Costly Climate Agendas Are Raising Bills While Doing Zilch For The Climate

One curious but predictable effect of making decisions that restrict access to affordable, reliable, and environmentally sound energy is that the more we squeeze supply in the name of climate action, the higher prices go and the faster less environmentally friendly options are brought back into service. [emphasis, links added]

The other outcome? Elected leaders propose costly programs to help people pay for their ever-climbing energy bills – caused by restrictive policies these same leaders supported.

That’s treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

California, long seen as the leader in taking action for the climate, is patient zero when it comes to understanding this irrational phenomenon.

Consider that over the last 10 years in California, rates for the biggest swath of utility customers in the state have risen 127% as Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s largest utility, has been forced to recover costs that keep on climbing, including programs to help low-income customers afford their bills.

The result: A fifth of its customers are behind on their bills, according to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Public Advocates Office.

Not to be outdone, New York is trying to out-California California with a 70% carbon-free power target by 2030, the nation’s most aggressive.

Already, a study by the Empire State’s Public Service Commission found that customers are paying as much as 12.6% higher utility rates to support the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which is forcing wholesale changes to the energy system.

That report does not include the recent doubling of the estimated costs for offshore wind.

It’s no surprise then that New York has earmarked over $1.4 billion to help offset higher utility bills in 2024 for over eight million people. The Senate recently passed a bill to cap utility bills at 6% of the income of low and moderate-income families, which just means other taxpayers will have to chip in more.

Relatedly, California, New York, and other states that have pursued draconian energy policies are also experiencing increased incidents of planned brownouts or blackouts. This is because these state policies do not allow for enough balanced, always available energy to meet demand.

Let’s look at this process a little more closely.

Step One: Elected leaders pass poorly crafted energy policies that they and anti-business interests know full well will cost voters more.

Step Two: Attack energy suppliers when prices rise and electricity becomes less reliable.

Step Three: Ask taxpayers for more money to fund programs to help energy customers who have low or fixed incomes, or live in poverty.

The alarms ought to be flashing red for elected leaders now, especially in an election year, with the political impact suddenly rearing its head. Voters in California and New York are angry about higher prices and have made that view heard.

So, time to watch for Step Two to swing into action: blame will be cast on everything but the actual cause – misguided energy policies.

Then Step Three will happen, with a provision to soak taxpayers for the cost of aspirational energy policies being slipped into budget appropriations, or more directly, right onto customers’ bills.

This is not the right way to do it. And voters should not fall for it.

There is also another issue: These restrictive energy policies pushed in the name of environmental improvement, are proving to not provide that much help for our climate; and, in a few instances, have shown to worsen emissions during extreme weather events when less clean generation has been switched back on.

Other states – like Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, and Illinois, to name a few – should take heed and not follow these failed policy approaches.

We should demand the following as a bare minimum from any energy policy:

One, is it practical, technically achievable, and affordable?

Two, does it create an actual – not imagined – positive impact on the climate?

Three, does it result in affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy, or does it champion one form over another?

I’ve been in the energy game long enough to have seen a lot of “next big things” come with fanfare and go out with a whimper. Enough’s enough. Let’s stop picking one over the other, and make it a smorgasbord of options.

We definitely need all our energy options, and wind and solar must continue to expand. However, if they expand with a reputation for being costly and unreliable, the public pushback will only grow stronger.

Getting our energy right is like making a great meal. It’s got to have a variety of ingredients, not just meat, or just vegetables. It needs variety for balance and nourishment.

Policies that put all our eggs in one or two energy baskets are showing up to the party empty-handed, as residents of California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, and other states with ambitious but unachievable climate goals are learning.

It’s like having a backyard barbecue with hot dog and hamburger buns, but no burgers, hot dogs, or ketchup.

Fortunately, there is an easy solution.

We must focus on achieving our environmental goals in ways that don’t harm our most vulnerable citizens. Or kill our economic growth. Or destroy our businesses. Or, heaven forbid, risk our lives when the power goes out in freezing or red-hot temperatures.

It’s time to ask politicians how they’re going to put people first when setting energy policies and regulations.

We can demand this at the ballot box this year, and we should. Energy and environmental progress are complementary, not adversarial, goals. Let’s all push for a better world where we all have what we need, at a price we can afford.

Read more at RealClearEnergy