Post Image

Vote With Energy Affordability In Mind

September 24, 2026

Need to know

RealClear

Common Sense

POLICY MATTERS: When voters go to the polls in six weeks, energy affordability must be top of mind. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Iowa  and other states have Congressional candidates with clearly divergent views on energy policy.
Do your homework. TEA has done plenty of research, along with RealClear Energy, to give you a guide on this vital issue.
Why it matters: Roughly 58 million voters, according to our data, prioritize energy affordability when voting. These voters prioritize affordable, reliable and clean American energy.
We support energy policy that allows the market to choose the best, most reliable, and most affordable energy sources; and strongly oppose any federal investments in wind, solar and biofuels as part of a candidate’s climate agenda.
Consider: In Blue States, High Rates, the Institute for Energy Research and Always On Energy Research show that states with expansive renewable portfolio standards and net-zero or clean-energy mandates tend to have the nation’s highest electricity prices.
  • Thus, policy choices — not geography — largely determine what consumers pay.
  • The candidates who support Green New Deal policies will be responsible for higher charges where you live.
  • Extreme energy mandates are already hurting working class families across the nation.

Affordable, reliable natural gas keeps electricity and home-heating costs down. States that restrict pipelines, gas-fired generation or fuel transportation limit supply and drive energy prices higher.

Bottom line: When you go to the polls Nov. 3, keep the cost of energy at the forefront. You’ll thank us later.

Nonsense

JUDICIAL OVERREACH: A US district court judge ruled the EPA must reinstate a $7 billion solar program that was implemented several years ago.
Why it matters: This is another prime example of activist leftwing judges; further evidence of why we need ARC Energy Security as the law of the land. Meanwhile, the agency is considering an appeal.
President Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill had sought to end the grants, but Judge Mary S. McElroy’s ruling found that already existing grants could not be terminated. The judge was appointed, not elected by the people.
Consider:
  • Higher taxpayer cost, slow delivery and cost shifting are among the drawbacks of this highly subsidized, failed program.
  • No guarantee of lower bills: Savings depend on local electricity rates, net-metering rules, system performance, financing arrangements and continued subsidies.
  • Solar installations can also introduce maintenance, insurance, roof-repair and eventual replacement costs.

Here’s the biggest one: It does not provide dependable generation.

Solar is weather-dependent and unavailable at night. It cannot replace natural gas, coal or nuclear capacity on a one-for-one basis without costly storage or reliable backup generation.
Finally, Solar for All promises targeted savings, but it uses substantial taxpayer funding to subsidize an intermittent resource, delivers uncertain household benefits and risks shifting grid costs onto consumers who do not receive solar installations.
These ultra-liberal judges need to stop their climate activism, which undermines progress.
Bottom line: This is another climate crusade failure —  a colossal one — that cost taxpayers money and failed to deliver. Green-at-any-cost schemes always do.

A look ahead

FERC Natural Gas Seminar: Tuesday, September 29, through Thursday, October 1, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold an “Environmental Review and Compliance for Natural Gas Facilities Seminar.”

Quote of the week

“The growth of technology will be bigger than the industrial revolution. We’re only going to encourage superintelligence.”
— President Donald Trump