Ed. note: This two part series addresses repeated media errors about the role of Charles Koch in the formation of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) in 1989. Part I below covers the history of the Institute for Humane Studies–Texas, the forerunner to IER. Part II tomorrow reviews the formation and early history of IER, then based in Houston, Texas.

Q1. Robert Bradley: A recent article in the Austin American Statesman (since corrected) tied Charles Koch to the founding of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) back in 1989. Since this erroneous association is oft-repeated, I want to develop the historical record with you, the first and only employee of IHS–Texas, the predecessor to IER.

First, Greg, explain how IHS–Texas came to be founded.

A1. Greg Rehmke:  A long time ago, as I remember it, the Foundation for Advanced Studies in Liberty (FASL) and Olin Foundation put up money for three years of Economics in Argumentation.

“There’s a kernel of truth to Bradley’s statement — renewable energy did falter in April due to weather patterns, and renewable energy has had an indirect impact on thermal energy investments. But the Houston Republic article [Institute for Energy Research CEO: Adding ‘unreliable’ wind, solar is ‘at the expense of the reliables‘] only focuses on these elements while ignoring the fact that nearly half of the state’s natural gas fleet was offline on April 13 for maintenance. We rate this claim Mostly False.”

Is the rating above for my statement? Or for the article in which the statement was made?

Therein lies an interesting saga of today’s cancel culture and the bob-and-weave of renewable energy proponents to separate the Texas wind/solar boom from the reliability bust.

Brandon Mulder of the Austin American-Statesman was tasked with a ‘take down piece,’ so to speak, against 1) a newspaper source in which I was quoted, 2) the Institute for Energy Research, and 3) the view that renewable energy was “to blame” for Texas’s grid problems.…

“ERCOT asks residents, businesses to conserve electricity over potential lack of generating power … The April surprise served as a reminder to Texans that they’re not clear of the vulnerability that brought the state to a standstill in February.” So read a headline in the Dallas Morning News (April 13, 2021) This event led to the interview, below.

“Texas has reached the limit of our renewable dependence. There certainly should not be any more wind or solar for the grid…. [Renewables] are turning an energy-rich state into an energy-poor state.” (Bradley)

According to a report from America’s Power, through 2018, renewable energy resources — primarily wind and solar — have received subsidies amounting to more than $100 billion. (Fairley)

The Houston Republic—a source of fair reporting for conservative, libertarian, and classical-liberal views— recently published a piece in which I was featured.…

“‘Unintended consequences of government intervention?’ Are you f***in’ kidding me? What just happened is a direct consequence of insufficient government intervention!” (Robert Borlick, energy consultant)

“No, with due respect. When the system loaded up on renewables, who would have known that low-to-negative marginal-cost pricing would have ruined the economics of baseload generators and natural gas peakers, existing and prospective. I was an adamant critic of windpower in the old days (1997) and just did not foresee this.” (Bradley, retort)

Many planners and regulators involved involved in the Great Texas Electricity Blackout have resigned or been fired. But their brethren, the experts behind the fallen PUCT/ERCOT model, are emotionally defending central planning and renewable energies by blaming the natural gas industry. “The CEOs of those gas companies should be criminally charged,” exclaims Robert Borlick, below).…