, so it’s a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, but it isn’t existential.
Technologies like solar and windmills are good, but have trade offs. Many rightwing arguments like how inefficient these technologies are or how many birds they kill are based on original versions of these technologies that have been greatly improved upon; so these critiques are no longer valid and people making them either are ignorant on how outdated their information is, haven’t done their due diligence, or are being dishonest.
Cost benefit analyses on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions have already been done, and they overwhelmingly show that reducing emissions is worth it. However, it is only worth it if we cut emissions slowly. Cutting too fast likely makes the costs of cutting greater than the benefits.
“The energy provisions of the 900-plus page bill have come under particular scrutiny after last-minute changes phased out clean energy tax credits faster than expected and added new taxes on wind and solar projects.
At the same time, new last-minute inducements were unveiled for fossil fuels, including one classifying coal as a critical mineral when it comes to a government manufacturing credit.
“We’re doing coal,” Trump said in an interview released over the weekend on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” where he also called solar energy projects “ugly as hell.””
“Texas generates the most renewable energy in the nation. Three Republican bills being advanced by the state legislature could halt Texas’ green energy progress and give fossil fuels a leg up in the state’s energy market.
Senate Bill 388, which has passed the state Senate, would require at least 50 percent of power generation installed after January 1, 2026, to come from “dispatchable” energy sources, which include natural gas, nuclear power, and coal. This bill effectively subsidizes fossil fuel projects by requiring utility providers to purchase power generation credits from dispatchable energy sources.”
…
“A report from Aurora Energy Research estimates that this bill would add $5.2 billion to Texas power prices over the next decade; residents could pay an extra $200 per year in energy costs.”
…
“Using the “police power” of the state ignores what regulators and the market are saying: Texas needs every energy source to meet future demand. That includes renewables.”
“Trina Solar was in line to receive nearly $1.8 billion in tax credits under President Joe Biden’s climate law, as one of several Chinese solar businesses setting up factories in the United States to benefit from the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. But President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to dismember Biden’s climate agenda, and has called for taking a hard line against economic competition from China.
Trina said Trump’s victory had “nothing to do” with the sale of the factory near Dallas to the Georgia-based battery manufacturer Freyr.
“Rather, it is based on the company’s long-term growth in the country,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
But analysts said the news illustrated the impact of Trump’s victory on energy markets.”
“That solar power installations are going up as the technology improves and prices come down isn’t too surprising, but the sustained surge is still stunning.
“When you look at the absolute numbers that we’re on track for this year and that we installed last year, it is completely sort of mind-blowing,” said Euan Graham, lead author of the report and an electricity data analyst at Ember.
Several factors have aligned to push solar power installations so high in recent years, like better hardware, economies of scale, and new, ripe, energy-hungry markets. Right now, solar still just provides around 5.5 percent of the world’s electricity, so there’s enormous room to expand. But solar energy still poses some technical challenges to the power grid, and the world’s ravenous appetite for electrons means that countries are looking for energy wherever they can get it.
So if you’re concerned about climate change, it’s not enough that solar wins; greenhouse gasses must lose.”
…
“Energy storage technologies like batteries are also getting way better and cheaper. The price of batteries has tanked 97 percent since 1991. Because of better technology, falling costs, and more markets for saving power, the US is on track to double its grid energy storage capacity compared to last year. More than 10 gigawatts of solar and storage came online in 2023 across the country and that’s likely to double this year. “Energy storage is at an earlier stage [than solar] but we are likely to see rapid expansion in that segment, especially in regions where solar and wind penetration are high already such as California and Texas,” said Steve Piper, director of energy research at S&P Global Commodity Insights”
“Volatility in natural gas prices, including the huge spikes following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has certainly contributed to some price increases on the supply side. But the transmission and distribution costs have actually been going up at twice the rate of inflation nationwide, the report’s author, Brendan Pierpont, told me.
“That trend of increasing transmission and distribution costs is something that is noticeable all across the country, and so I think it’s an underlying factor in rate increases everywhere,” Pierpont said.
Utility companies have a lot of freedom in setting rates for transmission and distribution — and that directly contributes to how much profit they make. Utilities get to pick what gets upgraded when, and they also have an incentive to spend heavily, thanks to regulations that allow them to collect return on investment, usually around 10 percent, for those expenditures. This is actually built into the price most people pay for electricity.
Here’s how it works: Every year, utility companies ask regulators to approve a “revenue requirement,” which is basically a budget for what the utilities think it will cost to deliver enough electricity to their customers. Those estimates include spending on new equipment but not the cost of repairing old equipment. It also includes that return on investment, or profit, which regulators regularly approve. In Pierpont’s words, “That rate of return has a direct link to the costs that customers pay for electricity.”
What utilities don’t seem to be doing, however, is expanding the grid in a way that would benefit clean energy producers, the Energy Innovation report finds. Investments tend to cover local upgrades, like installing new metering equipment, rather than installing the high-voltage transmission lines that renewable energy sources need to connect to the grid. Meanwhile, consumers are facing more frequent outages that last longer, while utilities keep making more money for installing new, potentially unnecessary equipment.
“It’s like the utilities have a rewards credit card,” said Joel Rosenberg of Rewiring America, a nonprofit focused on electrification. “And they get to keep the rewards for how much they spend, and the [customers] have to pay off the bill, even if that bill takes 80 years to pay off.”
This plays right into the misconception that investment in renewables leads to higher rates.
Many of the states leading the way to clean energy are actually seeing lower energy prices than the rest of the country. Data from the US Energy Information Administration shows that 17 states, including California and Massachusetts, have increased their share of renewable energy sources by more than 20 percent since 2010. And with the exception of California, all of those states have seen the price of residential rate increases rise more slowly than inflation. The higher rates in California can be explained, in part, by rate increases to account for wildfire prevention. In Massachusetts, natural gas is the problem.
States where residents are seeing electricity bills that outpace inflation tend to be the ones with the highest reliance on natural gas, as highlighted in the Energy Innovation report. Some states in New England, including Massachusetts, have depended on natural gas for around 60 percent of electricity generation since 2020 and have seen prices increase by around 10 percent in the same period. Volatility in the price of natural gas also means that some of the highest price spikes are spread out over several years, so there could be more high prices in these states’ futures.”
“Clean energy is rapidly rising on the Texas power grid, but regulators in the Lone Star State are now considering a plan that could give fossil fuels a boost.
The zero greenhouse gas emissions trio — wind, solar, and nuclear energy — provided more than 40 percent of electricity in the state in 2022. It was a year when several Texas cities experienced their hottest summers on record, driving electricity demand to its highest levels ever as fans and air conditioners switched on. Winter proved stressful too, with freezing temperatures last month pushing winter electricity peaks to record-high levels, narrowly avoiding outages.”
…
“Texas leads the US in oil and natural gas production, but it’s also number one in wind power. Solar production in the state has almost tripled in the past three years. Part of the reason is that Texas is particularly suited to renewable energy on its grid. Wind turbines and solar panels in Texas have a high degree of “complementarity,” so shortfalls in one source are often matched by increases in another, smoothing out power production and reducing the need for other generators to step in. That has eased the integration of intermittent energy sources on the grid.
Coal, meanwhile, has lost more than half of its share in Texas since 2006. For a long time and across much of the country, the story was that cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing was eating coal’s lunch on the power grid. Coal was also facing tougher environmental regulations like stricter limits on mercury, requiring coal power plants to upgrade their equipment, and raising electricity production costs.”
…
“in Texas, natural gas’s share of the electricity mix has been holding around 40 percent for more than a decade. On the other hand, renewable energy has surged as coal withered. Wind alone started beating out coal in 2019 and is now the second-largest source of electricity behind natural gas in the state.
An important factor is that the state has its own internal power grid, serving 26 million customers and meeting 90 percent of its electricity demand. It’s managed by the nonprofit Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. In the freewheeling Texas energy market, the cheapest sources of electricity become dominant, and wind and solar — with low construction costs, rapid build times, and zero fuel expenses — have emerged as winners.”
…
“Some lawmakers are now working to tilt the balance toward fossil fuels. “There are different political figures who are trying to incentivize gas power plants or deny, prohibit, or inhibit renewables,” Webber said.
Last year, the Texas legislature passed a law that would prevent the state’s retirement and investment funds from doing business with companies that “boycott” fossil fuels.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said one of his legislative priorities for this year is to secure more support for natural gas-fired generation. “We have to level the playing field so that we attract investment in natural gas plants,” Patrick said during a press conference last November. “We can’t leave here next spring unless we have a plan for more natural gas power.””
…
“While wind and solar power are ascendant, they are intermittent, and regulators want to make sure there is enough dispatchable power like natural gas to ramp up on still, cloudy days. The new proposal would create a credit scheme that would encourage more of these dispatchable plants to come online and extend a lifeline to some existing generators that are struggling to compete. But it would also raise the costs of electricity production.
Environmental groups like the Sierra Club noted that the proposal leaves the door open for other tactics for balancing electricity supply and demand, like energy storage, increasing energy efficiency, and demand response.”