Wind Power’s Subsidy Sham: Grumet’s Plea Ignores 40 Years of Unreliability

By Robert Bradley Jr. — June 25, 2025

“It is ironic that Jason Grumet of the American Clean Power Association argues for continued taxpayer subsidies for wind power…. In 1986, a predecessor organization to ACPA, the American Wind Energy Association, testified, ‘The U.S. wind industry has … demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive.’ False.” – Tom Pyle, IER (below)

Here they are–the crony capitalists who seek wealth from the political means (special government favor) rather than consumer demand in the market with taxpayers neutral.

The list comes from a recent letter from “clean” energy trade groups, led by Jason Grumet of the American Clean Power Association, to Senator John Thune and Representative Mike Crapo, urging them “to be thoughtful when phasing out clean energy tax credits.”

Advanced Energy United (AEU)
American Clean Power Association (ACP)
American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
American Public Power Association (APPA)
Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA)
Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA)
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA)
Fusion Industry Association (FIA)
Large Public Power Council (LPPC)
National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED)
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA)
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
National Hydropower Association (NHA)
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

Of the above “dirty 18,” perhaps the worst is the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Shame on them. Their position change 16 years ago resulted from one person, the father of electricity cronyism (rent-seeking), James E. “Jim” Rogers (1947–2018). Rogers proudly stated:

I was the first CEO in the electric utility industry to speak about the changes needed in the face of climate change. I’ve long advocated [government energy subsidies] to grow the economy and transition to a low-carbon future…. I was chairman of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) when it changed its position to support federal climate legislation in 2009.

Enron-ex Rogers, in fact, brought Enron/Ken Lay’s crony capitalism model to electricity. Boo. As I wrote six years ago:

Yes, Rogers was making a deal with the devil, but he could claim to be playing defense. But he was hurting the entire fossil fuel industry by playing the political game to start a civil war in the power industry. The Baptists needed this Bootlegger.

Appendix: Grumet vs. Pyle on IRA Subsidies

Jason Grumet of the American Clean Power Association previously earlier this year made his case in a letter in the Wall Street Journal, “Don’t Take the Wind Out of America’s Sails” (January 21, 2025):

Your editorial “Trump Speaks Truth to Wind Power” (Jan. 13) is at odds with the longstanding national imperative to increase domestic energy production. For more than a century, Congress has employed tax policy to encourage all forms of domestic energy production, from hydropower, coal and oil to nuclear energy, natural gas and, most recently, renewable resources.

These incentives take a variety of forms, including subsidized access to federal lands, tax credits for energy production and domestic manufacturing and liability caps in the case of accidents. In a theoretical world governed by macroeconomists, we should all welcome the discussion of an energy system that is free of government subsidies. In the real world, careening energy demand requires that we encourage all forms of American-made power. In addition to reducing costs for consumers and powering America’s digital dominance, the energy sector is an engine for economic growth and employment.

Like oil and gas, the domestic wind industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in construction and manufacturing. It also provides investments to local communities through landowner payments and local tax revenues. According to a recent analysis, the incentives criticized in the editorial are returning nearly $3 of economic activity for every dollar of taxpayer investment. President Trump’s call for increasing American energy dominance is the right direction for the country. Retreating to a “some of the above,” strategy that pits the federal government against any aspect of the American energy industry is bad politics and bad policy.

– JASON GRUMET CEO, American Clean Power Association Washington

To which IER president Thomas Pyle responded (not published in the WSJ):

It is ironic that Jason Grumet of the American Clean Power Association argues for continued taxpayer subsidies for wind power. In 1986, a predecessor organization to ACPA, the American Wind Energy Association, testified, “The U.S. wind industry has … demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive.” False. Fourteen extensions of the “temporary” Production Tax Credit since 1992 reaffirm the inherent problems of an electricity generation alternative that is dilute, intermittent, and full of unique ecological drawbacks.

5 23 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
June 28, 2025 7:08 pm

Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. Remove all subsidies, tax preferences, environmental forgiveness and mandates for wind and solar.

Tom Johnson
June 29, 2025 3:32 am

By the definition of these “clean energy trade groups”, wind and solar electricity is reliable. That’s because they often ‘reliably’ produce electricity when the wind blows and the sun shines. To consumers, they will NEVER be reliable because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. There is simply no adequate energy storage system on the technology horizon that makes up for that. Their destiny is unreliability and will stay that way for at least decades. It’s time for these groups to accept reality. The rest of us already have.

June 29, 2025 6:56 am

I’m no engineer, but it seems obviously ridiculous to hook the horse to the cart before the wheels have even been made. That is what the entire “renewables” push has been. There is no honest or ethical reason for it.

Petey Bird
June 29, 2025 8:17 am

I would be all for wind and solar if they were actually useful. I am in favour of developing all energy sources. The trouble is that a source that cannot respond to load demand has very limited use. Connecting them to the grid is just stupid. They are unsuitable.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Petey Bird
June 30, 2025 8:14 am

They are unsuitable except in limited niche applications.
Solar power for the sidewalk lights I have installed is one niche. Note, my sidewalk is not part of the power grid.

John Pickens
June 29, 2025 4:55 pm

Last week, on the hottest day of the year here on the East Coast, I drove up North Carolina Route 17 past the huge onshore wind farm. The entire crop of wind turbines was stationary in the 95 degree heat. Worthless.

Crispin in Val Quentin
June 30, 2025 9:19 am

This business relies on the shaky premise that there are “clean fuels” and “dirty fuel”. This was extended into “clean energy” and “dirty energy” with the main explanation being that coal is black. The “fuels” are listed as:

Clean fuels/energy
Wind (if most of the supply chain and disposal/recycling are ignored)
Solar thermal (if it is really, really big)
Solar PV (if most of the supply chain and disposal/recycling are ignored)
Geothermal
Water if it is not big and doesn’t already exist
Wave
Methane (natural gas)
Propane (and other -anes on the approved list)
Electricity from any source (even if it is from diesel generators)
Fusion (regardless of the by products)
Biomass (if it is done at a scale that poor people cannot afford)

Dirty fuels/energy
Coal (whether it is burned perfectly or badly)
Biomass (guilt by association, not because it isn’t renewable)
Charcoal (even though it is 100% renewable)
Oil (the best method of creating wipepo guilt)
Kerosene (which is as clean burning as its main competitor: propane, tho cheaper and safer)
Water (if it is from a really big dam – go figure)
Nuclear (whether it is light water or CANDU or thorium/U233)
Solar PV (if the supply chain and disposal/recycling are considered)
Wind (if the backup systems needed are considered together)
To be placed in the clean list all you have to do is ignore parts of the supply and disposal chain. TO move something to the dirty list all you have to do is yell “dirty fuel” a large number of times.

The terms Clean and Dirty mean anything you want or don’t want.

I love the smell of subsidies in the morning. They smell like victory!

June 30, 2025 1:39 pm

I think it’s obvious the only thing wind and solar generate consistently is subsidies.