As Americans enjoy their freedom — as they have a God-given right to do — they drive where they want in privately owned cars (gas powered, hybrid, or electric), live comfortably in heated-and-air-conditioned homes, and spend their evenings cooking dinner on gas (or electric stoves), and watching whatever television program or sporting event they choose. All of it brought to them by virtue of abundant and affordable energy.
According to 2024 data published by the U.S. Department of Energy, 82.16 percent of the energy consumed in the United States came from fossil fuels, including coal, petroleum and natural gas. Another 8.67 percent came from nuclear power plants.
In other words, more than 90 percent of the energy used in this country last year came from these sources.
Only 1.64% came from windmills; and only 1.17 percent came from solar panels.
As this nation’s economy and population has grown, so too has its power needs. Since 1960, in fact, the consumption of energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power has more than doubled.
But the consumption of nuclear energy peaked in 2019 — and has stagnated since then — while facing a campaign of opposition from liberal environmental groups.
This is ironic, however, because as the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power increased in recent decades, greenhouse gas emissions declined. From 1990 to 2022, for example, fossil fuel consumption increased by 8.64 percent, according to the Department of Energy. But during that same period, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, greenhouse gas emissions declined by three percent.
Nonetheless, groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the National Resources Defense Council have sought not merely to stop the growth of this type of energy production, but to roll it back. In theory, they would replace the production lost from nuclear power and fossil fuels with energy produced from “renewable sources,” including windmills and solar panels.
They are particularly opposed to the development of nuclear power — even though nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases.
“The Sierra Club,” says its website, “continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants.”
350.org also opposes the construction of new nuclear plants. “New nuclear,” its website says, “is a dangerous distraction in the race to solve climate change.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues that “expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution.”
However, some progress has been made recently in resisting this campaign to foist renewable energy development upon the United States. In 2021, some of this nation’s largest banks — including Wells Fargo, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America — joined the Net Zero Banking Alliance. This alliance, said the Sierra Club’s magazine, “signaled a commitment by member institutions to develop voluntary targets that support a climate goal of 1.5C above preindustrial levels.” Since then, however, each of these banks has dropped out of the alliance.
Unfortunately, the ”renewables only” advocates have also achieved some victories in recent years.
Since 2001, the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign has supported the closing of more than 300 coal-fired power plants in this country. In 2021, construction of a liquid natural gas export terminal in Oregon was also canceled. Then, in 2023, a proposed gas-fired power plant in Connecticut was canceled, too. These groups also pressured California into nearly shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which provides 9% of the state’s electricity, before state energy commissioners voted to extend its operation to 2030.
The relentless campaign to force America away from fossil fuels and nuclear power and towards wind and solar is also driving America toward energy dependence on the People’s Republic of China.
The Heritage Foundation published a report last year by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Miles Pollard that showed how this is happening. “China has succeeded in dominating the world’s supply chains in green energy products and components,” it said. “If America continues to require the use of these green energy products, it will cede economic power to China, giving China control of American energy security.”
Limiting how we produce energy in the United States will, as a matter of course, impose limitations on our freedom. Reliance on China for our energy supply chain will make our country susceptible to economic coercion. Limiting how we produce energy, means less of it and fewer choices about how to use it. This is of course baked into the climate activists’ view of world, one where experts tell us we must drive EVs, use electric stoves, and eat less meat, so that even the smallest of life’s details are predecided.
To preserve freedom, we must unfetter ourselves from ideologically driven restrictions on fossil fuels and overcome decades of naysaying about nuclear power. In so doing we can ensure a future where abundant affordable energy gives every American real choice, which is the heart of freedom.
Only weeks after refusing to comply with an Executive Order to reactivate the Cholla Power Plant in Northern Arizona, Arizona Public Service (APS) has filed documents with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) requesting an increase in the state-regulated electrical utility’s revenue of $579.5 million. That equates to a jump in residential electrical rates of approximately 14.5%. The hike would represent a 30% increase in residential rates since 2023.
The utility is also seeking permission from the Commission to unilaterally adjust prices annually using “rate design schedules.” APS justified this request to the ACC in the 2,323-page application docket claiming, “The costs to ensure reliable service to customers have rapidly increased due to high rates of inflation, persistently high interest rates, and continued supply chain and trade policy volatility.”
The utility alleged that a “significant revenue deficiency … based on the 12-month period that ended on December 31, 2024 (Test Year), demonstrates that APS’s current rates do not recover sufficient revenue to ensure reliable service.”
“The tremendous growth across APS’s service territory shows no sign of letting up, with the Company’s infrastructure and reliable energy supply providing the backbone of this historic expansion,” APS said. “And yet, with high rates of inflation, persistently high interest rates, and continued supply chain volatility, the costs to serve current APS customers (let alone prepare for growth) are substantially higher than when the test year concluded in the Company’s last rate case.”
Just one year ago, the ACC approved a rate increase for residential customers of approximately 8 percent. That was followed by significant turnover in the commission with Republican newcomers Rachel Walden and Rene Lopez joining incumbent Lea Márquez Peterson to defeat the Democrat nominees and lock down all five seats for the GOP.
In the upcoming 2026 election, Arizona Reps. David Marshall and Ralph Heap are challenging incumbent commissioners Chairman Kevin Thompson and Vice Chairman Nick Myers. During a Tuesday presser, Marshall and Heap accused the commissioners of excessive price hikes and blocking President Donald Trump’s energy agenda.
“We have some families now who have to make a decision. Do I buy less groceries so I can pay my power bills? Or just deal with it or go without power,” Marshall told reporters.
“The Corporation Commission may not always make the headlines,” he added. “But the decisions made there affect every one of us every single day.”
In a statement responding to the primary challenge from Reps. Marshall and Heap, Commissioners Thompson and Myers defended their record saying, “We’ve taken steps to ensure our utilities are planning responsibly and not chasing costly, agenda-driven energy mandates. That’s why we required APS to prove in its 2023 Integrated Resource Plan that it has enough reliable and dispatchable generation to replace retiring plants. And it’s why we initiated the termination of Kris Mayes’ Renewable Energy Standard, which was an outdated mandate that artificially inflated utility costs by forcing ratepayers to subsidize unreliable, high-cost sources like wind and solar.”
Earlier this year, President Trump signed a trio of executive orders aimed at keeping our nation’s vital coal power plants online. In fact, at the signing ceremony, the President explicitly called out one of Arizona’s coal plants by name. He directed Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright to keep the Cholla Power Plant online and told the workers to remain calm because they are going to have that plant “opening and burning…coal in a very short period of time.”
The Cholla Power Plant is one of many Arizona coal plants that have either been mothballed or slated for retirement in the near future. In 2019, SRP and the other utilities shut down the Navajo Generating Station, resulting in a loss of 2,250 MW of reliable capacity. Earlier this year, an additional 425 MW of generating capacity was taken offline at Cholla. And over the next 6 years, Arizona’s public utilities, as outlined in Integrated Resource Plans recently approved by the Arizona Corporation Commission, plan to shutter every last bit of coal generation in Arizona by 2032. Most alarming is that according to those same Resource Plans, the replacement fuel for this reliable source of energy will be solar, wind, and battery storage, all to meet carbon free “Net Zero” goals that will cost Arizona ratepayers billions and destabilize the grid.
On the same day President Trump signed the coal orders, the Arizona legislature, led by Representative David Marshall, sent a letter to the Department of the Interior urging the Administration to help keep Cholla, and every other coal plant in the state, online. Last month, every Republican in the legislature voted to send HCM2014 to the Corporation Commission, urging them to protect our grid, fight to keep these plants online, and support the Trump Energy Agenda.
What Arizona ratepayers got instead was a late Friday afternoon news dumpfrom Kevin Thompson, Chairman of the Corporation Commission, blasting the idea of reopening Cholla…
Within President Trump’s first 100 days in office, he has issued back-to-back executive orders aimed at cleansing America of woke ideologies as well as dismantling the Green New Scam. States can hardly keep up with the rapid changes being made. U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary (USDOT) Sean Duffy is leading the effort to defund city projects involving road diets and “green infrastructure.” Leftists and bike-enthused activists are losing their minds over the removal of “Complete Streets” links on the USDOT website, horrified by the idea that vehicle travel might be prioritized over barely used bike lanes.
And if there ever was a city in Arizona that should be jumping on the Trump bandwagon – it’s the City of Prescott. Prescott is a conservative community where registered Republican voters out number Democrat voters 3:1. It’s “Trump Country.” But take a look at Prescott’s recently proposed General Plan and you would never know it.
In Arizona, every municipality is required by statute (ARS §9-461.05) to build out and adopt a General Plan that outlines a pathway for growth in the community, covering topics such as land use, transportation, environment, water, and energy. This seemingly innocuous document that must be ratified by voters has become a pathway for city bureaucrats to sneak woke ideologies and climate goals into city planning…
The city of Phoenix will base its next climate, energy, and food policies on a community survey.
The city’s Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) has an ongoing survey this month in which they offer a $100 VISA gift card drawing as a reward.
The bulk of the questions provide insight as to the potential policy directions the city is looking to take to address climate, energy, and food.
The survey suggested the greatest barriers to addressing climate change may be lack of public information and education, motivation to address climate change, government mandated regulations/support, business or industry support, and public-private coordination; cost of implementation; and difficulty in changing individual behaviors.
The following were proposed incentives for public and alternative modes of transportation: increasing the options, routes, and frequencies of public busing and light rail; increasing infrastructure and safety measures for pedestrian and bicycle transportation; increasing electric vehicle infrastructure; and establishing subsidies for installing electric vehicle chargers in homes and businesses.
Potential policies for aiding in heat relief were also presented: improving access to affordable electricity to reduce electricity costs related to cooling systems; increasing shade by planting more trees and installing shade structures; incorporating heat reducing materials into construction of new or remodeled buildings; using cooling materials and techniques in street surfaces, parking lots, and roofing; and subsidizing the replacement of old cooling systems for energy efficiency.
The survey offered policy proposals for drinking water supply: offering residential and commercial tiered water rate structure plans and rebates for those who adopt water conservation and climate adaptation practices; increasing access to rainwater harvesting, water storage, and wastewater conversion infrastructure; incentivizing and subsidizing residential replacement of lawns to xeriscape or artificial grass or turf; and implementing an education initiative for residential and business/commercial/industrial water conservation.
The survey also requested some insight into residents’ current conservation practices.
Residents were asked to divulge information about their cooling and heating systems and their satisfaction with their function and cost. The survey also sought to learn residents’ financial stability, the impact of their utility bills on their finances, and energy assistance program participation.
Residents were also asked about their food acquisition and consumption practices. In relation to these questions, the survey asked residents to reflect on potential food-related policies: transportation support such as free shuttle services, transit passes, fruit and veggie home delivery; a map of community food access points such as gardens, farmers markets, food box sites; vouchers or assistance for food; neighborhood-based food outlets at corner stores, transit stops, schools, and community spaces; physical spaces to grow food in neighborhoods such as community gardens; and education programs with supplies and hands-on training for gardening.
Residents were also asked to prioritize policies to reduce the environmental impact of food reduction; encourage sustainable farming practices; reduce food insecurity and hunger; increase access to local food; prevent and reduce food waste; educate the community about healthy eating; develop opportunities for new local food businesses; and protect or add new space for farmland or greenspace.
The survey also asks respondents to share where they obtain their information on climate change, the word that comes to mind when they hear the term “climate change,” how often they think about climate change, and their feelings about climate change (whether they are worried, anxious, fearful, overwhelmed, or motivated to take action).
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
