Tag: Democrats

Climate Alliance’s anti-affordability platform raises big election issues

Eighteen of the 23 Climate Alliance Governorships are up for grabs in November so the Alliance’s anti-affordability platform is especially important. There are also thousands of State Legislator races. Nor does it end with this election.

Here the worst anti-affordability case is net-zero which is impossibly expensive. The Alliance says 16 of its member states already have “net-zero GHG goals” and more are wanted. In addition, 20 members have “economy-wide GHG goals” and all have “State climate action plans.”

A coastal landscape featuring multiple wind turbines standing tall against a colorful sky during twilight.
wind turbines on the coastal mud flat in sunset

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Eighteen of the 23 Climate Alliance Governorships are up for grabs in November, so the Alliance’s anti-affordability platform is especially important. There are also thousands of State Legislator races. Nor does it end with this election.

Energy affordability is a central issue nationwide and the Democrats say they are all for it, but the Alliance platform says otherwise. The Democrats need to be called out on their hypocrisy so here is a quick overview of what they have signed up for in joining the Alliance.

The platform is here.

Listed below are the Alliance’s ten State-level “Policy Priorities” with some of the more anti-affordability features pointed out, to be used for questioning candidates.

Here is how the Alliance puts it: “Together, Alliance members are advancing a series of bold, high-impact actions across 10 key policy areas.”

Unfortunately, the high- impact is often a hard hit on energy affordability. This anti-affordability needs to be called out, candidate by candidate.

The Climate Alliance’s ten policy priorities:

GHG Targets & Governance

Here the worst anti-affordability case is net-zero which is impossibly expensive. The Alliance says 16 of its member states already have “net- zero GHG goals” and more are wanted. In addition, 20 members have “economy-wide GHG goals” and all have “State climate action plans.”

Buildings

They have a specific and incredibly expensive net-zero goal for buildings:

“Alliance members are committed to decarbonizing the buildings sector, including collectively achieving zero-emission new construction as soon as practicable, accelerating efforts to eliminate emissions from existing buildings, and collectively quadrupling heat pump installations across the coalition by 2030.”

Climate Finance

It is all about net-zero which is incredibly expensive:

“Alliance members are deploying a wide range of financial policies and programs, leveraging diverse funding sources, and partnering across the public and private sectors to finance the net-zero transition.”

The adverse impact on affordability is simply ignored.

Electricity

The policy is single minded — decarbonize the grid:

“Alliance members are developing policy pathways and programs to decarbonize the electricity grid, including establishing interim targets and identifying opportunities to better align planning and procurement processes for generation, distribution, and transmission resources with our collective climate goals.”

They say that 19 member states already have “100% clean electricity goals” with more needed. That this dramatically drives up the cost of electricity is not considered.

Industry

Net-zero for all GHGs from the entire supply chain, not just industry:

“Alliance members are establishing innovative policy frameworks for eliminating GHG emissions from the industrial sector and its supply chains while fostering the growth of a strong, domestic clean manufacturing economy.”

This is impossibly expensive.

Just Transition & Equity

Complex and costly social policies:

“Alliance members are partnering with frontline communities to develop climate and clean energy solutions, directing significant expenditures to create environmental and economic benefits for vulnerable and overburdened populations, and accelerating the development of a climate-ready workforce, including by collectively supporting 1 million new workers in completing Registered Apprenticeship programs across the coalition by 2035.”

Natural & Working Lands

Vague but potentially disruptive and expensive sequestration:

“Alliance members are scaling best practices for land management, restoration, and conservation to contribute to emission reductions and carbon sequestration at the scale needed for deep decarbonization and, where appropriate, integrating natural and working lands into state mitigation and resilience plans with ambitious goals that center equity and prioritize actions that deliver multiple benefits.”

Pricing Carbon & Valuing Damages

Carbon taxes and rationing plus the bogus social cost of carbon:

“Alliance members are incentivizing cost-effective emissions reductions by setting prices or caps on carbon pollution while also considering societal and environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, including the social cost of greenhouse gases, across relevant policy-making and decision-making processes.”

Resilience

Nonsensical climate change impacts:

“Alliance members are integrating physical climate risk and prioritizing climate adaptation and equity in state planning and decision making to help communities prevent, reduce, withstand, and recover from climate-related impacts and disasters. States, which have varying needs and capacity, will utilize and share best practices to bolster resilience and tailor effective solutions.”

Transportation

The policy is “….to decarbonize the transportation sector by reducing vehicle miles traveled and significantly increasing access to and the affordability of zero-emission vehicles, clean fuels, and multi-modal options.”

So, in addition to pushing expensive EVs, which drives up the need for costly new electricity supply, they want to curtail travel.

Every candidate who says they want affordability should be questioned hard on these outrageously anti-affordability policies.

Politicians organize to drive up the cost of electricity

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.

A businessman reacts dramatically as a hand reaches for a plug connected to an electrical outlet, with a digital-themed background.
Businessman losing energy to work

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.

Can You See The Climate Scare Slowly Fading Away?

We come to the key role of the New York Times for the Left, which is to mold and convey the official talking points to the team’s candidates and influencers. How about sharing some instruction on how to quietly back away from the Green New Deal?

From The Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

I have often noted that the climate scam and the associated forced energy transition would of necessity go away at some point because the proposals being advocated to “save the planet” could never possibly work. But the open question has always been, when that happens, what will it look like? Would all the big enviro groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club all go on national TV one night and admit that the whole thing was a fake scare from the beginning? In the real world, that’s not how these things happen. People who have staked out absurd positions somehow need to save face. So there would have to be some sort of gradual process of backing down.

And thus we come to the key role of the New York Times for the Left, which is to mold and convey the official talking points to the team’s candidates and influencers. How about sharing some instruction on how to quietly back away from the Green New Deal?

Today on page A-12 of the print edition there is a piece with the headline “Democrats Once Vowed to Stop Oil and Gas. Now They’re Not So Sure.” The subheadline is “As the midterm elections approach, many leading Democrats are rethinking their approach to climate change.” The online version indicates that the piece first appeared there five days ago, June 11. They held it for the print edition until today, and then buried it deeply on page A-12. The casual reader may not get that far, but the person who will see it is the party apparatchik who needs direction from central headquarters. Excerpt:

With voters worried about spiking gas prices and inflation, some [Democratic Party] leaders argue that they should stop trying to throttle oil and gas, which heat the planet when burned. It’s a rejection of the approach taken during the Biden administration, which treated climate change as an existential threat and tried to stop new drilling and pipelines. . . . The result could be a less ambitious climate agenda if the party returns to power in Washington. . . . Now many Democrats argue that the path back to power means abandoning some of their most aggressive stances on climate change.

The piece is filled with useful pointers in how to tone down the catastrophism. Most of that seems to involve an end to vilifying oil and gas, while continuing to promote wind and solar as the “cheapest” ways to produce electricity. (They still haven’t figured out that by the time you include costs of integrating wind and solar into the grid, those things are a far more expensive way to produce electricity than fossil fuels.). Here are some of the pointers:

  • “Rather than pushing green solutions only, many Democrats say they have a better way to bridge the gap: Be the party of yes to all forms of energy. After all, they argue, wind and solar power are often the cheapest forms of electricity and the fastest to deploy. On an even playing field, they say, renewables would beat fossil fuels.”
  • “We shouldn’t be against the domestic oil and gas industry, but we have to be for the energy transition,” said Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist. “Democrats should be running toward that instead of away from it.”
  • Rahm Emanuel, the former congressman, chief of staff to President Barack Obama and mayor of Chicago who is exploring a 2028 White House run, said Democrats need to focus on household budgets, specifically electric and gas bills.“I’m not against talking about climate policy, but you’ve got to talk about it as energy and energy prices,” Mr. Emanuel said, “and you talk about it as it relates to protecting ratepayers.”

And if you stop vilifying the oil and gas industries, you can even start taking their money!:

[Recently] in California, . . . Tom Steyer, a champion of fighting global warming, was edged out of this month’s gubernatorial primary by Xavier Becerra. Mr. Becerra, a moderate Democrat, questioned the state’s most stringent climate goals, like ending sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, and received donations from oil and gas companies.

If the Democratic candidates are getting this message, it could be that the climate scare suddenly mostly disappears from the upcoming midterm elections. Wouldn’t that be an incredible change!

On the other hand, so far this is just about messaging. Even if the messaging changes, that does not mean that the goals of the Democrats on taking power will have changed. Certainly, over in the Endangerment Finding litigation, dozens of enviro groups and all the blue states continue to argue that atmospheric CO2 (the product of use of fossil fuels) is a “danger” to human health and welfare. Where Democrats rule, the destructive policies will continue until either there is some sort of catastrophic grid failure or the costs become too wildly excessive to credibly blame on some bogeyman.

POLITICO: ‘Climate hushing’ – ‘The sound of (climate) silence’ – ‘As Trump unravels U.S. climate policy, Dems & enviro groups have grown strangely quiet’ – Dems ‘may not aggressively pursue climate action if they win back power’

Call it the great “climate hushing.”

At least, that’s how Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, refers to the shift in Washington’s response to the planet’s increasingly dire outlook.

From Watts Up With That?

From CLIMATE DEPOT

By Admin

The sound of (climate) silence – POLITICO

BY ARIANNA SKIBELL

Excerpt:

Call it the great “climate hushing.”

At least, that’s how Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, refers to the shift in Washington’s response to the planet’s increasingly dire outlook.

As President Donald Trump unravels U.S. climate policy, Democrats and environmental groups have grown strangely quiet about the flashing warning signs of an imperiled climate system, writes Zack Colman.

New research shows the planet is heating up more quickly than previously thought, which could worsen damage from a potentially historic El Niño, shrink Arctic ice cover to record lows and push a critical ocean current that regulates weather closer to collapse.

“You have to remember that these consequences, a lot of them are irreversible, effectively — certainly in a human lifetime — and you’re piling up debt,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geosciences professor and contributing author to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “And we’re not going to be able to afford it later.”

Last year, Republicans eroded President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act — the largest-ever U.S. action to confront climate change — in their megalaw to extend tax cuts and shrink social safety net programs. So as the midterms approach, Democrats have pivoted to energy affordability.

…

“A fair number of Democrats who have long been champions of climate action themselves have remained or have gone quiet,” Leiserowitz said. “I just don’t see any reason why they need to be scaredy cats.”

…

But experts worry the shift in Democrats’ rhetoric means they may not aggressively pursue climate action if they win back power in Washington. The road is already uphill: the Trump administration has terminated grants for climate research, brain-drained federal work on the issue and floated draconian cuts to satellites and other programs to monitor the Earth’s climate.

…

Related: 

POLITICO: ‘Climate hushing’ – ‘The sound of (climate) silence’ – ‘As Trump unravels U.S. climate policy, Dems & enviro groups have grown strangely quiet’ – Dems ‘may not aggressively pursue climate action if they win back power’

‘Messaging Misalignment’: Democrats admit climate/green energy hurt them in 2024 election! From the infamous Democrat 2024 postmortem report: ‘Climate change & green energy transition messaging created anxiety among workers in traditional industries worried about job losses’

Trump is Melting Down the Climate Hysteria! – Keynote speech in DC

Morano: ‘We’re at the lowest point of the climate movement’s influence and power in the last 50 years — environmentalism as well. Don’t know how long it’ll last. But the title of my speech is: The Great Reject.…— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) May 26, 2026

Democrats Retreat from Climate Activism (energy affordability, electability in play)

“[New York Governor] Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.” – Politico, March 7, 2026

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“[New York Governor] Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.” – Politico, March 7, 2026

Next time you hear that climate policies are affordable or that wind and solar save money, look out the window. What are consumers saying? What are politicians under affordability pressure saying? No quantity of studies or fearmongering about climate can refute what is happening in the real world. Energy prices, energy economics, matter.

NY Governor Kathy Hochul

Democrat politicians today are retreating from heady climate goals of the past. Consider this article in Politico, “‘Hurting peoples’ pocketbooks’: Hochul pushes to pare back landmark climate law.”

“The New York governor is pushing for changes to the state’s landmark climate law because of affordability concerns, reflecting a national clash between high energy prices and environmental goals,” Marie French reports, adding:

It’s a major shift for Gov. Kathy Hochul, who once championed New York’s climate efforts on a global stage and rejected permits for gas power plants. The moderate Democrat has laid the groundwork to seek changes in secretive, closed-door budget negotiations in Albany in the coming weeks. The state’s Green New Deal embodied in 2019 legislation is in trouble. In Hochul’s words: “There were so many unforeseen factors. There’s going to be enormous costs.

New York State’s retreat–“it could be the most significant rollback on climate action in a liberal bastion since progressives embraced the “’Green New Deal’ concept”–is part of something bigger. French:

Hochul’s positioning reflects a national shift among Democrats on energy as they refocus on affordability amid near-term implementation challenges and seemingly insurmountable federal opposition to clean energy. Likely 2028 presidential contenders — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have also slowed or abandoned some climate-friendly proposals.

Moreover, reports French, “Hochul’s shift could become a blueprint for Democrats across the country as they desperately try to convince voters they’re aggressively tackling cost-of-living concerns — including energy bills — ahead of the midterm elections.”

As far as cost-inflation, what opponents call “Green New Deal Scam,” Hochul warns that CO2 pricing could increase gasoline prices by increase gasoline prices by $2.23 cents per gallon and home heating fuel costs above $3,000 per year.

Critics of the the rollback concede that energy affordability (social justice?) is important. But they fallaciously contend that wind, solar, and other forced climate policies are money-savers. Nope: listen to the public and your own politicians for a change.

Sheldon Whitehouse Holds Out

The story was similiar in another POLITICO article, “Democrats are shying away from climate messaging. One of their own is fighting back” (January 25, 2026). “One of Congress’ loudest climate hawks is trying to fend off a push within his party to abandon calls to combat climate change as left-leaning agenda-setters are plotting to reclaim both chambers of Congress in the midterms,” Amelia Davidson and Kelsey Brugger begin. The political problem?

Now Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change. Instead, they’re choosing to focus on policies that would lower energy costs and lean hard into affordability talking points embraced by Trump and congressional Republicans.

The retreat of climate activism as a kitchen table issue has been increasingly noted. “Is this really the climate movement’s next chapter?” asked Stephen Lacey, cofounder and executive editor of Latitude Media, a publication “covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.”

Davidson and Brugger continue:

If so, it will end in nothing more than further alienating voters. The progressive approach to climate mobilization has largely failed to build durable coalitions and policies. The election of Trump clearly showed that kitchen table issues matter most. We are in an extraordinary moment where people are struggling to pay their energy bills — and this is the answer? I agree with Michael Liebreich that we need a deep, pragmatic climate reset.

A Megatrend

MasterResource has followed the shifting politics of climate alarm and forced energy transformation. Note these posts from the last year alone.

The retreat began before Trump II as global politics against fossil fuels stalled amid energy and economic realities. Earlier posts included:

Appendix: A Wider Problem

The wider problem for the Progressive Left’s takeover of the Democrat Party has been noted in month’s past. Some quotations from the New York Times:

I don’t see how a “fighting” Democratic Party can hope to win back the Senate, let alone build what every fighting liberal claims to want — the kind of durable majority that could actually marginalize Trumpism and populism — if it doesn’t admit to itself that what happened in 2024 wasn’t just about Joe Biden’s age or Elon Musk’s algorithm. It was also an ideological referendum, and progressivism lost.

– Ross Douthat, “It’s Obvious Why Harris Lost in 2024. But Can Democrats Accept It?” New York Times (November 1, 2025)

“Inside the Democratic Party — in its backrooms and its group chats, its conferences and its online flame wars — an increasingly bitter debate has taken hold over what the party needs to become to beat back Trumpism. Does it need to be more populist? More moderate? More socialist? Embrace the abundance agenda? Produce more vertical video?

The answer is yes, yes to all of it — but to none of it in particular. The Democratic Party does not need to choose to be one thing. It needs to choose to be more things.”

”That will require a more pluralistic approach to politics. It will require the Democratic Party to see internal difference as a strength that requires cultivation rather than a flaw that demands purification. That is the spirit it needs to embrace. Not moderation. Not progressivism. But, in the older political sense of the term, representation.”

“One worry I have about Democrats right now is that they do not want to confront how much of the country disagrees with them.”

– Ezra Klein, “This Is the Way You Beat Trump — and Trumpism.” New York Times (November 2, 2025)

Whether or not recent foreign policy (the Iraq War) reverses the above remains to be seen.

When It Comes to Climate and Energy, Let’s Retire the Politics of Fear

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

A speaker delivers a speech from a podium in a grand hall, with a large audience of formal attendees seated in rows.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A polar bear standing on a small iceberg in a turbulent ocean, surrounded by melting ice and floating newspapers about climate change, with a fiery background and an earth-like planet visible in the sky.

In the latest example of the scare tactics favored by climate change alarmists, it was announced last month that 2025 “was the third- warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service,” as reported by NBC News.

The story added, “The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data. In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900 — the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.”

As usual, our most affordable and reliable fuel sources were blamed.

“The primary reason for these record temperatures is the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dominated by the burning of fossil fuels,” according to Samantha Burgess, the “strategic lead on climate” for the European Centre for Medium- Range Weather Forecasts, which operates Copernicus, according to the report.

Sometimes it feels like the climate change crusaders are oblivious to everything going on around them. For decades, they’ve been resorting to the same tired strategies to convince us that doom and gloom are just around the corner if we don’t change our ways. What they ignore is that their tactics aren’t working – more people than ever are tuning them out.

Americans in particular have grown wise to the predictions that don’t come true and the demands that don’t make sense. In fact, so badly has science become blatantly politicized that the number of people who have a great amount of trust in science keeps shrinking.

That fact was backed up by a recent Pew Research Center report that found that “Americans’ confidence in scientists remains lower than it was prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.” To many of us, it is now obvious that the inconsistent guidance on Covid and many pandemic edicts that were later found to be ineffective and even misleading demonstrated that science was not above being overtly politicized.

While the Pew study noted a Democrat-Republican disparagement regarding trust in science (Democrats trust it more, Republicans less), only 28 percent of all U.S. adults said they have “a great deal” of confidence in scientists “to act in the public’s best interest.”

I recently noted the welcome admission by manmade climate change believer Noah Kauffman, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, who, writing for The Atlantic, said flatly that “the full effects of climate change are unknowable, and a more constructive public discussion about climate policy will require getting more comfortable with that.” Whether in regard to vaccines, dietary guidelines or climate change, in recent years science has too often found itself at the center of partisan political debates and lost the trust of many Americans by appearing to support certain causes over others based on ideology rather than pure scientific data.

But we can’t afford to let that happen when it comes to making energy decisions. Why? Because no one can deny that affordable energy is the key to economic prosperity for American households and businesses.

When energy costs are low, manufacturers can produce goods at a lower cost, resulting in more competitive products domestically and internationally.

When fuel is affordable – whether diesel, gasoline or jet fuel – all modes of transportation, including airlines, trucking and shipping companies, can charge less, resulting in savings for all consumers.

Heating, cooling and transportation costs represent the most significant share of most families’ budgets. When energy costs are reasonable, household spending on other goods and services increases, not only helping individual families but contributing to overall economic growth.

In addition to everything else, there is real damage caused by manipulating science in a way that puts climate over people. It puts people in danger and keeps them in poverty – and ultimately only a privileged few will benefit.

Consider the billions the Biden Administration doled out to political cronies on its way out the door in the name of the climate cause. Consider also the Obama Administration giving a half billion dollars to Solyndra, the solar panel company accused of engaging in “a pattern of false and misleading assertions,” only to see it go bust – all at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans.

That’s why it’s important to remove the manipulation of the energy sector from the politicization that has infiltrated the scientific community. Americans should not be pawns in the effort to frighten our people or our government into abandoning our most reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy sources.

There’s a better way. By passing the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Act (ARC-ES), Congress can codify into law the guarantee that Americans will always have access to low-cost energy, regardless of the effort of progressive political groups to weaponize science in order to funnel tax dollars to prop up “alternatives.”

Anyone can manipulate data to come up with horrifying “what if” scenarios designed to frighten or intimidate people into making their preferred choices. That’s not how to make public policy. We need to pass ARC-ES to move past the days when the science that fewer people trust is manipulated to justify changes in energy policy that few people want. When it comes to science, let’s trade the politics of panic for the integrity of facts.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Democrats Are Behind Your Crippling Electricity Bills, Report Confirms

State policies are a monumental factor in electricity costs, and Democrat-led states have driven prices upward through pushing aggressive mandates and choking reliable power supply, according to a new report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

A man in a suit passionately speaking at a podium, with the text 'No gas and oil' prominently displayed.

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation

Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter

State policies are a monumental factor in electricity costs, and Democrat-led states have driven prices upward through pushing aggressive mandates and choking reliable power supply, according to a new report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

The new report, first provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation, found that blue states generally have higher electricity costs than red states. Titled “Blue States, High Rates. Electricity Prices: Elections Have Consequences,” IER’s report notes that all but one of the top 10 most expensive states for energy — measured by cost per kilowatt hour — are governed by Democrats.

In contrast, 80% of the states with the most affordable electricity costs per kilowatt hour are “reliably red,” according to IER. Twenty of the 25 states with the lowest electricity prices are red states, while only four are blue, and one is purple, the report states.

Always on Energy Research partnered with IER on the report.

“This is a blue state problem,” IER President Tom Pyle told the DCNF, arguing that prescribing any blame to President Donald Trump for soaring electricity costs is misplaced. “[America needs to] put an emphasis on providing dispatchable electricity generation, namely by keeping coal plants open, even building new coal plants, nuclear and particularly natural gas. I think the administration is doing everything they can in spite of what the blue states have been doing over the years. Other words, Trump’s trying to save them from themselves.” 

(RELATED: Here’s Why Your Electricity Bill May Skyrocket This Holiday Season)

Blue States, High Rates – Long – Final by audreystreb

IER drew data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) as well as the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to compare state electricity prices and evaluate how policy decisions might have influenced costs. Several states, which are generally Democrat-led, have set strict “ideological mandates,” according to IER, to phase out coal and rig their power grids to reflect specific emissions goals.

“More than almost any other product, electricity prices are a direct result of state energy policies because states have the exclusive power to decide which resources supply their grids,” the report states. “Electricity prices are especially high in traditionally liberal areas of the country. In total, 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average in the continental U.S. are reliably blue, having voted for the Democratic nominee for president in the 2020 and 2024 elections.”

IER notes that the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs report confirmed that “each of the top five most expensive states for electricity have mandates requiring 100% of their power to come from renewable or carbon-free sources, making their electricity unnecessarily more expensive.”

The report points to these emissions goals, the premature retirement of coal and nuclear plants, natural gas restrictions and other mandates like net metering requirements as price-inflating factors.

Affordability has become a major Democrat talking point and appeared to be a winning message in the November New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections. As Democrats continue to hammer the affordability angle, IER notes in the report that Democrat-led states are devastating for affordability when it comes to energy policy.

“Americans pay dramatically different electric bills depending on which party controls their state capitol. High electricity prices are not an inevitability; they are a choice,” the report states. “And in state after state, they are a choice made by left-wing policymakers who have prioritized climate symbolism over working families’ budgets.”

Outliers like Alaska and New Mexico — one a red state with high rates, the other a blue state with low rates — illustrate that some other factors also contribute to electricity costs, according to Pyle. Alaska’s isolated terrain and dispersed communities drive up transmission costs, whereas New Mexico’s plentiful natural gas resources help keep prices low, Pyle said.

The report highlights some example states to illustrate how policies impact the local energy market and affect affordability, which include New York, California, Florida, Louisiana and Kentucky.

New York 

IER states in the report that New York’s electricity prices are 58% higher than the national average. New York has set several stringent green energy mandates, with New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act requiring the state to generate 70% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

Notably, New York is also a part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro recently moved to exit.

New York also decommissioned the Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2021 under former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, which had provided 25% of New York City’s electricity, according to a local news outlet. Environmental activists championed the move, though Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is now exploring nuclear power expansion in her state in the name of reliability and affordability.

IER noted that the state also “suffers from natural gas supply issues due to its decision to ban hydraulic fracturing.”

California

IER identifies California’s policies that have “deliberately sidelined reliable, conventional fuels” as driving its steep electricity costs.

California’s electricity costs are the second-highest in the nation, behind Hawaii, and its ratepayers pay twice the national average for electricity, according to the report. The Golden State has set a whole host of green energy mandates as it “prioritizes emissions reduction over affordability,” the report states.

While wildfires play into California’s utility bills, Pyle told the DCNF that Florida also faces intense weather seasons and the state does not have exorbitant energy costs.

 (RELATED: Gavin Newsom Tries To Own Trump By Bragging About ‘Absurd’ California Energy Polices)

Florida and Louisiana 

The report shows that red states like Florida and Louisiana are not burdened with exorbitant electricity costs.

“Americans struggling with utility bills need the same thing Florida and Louisiana residents already have: state leaders willing to put affordability and reliability ahead of ideological mandates,” the report states, warning that “until more states follow the red-state model, millions of households and businesses will continue to pay the price for expensive electricity as a deliberate political choice.”

“Florida keeps rates below the national average despite near-universal air conditioning demand and frequent hurricanes,” the report continues. “Louisiana enjoys the third-lowest rates in the nation while utilizing its abundant natural gas resources. Both states have done so under sustained Republican governance that has largely rejected the renewable mandate model.”

Kentucky 

Kentucky’s electricity rates are 21% lower than the national average, the report states.

“The reasons are straightforward — 67% of Kentucky’s electricity is generated by coal and 26% by natural gas,” IER notes in the report. “Unlike states such as California or New York, Kentucky has not burdened ratepayers with the carbon dioxide reduction mandates or renewable energy requirements that inflate electricity costs.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rising Electricity Prices? Blame Green Energy Policies, Not President Trump

Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.

A digitally illustrated image featuring a businessman standing in a green field with the sun rising behind him. The background includes industrial and iconic American structures, such as the Capitol building and the Statue of Liberty, along with a flying eagle.

From Watts Up With That?

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal.

Electricity prices are rising, and Democrats blame President Trump. For years, articles in the media have said that renewables provide the lowest-cost electricity, claiming that wind and solar generators were cheaper than coal, natural gas, and nuclear. But prices are soaring in green energy states that install wind and solar and close coal plants.

Rahm Emanual, former Democrat mayor of Chicago and White House chief of staff, recently said that bigger electric bills “are a direct result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which cut green energy subsidies.” But the OBBB became law in July, subsidy cuts don’t take place until 2027, and power prices have been rising for many years while subsidies were in place. Green energy states obsessed with climate policies are suffering from escalating prices.

Data from the US Department of Energy (DOE) show that electricity prices in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York have risen more than 30 percent in the last five years compared with just 22.5% nationally. Because of climate policies, these states closed their coal-fired power plants over the last 15 years, with the exception of one coal plant in Maryland and one in Maine. In comparison, prices in Georgia, Florida, Missouri, Texas and other states hampered less by green energy initiatives are rising less than the U.S. average. These states continue to be more friendly to lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation.

Bar graph showing 5-Year Percent Price Increase of electricity across various states from 2019 to 2024, highlighting California, Maine, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and comparing to averages in Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Missouri.

California’s electricity prices are up 59% over the last five years. The state closed all but one of its coal plants and all nuclear facilities except the Diablo Canyon plant. California now has the nation’s second highest residential electricity prices at 31.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, almost double the national price of 16.5 cents. The state’s massive investment in renewable sources, which accounted for more than half of California’s in-state electricity generation in 2024, has driven the price jump.

Power prices in Massachusetts are up 31% over the last five years. Residential prices are 29.4 cents/kWh, the third highest in the nation. The state produces only about half of the electricity it produced in 2010 because of closures of coal plants and the Pilgrim nuclear plant in 2019. Commercial and residential solar provided about one-fourth of Massachusetts power generation in 2024. Plans call for all new generating capacity to be wind and solar.  

Surging electricity prices were a top issue in the New Jersey gubernatorial election. Candidates Jack Cittarelli and Mikie Sherrill both criticized the power policies of retiring governor Phil Murphy. Driven by green energy goals, New Jersey closed one nuclear plant, five coal plants, and two gas plants during the terms of governors Murphy and Chris Christie. Because of the plant closures, the state must now import about one-fifth of its power from other states. Both Murphy and Christie promoted offshore wind, but these projects are now stalled due to rising costs and Trump Administration opposition.

Green policies have created a costly natural-gas shortage in New England. In 2024, gas generated 55% of electricity for New England homes. But for more than a decade, New York blocked the construction of gas pipelines to New England in an effort to decarbonize. To reduce the shortage, the region imports liquified natural gas from Canada and overseas locations at higher prices.

The lack of pipelines forces residents in Connecticut and other New England states to pay as much as double the price for gas compared to residents in other states. Connecticut electricity prices have climbed 31% in the past five years largely because of gas restrictions. The Trump Administration is pushing to revive the Constitution and NESE pipelines to bring lower-cost gas to New England, projects that were blocked by New York.

New York electricity prices rose 37% over the last five years. The New York State Scoping Plan calls for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% zero-emissions electricity by 2040. The state closed its last coal plant and also the Indian Point nuclear plant in 2020, planning to generate increasing output from wind and solar sources. But renewables have not grown fast enough and the New York Independent System Operator now warns of a growing power shortfall.

Power prices in Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas have risen 21% or less over the last five years. These states continue to rely on lower-cost hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation: Florida (73% gas, 6% coal), Georgia (41% gas, 16% coal), Missouri (14% gas, 67% coal), and Texas (54% gas, 21% coal).

Other DOE data shows that, in most cases, electricity prices in the leading wind states are rising faster than the national average. From 2008 to 2024, national prices rose 33.4%, with most of the increase over the last five years. But power prices in seven of the top 12 wind states rose faster than the national average, including California (116%), Minnesota (59%), Oregon (57%), Kansas (51%), Colorado (42%), Nebraska (40%), and Iowa (37%). Wind is more expensive than traditional electricity sources because wind uses huge amounts of land, requires two or three times as much transmission infrastructure, and is intermittent, requiring backup from dispatchable power plants.

Bar graph illustrating the electricity price increase in leading US wind states from 2008 to 2024, with colors representing states that had increases (red) and decreases (green) relative to the national average increase of 33.4%.

Democrats should stop blaming Republicans for soaring energy prices in blue states that their own green energy policies cause. If they want prices to reverse course, then they should use the electricity sources that are actually cheaper.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

STEVE MILLOY: President Trump Moves To End The War On Coal

President Trump took two major steps this week to end the 14-year-old Democrat war against the coal industry and cheap electricity. Although greens have promised to sue, they are unlikely to succeed as the moves have pretty much been pre-approved by the Supreme Court.

From Watts Up With That?

THE DAILY CALLER

Steve Milloy
Contributor

President Trump took two major steps this week to end the 14-year-old Democrat war against the coal industry and cheap electricity. Although greens have promised to sue, they are unlikely to succeed as the moves have pretty much been pre-approved by the Supreme Court.

First, EPA proposed to roll back all greenhouse gas emission standards for coal plants. The Obama EPA first issued climate emissions standards for coal plants in August 2015. These rules didn’t last long as they were stayed by the Supreme Court in February 2016.

Although President Trump proceeded to replace the Clean Power Plan with the much less expensive and more practical Affordable Clean Energy rule in June 2019, that effort was rejected by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in January 2021. But that turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory for climate activists. (RELATED: STEVE MILLOY: Big Beautiful Bill Won’t Raise Electricity Prices)

In June 2022, the Supreme Court invalidated the Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA on the basis of a first-time used constitutional theory called the major questions doctrine. Under that doctrine, unless a regulatory agency can point to express authorization from Congress for a major regulatory program, the program is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. The Clean Power Plan had no such authorization.

But the never-admit-defeat Biden EPA went back to the drawing board and issued a new rule that can essentially be thought of as a Clean Power Plan 2.0. It is this rule that the Trump EPA is now rolling back.

When the greens sue the Trump EPA, the agency will be able to point to West Virginia v. EPA and say that neither the Biden EPA nor the Trump EPA have been expressly authorized by Congress to regulate emissions from coal plants. This should be a winning argument.

The second rule to be rolled back is something called the Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS). As far as the war on coal is concerned, this is actually a much more important EPA rule as it was the one the Obama EPA used to wreck 50 percent of the US coal industry. Issued in 2012, the MATS rule was aimed at reducing mercury emissions from coal plants, something that sounded scarier than it really was.

When EPA did the benefit-cost analysis for the MATS rule, it could only come up with hypothetical benefits worth $6 million dollars, while the actual compliance costs were estimated to be on the order of $10 billion. In the 2015 SCOTUS ruling that rejected EPA’s benefit-cost analysis as unreasonable, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “One would not say that it is even rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”

Similarly to regulatory ping-pong of the Clean Power Plan, the first Trump EPA took action to defang MATS. The Biden EPA responded by defying SCOTUS and making the rule more stringent. Now the ball is back in the Trump EPA’s court and MATS is once again headed to the ashbin of regulatory history, hopefully for good. The rule’s economics have only gotten worse for its advocates and a challenge to the Trump EPA’s new action is unlikely to succeed.

While the good news is that these Trump EPA actions should finally put an end to the war on coal, the bad news is that severe damage to the industry and the cheap electricity it provided was done long ago.

The 2012 MATS rule was so draconian that utilities hurried to close coal plants and switch to gas plants. By the time SCOTUS got around to ruling against MATS in 2015, it was too late for the half of the coal industry that had been destroyed.  Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy mocked the tardiness of SCOTUS, responding, to the Court’s decision as follows: “The majority of power plants have already decided and invested in a path to achieving compliance with those mercury and air toxic standards.” Even the West Virginia v. EPA decision came seven years after the Clean Power Plan was first issued.

Democrats wielded the government to illegally wreck the coal industry and to pointlessly raise electricity prices. The damage done is immense and will take the government-sized help to repair it. President Trump is taking the necessary steps to revive the coal industry, but there is a very long way to go.

Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer, publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

California Dems Decry Gas Crisis They Fueled with Harsh Energy Regulations

California Democrats are railing against state regulators for economic conditions they helped unleash now that a possible gas price crisis looms.

From Watts Up With That?

THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter

California Democrats are railing against state regulators for economic conditions they helped unleash now that a possible gas price crisis looms.

California’s Committee on Utilities and Energy grilled several state regulators on Wednesday about a possible gas price spike as two major oil refineries in California prepare to close, according to local news outlet KCRA. Despite their outrage, California Democrats have targeted the fossil fuel industry for years by creating a stringent regulatory climate, and energy companies — including their refining capacity — are withdrawing from the state, setting the table for a potentially massive 75% jump in gas prices.

“I know what climate leadership does not look like, and that is $10 gas,” Democratic Assemblyman Cottie Petrie-Norris told regulators at the hearing.

California has the highest average per-gallon gas price at the pump compared to any other state, according to AAA gas price data. Meanwhile, California regulators have suggested increasing state involvement in refinery management, including the possibility of de facto state-owned refineries.

The California Legislature has granted regulatory agencies authority to establish stringent new rules for the oil and gas industry. In recent special legislative sessions, lawmakers backed Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to create new storage and maintenance rules for refiners, according to the publication. Newsom has also called on regulators to do more to keep oil refineries in the state, though he has allowed for the creation of stringent rules that produce a hostile environment for energy producers.

The regulators were met with several questions and criticism as lawmakers voiced concerns that regulators have overlooked Californian consumers and drivers by aggressively pursuing a green energy transition, though Democratic leadership in the state allowed — and even encouraged — agencies to enact strict regulations for years.

“I think I also heard you say that another closure can lead to a significant increase in costs to consumers on the price of gas?” Alvarez asked a regulator.

Phillips 66 and Valero both announced plans to close refineries in the state in 2024, and the retiring facilities jointly account for roughly 20% of California’s refining capacity, according to KCRA.

Refineries have been shutting down in California for years, and no new major oil refineries have come online in the state since 1969, according to the California Energy Commission. California’s “cap-and-trade” program, combined with its unfavorable tax environment and its low carbon fuel emission standard, are often highlighted as restrictive regulations pushing refineries to leave the state.

“In the two years since the Governor signed California’s gas price gouging law, the state has avoided severe gasoline price spikes like the historic 2022 spike, saving Californians billions of dollars at the pump,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s office wrote to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The law established the nation’s first state-level independent petroleum watchdog to hold Big Oil accountable, and the state has more transparency from the industry than ever before.”

A Phillips 66 spokesperson told the DCNF that the energy company “wants to continue to be a trusted and deliberate partner with the state.”

“We’re also not exiting California, still owning and operating various assets that will serve California commercial and customer demands, including the Rodeo Renewable Energy Complex,” the spokesperson, who also referred the DCNF to the company’s October 2024 press release, added.

The California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, Alvarez’s office, Petrie-Norris’ office, Valero and California’s Committee on Utilities and Energy did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the comment from the Phillips 66 spokesperson.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.