The Arizona State Legislature is advancing a measure to urge the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to prioritize affordable and reliable energy sources over intermittent renewable energy alternatives such as solar and wind.
House Concurrent Memorial 2014 (HCM 2014), introduced by State Representative Justin Olson, calls on the ACC to prevent regulated utilities from shutting down dispatchable energy sources, including natural gas and coal, in pursuit of Net Zero goals.
The legislation, which does not carry the force of law but serves as a formal request to the ACC, asks the Commission to ensure Arizona’s electrical grid remains powered by affordable and reliable energy sources; prevent regulated utilities from phasing out critical, dispatchable energy sources such as coal and natural gas in favor of renewable alternatives that may be costly and unreliable; and adopt a national model policy, “Only Pay for What You Get,” which requires utilities to recover costs only from the reliable portion of new energy generation sources.
The bill passed the Arizona House of Representatives on February 26, 2025, with a vote of 33-26-1, and was referred to the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee for further consideration.
HCM. 2014 comes amid a broader debate on the future of Arizona’s energy policies. The ACC, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, has faced increasing pressure from policymakers, industry groups, and environmental advocates over how to balance affordability, reliability, and sustainability in energy production.
Supporters of the measure argue that shifting too quickly to renewable energy sources without proper reliability safeguards could lead to increased costs for ratepayers and potential grid instability.
If approved by the Senate, copies of HCM 2014 will be transmitted to the Chairperson and each Commissioner of the ACC, urging them to align state energy policies with the resolution’s recommendations. While the ACC operates independently, legislative pressure could influence future regulatory decisions regarding Arizona’s energy transition.
As Arizona continues to navigate its energy future, the debate over affordability, reliability, and sustainability is expected to remain a contentious issue among lawmakers, utility providers, and consumers.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
President Donald Trump’s opening week included a flurry of executive orders seeking to make good on his promise to restore America’s energy dominance, sidelined by the Biden administration.
While we should all applaud the president’s vision for a secure energy future, Californians should be especially pleased. Even before taking office, the “Trump effect” helped restore a bit of sanity in the Golden State.
Five days before President Trump’s inauguration, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)rescinded its application for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to extend its electric vehicle mandate to freight trains, citing “uncertainty presented by the incoming administration.” The first-of-its-kind regulation would have phased out diesel-fueled switch, industrial, and passenger trains by 2030 and freight trains by 2035 in favor of zero-emission trains.
Though now paused, CARB’s rationale for the rail electrification mandate mirrors broader green energy policies, and California will likely seek to revive it under a future Democratic administration. They shouldn’t.
CARB claimed the rule would be a net economic and environmental benefit, but ignored major costs. A report from my organization highlighted the substantial infrastructure upgrades needed to replace diesel engines with electric or hydrogen models. Further, transitioning to electric trains would have challenged the state’s already strained electricity grid. Lastly, the report shows that the emissions reductions CARB touted were greatly exaggerated.
California already has the highest electricity prices in the continental U.S. With more and more devices connecting to the grid, demand is expected to grow by 76% over the next couple of decades.
At the same time, California’s grid has become increasingly unreliable due to policies that force more and more renewables onto the system, exacerbating the risks of continued brownouts and blackouts.
The conversion of rail to zero-emission technologies that rely heavily on electrification would contribute to these problems. The CARB rule assumed the existence of energy infrastructure that simply does not exist.
New transmission and distribution line upgrades and incremental power generation would be necessary to accommodate the load growth necessary to comply with this mandate. Much of that new electricity generation would likely come from natural gas, which already accounts for 39% of the state’s electricity.
CARB’s claim that the switch to electric trains would reduce particulate matter by 7,400 tons, nitrogen oxides by 386,300, and greenhouse gas emissions by 21.6 million metric tons from 2023-2050 is questionable at best. There is no way that power systems, even in California, will be 100% renewable in the timeframe the rule was scheduled to take effect.
And, as already mentioned, new generation capacity would certainly include natural gas.
CARB’s suggested that hydrogen could serve as an alternative to electrification. This switch would also require additional upstream infrastructure, increase costs, and put upward pressure on emissions.
This new hydrogen would not even be “green,” since production from non-conventional resources is nowhere near the scale of hydrogen sourced from natural gas or coal gasification. Developing hydrogen pipelines could also drive emissions and costs higher.
CARB’s locomotive regulation was a high-cost, low-reward gamble. Thanks to President Trump, Californians dodged another disastrous energy policy — before he even took office.
Instead of trying to “Trump-proof” California, Gov. Gavin Newsom should be grateful for the opportunity to scrap more of Sacramento’s costly regulations.
Things are just not going well for the leftwing activist groups, billionaire-funded NGOs and trial lawyer firms who have recruited a growing number of state and local government entities to sue U.S. oil and gas companies involving specious claims for damages caused by climate change. In recent months, the lawfare campaign, coordinated mainly from the offices of one San Francisco-based firm, has suffered a series of adverse judicial decisions in what appears to be a rising consensus in the nation’s courts.
Just two weeks after suffering a major setback in a decision involving Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the pushers and funders of this lawfare campaign were tossed out in a case targeting ExxonMobil, Chevron and additional defendants in New Jersey. There, Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd dismissed the Garden State’s lawsuit with prejudice based on the same federal primacy arguments which prevailed in recent decisions in New York City and Baltimore, as well as in the Anne Arundel case.
In seeking damages, New Jersey adopted similar tactics adopted in the other cases that make up this lawfare campaign, claiming they’ve been harmed by “climate change” impacts allegedly caused by the emissions by oil companies, but attempting to couch the damages as violations of state laws unrelated to air pollution. But Hurd was having none of it.
“Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case,” the judge says in his decision, “this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.”
The problem for the states, cities and counties who have signed up for this lawfare campaign in the hopes of grabbing some big bucks from Big Oil is that their arguments inevitably amount to a local effort to de facto regulate air quality, an area of regulation in which the federal government has always asserted its primacy. There’s a very good reason for this: If every city, county and state in America were allowed to regulate air quality, the economy would soon grind to a halt as it becomes impossible to do business in this country.
Like the judges in the other cases decided thus far, Hurd conceded to that reality in dismissing the New Jersey case, saying, “As Defendants state in their moving brief, ‘the federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions,’” adding, “In conclusion, only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands.’”
The decision in the New Jersey case no doubt comes as a real disappointment for the billionaire-funded foundations and NGOs who spent years pushing for the state attorney general’s office to bring a case. In 2023, Energy Policy Advocates obtained emails detailing tactics employed by the Rockefeller-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince various cities and counties in the state to sign onto the lawfare campaign.
Those emails revealed close coordination between CCI and New Jersey officials, even to the extent of CCI funding an “Accountability University” to educate lawfare participants about the best tactics and talking points to deploy in their big money grab efforts.
CCI even offered to “ghost write” opinion pieces for public officials and “serve as an extra set of hands,” adding, “…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…”
So, what’s the point of all this, you might ask? Well, the point is that when you see one of these lawsuits brought by a city, county or state government, just know that none of this is happening organically. Also know that this big money grab costs these companies millions to defend themselves, and we all end up paying for it at the gas pump and in our home utility bills. Maybe it’s time we all demand these billionaires and trial lawyers find more productive ways to spend their time and money.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
President Trump’s historic victory in the November election gave him a clear mandate from the American people. And so far, he hasn’t wasted any time getting to work. In his first month back in office, Trump signed 45 Executive Orders (EO) in an effort to put America first and undo much of the damage created by the Biden administration. And that’s especially true with his executive actions to unleash American energy.
Ending the Net Zero Climate Cult Fantasy
For four years under President Biden, the American people were forced to endure an administration that was hellbent on pursuing a net zero agenda. Across the country, they pushed these radical and costly climate action plans to fundamentally transform and restrict the energy options available to consumers. Along with this came calls from the Left to ban gas stoves, gas cars, gas-powered lawn equipment, and hundreds of other draconian ideas to limit the freedom of the American people.
If the high cost of these plans wasn’t enough, they have also proven to be unreliable. States and countries that have committed to energy sources like solar and wind as part of this net zero fantasy have experienced rolling blackouts, continually demand that their customers use less, and eventually have to make haste to open reliable sources of generation they had closed down. Isn’t that right, California?
But Trump’s Executive Order 14154 unleashes fossil fuel production and use in America while unwinding much of the damage caused by the Biden administration…
During his campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump often repeated his desire to bring back the same “drill, baby, drill” oil and gas agenda that characterized his first term in office.
But that term began 8 long years ago and much has changed in the domestic oil business since then. Current market realities are likely to mitigate the industry’s response to Trump’s easing of the Biden administration’s efforts to restrict its activities.
Trump’s second term begins as the upstream segment of the industry has enjoyed three years of strong profitability and overall production growth by employing a strategy of capital discipline, technology deployment and the capture of economies of scale in the nation’s big shale play areas. Companies like, say, ExxonMobil and Oxy and their peers are unlikely to respond to the easing of government regulations by discarding these strategies that have brought such financial success in favor of moving into a new drilling boom.
This bias in favor of maintenance of the status quo is especially likely given that the big shale plays in the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, Bakken Shale, Haynesville and the Marcellus/Utica region have all advanced into the long-term development phases of the natural life cycle typical of every oil and gas resource play over the past 175 years. Absent the discovery of major new shale or other types of oil-or-natural gas-bearing formations, a new drilling boom seems quite unlikely under any circumstances.
One market factor that could result in a somewhat higher active rig count would be a sudden rise in crude oil prices, if it appears likely to last for a long period of time. Companies like Exxon, Chevron, Oxy and Diamondback Energy certainly have the capability to quickly activate a significant number of additional rigs to take advantage of long-term higher prices.
But crude prices are set on a global market, and that market has appeared over-supplied in recent months with little reason to believe the supply/demand equation will change significantly in the near future. Indeed, the OPEC+ cartel has been forced to postpone planned production increases several times over the past 12 months as an over-supplied market has caused prices to hover well below the group’s target price.
But it is wrong to think the domestic oil industry will not respond in any way to Trump’s efforts to remove Biden’s artificial roadblocks to energy progress. Trump’s efforts to speed up permitting for energy projects of all kinds are likely to result in a significant build-out of much-needed new natural gas pipeline capacity, natural gas power generation plants and new LNG export terminals and supporting infrastructure.
Instead of another four years of “drill, baby, drill,” the Trump efforts to speed energy development seem certain to result in four years of a “build, baby, build” boom.
Indeed, the industry is already responding in a big way in the LNG export sector of the business. During Trump’s first week in office, LNG exporter Venture Global launched what is the largest energy IPO by value in U.S. history, going public with a total market cap of $65 billion.
With five separate export projects currently in various stages of development, all in South Louisiana, Venture Global plans to become a major player in one of America’s major growth industries in the coming years. Trump’s Day 1 reversal of Biden’s senseless permitting pause on LNG infrastructure is likely to kick off a number of additional LNG projects by other operators.
The Trump effect took hold even before he took office when the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation entered into an exclusive agreement in early January with developer Glenfarne to advance the $44 billion Alaska LNG project. The aim is to start to deliver gas in 2031, with LNG exports following shortly thereafter.
America’s oil and gas industry has demonstrated it can consistently grow overall production to new records even with a falling rig count in recent years. Now it must grow its related infrastructure to account for the rising production.
That’s why Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” mantra is likely to transform into “build, baby, build” in the months and years to come.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
