We always knew it would be costly, and experience has proven that true. But now, in a newly released report published by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the AZ Liberty Network, the cost for Arizona’s largest utility to go “Net Zero” was found to be even more expensive than expected coming with a massive price tag of at least $42.7 billion by 2038.
History of the Green New Deal in Arizona
The “green” agenda is not new to Arizona. In 2006, then Chairman of the Corporation Commission Kris Mayes pushed through the first mandates in Arizona, requiring our utilities to get 15% of their energy generation from “renewables” by 2025. Those rules alone have already cost ratepayers $2.3 billion. In 2018, an out-of-state billionaire funded a proposition on the ballot that would have required utilities to obtain 50% renewable generation by 2035. That measure went down in flames, being rejected by a 2-1 vote.
And these aren’t just public statements. The utilities have committed to going “Net Zero” in SEC filings to their shareholders, and they even compensate their top executives (page 68) based on how much “clean” energy they build in our state. Unsurprisingly, these commitments completely shape their resource plans…
During his debate with former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden claimed: “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change.” What if I told you that it is not climate change but climate policies that are the real existential threat to billions across our planet?
The allure of a green utopia masks the harsh realities of providing affordable and reliable electricity. Americans could soon wake up to a dystopian future if the proposed Net Zero and Build Back Better initiatives — both aimed at an illogical proliferation of unreliable renewables and a clamp down on dependable fossil fuels — are implemented.
Nowhere is this better reflected than in remote regions of India where solar panels — believed to provide clean and green energy — ultimately resulted in being used to construct cattle sheds.
The transformation of Dharnai in the state of Bihar into a “solar village” was marked by great enthusiasm and high expectations. Villagers were told the solar micro-grid would provide reliable electricity for agriculture, social activities and daily living. The promise engendered a naïve trust in a technology that has failed repeatedly around the world.
The news of this Greenpeace initiative quickly spread as international news media showcased it as a success story for “renewable” energy in a third world country. CNN International’s “Connect the World” said Dharnai’s micro-grid provided a continuous supply of electricity. For an unaware viewer sitting in, say, rural Kentucky, solar energy would have appeared to be making great strides as a dependable energy source.
But the Dharnai system would end up on the long list of grand solar failures.
“As soon as we got solar power connections, there were also warnings to not use high power electrical appliances like television, refrigerator, motor and others,” saida villager. “These conditions are not there if you use thermal power. Then what is the use of such a power? The solar energy tariff was also higher compared to thermal power.”
A village shopkeeper said: “But after three years, the batteries were exhausted and it was never repaired. … No one uses solar power anymore here.” Hopefully, the solar panels will last longer as shelter for cows.
Eventually, the village was connected to the main grid, which provided fully reliable coal-powered electricity at a third of the price of the solar power.
Dharnai is not an isolated case. Several other large-scale solar projects in rural India have had a similar fate. Writing for the publication Mongabay, Mainsh Kumar said: “Once (grid) electricity reaches unelectrified villages, the infrastructure and funds used in installation of such off-grid plants could prove futile.”
While green nonprofits and liberal mainstream media have the embarrassment of a ballyhooed solar project being converted to cattle shed, conventional energy sources like coal continue to power India’s over 1.3 billion people and the industries their economies depend on.
India saw a record jump in electricity demand this year, partly due to increased use of air conditioning units and other electrical appliances as more of the population achieved the financial wherewithal to afford them. During power shortages, coal often has come to the rescue. India allows its coal plants to increase coal stockpiles and import additional fuel without restrictions.
India will add more than 15 gigawatts in the year ending March 2025 (the most in nine years) and aims to add a total of 90 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2032.
Energy reality is inescapable in a growing economy like India’s, and only sources such as coal, oil and natural gas can meet the demand. Fossil fuels can be counted on to supply the energy necessary for modern life, and “green” sources cannot.
India’s stance is to put economic growth ahead of any climate-based agenda to reduce the use of fossil fuels. This was reaffirmed when the country refused to set an earlier target for its net zero commitment, delaying it until 2070.
The story of Dharnai serves as a cautionary tale for the implementation of renewable energy projects in rural India, where pragmatism is the official choice over pie in the sky.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK.
A vote by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) earlier this week moved to limit energy companies’ push to meet Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) goals.
The ACC voted 4-1 on Tuesday to draft rules to repeal existing rules and mandates for renewable energy as well as electric and gas energy efficiency: the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules and the Energy Efficiency Standards (EE), also known as the Demand Side Management (DSM). Per the commission, the rules and mandates for REST and EE/DSM resulted in incentives for renewable energy projects and services, since utilities were required to file proposals describing REST compliance.
Commissioner Ana Tovar was the sole “no” vote on the motions. The standards behind EE/DSM expired in 2020, but previous commissions didn’t repeal the rule.
The commission noted in Wednesday and Thursday press releases that the rules, tracing back to 2006 for REST and 2010 for EE/DSM, have cost customers nearly $3.4 billion through corresponding surcharges. REST surcharges have cost ratepayers nearly $2.3 billion, while EE/DSM surcharges cost nearly $1.1 billion.
Commissioner Nick Myers said in Wednesday’s press release that the rules and mandates were unnecessary and would result in a drastic cost increase to consumers.
“I believe it is time for the Commission to consider repealing these rules and mandates that appear to unnecessarily drive-up costs,” said Myers. “Utilities should select the most cost-effective energy mix to provide reliable and affordable service, without being constrained by government-imposed mandates that make it more expensive for their customers.”
In Thursday’s press release, Chairman Jim O’Connor — who filed the motion to repeal REST — said that the commissioners from nearly 20 years ago were “well-intentioned” in their vision for reducing the state’s carbon footprint through the REST rules, but that no cost controls were ever implemented, at the detriment of ratepayers.
“In 2006 when the REST rules supplanted the EPS rule, concerns by the dissenting Commissioner cited the lack of cost control measure that would negatively impact ratepayers, and the then-Chairman Hatch-Miller intended that the Commission review annually whether it was in the best interest of the ratepayers. Those reviews never occurred and costs were never considered,” said O’Connor.
O’Connor further remarked that contracts in pursuit of environmental mandates ultimately burdened the ratepayers.
“We began the steps needed to repeal a rule that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars in out of market priced contracts,” said O’Connor. “Mandates distort market signals and are not protective of ratepayers.”
Commissioner Kevin Thompson — who filed the motion to repeal EE/DSM — stated in the press release that the repeal marked a victory for ratepayers, and the end of “feel-good programs” that lack affordability and reliability.
“Arizona utilities have collected over a billion dollars in ratepayer surcharges for efficiency initiatives that have done little to avoid the need for new generation and have benefitted a select few,” said Thompson. “Energy efficiency programs are routinely pushed by vocal special interest groups where the economic benefits favor a small group of customers, and the large majority of ratepayers foot the bill.”
The entire rulemaking process will take over a year, according to commission staff. The REST and EE/DSM repeal are part of a greater, five-year review of existing ACC rule packages.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A coalition of grassroots advocacy groups is asking the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to reject Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) efforts by energy companies, citing the impact to consumer well-being.
In a letter sent last week, representatives of Heritage Action for America, EZAZ, and Heartland Impact, led by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC), expressed concern for the impact on utility rates and energy reliability that ESG implementation poses under plans submitted by APS, TEP, and UNS. The grassroots claimed that the three companies have deprioritized cost and efficiency in pursuit of voluntary climate goals.
“The Commission has a constitutional obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates and a statutory duty to ensure adequate provision of service,” stated the organizations. “That means ensuring reliable, affordable, and plentiful energy in the state, which should be the mission of this Commission. But these ideological environmental commitments do the opposite, and for that reason, they should be rejected.”
The grassroots leaders also expressed concern with the relationship between ESG and a greater political agenda to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. In order to achieve net zero, companies would have to drastically reduce, if not eliminate totally, usage of coal, gas, and oil in exchange for renewable energies such as solar and wind.
In their letter, the organizations pointed out the intermittency — and therefore unreliability — of renewable energies. They referenced the power failures and high rates experienced by states and countries further along in their net zero journey, citing specifically California, Texas, and Germany.
The grassroots leaders maintained that ACC has the authority to prevent energy companies from quitting traditional energies and using ratepayer funds to subsidize renewables.
Utility companies previously rejected an increased reliance on renewable energies as recently as 2018, the letter noted, over concerns that such a move would greatly increase costs for ratepayers. They also cited 2021 ACC cost analysis, which found in part that a total transition to renewables could incur a $6 billion cost to ratepayers, averaging hundreds of dollars more a month, by 2050.
Last year, AFEC issued an analysis comparing the energy mandates of the 10 states with the highest electricity rates and 10 states with the lowest electricity rates. Per that report, nine of the 10 states with the highest rates had some form of mandates requiring renewable energy usage, while seven of the 10 states with the lowest rates had no mandates at all.
The report estimated that states with renewable energy mandates paid, on average, close to double what their peers in mandate-free states paid.
In a press release, AFEC President Scot Mussi blamed leftist politicians for the ESG push.
“Liberal activists and politicians in Arizona are seeking to harm our energy future, freedoms, and choices by forcing their radical and failed ESG policies on consumers,” said Mussi.
As AZ Free News reported last November, the executives overseeing those three companies have financial incentives to meet ESG criteria.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
For several years, Arizonans have faced a threat of radical renewable energy mandates being imposed on our grid. In 2018, the voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure that would have required utilities to generate 50% of their energy with “renewables” by 2030. Then, in 2021, the Arizona Corporation Commission considered, and rejected, a 100% renewable mandate completely banning fossil fuel generation by 2050. But now, the utilities have voluntarily committed themselves to these goals, known as “Net Zero by 2050”, under the broader requirements of their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) commitments.
