When they first announced their original Clean Energy Commitment in 2020, APS boasted about their plans to decarbonize. According to their own release, they weren’t doing what they described as the “easy thing” other utilities were doing–developing resource plans that still allow you to produce some carbon emissions, so long as you offset them elsewhere. No, they were committing to go “carbon free,” which means shutting down every single source of baseload power beside nuclear and replacing it entirely with solar, wind, and battery storage.
But late last week, APS announced a modification to their climate commitment. Instead of going carbon free, APS is switching to carbon neutral by 2050.
How is the new commitment different than the old one? For ratepayers worried about skyrocketing utility bills, it doesn’t change much…
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.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) that passed the House of Representatives last month contained numerous wins for the American people: permanent tax relief, funding for border security, an expansion of Health Savings Accounts, and even a new program to expand school choice. But arguably the most impactful accomplishment in the BBB was their success in taking a machete to the labyrinth of green new scam tax subsidies created by Joe Biden and the Democrats through the inflation-creating Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That alone makes it the most beautiful feature of the Big Beautiful Bill.
The House’s version included key provisions sunsetting some of the worst subsidies authorized under the IRA, including:
Ending the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for any project that doesn’t start within 60 days of the enacting legislation and isn’t in service by 2028;
Ending the Clean Electricity Investment Credit and Transferability of Tax Credits for Wind and Solar;
Eliminating the Tax Credit for Residential Solar and Rebates for “Green” Products;
Repealing the Electric Vehicle Credit designed to Force Manufacturers to Abandon Gas Powered Vehicles.
The rollback of these subsidies in the House BBB was a monumental feat, especially given the army of lobbyists hired by the green energy grifters to defend these subsidies on Capitol Hill. In fact, the big spenders in the GOP caucus almost succeeded in stopping the subsidy rollback. If not for the stalwart efforts of the House Freedom Caucus and the White House stepping in at the last minute of negotiations, the green scam subsidies would not be on the chopping block.
But now the bill is in the Senate, and the initial draft released of the revised Big Beautiful Bill by Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo is anything but big or beautiful…
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…
