Connect with us

West

The predictable outcome of California’s green energy policies has arrived and it's a disaster

Published

on

The predictable outcome of California’s green energy policies has arrived and it's a disaster

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Back when I served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010, California ranked seventh or eighth in the nation for electricity costs. At the time, the Democratic majority in Sacramento was pushing bill after bill mandating greater reliance on renewable energy, assuring everyone that these policies would make us look like “geniuses” when the price of fossil fuels inevitably soared.  

Advertisement

I warned that these laws, regulations and subsidies would instead drive up electricity costs for Californians, making the grid less reliable and California’s economy less competitive. 

Now, two decades later, the results are in. In 2024, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that California had the second-highest electricity prices in the nation for the second year running, behind only Hawaii. The Golden State’s misguided energy policies have steadily increased the price of electricity as green energy mandates, grid instability and regulatory burdens have taken their toll. Meanwhile, states with more balanced energy policies — natural gas, coal and nuclear power — have fared far better. 

TRUCKING EXEC ‘HOPEFUL’ AS TRUMP EPA TARGETS BLUE-STATE EMISSIONS REGS: ‘LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL’

What’s worse, California’s natural advantage in AI will be lost to Texas and other low-cost energy states. California’s industrial electricity prices averaged 21.98 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2023 vs. 6.26 in Texas, a whopping 251% price premium that no electricity-hungry AI installation or server farm operator is going to pay. 

California’s aggressive pursuit of green energy goals spiked the cost of electricity. (Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

What Went Wrong? 

The core issue is simple: California’s policymakers prioritized renewable energy mandates over affordability and reliability. Over the years, they have forced utilities to integrate ever-growing amounts of wind and solar power while discouraging natural gas, nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric projects. These decisions ignored the reality that intermittent renewables require extensive grid upgrades, costly backup power sources and expensive storage solutions — all of which drive up costs for consumers and industry.  

California’s high electricity prices are not an accident; they are a direct consequence of these policies. The state’s cap-and-trade system, restrictive permitting laws and mandates like the Renewable Portfolio Standard (which requires utilities to generate 60% of their electricity from renewables by 2030) have all contributed to rising rates.  

At the same time, bureaucratic obstacles have made it nearly impossible to build new natural gas plants or modernize existing infrastructure. From 2014 to 2024, California approved or built only five natural gas plants, four of which replaced older facilities for a total output of up to 4 gigawatts. By comparison, in the prior 10 years, California commissioned dozens of plants totaling more than 20 gigawatts of nameplate capacity.  

Meanwhile, in New England… 

California is not alone in suffering from self-inflicted energy woes. New England, home to the third- and fourth-highest electricity costs in the country (Connecticut and Massachusetts), faces a similar problem. These states have aggressively shut down coal, resisted natural gas expansion and failed to invest in nuclear power — leaving them vulnerable to energy shortages and price spikes. 

One of the most baffling examples of New England’s energy mismanagement is its reliance on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Despite sitting just a few hundred miles from the abundant natural gas reserves of Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, New England has struggled to access this cheap, domestic energy source. Why? Because environmental activists and politicians in New York have blocked the construction of new pipelines that would transport affordable natural gas to the region. Instead, New England has been forced to import LNG from overseas, including from the Caribbean and, at times, even Russia. 

Advertisement

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Yes, you read that correctly — while the U.S. became the world’s top producer of natural gas, states in the Northeast have had to rely on foreign sources because of self-imposed pipeline constraints. This dependence on imported LNG has contributed to some of the highest electricity prices in the country and left the region exposed to global energy market fluctuations. 

The Lessons Are Clear 

California and New England serve as cautionary tales. When politicians prioritize ideological energy policies over common sense, the result is higher costs, reduced reliability and greater dependence on foreign energy sources. 

California is not alone in suffering from self-inflicted energy woes. New England, home to the third- and fourth-highest electricity costs in the country (Connecticut and Massachusetts), faces a similar problem.

The states with the lowest electricity prices — places like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas — have embraced domestic energy production, built modern infrastructure and resisted heavy-handed government mandates. Meanwhile, California and the Northeast have imposed regulatory burdens that make energy more expensive and less reliable. 

Advertisement

The evidence is clear: Green energy policies imposed on energy markets have made life harder for working families and businesses in states that have embraced the Green New Deal. If policymakers in California and the Northeast truly cared about affordability and reliability, they would rethink their hostility to natural gas, allow new pipeline construction, and reconsider their blind push for intermittent renewables and the costly backups they require. 

Instead, they continue doubling down on the same failed policies. And as electricity bills rise and blackouts loom, the people paying the price aren’t the politicians in Sacramento or Boston — they’re the hardworking families who just want to keep their lights on without breaking the bank. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CHUCK DEVORE

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Arizona

3 men sentenced in Arizona for multi-million dollar scam against Amazon

Published

on

3 men sentenced in Arizona for multi-million dollar scam against Amazon


PHOENIX (AZFamily) — Three Valley men have been sentenced for their roles in what prosecutors described as a “sophisticated fraud scheme” against an online shopping giant.

In a news release, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Mughith Faisal, 29, of Glendale, was sentenced on Feb. 5 to 18 months in prison. His brother, Basheer Faisal, 28, of Glendale, was also recently ordered to spend 18 months in prison.

The feds said a third defendant in the case, Abdullah Alwan, 28, of Surprise, was sentenced to six months in prison after the trio pleaded guilty to wire fraud.

Prosecutors said the three were also each ordered to pay $1.5 million in restitution to Amazon.

Advertisement

According to federal officials, Alwan worked in Amazon’s logistics division and left the company in 2021 when he reportedly used his knowledge to manipulate rates for transportation deliveries assigned to Amazon’s third-party carriers.

The feds said Basheer and Mughith Faisal used “Blue Line Transport” to knowingly get to increased transport rates that Alwan would then input into Amazon’s system, ripping them off out of $4.5 million.

The FBI’s Phoenix Division helped in the investigation, which was then prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

PlayOn Sports fined $1.1 million by California watchdog over student data violations

Published

on

PlayOn Sports fined .1 million by California watchdog over student data violations


California’s privacy watchdog has ordered PlayOn Sports to pay a $1.10 million fine and change how it handles consumer data after finding the company’s practices violated state law in ways that affected students and schools in the state.

The California Privacy Protection Agency Board issued the decision following a settlement reached by CalPrivacy’s Enforcement Division.

The decision is the first by the board to address privacy violations involving students and California schools.

Schools across the country use PlayOn Sports’ GoFan platform to sell digital tickets to high school sporting events, theater performances, and homecoming and prom dances, with attendees presenting tickets at the door on their mobile phones.

Advertisement

Schools also use PlayOn Sports’ platforms for other sports-related activities, including attending games, streaming them online, and looking up statistics about teams and players.

In California, about 1,400 schools contract with PlayOn Sports for these services.

[RELATED] X faces possible fines as EU probes Grok nonconsensual, sexualized deepfakes

GoFan is also the official ticketing platform for the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports.

According to the board’s decision, PlayOn Sports used tracking technologies to collect personal information and deliver targeted advertisements to ticketholders and others using its services.

Advertisement

The company allegedly required Californians to click “agree” to tracking technologies before they could use their tickets or view PlayOn Sports websites, without providing a sufficient opt-out option.

“Students trying to go to prom or a high school football game shouldn’t have to leave their privacy rights at the door,” said Michael Macko, CalPrivacy’s head of enforcement. “You couldn’t attend these events without showing your ticket, and you couldn’t show your ticket without being tracked for advertising. California’s privacy law does not work that way. Businesses must ensure they offer lawful ways for Californians to opt-out, particularly with captive audiences.”

The decision also describes students as a uniquely vulnerable population and warns that targeted advertising systems can subject students to profiling that can follow them for years, expose them to manipulative or harmful content, and develop sensitive inferences about their lives.

Instead of providing its own opt-out method, PlayOn Sports directed students and other users to opt out through the Network Advertising Initiative and the Digital Advertising Alliance, which the decision said violated the company’s responsibility to provide its own way for consumers to opt out. The company also allegedly failed to recognize opt-out preference signals and did not provide Californians with sufficient notice of its privacy practices.

“We are committed to making it as easy as possible for all Californians — from high school students to older adults, and everyone in between — to make the choice of whether they want to be tracked or not,” said Tom Kemp, CalPrivacy’s executive director. “Californians can opt-out with covered businesses, and they can sign up for the newly launched DROP system to request that data brokers delete their personal information.”

Advertisement

Beyond the $1.10 million fine, the board’s order requires PlayOn Sports to conduct risk assessments, provide disclosures that are easy to read and understand, and implement proper opt-out methods.

The order also requires the company to comply with California’s privacy law prohibiting the selling or sharing of personal information of consumers between 13 and 16 without their affirmative opt-in consent.



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses

Published

on

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses


A bartender pours a beer at a bar in Summit County on Thursday, Feb. 29, 2024. A new bill intended to provide funds for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs could cost small breweries and wineries up to 160% in taxes and fees.
Andrew Maciejewski/Summit Daily News

Colorado brewers are raising red flags over new bills that could increase taxes and fees on small alcohol businesses, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open.

House Bill 1271, known as the Alcohol Impact & Recovery Enterprises bill, creates three government-run enterprises designed to fund programs for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs — all funded through fees imposed on alcoholic beverages. The bill is sponsored by four Democratic lawmakers.

Colorado per capita alcohol consumption is higher than the national average. The state also has one of the higher alcohol-related death rates in the country, with around 24 deaths per 100,000 residents as of 2023, according to data from Trust for America’s Health. 



Data from the Colorado Health Institute shows not everyone who could benefit from treatment for alcohol use disorders currently receives it, largely due to factors like cost, accessibility and stigma.

Advertisement

Were the bill to pass, manufacturers and wholesale distributors would have to pay five cents in fees per gallon of beer, cider and apple wine, seven cents per liter of wine and 35 cents per liter of spirits to be used toward alcohol-related treatment and recovery programs. As state lawmakers plan cuts to balance a $850 million budget deficit, advocates for these programs argue the funding from the bill could help offset any potential losses.



For local breweries and wineries in the mountains, however, this would be a significant financial blow to an already struggling industry.

“This is not the time for us to be implementing new taxes on an industry that is hurting right now,” said Carlin Walsh, owner of Elevation Beer Company and chair of the Colorado Brewers Guild. “As a brewer, I feel like the state is looking a gift horse in the mouth.”

Beer, wine, cider and spirits generate around $22 billion in economic activity for Colorado, according to the Colorado Beverage Coalition. The state is home to nearly 420 breweries, 145 wineries, nearly 20 cideries and 100 distilleries. 

Faced with rising costs and waning appetites, however, over 100 Colorado breweries have shuttered their doors since 2024, marking the first time since 2005 that more breweries closed than opened. Meanwhile, national surveys confirmed alcohol consumption in the U.S. is at a 90-year low.

Advertisement

Walsh said breweries already pay eight cents per gallon in taxes, which for a company like Elevation translates to roughly $30,000 in taxes annually. Fees from the new bill would add another $12,000 to its yearly expenses.

“The alcohol industry at large is one of the most regulated industries in the United States, period. We already pay a very heavy tax,” Walsh said, adding that breweries provide tens of millions of dollars to Colorado’s general fund. “Our position is that there’s already money available. Those dollars go to the general fund, and it’s really up to the state to manage what we already provide and to decide what is their priority. We don’t feel like it should be on our shoulders to increase the amount that we pay to the state just because the state wants to endeavour on new programs.”

The Colorado Beverage Coalition said the imposed fees would be a 60% cost increase on alcohol businesses. Paired with an estimated 100% increase in taxes from a referred ballot measure proposed last week — House Bill 1301 — the impacts would be disastrous for the industry, Walsh said.

House Bill 1301 would refer a measure to the November ballot that would increase excise taxes on alcohol and increase sales and excise taxes on marijuana in order to fund a mental health hospital in Aurora.

“Our brewery and so many other breweries, we just don’t have capacity for that. We’re already a low margin business to begin with,” Walsh said. “If this happens, this is going to drive further consolidation amongst our members. It’s going to drive further closures.”

Advertisement

Larger alcohol companies may be in a better position to absorb some of the costs from increased fees, said Shawnee Adelson, executive director for the Colorado Brewers Guild. Small businesses in rural resort markets, on the other hand, are not in that position.

“At a certain point when costs just keep going up and up and up, there’s no more place to cut,” Adelson said.

Colorado jobs, tourism could see ripple effects

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 could impact several of the 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state.

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 would jeopardize 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state, in addition to “greatly increasing cost on consumers.” Walsh said an average brewery would “no doubt” have to cut jobs if either, or both, bills were to pass.

“Depending on the size of a brewery, it could be the cost of a full-time staff or multiple full-time staff to cover the cost of these (fees), so there is a real concern about job losses due to increased costs,” Adelson added.

The Colorado Distillers Guild also argues the bill would be a blow to the tourism industry, as visitors could be deterred by increased consumer costs and a dwindling beer culture.

“A lot of (breweries) will either have to absorb that cost or pass it on to the consumer. And right now, in the current state of the economy, we understand that a lot of consumers are price conscious right now, which is also contributing to lower consumption,” Adelson said. “Passing on that price is going to be really hard for consumers to swallow as well.”

Advertisement

The bill is not entirely new, as similar legislation by the same name was proposed in 2024. The original bill, which died in committee, received significant pushback from Gov. Jared Polis due to concerns that it would end up raising prices for consumers. Polis also requested that sponsors exempt beer companies from the fees.

Aside from a stakeholder meeting ahead of the bill’s introduction, Adelson said the Colorado Brewers Guild had not been contacted by lawmakers about the plan for an excise fee increase.

“We’ve had two years to sit down and have discussions with lawmakers about this. Nobody has reached out. Nobody has sat down with us to say, ‘Hey, this is our goal. We wanna get this done. How can you guys meet us halfway?’” Walsh said.

Being an enterprise fee rather than a tax, House Bill 1271 would not go to voters for approval. Instead, the change would be implemented through legislation only and automatically go live in July 2027. Because the bill would create three separate enterprise fees for beer, wine and spirits — each capped at $20 million annually per state law — the state could collect up to $60 million from all three.

The bill would also create a new 11-member board appointed by the governor to oversee the three enterprises, which would be made up of alcohol industry representatives, behavioral health professionals, public health experts and individuals in recovery.

Advertisement

On top of feeling that a financial change of that magnitude should be left up to voters, Walsh said he’s heard from businesses that are concerned about the potential for the board to increase fees in the future.

“There are very few guard rails around how this enterprise can operate, including the ability for them to raise the tax price that we’re currently paying. There’s very few restrictions within this bill that control how much they can increase that tax,” Walsh said. “In two years they could come back and say, ‘Oh we’re going to increase it another five cents or 10 cents.’”

For Adelson, the fees would impact more than just manufacturing facilities and business  operations.

“They’re community gathering spaces and they’re third places,” Adelson said. “They give back a lot and so I think I just want to make sure that the consumer realizes that we’re not just talking about production facilities, but your local neighborhood brewery that’s down the street and that your neighbours own or your friends work at.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending