From CFACT

By David Wojick

It is called the U.S. Climate Alliance, and while making electricity more costly may not be the goal, it is the certain outcome of their goal, which is to end fossil fuel use.

The 23 members of the Alliance are basically those states with Democrat governors. This is not quite true, as one member has a Republican governor and two states with Democrat governors are not members. It is close enough that we can think of it as the Democrat governors organized to end fossil fuel use.

The fundamental goal is clearly stated on their home page:

“Alliance members are committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.”

What is deeply ironic is that the Democrats are widely running on a platform of affordable electricity which is often simply termed “affordability.” The reality is that the standard steps for reducing fossil fuel use all work to drive up the cost of electricity.

There are four different technologies involved in cutting fossil fuel use. Here is a quick look at how each drives up the cost of electricity.

First is intermittent wind and solar power. Here is problem is that grid reliability requires that reliable generation must always be available, all the way up to peak need. When wind and solar are producing energy this reliable generation stands idle which is very expensive. There may be fuel savings, but these are not the biggest cost, which is the mortgage payments.

Second is grid scale batteries which can reduce intermittency a little, but which are extremely expensive. Net zero would require trillions of dollars’ worth of huge batteries. See my “Constraining Renewables is a National Need” for details.

Third is electric vehicles which cut fossil fuel use in transportation. These greatly increase the need for electricity which means building a lot more reliable generation that will then be made inefficient and expensive with more intermittent wind and solar power. In addition, expensive upgrades to the local distribution system may be needed to supply adequate electricity for charging, even for a small number of EVs.

Fourth is utility funded energy efficiency projects which many Alliance States mandate. These supposedly reduce costs in the long run but are very expensive up front. For example, if a project pays for itself in 20 years, then it initially costs twenty times the annual savings. These costs are typically paid by the ratepayers.

The Climate Alliance states are heavily promoting all four of these very expensive technologies because this is how fossil fuel use is reduced in accordance with the Paris Agreement. All the member states have “Clean electricity standards” and 19 have “100% clean electricity goals.” Many have “energy storage goals” as well and massive efficiency programs.

The Alliance website even has a searchable “Policy Database” that contains numerous state laws and executive orders mandating the use of these expensive technologies to reduce fossil fuel use.

The Climate Alliance states are basically what are called the Blue States. Taken together these expensive policies may well explain a lot of the Blue State electricity cost increases which far exceed the Red State increases. See the “Blue States, High Rates” website for more information.

There have been a number of studies of the cost increases but I have not seen one that looks at all four of these big expense factors. Some will be hard to get good data on, so the cost impact is well hidden.