“When relevant factors are properly considered, the most cost-effective appliances are usually the cheapest to buy and maintain. Super-efficient appliances are super expensive to buy and maintain.”

On June 9, 2025, Andrew Campbell, Executive Director of the Energy Institute at the Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, published the above-named article.  It is subtitled and summarized by the following: “If the DOE undoes minimum energy efficiency standards, which are decades old, consumer costs will likely rise.”

This statement is simultaneously vague, inaccurate and misleading. Where should I start debunking this fallacious statement? I suppose I should start with who I am to challenge Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas. I’m an engineer and energy policy analyst with decades of experience opposing DOE’s minimum energy efficiency standards. This can be easily validated by:

1. Searching for my full name at regulations.gov.

“Tomlinson is angry and sarcastic. His worldview is losing intellectually, politically, and business-wise. Is it time for him to retire and happily live off his spouse’s (ill-gotten) renewable energy riches?”

The “existential crisis” climate narrative is in meltdown. Houston solar leader John Berger has resigned, his 12-year-old company (Sunnova) positioned for bankruptcy. Other solar and wind stocks are tanking, and offshore wind is out of play. Battery and EV firms are regular restructuring news.

Climate activists find themselves out of taxpayer monies. The U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency are implementing President Trump’s “none-of-government” climate policy, reversing Podesta-Biden-Harris climate alarmism and the budget-busting Inflation Reduction Act.

But there is one fossil-fuel-despising business editorialist who is wed to the Climate Industrial Complex, not to mention a multi-millionaire renewables executive (thanks to your tax money).…

“The basic structure of EERE, populated by climate alarmists, is beyond redemption. Eradication appears to be the only thorough remedy.”

As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) strives to improve government efficiency, we urge them to look carefully at the “target-rich environment” of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with respect to both building and appliance energy efficiency standards. To this end we emphasize there are two facets: doing the right thing and doing the thing right. After explaining these codes, we offer historical perspective and expertise to assist DOGE in its endeavors.

Some conservative energy policy pundits believe “Net-Zero” policies are rapidly fading away. We disagree, at least with the “rapid.” A case-in-point is the recent growth and funding of biased building energy efficiency codes and performance standards throughout the US.…

Ed. Note: With yesterday’s background, Part II examines the politicization of one of Alaska’s major hydroelectric projects to reveal ulterior motives from “stakeholders” and elected officials.

“Once an RPS becomes law, the boards will be able to point to the new law in effect requiring them to adopt unreliable and expensive sources and be held harmless once things start to spiral out of control, up to and including rolling brownouts and blackouts.”

“Pumped energy storage is only necessary as a mitigating backup to the planned 100% unreliable not-so renewables. The Renewable Portfolio Standard will mandate a government-subsidized solar, wind and transmission build-out by grifters and profiteers. Wind and solar power producers should be made to pay for all infrastructure that makes them as reliable as a gas turbine.”

For environmental groups and their political carriers, the question is how to expand wind and solar power in the state, the very resources that are dilute, intermittent, fragile, expensive, and taxpayer-dependent.…