Posted April 11, 2017
A couple of months ago we had this post on Connecticut legislation that would subsidize nuclear power generation by guaranteeing markets for a state nuclear plant. We called it a bad idea and argued that the marketplace and consumers should determine an energy source’s viability based on affordability, efficiency and other factors, not government favoring one source over others. That argument still applies in Connecticut, where the subsidy bill remains before the legislature, and also Ohio, which is considering a nuclear subsidy of its own.
Posted February 10, 2017
A pillar of a sound energy policy, nationally and in the states, is letting markets work. Let the marketplace and consumers determine an energy source’s viability – based on affordability, efficiency, usefulness and other market factors. Unfortunately, Connecticut is considering legislation that would go the other direction, providing market-distorting government subsidies for nuclear power generation that could negatively impact consumers.
Posted August 11, 2016
You might not think of Arizona as an energy state and to be sure, it ranks in the 30s in both oil and natural gas production. Arizona’s per capita energy consumption ranks 45th out of the 50 states. Yet, the state’s Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest nuclear power plant in the country, and the state ranked second in the country in utility-scale electricity generation from solar energy.
But Arizona’s energy ties go deeper. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fuels from petroleum – natural gas, gasoline, fuel oil and others – supplied about 58 percent of the energy Arizonans used in 2014.
Jane Van Ryan
Posted March 21, 2011