It’s easy to talk a good game, especially when it comes to something as vital as the cost of electricity. We all want lower energy bills, right? Attorney General Aaron Ford, a likely frontrunner for governor, certainly understands this. He recently unveiled his energy plan, promising to deliver “clean and affordable energy to Nevada.” On the surface, that sounds like a breath of fresh air, especially with everyone feeling the pinch of rising utility costs. But, when we dig a little deeper, we find his proposals might actually be pulling in the opposite direction of his stated goal. It’s like promising a shortcut but then directing us down a much longer, more expensive road.
Mr. Ford’s blueprint includes several appealing ideas. He wants to put a stop to NV Energy’s proposed—and now delayed—demand charge, a move that would surely be welcomed by many. He also aims to “promote residential solar installation” and speed up the approval process for new solar and battery projects, hoping to bring them online quickly. He even touts his past support for prevailing wages and pledges to back “Project Labor Agreements and Community Benefits Agreements at energy projects.” These initiatives sound progressive and beneficial on the surface, designed to support clean energy and ensure fair compensation for workers. Yet, here’s where the contradiction starts to emerge: while these ideas are presented as a path to affordability, many of them inherently drive up the costs of energy production and, ultimately, your monthly bill. It’s like trying to make something cheaper by adding more layers of expense—it just doesn’t quite add up.
The core issue lies in a fundamental understanding of how our power grid works and the nature of different energy sources. Think about it: electricity has to be used almost immediately unless it’s stored. And currently, storing large amounts of renewable energy in batteries is incredibly expensive, even with technological advancements. This isn’t a small detail; it means that not all kilowatts are created equal. Solar and wind power, while clean, produce what’s called “intermittent power.” This means they generate electricity only when the sun shines or the wind blows. If we were all okay with only using power during these specific times, it wouldn’t be an issue. But let’s be real, that’s just not how modern life works. We want our power on demand, twenty-four-seven.
Consider a typical summer evening in Las Vegas. After a sweltering day, residents crave their air conditioning to keep their homes cool long after the sun has set. People want to charge their electric vehicles overnight, and wake up to a lit house before dawn. These are times when solar panels are either producing minimal power or none at all. This is precisely why traditional power sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants remain the unsung heroes, the backbone of our energy system. They offer a reliability that current solar and wind technologies simply can’t match without substantial (and expensive) storage solutions. Even rooftop solar, often championed as a cost-saver, can be problematic. While it adds power to the grid, it often does so when demand is already lower, or during peak solar production when the grid might not need it as much. The much-maligned demand charge from NV Energy, in this light, appears to be an attempt to address this very reality – to account for the times when demand doesn’t align with renewable supply.
This brings us to the glaring contradiction in Mr. Ford’s plan. He declares his intention to lower prices, yet he simultaneously proposes expanding policies that have historically driven them higher. It’s like saying you want to save money but then signing up for every premium service available. And as an added layer, he aims to ensure his union allies receive what many might consider “inflated wages” through Project Labor Agreements and Community Benefits Agreements. While supporting workers is commendable, these mandates further inflate the costs of energy projects, costs that eventually trickle down to you, the consumer, in the form of higher bills. He seems to be banking on the hope that Nevadans won’t connect these dots, won’t realize that these additional dollars will ultimately be coming straight out of their own pockets.
The deeper, more fundamental issue at play here is a lack of honesty, or perhaps just a misunderstanding, amongst many clean energy proponents when engaging with the public. For years, we’ve been sold the idea that ever-increasing renewable power mandates would lead to lower prices. Yet, experience, both locally and in places like California, tells a different story. Just look at the escalating costs of NV Energy’s Greenlink endeavor, or the perpetually high prices of power and gasoline in California, a state that has aggressively pursued renewable energy mandates. The promise of affordability through renewables often clashes with the reality of their current technological limitations and the associated infrastructure costs. Despite the well-intentioned claims, a plan like Mr. Ford’s—one that prioritizes certain clean energy initiatives and labor agreements without fully addressing the underlying costs and technological gaps—is highly unlikely to deliver the lower energy prices that the public so desperately craves and truly deserves.