President Trump is clear about offshore wind. On day one of his second term, he signed an executive order titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.”
Offshore wind developers risk trouble with Trump – CFACT
via climate science
April 17, 2025 at 01:33AM
“The proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This mandated energy transformation locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.”
For decades now, Alaska’s energy policy has come to be shaped not by the will of the people but by nefarious outside influence. The long track of intrusion has been led by climate activists and their NGOs (nongovernmental organizations).
Back in 2010, renewable energy targets were snuck into Alaska energy policy, laying the groundwork for today’s clamor for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Most Alaskans don’t realize how much of this policy written by and for self-interested, Leftie NGOs.
The same activist networks that roamed the halls of Juneau back then never left. These groups continue steer government toward their ideological ends, co-opting Alaska’s representative republic in the process. None of this is organic; it’s the result of calculated pressure from groups that have little concern for Alaskans but plenty of appetite for power.
A Renewable Portfolio Standard is back on the agenda in Alaska for the third time. Gov. Mike Dunleavy backed the original version in 2022, and now Republicans are out of the majority.
Renewable Portfolio Standard #3
“An Act relating to generation of electricity from renewable energy resources; relating to a renewable portfolio standard; relating to power cost equalization; and providing for an effective date” (House Bill 153) was introduced by Rep. Ky Holland (I-Anchorage) on March 24, 2025. Per his presentation:
An RPS is a requirement on retail electric suppliers… to supply a minimum percentage or amount of their retail load… with eligible sources of renewable energy. HB 153 sets the following targets: 40 percent by 2030, 55 percent by 2035.”
The 2023 RPS proposes 25 percent by 2027, 55 percent by 2035, and 80 percent by 2040. Currently, the Railbelt (the grid serving 85 percent of Alaska’s load) is only at 15 percent renewable. Hydropower dominates, suppling ~90 percent of the renewable electricity statewide in 2023. According to the sponsor, 40 percent by 2030 from 15 percent today is “modest,” and 55 percent is a “realistic” cap.
Although the legislation allows for hydropower, activists behind the bill have simultaneously called for the removal of the Eklutna Dam, which provides about 14 percent of the Railbelt’s total renewable share. With that, it becomes obvious what sources the co-ops will be forced to adopt: intermittent sources like wind and solar.
House Bill 153: Problems Aplenty
Then candidate Holland was provided with information on just how unreliable wind can be when Alaskans need it the most. During the 2024 cold snap, wind at Fire Island fell to zero for a prolonged period, with the average at just 20.3 percent for the week—100 percent unreliable.
The legislation penalizes member-owned co-ops who fail to meet the targets with fines of $45/MWh, adjusted annually for inflation. The fine, as proposed in 2023, was $20/MWh, and while co-ops couldn’t technically recover it through rates, there was no realistic way for them to pay it otherwise. But this bill is completely different, and they don’t even try to hide it.
When asked by committee member Rep. George Rauscher about who pays the price, Shaina Kilcoyne, Holland’s staffer, admitted that “ultimately the ratepayer would pay.”
In a larger scale scenario, such as a hospital using 10,000-15,000 MWh/year, the fines at a 20 percent shortfall would be more than $100k annually. For residential homes, it is in the hundreds of dollars, and it only escalates for both as the push to electrify everything—heat pumps, EVs, public transit, industrial process heat. This does not include the intermittency factor or the higher cost of renewables themselves that the co-ops will undoubtedly need to increase your base rates to account for.
This proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This is a mandated energy transformation with sharp, big sticks aimed directly at ratepayers’ wallets. It locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.
Activists, Operatives, Dark Money
The credit for the RPS legislation this round goes to staffer Kilcoyne, who presented the sectional analysis to the House Energy Committee on April 1, 2024. Kilcoyne co-led the implementation of the Anchorage Climate Action Plan under Mayor Ethan Berkowitz. She is listed as the Energy Transition Program Director for the Alaska Venture Fund. Alaska Venture Fund is a project of the New Venture Fund, the flagship nonprofit of the many organizations managed by Arabella Advisors. The Alaska project received $10 million in 2021 from the Bezos Earth Fund to advance former President Joe Biden’s unconstitutional Justice40 in Alaska.
No surprise, the same old cheerleaders for past RPS bills were invited by the committee for testimony. This included blogger Erin McKittrick who is on the board of REAP and the Chief Energy Officer from Hawaii, plus one new recruit: Alaska Public Interest Research Group, AKPIRG.
AKPIRG claims to be Alaska’s only non-governmental, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group- yet they testified in support of the RPS. Hard to imagine a bigger hypocrisy: backing a policy that punishes ratepayers and consumers. The claim of nonpartisanship made during testimony, as well as in the written presentation, is especially interesting.
The presenter, Energy Lead Natalie Kiley-Bergen, is a registered Democrat. Their website dons a land acknowledgment and states that they use the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing, used exclusively by anti-capitalist radical environmental justice groups that promote fossil fuel bans.
According to their 2024 report, this “nonpartisan” group proudly celebrated a four-month sabbatical for their executive director and locked in a permanent four-day workweek, complete with a paid wellness day every single week. Apparently, dismantling the economy is exhausting work, even for the nonpartisan crowd. Proudly displayed in their 2024 annual report is the list of donors, the typical blend of left-wing policy, climate, and electoral influence networks. The climate and energy transition funders include the 11th Hour Project, Hopewell Fund and Tortuga Foundation. The Hopewell Fund is also part of the Arabella Advisors network.
Grand Deception
For years, Alaska’s RPS was pushed by activists and policymakers as a solution to climate change. But as skepticism has grown—especially during the Trump administration, which is now actively pulling the rug out from under the climate agenda and slashing Green New Deal funding—the same players have simply shifted tactics. With the climate narrative losing traction in Alaska, they’re now repackaging the RPS as a response to dwindling Cook Inlet gas reserves and the supposed threat of expensive gas imports. Biden’s U.S. Department of Energy helped them with that.
It’s the same mandate, just a new fear campaign, swapping the “climate crisis” for a “gas crisis” to force through costly, unreliable energy policies driven by far-left climate NGOs.
This is the trap of an “all of the above” energy approach. Dunleavy has repeated this mantra multiple times. This approach is an excuse for doing a little bit of everything and none of it well. Enormous amounts of state resources and effort were poured into Energy Security Task Forces and Sustainable Energy Conferences. There was even a technical committee stood up by former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson to advise the Southcentral Alaska Mayors on the gas crisis. A report on their investigations has yet to be issued. The net result for Alaska is centralized planning, green banks, carbon capture and RPS mandates designed to force wind and solar onto the grid.
Alaska needs leadership that stops hiding behind “all of the above” and moves to all of the sensible instead. Last September, I suggested an RPS to Holland when he was running for office, a Reliable Portfolio Standard. But here he is now, pushing the complete opposite—backing a policy that guarantees unreliability and skyrocketing costs. Alaska deserves power that works, not politics that don’t.
HB 153 Hearing
Public testimony on HB 153 was held April 10. Public testimony clearly rejected the RPS. Ratepayers came out in force, and most speakers were firmly against. Everyday Alaskans made it clear they don’t want unreliable energy forced on our grid.
Meanwhile, nearly all the support of the RPS came from those set to financially profit from the bill, led by Chris Rose of Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), who conveniently got over three minutes to make his pitch compared to our two. It was hearty to see the citizens do so well against the 15-staffed REAP and other government and Left environmental organizations out to have Big Brother implement bad energy policies.
Looking Ahead
The Committee claimed there will be more hearings next week, but nothing is scheduled yet. The bill still has to move through House Resources and House Finance after Energy. Unfortunately, those committees are dominated by Leftists, and with the majority lost in 2024, the bill is likely to pass.
The thin hope is that the governor feels the heat given Trump’s latest executive orders. Signing the bill would be political suicide given the replacement of the Biden regime. But we know Dunleavy’s game — if he doesn’t veto, and simply lets it sit for 20 days, it becomes law quietly.
The governor has the Sustainable Energy Conference at the end of legislative session for a reason, and Shaina Kilcoyne, who carried this bill, is a speaker (coincidence?). Alex Epstein and Daniel Turner are featured speakers as well.
One very important point raised in testimony: Rep. Holland is a conflicted lawmaker. He’s a founding member of Alaska Version 3, an organization dedicated to moving Alaska away from its oil economy and into renewable mandates. As they put it in 2021:
Ky wanted to start a conversation about Alaska’s future…. Recognizing that its oil economy has beneficially driven state growth, but is now in a mature state and can no longer sustain us. What comes next?
The answer, clearly, is this bill — and it serves his ideological agenda, not Alaska’s energy security.
Speak out. Letters and opinions can be emailed to House.Energy@akleg.gov
———————
Kassie Andrews is an energy expert on Alaskan politics and resource development. A lifelong Alaskan, her career in energy has involved project management, construction, and finance. Her prior analyses from a free-market perspective can be found here.
The post Alaska vs Renewable Portfolio Standard: The Public Awakens appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
April 17, 2025 at 01:10AM
By P Gosselin on 16. April 2025
Blackout News here reports on how Germany’s uncontrolled solar production without appropriate storage and consumption models is putting a huge burden on the domestic market and consumers.
At the same time, neighboring countries are benefiting from all the free electricity Germany uncontrollably overproduces and consumers just don’t need!
Image generated by Grok AI
Experts are warning of the collapse of an over-regulated energy system that is increasingly moving away from reality. Germany has significantly expanded its solar PV capacity in recent years. According to the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur), the total installed solar PV capacity in Germany reached 99.3 GW at the end of December 2024.
The country’s massive solar power production is leading to a growing problem due to mass overproduction and the resulting negative electricity prices, which occur particularly when the sun is shining midday and demand is low: all the surplus electricity flows abroad – free of charge! This sort of absurdity is what happens when politicians and bureaucrats take over energy engineering.
In 2023, the proportion of hours with negative prices averaged 18%, in May it was as high as 31%. Despite billions being invested in the expansion of photovoltaics, basic measures such as storage technologies and smart meters are being neglected.
Experts criticize the lack of powerful battery storage systems and the sluggish expansion of smart electricity meters, which could enable the flexible use of surplus electricity. Energy market expert Björn Peters criticizes the current legal situation, which does not allow operators of solar systems to participate in negative prices and thus creates false incentives.
He is calling for a halt to the expansion of PV and the abolition of the EEG green energies feed-in act.
Peters advocates a fundamental change of course towards a more reliable energy supply, including a return to nuclear power, the expansion of coal-fired power generation and the use of domestic gas reserves. The current energy system is neither sustainable nor financially viable. So far, politicians have not provided any clear answers or concrete measures to relieve the burden on citizens and companies.
Originally reported on by Bild.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
April 17, 2025 at 12:04AM
By David Wojick
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act specifically says that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) cannot issue more “take” (that is kill) permits than the population can survive. Two new studies together imply that the golden eagle wind-kill taking is at that limit or beyond.
Clearly FWS must stop issuing new wind turbine take permits until it rigorously assesses this situation. No new wind turbines should be erected. Some presently in operation may have to shut down. Fortunately, new eagle kill permits are presently on hold under the President’s Executive Order, but we are also talking about the law.
The primary area of concern is the western range of the Golden Eagle. This runs from Montana, Idaho, and Washington down to the Mexico border. Note that the eagles often migrate north to spend the summer in Canada, so the more northern states see a lot more than their local winter populations.
However, the entire US population is only about 30,000 eagles, down from an estimated 80,000 in 1980, and they are found everywhere. Thus the entire country might be in need of care.
The first study is “Age-specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of Golden Eagles in the western United States,” Ecological Applications, January 2022 and it is here.
The primary point is to estimate the allowable take (death rate from human action) under the law and compare that to the present death rate. Their allowable take estimate is a range with a median of 2,227 deaths per year, while their estimated actual take is actually greater at 2,572 annual deaths.
These are very rough numbers, so the basic point is it looks like we are already at the allowable take. Adding a lot of eagle-killing wind turbines could put the Golden Eagle on the illegal road to extinction. Clearly, caution is called for.
The second study attempts to quantify the wind-killing threat. The study is “Estimated Golden Eagle mortality from wind turbines in the western United States,” Biological Conservation, February 2025, here.
Their primary conclusion is this: “Anthropogenic mortality is the primary cause of death in adult Golden Eagles and recent trends indicate their population may be declining. If the current rate of growth of the wind energy industry continues, it could have conservation implications for Golden Eagle and other raptor populations.”
They use a collision risk model that combines the spatial population density of the eagles with the spatial density of the spinning blades. This captures the fact that in addition to wind turbines getting more numerous, they are also getting much bigger.
As an aside, I proposed a roughly similar approach to quantifying the increasing risk to whales from offshore wind development. Here the wind projects force the whales into areas of greater ship traffic.
See my “The whale killing study the Feds are afraid to do” here.
Also “How to kill whales with offshore wind” here.
Neither of these eagle studies is definitive; far from it. In fact, some of their numbers disagree. The point is that the Fish and Wildlife Service must itself conduct a rigorous assessment of the allowable take for Golden Eagles and the potential impact of additional wind development on that take.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requires such an assessment because the FWS is prohibited from approving a cumulative take that exceeds the allowable limit. This takes us beyond the wind power executive order which also calls for an ecological assessment of wind power. It is the law.
The threat to Golden Eagles from wind is potentially enormous. Wind power generating capacity today is about 160,000 MW. The queue of new wind interconnection applications is around an incredible 230,000 additional MW. Much of that is within the western range of the eagle, and they are also found in every continental state.
The Fish and Wildlife Service simply must address this huge potential threat before any new take permits are issued to wind turbine facilities. Moreover, the assessment and underlying data must be made public under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is clearly a NEPA action.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
April 16, 2025 at 08:07PM
