Our country is facing an energy crisis. No, not because of new demand from data centers or AI. Instead, it’s because utilities in nearly every state, due to government imposed “renewable” mandates, self-imposed mandates, and the supercharging of the Green New Scam under the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” have been shutting down vital coal resources and building out almost exclusively intermittent and costly resources like solar, wind, and battery storage.
A new report from McKinsey & Company, the “Global Energy Perspective,” lays bare what many of us – dismissed as “climate deniers” – have been asserting all along: Coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be the dominant sources of global energy well past 2050.
The McKinsey outlook for 2025 sharply adjusts prior projections. Last year, the management consultant’s models had coal demand falling 40% by 2035. Today, McKinsey projects an uptick of 1% over the same period. The dramatic reversal is driven by record commissioning of coal-fired power plants in China, unexpected increases in global electricity use, and the lack of viable alternatives for industries like steel, chemicals and heavy manufacturing.
The report states that the three fossil fuels will still supply up to 55% of global energy in 2050, a forecast that looks low to me. Today’s share for hydrocarbons is more than 60% for electricity generation and more than 80% for primary energy consumption.
In any case, McKinsey’s report confirms what seasoned energy analysts and pragmatic policymakers have long maintained: The energy transition will not be swift, simple, or governed solely by climate targets. In fact, this energy transition will not happen at all without large scale deployment of nuclear, geothermal or other technological innovations that prove practical.
In places such as India, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the top energy priorities are access, affordability and reliability, which together add up to national security. Planners are acutely aware of a trap: Sole reliance on weather-dependent power risks blackouts, industrial disruption, economic decline and civil unrest.
That is why many developing nations are embracing a dual track: continued investment in conventional generation (coal, gas, nuclear) while developing alternative technologies. McKinsey says this in consultancy lingo: “Countries and regions will follow distinct trajectories based on local economic conditions, resource endowment, and the realities facing particular industries.”
In countries like India, Indonesia and Nigeria, the scale of electrification and industrial expansion is enormous. These countries cannot afford to wait decades for perfect solutions. They need “reliable and good enough for now.” That means conventional fuels will be retained.
McKinsey’s analysis also underscores what physics and engineering dictate: Intermittent and weather-dependent sources, such as wind and solar, require vast land areas, backup batteries and generation and power-grid investments, none of which come cheaply nor quickly.
The technologies of wind and solar branded as renewable should instead be called economy killers. They make for expensive and unstable electrical systems that have brought energy-rich nations like Germany to their knees. After spending billions of dollars on unreliable wind turbines and solar panels and demolishing nuclear plants and coal plants, the country is struggling with high prices and economic stagnation.
The Germans now have a word for their self-inflicted crisis: Dunkelflaute. It means “dark doldrums”—a period of cold, sunless, windless days when their “green” grid fails. During a Dunkelflaute in November 2024, fossil fuels were called on to provide 70% of Germany’s electricity.
If “renewables” were truly capable, planners would shut down fossil fuel generation. But that is not the case. While wind and solar are pursued in some places, coal and natural gas remain much sought-after fuels. In the first half of 2025 alone, China commissioned about 21 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired capacity, which is more than any other country and the largest increase since 2016.
Further, China has approved construction of 25 GW of new coal plants in the first half of 2025. As of July, China’s mainland has nearly 1,200 coal plants, far outstripping the rest of the world.
McKinsey points to a dramatic surge in electricity demand driven by data centers, which is estimated to be about 17 % annually from 2022 to 2030 in the 38 OECD countries. This kind of growth in electricity use simply cannot be met by wind and solar.
When analysts, journalists and engineers point out these realities, they’re branded as “shills” for the fossil fuel industry. However, it is not public relations to point out the physics and economics that make up the math for meeting the world’s energy needs. Dismissing such facts is to deny that reliable energy remains the bedrock of modern civilization.
The cost of foolish “green” policies is being paid in lost jobs, ruined businesses, disrupted lives and impoverishment that could have been avoided by wiser choices.
For those who have repeated energy realities for years, the vindication is bittersweet. The satisfaction of being right is tempered by the knowledge that many have suffered because reality has been ignored.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation andScience and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
The Green New Scam got its start in Arizona two decades ago when a 5-0 Republican Commission (including then Republican Kris Mayes) adopted the Renewable Energy Standard and Tarriff Rules, or the REST Rules. Among other things, most significantly it ushered in the first “renewable” mandates in our state, forcing utilities to obtain at least 15% of their power from “renewables.” Ratepayers have been paying the costs (over $2 billion) ever since.
The REST Rules had a target date: 2025. Well, it’s now 2025, and the utilities have not only met that mandate, but they have also voluntarily exceeded it. Now our current 5-0 Republican Commission has started the process of repealing them.
Repealing the REST Rules is important, but the targets have already been met, and the price has already been paid. Substantively, the repeal won’t really affect ratepayers all that much. Why? Because mandate or no mandate, our utilities are completely committed to going “Net Zero” by 2050, and so far, they’ve been allowed to do it…
Arizona Corporation Commissioner (ACC) Rachel Walden brought an amendment during the commission’s Wednesday meeting to require detailed, extensive oversight over electrical utilities. Gaining unanimous approval in a 5-0 vote, Walden pushed to ensure Arizona’s electrical grid doesn’t become a ratepayer-funded venue for green projects.
At the October 15th open meeting, Walden pushed through an amendment demanding a more granular kind of report than the industry has provided for the past 26 years, exceeding what is required under Arizona Revised Statutes. Utilities like APS and SRP already owe the ACC their ten-year forecasts under state law, but Walden’s call for more detail: business confidential filings on line congestion, load-growth hotspots, and every grid-hardening method from reconductoring to storm-proofing—are a seismic departure from the more hands-off era that preceded.
Commissioners' Corner: The Commission voted unanimously in September 2025 to initiate the official repeal process for the state's mandatory energy efficiency rules, which were adopted 15 years ago. Commissioner Rachel Walden shares how her vote delivers her promise to ratepayers. pic.twitter.com/se9xwiwv4P
“Finding the least cost, most reliable model includes transmission, not just electricity generation. None of the answers from our state utilities today inspired any confidence in me that these issues are a priority,” Commissioner Walden told the meeting. “I am not convinced that additional build out of renewables, while also having to add firm capacity as well as back up generation, is saving Arizonans money. I know that Arizonans are concerned with these issues, especially as we head into accelerated growth in our state. The Commissioners, as elected by the public, are faced with these questions and comments almost daily, and our actions are held accountable to the public.”
The move from Walden and the ACC seems to have been carefully timed. The Thirteenth Biennial Transmission Assessment projects a 3 percent annual growth surge through 2033, significantly faster than previous forecasts, reflecting Arizona’s population boom colliding with a deluge of intermittent ‘renewable’ sources. With solar and wind flooding the system, utilities are rerouting power across state lines, inviting operational headaches from California’s aggressive decarbonization push.
“Arizonans will not bear the costs and impacts of supporting neighboring states’ Green New Deal policies,” Walden said.
Walden’s amendment mandates confidential reports on congestion and bottlenecks, where new solar farms fail to provide a consistent load or data centers increase demand, along with projections to gauge how interconnection requests ripple through the system. Supporting Commissioner Lea Márquez-Peterson’s additions, Walden is requiring complete disclosures on enhancement efforts, ensuring the ACC can vet if utilities are truly fortifying the state’s transmission system.
With major data centers like Microsoft and Google cropping up in Maricopa County, pulling gigawatts from an already strained grid, peak demand strains are a genuine concern. The disastrous 2023 heat wave that had Texas utilities scrambling is fresh in mind. Arizona is hardly immune to such issues. As renewables providers require load balancing and battery installations, the costs are passed on to ratepayers, and Walden is questioning the utilities’ math.
“Ensuring our utilities have sufficient generation capacity to serve our customers during peak demand along with a reliable transmission grid to handle that capacity is paramount,” she said. “The Commission must ensure that any transmission or generation solutions to mitigate grid concerns, such as line congestion created by the interconnections from new generation sources, or offtakes from the grid by large customers such as data centers and hyperscalers, are borne by the creators of those grid concerns, not Arizona ratepayers.”
Walden pledged to scrutinize future Biennial Assessments and Integrated Resource Plans in a distinct pivot from the ACC’s historically more hands-off stance.
“I will be watching the Biennial Transmission Assessments and Integrated Resource Plans closely, and investigating these issues in all future rate cases,” Walden concluded.
Arizona Public Service (APS), the state’s largest utility, has submitted a highly questionable new resource plan to the Arizona Corporation Commission, outlining a significant shift in its energy generation strategy through 2028.
The plan, detailed in a recent filing, reveals APS’s intent to disregard President Trump’s opposition to wind power. It will nearly double its generating capacity by adding 7,200 MW of new power, with 93% coming from expensive and unreliable renewable sources—solar, wind, and battery storage—while natural gas accounts for just 7%.
This marks a dramatic pivot toward renewables, with wind power additions matching gas over the next four years and solar outpacing gas by five times over the next three years.
The plan stems from APS’s 2023 “All Source” Request for Proposals (RFP), which initially sought 1,000 MW of new generation, with at least 700 MW from renewables. Surpassing expectations, APS contracted for 7,200 MW, transforming its energy mix.
By 2028, APS’s generation is projected to shift from 76% reliable dispatchable sources (55% natural gas, 14% coal, 8% nuclear) and 19% renewables (10% solar, 6% wind, 3% battery storage) to 46% reliable sources (35% gas, 6% coal, 5% nuclear) and 52% renewables (22% solar, 7% wind, 23% battery storage). This expansion is equivalent to building two new Palo Verde nuclear plants.
This renewable-heavy strategy comes despite recent emphasis by APS and the Commission on a new natural gas pipeline.
The plan has sparked controversy because it contrasts with President Trump’s criticism of wind energy, as APS doubles down on clean energy investments.
Regarding coal, APS’s filing remains vague on the closure of the Four Corners coal plant, projecting an exit between 2031 and 2038. This aligns with APS’s recent shift from “carbon-free” to a “carbon-neutral” goal by 2050.
The revised commitment addresses concerns about affordability and reliability while maintaining a focus on clean energy. Under carbon neutrality, APS must expand generation without increasing emissions, necessitating significant renewable and storage investments.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has expressed concerns over the delayed coal phase-out and questioned the cost of the renewable-heavy plan, estimating $42.7 billion over the next 15 years.
APS’s prior claims that renewables paired with storage could match the reliability and affordability of fossil fuels have faced skepticism that the transition may lead to higher rates and grid reliability challenges.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
