Frank Lasee, a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), argues that politicians have spent years promoting renewable energy without adequately accounting for the financial consequences of relying on intermittent power sources.
The result, he warns, could be an increasingly expensive electricity system that struggles when Americans need it most.
The Hidden Costs Behind Washington’s Renewable Energy Push
Wind and solar advocates frequently highlight the falling cost of generating electricity from renewable sources.
What those comparisons don’t always capture is the price of maintaining an entire electrical network around them.
Utilities must invest in energy storage, backup generation, transmission infrastructure, and equipment capable of responding when renewable production suddenly drops.
Those additional expenses ultimately become part of the cost of delivering electricity to homes and businesses.
There is another financial risk that receives far less attention: the economic destruction caused by blackouts.
Energy researchers measure that damage using a concept known as the value of lost load.
A 2024 analysis prepared for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas estimated that a one-hour interruption could carry an economic cost of approximately $35,000 per megawatt-hour of unserved electricity.
Compare that with wind-generated electricity that can cost around $30 per megawatt-hour under favorable conditions.
The difference illustrates why the cheapest source of electricity at the point of generation isn’t necessarily the cheapest way to operate a dependable power grid.
And when the system breaks down, consumers can face consequences far beyond higher utility bills.
Texas Already Experienced the Devastating Price of Grid Failure
The February 2021 winter disaster in Texas demonstrated how quickly an energy emergency can become a statewide catastrophe.
Winter Storm Uri left millions without electricity during dangerously low temperatures.
At least 246 deaths were attributed to the disaster.
The Texas comptroller estimated economic damage between $80 billion and $130 billion, while a separate engineering assessment suggested losses could have reached $300 billion.
Those staggering figures exposed weaknesses throughout the state’s electricity infrastructure.
Wind generation declined during the storm, but renewable energy wasn’t the only problem.
Natural gas production suffered severe disruptions, while coal and gas generating facilities experienced equipment failures and weather-related shutdowns.
The catastrophe revealed failures across multiple energy technologies, including inadequate winterization and difficulties supplying fuel.
For critics of aggressive renewable mandates, however, the disaster also reinforced a broader concern.
An electricity system must have enough dependable generating capacity to withstand extreme conditions, regardless of which technologies dominate its energy mix.
A power source that performs well during ordinary weather may offer little protection when conditions deteriorate.
The Battery Backup Solution Comes With a Multibillion-Dollar Price Tag
Renewable energy supporters frequently point to battery storage as a way to address fluctuations in wind and solar generation.
But storing enough electricity to power an entire region through several days of unfavorable weather is an expensive undertaking.
One scenario discussed by Lasee estimates that maintaining electricity supply through five consecutive days of poor renewable production would require approximately 54,000 megawatt-hours of storage.
That represents an enormous battery installation.
Using a federal laboratory’s estimated battery system costs of $334 per kilowatt-hour in 2024, such a project would require roughly $18 billion in investment.
A higher-cost 2026 scenario places the figure closer to $20 billion.
And those numbers don’t necessarily include every expense associated with operating the storage network.
Additional transmission construction, electricity losses during charging and discharging, and eventual equipment replacement could push the overall price higher.
The underlying lesson is straightforward.
Battery storage can provide valuable grid services, but using it to replace days of conventional generation requires far more investment than installing a few industrial battery facilities.
Americans could be asked to finance that infrastructure through utility rates, taxes, or a combination of both.
Germany’s Renewable Energy Experiment Raises Another Warning
The challenges are not confined to the United States.
Germany has invested heavily in renewable electricity while moving away from nuclear generation and reducing its reliance on coal.
Yet the country still depends on conventional power stations and imported electricity when renewable output weakens.
In November 2024, Germany experienced a period of unusually low wind and solar production, a weather phenomenon commonly described by the German term Dunkelflaute.
Renewable generation reportedly dropped to roughly 30 percent of electricity supply during the episode.
Wholesale electricity prices rose sharply, reaching approximately €145 per megawatt-hour compared with a more typical level near €40 in the figures cited by Lasee.
Germany responded by increasing conventional generation and importing electricity from neighboring countries.
That strategy helped maintain service.
But it also demonstrated the importance of having alternative supplies available when renewable production falls.
For American regions such as the Midwest, widespread weather systems could create similar challenges.
If several neighboring states experience low wind production and limited solar generation simultaneously, importing sufficient electricity may become more difficult.
That possibility has prompted renewed debate over how much dispatchable generation utilities should preserve as renewable capacity expands.
Billions More Are Being Spent on Transmission Lines
Generating renewable electricity is only one part of the infrastructure challenge.
Delivering that electricity to consumers requires extensive transmission networks, particularly when wind and solar projects are constructed far from major population centers.
Texas has already spent heavily on transmission development associated with renewable generation.
An analysis from the Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that residents pay approximately $1 billion annually for transmission infrastructure supporting wind and solar development.
The organization places the cumulative expense since 2010 at nearly $15 billion.
Meanwhile, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator approved a transmission investment package valued at approximately $21.8 billion.
The projects are intended to strengthen regional electricity delivery and accommodate changes in the generation fleet, including renewable energy expansion.
But the proposal has attracted opposition from state regulators concerned about costs and projected benefits.
Five state utility commissions challenged the plan through a federal complaint.
Their consultant estimated benefits of approximately $4.3 billion to $7.2 billion, substantially below MISO’s projections, which reached as high as $72 billion.
The competing estimates highlight a fundamental disagreement over whether consumers will receive sufficient value from these massive infrastructure investments.
Supporters argue that stronger transmission connections can reduce congestion, improve reliability, and deliver long-term savings.
Critics question whether those advantages justify the amount customers may be required to pay.
Americans Deserve the Full Price Before Politicians Make the Decision
The debate over renewable energy has increasingly become a debate about affordability.
Households already struggling with electricity expenses have little reason to celebrate low generation costs if the broader system requires billions in additional infrastructure.
And businesses cannot operate effectively when reliable electricity becomes uncertain.
Lasee argues that lawmakers should evaluate the complete financial implications of energy policies before requiring utilities to retire conventional power plants or meet renewable generation targets.
That means calculating more than construction costs.
Policymakers should also account for backup generation, storage requirements, transmission upgrades, maintenance, and the economic risks associated with electricity shortages.
Importantly, those same reliability standards should apply to fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable generation alike.
The question isn’t whether wind and solar can contribute useful electricity.
They already do.
The question is whether government mandates are producing the most affordable and dependable combination of energy resources.
Democrats have frequently presented renewable energy expansion as an economic opportunity that can lower long-term energy costs.
But critics argue that those promises deserve much closer scrutiny when the expenses of integrating renewable generation into the grid are included.
Americans shouldn’t discover the true price of an energy policy only after their utility bills climb or their electricity goes out.
Before Washington commits consumers to another generation of expensive energy mandates, taxpayers deserve a complete accounting of what those policies will cost — and what happens when the system fails.
The future of America’s power grid is too important to be built around political promises without a full financial reckoning.
