Green Promises, Red Bills — Time to Power America the Right Way
America’s energy landscape is shifting under the weight of surging demand from AI data centers and revitalized industry. At the same time, Biden-era policy failures are delivering skyrocketing electricity costs that squeeze family budgets, while an overburdened grid struggles to keep pace.
President Trump and his administration are doing great work to restore energy common sense, and another step toward a practical solution is at hand. Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12) has introduced the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act of 2025, a bill that anchors energy policy in clear, evidence-based definitions of “affordable,” “reliable,” and “clean” aims to steer us toward stability and affordability.
Here’s a fact advocates of the Green New Scam want you to forget: under Joe Biden’s administration, electricity prices climbed a staggering 29.4%, outpacing overall inflation by about 50%. Families across the country felt the pinch as the cost of running a dishwasher or keeping the lights on became a budget-buster. This wasn’t some natural market shift—it was the direct result of an aggressive push toward wind and solar mandates that shuttered reliable baseload power plants without adequate replacements. As The Wall Street Journal highlighted, cheap natural gas kept rates stable for years before Biden’s green agenda kicked in, but now we’re paying the price for policies that prioritized ideology over reality.
The evidence is overwhelming that green projects are not the solution for a stable grid. A recent analysis from Power The Future, drawing on over 500,000 federal electricity records, shows a clear pattern: states that aggressively retired fossil fuel generation in favor of intermittent renewables saw sharp price hikes. California lost 57 million MWh/year of fossil generation since 2010, driving prices up 8.3 cents per kWh. Massachusetts fared even worse, with a 74% drop in fossil output leading to a 6.4-cent increase. These aren’t anomalies; they’re the predictable outcome of replacing dispatchable power—sources that can ramp up on demand—with weather-dependent alternatives that require costly backups, storage, and transmission infrastructure.
And the crisis is only deepening. Electricity demand is poised to double by 2030, largely driven by AI workloads that could consume as much power as 40 million homes. Without firm, reliable generation, we’ll see higher rates and economic fallout. Working families are already struggling—73% of Americans are concerned about rising energy bills, with 64% reporting higher costs than last year, according to national surveys. For a typical family of four, a 30% rate hike adds $600 annually just in utility bills, plus hundreds more in inflated prices for groceries, goods, and services.
This is why the Trump Administration is absolutely correct in declaring an energy emergency. We’ve seen decades of bad policy: renewable portfolio standards forcing coal phase-outs, carbon regulations, and state mandates in places like New York and Oregon that rushed plant closures without backups. Democrats like Elizabeth Warren cheered these moves, only to blame Trump when the bills came due. But finger-pointing won’t keep the lights on. We need continued action to prioritize grid stability.
Congressman Balderson’s bill does exactly that. It ensures policies are grounded in science, not “Green New Deal” rhetoric. Within 90 days of enactment, agencies must review and report on their actions, and within 180 days, update rules to align with these terms. This provides congressional oversight and protects reliable sources of power as vital to our energy mix.
America’s energy future demands an approach that prioritizes affordability and reliability. Congressman Balderson’s Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act is part of the roadmap to get there, lowering costs for families, bolstering our grid against surging demand, and securing our energy independence.
If we don’t continue to prioritize affordable and reliable energy today, we sow the seeds for the next price shock tomorrow.
Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Reads like a political press release. What does it actually do? I could probably download it and read it, but I have this odd expectation that the
articlepress release touting it might say something more than “anchors energy policy in clear, evidence-based definitions of “affordable,” “reliable,” and “clean” aims to steer us toward stability and affordability.” There’s nothing clear or evidence-based about any of that.Nice twist.
Nope, the parent is at least partially correct. Its not hard to actually find the proposed legislation from the link provided (though its yet another step removed), and the definitions are at the very start so you don’t have to read through hundreds of pages to get to the point.
While I applaud the desire, only 2 of the 3 ‘defined terms’ are useful. Specifically ‘reliability’ and ‘clean’.
Reliability is effectively defined as an energy source with at least 60% “load carrying capacity” after accounting for maintenance and not subject to the whims of weather or ‘intermittency’…e.g. nighttime and no wind count against an energy source. So it can be measured & designed for. I would have chosen a different definition but it is useful.
‘Clean’ is an odd one in so much as it isn’t so much defining what ‘clean’ means as pointing to existing regulation to identify energy sources that should be considered ‘clean’, though to be fair it also sets out how ‘hydrocarbon’ can be considered clean provided they meet the requirements of the ‘Clean Air Act’. Ultimately if you are looking for an ‘easy’ definition that can be measured and adhered to this isn’t bad but you wouldn’t exactly publish this as authoritative in a dictionary.
The one that is truly just political is ‘Affordable’, defined simply as ‘low cost’…umm WHAT? To me this disqualifies this proposed legislation as being taken seriously in any way. They didn’t even make an effort to put some measurable boundaries here, they just mailed it in.
Push comes to shove this Rep was looking for ‘air time’ and scoring some political points. They made a half-hearted attempt at ‘Affordability’ so he’d have a catchy acronym for his legislation.
So 2 of the 3 are at least ‘evidence based’, though 1 of these 2 isn’t entirely ‘clear’ from the reading (e.g. you have to go look up other regulations). The 3rd may be ‘clear’ (e.g. ‘low cost’) but it is in no way ‘evidence based’.
I’ll give it a B+, nice try but it’ll never get out of committee in this form and they need to either drop ‘Affordability’ or at least try to make an attempt at defining it so it can be measured.
Story Tip
This is all over the blog-o-sphere today:
Mosquitoes found in Iceland for 1st time as temperatures in the region rise
Natural Science Institute of Iceland entomologist Matthías Alfreðsson confirmed to The Guardian that three mosquitoes — two females and one male — were caught from red wine ropes used to attract moths.
So … volcanoes cause mosquitos? 😎
PS I had to look up “red vine ropes”. After sifting through the various licorice links, I found this.
https://butterfly-conservation.org/news-and-blog/a-recipe-for-moths-sugaring-wine-roping
I suspect saying it is the ‘first time’ is a lie.
Story tip – Rigorous science edition
Met Office weather stations: How we measure the weather
When you check the weather forecast, you’re relying on a vast network of weather stations that quietly gather data across the country.
But what exactly are weather stations, how do they work…
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2025/what-do-weather-stations-do
What to weather stations do? Well, in the case of our Met Office – not exist. Over 100 are fictional and 80% of the real ones record junk readings.
Are weather dependent generators given dispatch priority in the USA?
If so, then a very quick fix to lower the cost of power is to run essential generators at full capacity and require all WDGs to be dispatchable sort linked to dispatchable generation.
The lowest cost gas CCGT powered electricity come from plant running close to 100%. Likewise coal power. If coal powered is being responsive to WDGs it is completely wrong strategy.
WDGs should only be used as make up when low cost dispatchable is at capacity.
About time. Fully dependable, dispatchable (load following), lowest cost electricity. A fundamental goal, rule for 100 years. Overturned by “green”, “net zero” fantasies.
Electric utilities must be allowed to procure reliable, stable, full time generation.
The mandated “green” energy markets must end.
One idea expressed in a comment: Only allow Wind and solar connecting to the grid tha have on-site make-up energy. That alone would lower electric prices. In addition, it would eliminate sporadic variations in sun and wind that both parasitically depend on and destroy grid reliability and stability.
Behind all these concerns lies an even greater problem that no one seems willing to discuss. Who will pay for the enormous expansion of our “reliable, affordable” energy supply and distribution systems predicted to meet the “needs of the AI industry”? I’m reminded of “Little Shop of Horrors” and the flesh-eating plant Audrey who conveys her insatiable needs: “Feed Me. Feed ME!”
Most US electricity and natural gas systems are operated by “regulated monopolies” that are controlled by “public utility commissions”. If capital is needed for expansion of generation, supply or distribution components, the monopoly tells the PUC what it needs (“Feed me!”), the PUC agrees, and the costs of capital and operation and maintenance are paid (with a guaranteed profit margin) – – by the residential and industrial customers. And if the rate-payers don’t pay, their service is terminated.
The PUCs and the monopolies have little incentive to be efficient because increased costs of the entire system bring increased revenues from the “indentured” rate payers. Sweet deal for the Big Guys, SOL for the little people and the general economy.
Looks like we need legislation that would (at least) require AI customers to foot the major costs (and risks) of expanding energy supplies, modernizing the regional grids, and maintaining the whole lot for a long time. Small modular reactors using thorium fuel should become major components of the energy future (US and international), and the major AI customers would seem to be the logical entities to underwrite the R & D needed to bring these systems to market.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
We certainly should not have to pay for this. We knew that there were limits on ‘renewables’ decades ago, and electric cars were tried a century ago, so it is not new that many technological ‘advances’ come and go. Since airplanes and humans can only go so fast I don’t know why there are not physical limits on computer speed uses. Is AI just another oversold fad?
The brilliant man that installed our mainframe computer system decades ago cautioned me about their possible use. In recent shopping for a car a new one was out of the question because of all the “controls.” Salespersons couldn’t tell me why they used to be so similar inside that it was easy to drive different ones but now they all look the same outside and different inside. Where is the gear shift? They are dangerous just like phones. Because of distractions car TVs were illegal in the front seat, now we have one there trying to tell us where to go.
This is not just a geriatric complaint, the last Consumer Report magazine listed controls as a problem in most of all types of new vehicles except pickup trucks. There may be two forms of rust to avoid, the first salt water, second AI innuendo. Produce victims with speed? Any intelligence called artificial is suspicious? Dictionary for Artificial=Humanly contrived…..
The goal of rate structures, which public service commissions pay considerable time to analyzing, are meant to make certain that one class of customers aren’t carrying another. Might have to make AI and data centers a special rate schedule, but that is about the only risk.
Thanks for your insight Kevin -and yet it is the PUCs that have consistently approved wind/solar projects that have raised everyone’s utility costs and granted “kick-backs” to the virtue-signaling fraction of solar panel owners and wind-adopters
It will not pass. The illiberal Democrats will lock it up.
see also the DOE fusion roadmap https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-doe-releases-roadmap-for-fusion-1459845/
Trump is making fusion great again
another day, another trash tokamak fusion program cancelled
hilarious to see all the tokkers losing their heads as their corrupt boondoggle government contracts get cancelled because Democrats at major universities would rather harass Jews and discriminate against Asians than waste taxpayer money on failed fusion schemes
at least CFS is trying to make electricity on their own dime, even if they’d be lucky to deliver power ten years later than Helion… and ten times as expensive
God bless Trump and everyone who voted for him 🙂
Why, oh why, does the fantasy of controllable fusion keep rising from the grave, the Zombie that refuses to die? But die it must.
Gravity is the only thing that controls fusion and nobody can make gravity on demand. Without gravity, you just waste phenomenal amounts of capital and intellectual energy or you get a thermonuclear bomb. Neither is good for any living thing on earth.
Stars release all the energy in the universe because they alone have the mass to contain fusion – until the Red Giant/White Dwarf/Supernova stage.
Someday someone might figure out how to make fusion for power work.
If they do, they’ll be rich! But not on my dime. Let private investors fund the research.
And don’t make the grid dependent on it before it’s proven to work reliably (as the greens are doing now).
This bill is only four pages of text; so, go read it.
(1) AFFORDABLE.—The term ‘‘affordable’’ with respect to energy means a low cost method of producing electricity, factoring in the full system cost of each generation source.
(2) RELIABLE.—The term ‘‘reliable’’ with respect to energy means a source of electricity that—
(A) except as required during a period of routine maintenance or repairs, has an Effective Load Carrying Capability of 60 percent or greater;
(B) is not subject to intermittent availability; and
(C) is not subject to routine weather that impacts energy production.
(3) CLEAN.—The term ‘‘clean’’ with respect to energy means any energy generated using—
(A) an energy source listed in section 18 203(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 19 U.S.C. 15852(b));
I’d say the definition of affordable will do as good a job of economizing the power system as is possible; the definition of reliable ought to put a dent in the enthusiasm about wind/solar, and the definition of clean just returns things to the status quo ante of climate hysteria.
Very nice Larry, excellent post.
…”driving prices up 8.3 cents per kWh. Massachusetts fared even worse, with a 74% drop in fossil output leading to a 6.4-cent increase.”
Doesn’t sound ‘even worse’ to me… am I missing something?