Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experience Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe reever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Jason Isaac, founder and CEO of
the American Energy Institute. Jason has been at the forefront
of exposing the growing epidemic of climate lawfare, bluestate lawsuits,
and regulatory schemes designed to bleed the energy industry dry
while driving up consumer costs. Jason, thanks so much for
joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: It's great to be on. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, this is an important and timely topic. We've been
talking about this for some time. We've certainly been talking
about lawfare for some time. The left and the lawfair
against its political enemies. This is really the same kind
of thing that we've seen trained on President Donald Trump
and other conservatives. This is the same kind of thing,
but in the way of their extreme environmental agenda. Correct.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, you've seen courts being used as tools against responsible
American energy producers, and you've got plaintiffs of bars around
the country going after those energy producers saying that they've
impacted the weather filing these lawsuits, I think todate. We've
seen five of the cases completely dismissed, the most recent
being in Charleston, South Carolina, alleging that it would be
impossible for energy companies to comply with any sort of
law filed by any municipality or a case filed by
any municipality, the thousands of them in this country, and
so rightfully so, that case was dismissed. It's the latest
in a long list of losses from the plaintiffs, but
they continue to try, and over two dozen cases around
the country, including Hawaii, Oregon, California, and other municipalities.
Speaker 1: What are some of those cases that we're seeing pop up.
I mean, there's all kinds of different areas in the
climate change arena, of course, the climate change cultest as
I like to call them. What kind of cases are
we seeing in these deep blue states.
Speaker 3: Well, it's similar to a case that was filed in
Puerto Rico prior to the change of guard in that territory,
if you will, elections happened in November. We have a
Republican governor of Puerto Rico now, but before her term
in office, her predecessor had worked with a company called
share Edling, a law firm in San Francisco that is
really at the nexus of most of these cases and
the indoctrination of judges around the country trying to rig
the game before the cases even make their way to
the course. But Puerto Rico was suing Exxon, suing the
American Petroleum Institute, suing other hydrocarbon producers, primarily oil and gas,
saying that they had caused the hurricanes that had damaged
Puerto Rico and should be liable for those damages. Fortunately,
because of the elections, the American Energy is to send
a letter to the Governor of Puerto Rico earlier this year,
and a week later she instructed her Department of Justice
to dismiss that case and really withdraw the case. Unfortunately,
states like Hawaii are continuing where the Chief Justice and
the Supreme Court ofi of Hawaii, who is going to
hear this case and is allowing this case to continue.
He himself has participated in Climate Judiciary Project events. These
are events coordinated by the Environmental Law Institute. Since twenty eighteen,
they've tainted over two thousand state and federal judges around
the country with junkets and teaching them highly debatable and
very questionable so called climate science. They're really trying to
rig the game before the game has even begun. And
that's the case we're seeing in states throughout the country.
Speaker 1: Are a lot of these things. Because you have complete
democrat liber control, they're all drinking from the same kool aid?
Are these the kinds of what do they call them?
Settle and sign sorts of internal losses and some of
that going on as well inside these states.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, they're looking for these settle and sign cases. They're
looking for one victory out of the dozens of cases,
because one victory could set precedents throughout the country, even
though it could take get dragged out through an appeals process,
That one victory could be catastrophic to our access to
affordable and reliable energy throughout our country. So they're looking
for sue and settle, but they are looking for that
one legal victory, which is amazing.
Speaker 2: And we mentioned Hawaii.
Speaker 3: It's interesting to note that in the Hawaii case, the
companies that are named. Of all the companies that are named,
they provide products primarily gasoline diesel fuel in the state
of Why the one that is not named gives heavily
to Democrats. It's the only refinery in the state of
Hawaii is not named in the climate lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Isn't that interesting? The plot thickens more and more. It
is the intensity, because I mean, this is something that
we have seen for a long time, and you know,
Sue Ensign was was big during the Obama administration. It
popped up again during the Biden administration. That was at
the federal level. Now you have a different sheriff in town.
You have President Trump, who you know, is calling the
climate change agenda what it is, and he has been
very aggressive in terms of shepherding the resources of our
country to make sure that we have you know, supply
that we are not, you know, in an importer of
this important these important energy sources. Are we seeing a
different day at least at the federal.
Speaker 3: Level, we are absolutely and it's even a different day
compared to the first Trump administration. This Trump administration recognizes
that how pervasive these political agendas like decarbonization, esg DEI,
climate change, they're just political agendas that result in the
cost of energy increasing, which is the cost of everything increasing.
Does nothing to mitigate a changing climate, makes everything more expensive.
We're so blessed to have Secretary right leading the Department
of Energy. He understands this more than any He understands
and I'm maybe using some of his exact same words
when he says that energy isn't part of the economy.
Speaker 2: It is the economy.
Speaker 3: It's the heart of the economy, not just a small
part of it. Everything revolves around energy. You don't have
economic prosperity without energy. You don't have environmental leadership without
economic prosperity. Those go hand in hand. And it's great
that we have an administration that recognizes this and a
Department of Justice that is looking at some of these
states that are going too far in in placing. You know, look,
we've got refineries in California that are going to shut
down here in the next couple of weeks, and Gavin
Newsom is trying to do everything he can to keep
them online. And it looks like it's going to be
a socialist regime where they just come in and have
to take over control and operation of the refinery because
they can't operate under the regulatory climate in California. And
then California is even passing laws send the Bill two
fifty three that goes into effect this January that will
require companies that sell products in the state of California,
whether they're based there or not incredible greenhouse gas lie
which is basically their emissions from power use all the
way down to Scope three, which is their remote employee.
Is that they may have to commute to the office
or commute to the airport, they've got to report those emissions.
Even the Biden Securities and Exchange Commissions said those are
impossible to report. Yet California is mandating them on businesses
even if they sell products in the state of California
not there. So this is going to hit Texas refineries,
Texas oil and gas companies. This is going to hit
the rest of the country really hard with these over aggressive,
the European type regulations California is placing on businesses that
operate in other states. It's egregious. I believe it's a
violation of constitution. This law needs to be paused, it
needs to be stopped, it needs to be thrown out.
But this is what the climate col does. They know
no bounds and people. I wonder why electricity costs are
higher in California than they are anywhere else while they're
gasoline costs are so high and people are fleeing that
state they can't afford to live there because they're overburns
and regulations.
Speaker 1: Well, like most cults, there's power and a power dynamic involved.
In California. It is Governor Gavin Newsom, of course, who
has designs on much higher office. That is clear. He
is leading all kinds of far left initiatives and has
so for some time in California. He's doing that, of course,
in the name of politics. But doesn't Gavin Newsom see
how I can't he see it with his own eyes.
The companies that are leaving California, the residents that are
leaving California because they cannot take the high taxes, the
high regulation. We have seen a massive exodus of Californians
and California businesses over the last several years. Yet we
have this climate change cult leader doubling down what gives?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he really is.
Speaker 3: It's so funny because a couple of weeks ago, he
came out embracing hydrocarbons and the need for them in
California when they're sitting on a vast amount of oil
and gas reserves in their geology, really taking the private
property rights away from those people that own those royalties
by denying access to them to be explored and produced.
And now it's like he's like, well, we may need
to start producing oil and gas in California again. He's
trying to find a buyer. Maybe he's rolling out the
red carpet and going to clean up San Francisco and
has g come over and buy the refineries in California,
because it's really the only way they're going to stay
open is if California takes them, or maybe you know,
a Chinese company comes in and owns them and they
just can't operate under the overburdensome business climate in California.
And just the people that are fleeing, I guess I
think Avin Newsom thinks these people are ideologically aligned with
him and doesn't understand they just can't afford to live
in California anymore. He's completely destroyed one of the most
beautiful states in our nation, and it's just really to
the detriment of the people that live there.
Speaker 1: You know. It's interesting. John Steinbeck wrote a great deal
about the Oaks of the Depression era escaping the dust
bowl of Oklahoma for the green fields and the dreams
of California. We have modern day oaks, but they're Californias,
i think, is what we call them. You know, they're
escaping to places of you know, much different climates in
terms of regulation, in terms of taxation, in terms of
operation cost, all of those sorts of things. They're escaping
to places red states like Tennessee and Florida and Texas.
Somebody has got to get the message here from the
blue states that you can't keep operating as usual. But again,
as I said, they are doubling down. How is the
whole carbon neutral theater going on in these states? They
have came out several years ago with big dreams to
go carbon neutral by such and such a time. A
lot of these places are looking at dates as close
as two thousand and forty. How is that effort going
for these folks?
Speaker 2: It's not going very well.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: First of all, it doesn't do anything.
Speaker 3: And I think the response was from some of these
states and a lot of businesses too. They decided to
get involved in politics, and President Trump in twenty and
seventeen withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accords
that he represents the people of Pittsburgh, not the people
of Paris. He understood the decarbonization does nothing to mitigate
a change in climate. It just makes everything more expensive.
And now here you are in the second Trump administration
moving to rescind the Endangerment Finding, which was put in
place during the Obama administration in two thousand and nine
by deep state bureaucrats that wanted to force the EPA
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO two. I love
to tell people I live a high carbon lifestyle. I
wish the rest of the world could too, because that's
places that have high carbon lifestyles and high carbon footprints
are where you have economic prosperity, clean air, clean water,
and wealth.
Speaker 2: And the rest of the world should get to experience
that as well.
Speaker 3: So getting rid of the Endangerment Finding is the bedrock
that all of this climate policy sits on, and he
is going to pull it.
Speaker 2: Out from under their feet.
Speaker 3: Decarbonization is the climate cult kool aid. It just results
in death and higher cost, the higher cost first than death.
It's absolutely appalling, but it is a political agenda that
has failed. It is rooted in control. Yet the EU
still continues to commit suicide. By one thousand cuts of decarbonization,
They're losing industry, their emissions are reducing.
Speaker 2: If you care about that sort of thing, I don't.
Speaker 3: We've been world leaders reducing pollution in this country. Certain things,
certain concentrations impact human health. We've reduced that nearly eighty
percent over the last five decades, getting our air quality
in this country to a natural state. Places like Asia
that could care less about human rights or pollution actually
contribute to our air quality here in the United States.
You look in southern California, over sixty percent of the
pollution that comes into Southern California is Asian air pollution.
I've advocated for this idea for a Pittsburgh. We should
call in our trading partners to meet air quality standards
that improve human health. And that's get back gets back
to the EPA Mission Human and Environmental Health, of which
CO two impacts neither and so they're getting rid of
the endangerment, finding that will be transformative. I wish businesses
and states that have reached and kind of really grasped
on to this Paris Accord and esg this environmental, social
and governance commitments.
Speaker 2: I wish they would get out of politics.
Speaker 3: Cracker, Barrel, bud Light, companies like this have learned the
really hard way what happens when you get involved in
political agendas. Companies like black Rock are forcing them on
companies they invest in.
Speaker 2: I wish they would step away.
Speaker 3: From that and worry about their business and making a
return for their shareholders.
Speaker 4: How is September the worst month of the year for
the taxpayer?
Speaker 2: Who watched? Out?
Speaker 4: On Wall Street Podcast with Chris Markowski every day Chris
helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and
how it affects your wallet. Government agencies have to spend
every single dime by the end of September, plus take
out more debt for another cr In the last forty
eight days, the federal debt is up by a trillion.
We have a severe debt problem. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: No, it certainly had an impact on Joe Biden in
Pennsylvania to twenty twenty four. I should say then ultimately
Kamala Harris, but the Democrats, I think, in no small
way lost Pennsylvania because of their extreme climate change policies.
Speaker 3: What do you think, absolutely, but they were part of
this regional greenhouse gas initiative, partnering with other states, committing
to essentially what would result in driving up the cost
of energy, which again is everything. You drive up the
cost of electricity. The northeastern United States, you know, sometimes
outpaid is California for the most expensive electricity, and Pennsylvanians
were feeling that people in the Rust Belt were feeling
that that expensive energy hurts the poor. And when you
start to see a significant increase in disconnects, that's getting
disconnected from your primary utility. And during the Biden administration
from twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three, it was
a thirty percent increase in people in this country losing
their electricity. It was a seventy six percent increase in
people losing their natural gas. And I'm not saying losing
it because they got cut off because there wasn't enough
of it. I'm saying losing it because they couldn't afford
to pay their bills and they got disconnected. Those are
five million Americans that were at the greatest risk of
homelessness because of these climate change alarmist policies. And I
say they're the greatest risk of homelessness because when you
buy a home, when you have a mortgage, or when
you sign a lease, you're.
Speaker 2: Required to keep your utilities active.
Speaker 3: And when you lose those utilities, you're violating the terms
of your homeowner's insurance policy, You're violating the terms of
your lease. Those are the people the greatest risk of homelessness.
It's one of the reasons Blackrock was just approved to
buy Minnesota power, not a portion of it. They are
going to own it outright, and in their commitments to
do that, I believe this three point one million dollars
is set aside to waive late utility bills because of
Minnesota's net zero commitments have driven up the cost of
electricity in that state, and so you had people that
had over three million dollars due in late fees and
unpaid utility bills. Those are going to get completely wiped off.
And Blackrock has even committed to invest into more unreliable,
variable weather dependent generation in this commitment to buy Minnesota power.
It's absolutely appalling that that was approved by federal regulators
because Blackrock does not support energy dominance and political agenda
are contrary to American energy dominates.
Speaker 1: It is the definition of insanity. You're doing the same
thing over and over again, failing and expecting a different result.
And that's basically what we have seen, and you mentioned
it before. While you have the net zero folks in
Minnesota and California and the rest of these climate cult
states interrupting reliable energy to their citizens and creating extreme
burdens for their businesses, China is building coal plants at
a record level. So what is the value of their
you know, zero carbon emissions plans when you have China
and India developing nations elsewhere cranking up the heat.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's completely to our detriment.
Speaker 3: And I just I don't understand how people can't see this,
but China building one to two coal fired power plants
every single week. I wish they would use the pollution
control technology that we use here in the United States.
It's one of the reasons why we're world leaders in
clean air. They don't care about human rights, they don't
care about the environment. They care about having cheap electricity,
and you get that from hydrocarbons.
Speaker 2: Which they have a lot of access to. Is coal,
natural gas and nuclear are great. Those are three.
Speaker 3: Things that we need to be building more of, but
we need a market that rewards companies to build those,
and we currently don't have one because we have pushed
that zero these renewable portfolio standards, which are essentially mandates,
and you have states that are saying we have to
be one hundred percent renewable. That's absolutely devastating to our economy.
It's leading to our d industrialization. It's crush Germany. BASF,
a world leading chemical manufacturing company refining company, is shutting
down operations in Germany, moving them to China, and they're
citing high energy costs. Germany is so far ahead of
the rest of the world, and the rest of the
EU isn't far behind Germany. The UK is not far
behind Germany, but embracing this so called energy transition which
is another word for political agenda that just transitions power
and money from countries of wealth to China. But for
the first time ever, China is actually exporting energy. They
consume massive amounts of energy, and they've expanded their refining capacity,
so they're importing oil from Russia and from Iran. They're
taking that oil and they're refining into diesel, jet fuel
and home heating oil, and they're putting that back.
Speaker 2: Out into the market.
Speaker 3: This is something that's a new phenomenon that's just happened
in the last year with China exporting energy and competing
on the global market for some of those fuels, which is.
Speaker 2: Mind blowing to me.
Speaker 3: But we've really let this happen to ourselves because we've
been and I believe China was funding this. And there's
a group called State Armor Publisher Report on Energy Foundation
China talking about their ties into think tanks in the
United States, into universities and colleges that have really been
funding this climate alarmist movement that has led to us
damaging ourselves. President Trump realizes this, the administration realizes this,
and that's why they're pushing this energy dominance agenda. We've
just got to get the utilities to embrace it, these
companies to embrace it, and push back on political agendas
so that we can have affordable and reliable power. I
love that this administration doesn't talk about all of the above.
Speaker 2: That's a poorly worded lazy energy.
Speaker 3: Approach that includes things that are heavily dependent on China
and heavily subsidized. They are for affordable and reliable, of
which wind and solar are neither.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Jason Isaac, founder and CEO of
the American Energy Institute. Jason has been at the forefront
of exposing the growing epidemic of climate lawfare, blue state
lawsuits and regulatory schemes designed to leed the energy industry
dry while driving up consumer cost And we've seen the
consumer cost damage throughout. Let's talk about the big superfund.
We've seen this of course at New York and Vermont
enacting climate change super fund statutes. What are those all
about and what's the impact to the consumer on that front?
Speaker 3: Oh, if they continue to play out the way they
are playing out, the way these laws are put in places,
it will plus fines on companies that sell products, primarily
fossil fuels in those two states, which will be absorbed
by customers around the world.
Speaker 2: So New York and.
Speaker 3: Vermont have passed these laws that say they go back
to nineteen seventy seven, I believe is the year that
these companies have to pay essentially fines for weather relate
at events that these climate cultists in New York and
Vermont believe that these companies have caused by selling their products.
Is the absurdity has reached new levels with these This
is hopefully some states that are being investigated by the
Department of a Justice for these laws that usurp the
Constitution of the United States, and it will just lead
to higher costs.
Speaker 2: Not only in those states. I wish that companies like.
Speaker 3: Exxon and Shell could say, you know what, we have
to raise the cost of gasoline in New York to
nine dollars a gallon, but we're not going to do
it in other states because we have to pay these fees.
But that's unfortunately not part of the law. It just
has to be absorbed by customers around the globe.
Speaker 1: You know, we talk about climate lawsuits in climate law fare,
climate change law fair. This doesn't happen obviously in you know,
in a vacuum. They are all kinds of far left
groups that have benefited immensely in from the Obama administration,
the Biden administration for leading the charge from the outside,
these NGOs in particular, and of course the climate change
lawfare groups. How much are we talking about in terms
of resources, financial resources, time, and human capital involved in
this war on energy?
Speaker 2: Oh, it was billions of dollars.
Speaker 3: You look in the last seventy four days of the
Biden administration dolling out ninety six billion dollars of taxpayer
money just to environmental groups and to left wing causes
to really stir up environmental alarmism. It's incredibly pervasive throughout
organizations that are dependent on that. I'm so grateful that
Doze happened and that we were able to see this.
Just last week, twenty three attorneys general, led by Montana's
Canuteson Attorney General, sent a letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency to Administrator Lee Zelden because they had discovered that
the Environmental Law Institute this organization funding the Climate Judiciary
project with dark money donors. I believe some Chinese influenced
from the Energy Foundation China. Now they've fun off and
renamed US Energy Foundation to make it sound American. I
guess they dropped it to China. That doesn't sound very American.
It's laughable. But they've really been at the heart of
funding this movement to rig the game, rig the courts.
They were receiving in twenty twenty three, I believe it
was thirteen percent of their operating budget. Thirteen percent was
coming from taxpayers from an EPA grant. It was about
eight or nine percent the following year. As their budget grew,
it became a smaller percentage, but still getting over a
million dollars from taxpayers to be used and weaponized against taxpayers.
So fortunately, I hope this is one of these grants
that administrators seld in cancels, amongst the other billions of
dollars of grants that were just approved with a court
hearing recently, a court announcement recently that he can pull
back these billions of dollars of taxpayer grants to organizations
that are unqualified and certainly don't need to be weaponizing
tax dollars against taxpayers.
Speaker 1: That's what I was going to ask you as well.
I mean, there's state sovereignty here, and states are going
to do and have the power to do a lot
of things in the name of state sovereignty, and that
often can be a good thing. But when your state
is impacting other states the rest of the country on
your extreme choices, how much can the federal government get involved?
In essence, can we see a Trump administration National Guards
style focus on California's destructive climate change policies because they
are truly impacting rates around the country and all kinds
of things up and down the chain.
Speaker 2: There really are.
Speaker 3: And this bill that I referenced earlier, siny Bill two
fifty three out of California. It does that it's an
extra territorial overreach of California's authority, essentially mandating law through
the other forty nine states from California. That is a
violation of the Constitution, that's exceeding their statutory authority. And
the Department of Justice needs to investigate in this, that
the courts need to get involved and overturn this law
because it is an.
Speaker 2: Absolute egregious abuse.
Speaker 3: When you impact businesses outside out of your territory, it
is a violation.
Speaker 2: And so hopeful.
Speaker 3: That this is one of those laws that's overturned because
if not much like what Vermont and New York are doing.
We're going to bear the burdens of those that haven't
elected people that live in California or New York or Vermont.
We're still going to feel the pain, not only at
the pump. We're going to feel the pain high cost
of electricity, higher cost of groceries, essentially air costs for everything.
For these companies to comply with California mandates. I wish
some of these companies, and you look at the large
oil and gas companies, these are multinational globalist companies. You
look at some of their biggest investors, companies like black Rock, Vanguard,
and State Street. They all have these political agendas of
net zero. They've completely aligned with ESG. They're forcing these
companies to abide by them. There's no reason for Exxon
to have any sort of Paris commitments or net zero commitments.
There's no reason for any electric utility to have these commitments,
but yet they do, most of them being forced to
bend the need ESG by some of their largest institutional investors, which,
mind you, these investors like Blackrock are using pension dollars
that are guaranteed and backed by the governments of the
United States or their states or Canada.
Speaker 2: So I find it ironic.
Speaker 3: It's interesting I should say that people are you know,
some people are up in arms about the federal government
taking a share in Intel just under ten percent. I'm
no fan of the government owning private businesses. But where
have some of these people that have been up in
arms about this move? Where have they been over the
last two decades as we've watched government backed pensions, political
agendas through the dollars that they're investing in these companies.
It's they've they have been crickets over the last two
decades from a lot of these people that are up
in arms about the ownership of the federal government's stake
in Intel. So I hope that they start to peel layers,
the young and back a little bit, like, hey, it's
not good for the federal government to buy a stake
in Intel, if that's your position, and it's certainly not
good for our pensions. They should be passive investors, and
they're not passive at all. They're actually investing in these
companies to change their operations, and that's really unfortunate.
Speaker 1: Well that's a good point too. I mean, there are
retirements at stake here and the decisions that are made
based on politics and the whims of the day were extremist.
You know, politics have an impact on those those retirements.
I don't think that the government should be in any
business they, you know, like you said, should they? I
think they should be out of that arena altogether. But
we are talking about investments that are going to prop
up and I think that's a fitting term here. We've
seen it over again, prop up the climate change alarmist agenda.
Shouldn't there be some kind of consequence? Is there any
pushed to make a consequence for that?
Speaker 3: There has been in states where we've pushed back against
some of the financial institutions that are really discriminating against
responsible American energy producers, primarily oil, gas and coal. Where
you've got clear divestment positions from insurance companies and financial
institutions against coal. Then they go into natural gas and
oil companies and just force them to adopt net zero
and reduce their carbon intensity. Again, absolute absurdity.
Speaker 1: In that.
Speaker 3: But really, the pensions, if they're going to get involved
in politics, they shouldn't be able to have the backing
of the federal or their state governments because that's what happens.
If a pension goes belly up, if it's not sustainable,
sustainable being profitable, then the state will step in and
they will back that. This is something I learned in
my term in terms of the legislature in Texas that
if a pinsion it starts to have problems, the state
is going to be there and back it up to
make sure those people get their retirements, which means taxpayers
are on the hook. And so if pensions are getting
involved in political agendas, this is maybe some good idea
for model policy. But if they're getting involved in political
agendas and really being aggressive and not passive investors, then
perhaps they shouldn't have the backing of the state or
the federal government.
Speaker 1: We've seen a good deal of economic change over the
last several years in this country, and it is happening
at a rapid pace. It's going to require the traditional
energy sources to meet the demand. I think about artificial intelligence,
and you know, being in having lived in places, living
in a place now where you know, Google has to
draw so much and use so much the resources to
you know, to fire this new technology. They're going to
have to use traditional sources where does where. Where does
the climate change alarmist argument to meet up with AI?
Speaker 2: It certainly doesn't meet up with AI.
Speaker 3: The climate alarmists want AI to go away because they
realize how power thirsty it is. And you have companies
like Microsoft that are trying to bring three mile island
back online so that they can power their servers, their
chip manufacturing, their chip farms.
Speaker 2: It's it's it's quite interesting.
Speaker 3: But there's the big tech has come to the realization
that they need a lot of electricity, and it's I
guess it's it's kind of a refreshing that they are
coming back around to realizing this that they actually need coal,
they need natural gas, and they need nuclear. But what's
happening is these companies are doing these massive power purchase
agreements from renewable generators and so when they're not connected
with the grid. I love seeing commercials. I mean, Budweiser
did this during the Super Bowl one time, but we
talked about how they were powered by one hundred percent
renewable electricity, and I said, well, I wish they'd get
off the grid and prove it, because they're certainly not
they're connected to a grid. Their operations are they're just
virtue signaling. And I wish some of these big tech
companies that have these power purchase agreements would in fact
take their electricity from wind and solar. But these power
purchase agreements means that when costs go up because they're
using more power from traditional sources, that it's the residential
ratepayers and the small businesses people that don't have the
ability to negotiate power purchase agreements, they get bearing the
brunt of the cost. Last year, in Texas alone, it
was two point three billion dollars that were paid to
natural gas and coal to stand by in case the
wind didn't blow or the.
Speaker 2: Sun didn't shine. Two point three billion dollars.
Speaker 3: None of that was absorbed by any of these big
companies that have power purchase agreements. It was absorbed by
residential ratepayers and small businesses. And that's why the costs
for electricity are going up. And it's one of the
reasons why these companies are opposed to reforms that would
set a reliability standard for all generation to be on
the grid because they know that wind and solar can't
meet that requirement. And if you pass any of those requirements,
then a pass through provision in these power purchase agreements
gets triggered and the renewable providers come back and renegotiate
with companies like Google and Facebook and Meta and some
big oil and gas companies that use a ton of
electricity that have these power purchase agreements as well. So
it was really interesting this last legislative session in Texas
that we were trying to get some efforts to improve
the affordability and reliability of our grid by having a
reliability standard for all generators. That it was big oil
and big tech and manufacturers that were fighting us in
that effort because they're reaping the benefits of residential ratepayers
having to pick up the tab on reliability.
Speaker 1: I think I remember that Budweiser commercial in the Super Bowl.
Wasn't Dylan mulvaney drinking a bud light standing over a
mirror wind farm somewhere?
Speaker 2: If I remember, Yeah, the top of a wind turbine.
Speaker 1: I'm sure, Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: She was shooting eating cracker barrel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was enjoying bud light and of course getting
a sun tan in the solar panels. You talked about
the consumer. The consumer in Texas has you know, just
like everywhere else there, I see the consumer, uh, you know,
fighting back, standing up and saying, wait a minute, what
these policies have have you know, just been insane for
our pocketbooks. Are you seeing some of the changes on
that front, consumers saying enough is enough? And are their
lawmakers policymakers listening to the consumer.
Speaker 3: Well, unfortunately, lawmakers aren't listening to the consumer. In Texas,
we advanced legislation for the first time through a House committee,
but then it was completely stalled because you have a
lot of these lawmakers that think that wind and solar
create a lot of jobs. And this is something that
I fell victim to when I was in the legislature.
Speaker 2: I would hear.
Speaker 3: About how many jobs something was going to create, and
would you support these economic development tools, these incentives, different
rules and in some cases tax breaks or tax credits,
and in some cases just complete direct incentives in the
form of cash from taxpayers.
Speaker 2: But we were told like, hey.
Speaker 3: This is going to create so many jobs, and it
will those people will in turn spend mon money and
generate sales tax and it will be a net positive. But
then you come to find out the inefficiency of those
jobs when you go to a restaurant, a sandwich place,
or a place that makes salads. That's quick. You typically
have one or two person that may be helping you.
But if you had eighteen people that were helping you,
think of all the jobs that would create. But it's
inefficient and not necessary. And that's what we see. Over
eight times the number of jobs required to create an
energy equivalent of natural gas and coalon nuclear, it's over
eight times more jobs are required to create that same
amount of energy for wind and solar.
Speaker 2: That's not an efficient use of capital. It's not an
efficient use in generation of energy. It's a waste.
Speaker 3: And so we need to look at things that have
a small footprint on our habitat that take up less land,
and then we need to look at things that are
actually efficient that require fewer jobs to produce more energy
because the consumer winds in that case, and that's just
certainly not the case of the wind and solar. Natural gas,
coal and nuclear have the smallest footprint of energy used,
with nuclear being the farest leader there. They're the smallest
safest form of electric generation there is in wind and
solar take up, and then apparently they require so many
more jobs to produce an equivalent amount of energy. But
I think the public perception on some of these things
is starting to change, and so what happens is the
politicians will lag behind. They'll hear from their constituents they're
tired of their electric bills increasing. They want these utilities
to stop pushing woke political agendas, and so then the
politicians and I hope within the next couple of years,
Texas can actually put a reliability standard in statute on
the grid so that Texans can not only count on
reliable electricity, but it will also be affordable for the
first time. That will be a nice change if we
can get something done like that in the next two years.
But hopefully the politicians are going to be hearing from
their constituents who are rejecting form and dependent subsidy dependent
wind and solar and start embracing traditional fuels so that
we have more market reforms that lead to more generation
of those traditional sources.
Speaker 1: Indeed, there is a lot of money fueling the climate
change law fare zone and flooding that zone. Where do
you see all of this going from here?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 3: Again, back to public perception, I think it's changing. People
are starting to embrace nuclear. They recognize it's safe, it's dense,
it's affordable, it's reliable. Maybe not as affordable now because
of some of the regulatory hurdles, but I think with
President Trump's eos regarding this, we're going to see some
regulations get pulled back, which will reduce the cost and
hopefully speed it up to market.
Speaker 2: But we're still a decade away. I think there's still going.
Speaker 3: To be left wing money, but fortunately some of that
left wing money is drying up because groups or agencies
like USAID are no longer funding these leftist organizations.
Speaker 2: So I think the movement is losing.
Speaker 3: A lot of its steam because it's losing a lot
of taxpayer dollars, and that is just absolutely fantastic. I
think that's why they're screaming from the rooftops and an
incredible transparency for taxpayers, and then the fact that these
taxpayer dollars are not funding these organizations that are working
against the best interest in the economic prosperity of this country.
So I think it is we've got to keep the
fight up. There's no doubt about it. At this state
and the.
Speaker 2: Federal level, we have to keep the fight up, keep.
Speaker 3: Exposing these organizations for how anti America and they truly are,
how they are still receiving foreign influence, they're receiving dark money.
Speaker 2: We've got to expose this.
Speaker 3: But the fact that they're losing taxpayer dollars is incredibly
beneficial to taxpayers.
Speaker 1: And we always know things are subject to change politically.
We're coming up into the next midterm cycle, so always
aware of that fact. Thanks to my guest today, Jason Isaac,
founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, you've been
listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm
Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom
and anxious for the frame.