The energy policy from NY progressives is: -don't replace or upgrade old gas plants -don't construct new hydroelectric dams -don't build new nuclear plants Together that's about 90% of NY's current energy mix. For short, best to call it: "None of the Above"

Yet more great energy reporting in the WSJ, recommend folks to read Some quotes from realistic venture capital folks: - “Decarb is dead for now" - “Climate Week could basically be AI and data center week" Removal of subsides + the need to actually power growth exposed how fragile the entire ecosystem was. Carbon removal gets a lot of flak btw but it's too easy of a scapegoat, there are a lot more techs that have no path to viability that continue to receive a lot of funding

Minnesotans pay too much in electricity costs under Democrats’ 2040 mandates. I was proud to lead with my House Republican colleagues in taking the first meaningful steps in decades toward ending the nuclear moratorium. Amy Klobuchar is afraid to tell Minnesotans where she really stands. Let me be clear: finishing what we started and ending that moratorium will be a top priority when I’m Governor. Cheaper and clean energy to make life more affordable for Minnesotans, to provide fuel to power businesses and create jobs, is essential to our Minnesota's comeback. mprnews.org/story/2026/05/26…

Massachusetts ratepayers are paying some of the highest energy costs in the country. Our latest study says additional natural gas pipeline capacity could put real money back in their pockets. The Fiscal Alliance Foundation’s new Project Beacon study estimates that expanding the Algonquin Gas Transmission system by 300 MMcf/d could save Massachusetts ratepayers an average of $367 million every winter. For a typical gas-heated household, the numbers work out to an estimated $95 in annual winter savings against approximately $19 in costs, leaving the household about $76 ahead. For commercial customers, the estimated savings are even larger: $792 per winter against an estimated $170 cost, for approximately $622 in net savings. And the benefits become more significant when Massachusetts needs the energy most. The study found that additional pipeline capacity could reduce winter price spikes while also reducing the region’s use of more expensive fuel oil. 💰 $367 million in estimated savings per winter 🏠 $76 in net savings for a typical household 🏪 $622 in net savings for a typical commercial account 🔥 300 MMcf/d in additional firm natural gas capacity 🛢️ 8.4 million fewer gallons of fuel oil burned per winter For years, Massachusetts has debated how to bring down energy costs while ensuring enough energy is available during the coldest days of the year. Now there are numbers attached to one potential answer. The question is: who will back the savings?

Fortunately Ezra Klein was never the “abundance movement” anyway. He was a third-hand popularizer of ideas that libertarian economists and left-wing ecomodernists and conservative critics of progressive governance have been shouting from the rooftops for decades.

Needing all the gas capacity while driving down the utilization while paying for all those new resources seems like itll cost some 💰💰💰

A reminder of the good news in a place that for all its issues is on the right side of history: @californiapost @CaEnergySafety @JohnsHopkins @ENERGY @fbirol @UCBerkeley

I have to be blunt and just say outright that I find @ember_energy (at least the central team) increasingly ridiculous. Even in the zero-carbon electrostate future that Ember would endorse in a heartbeat, there will be vulnerable centralized bottlenecks--hydrogen pipelines, petrochemical plants, hydrogen peaker plants, offshore wind substations, HVDC converter stations, undersea cables (e.g. Greece to Crete or Morocco to Spain). What is the cost and time to repair of a 20MW offshore wind turbine? What if a drone hits the receiver tower at a concentrating solar farm? Virtually no mention of cyberwarfare, which arguably renders modern grids of all configurations more or less similarly vulnerable. And acknowledging that Ukraine has demonstrated solar's usefulness for grid resilience while under constant Russian attack, open war really isn't one of the leading considerations for most countries' energy system design. There are a lot of good cost and operational reasons why a heavily distributed energy future very well might not prevail over centralized models. And in practice future systems might easily qualify as some hybrid of both. Pooh-poohing "centralized=bad" is just, well, kind of stupid.