[Ed. note: On August 27, 1997, the Cato Institute published Policy Analysis #280, which criticized the government push to subsidize politically correct renewable energy, particularly solar and windpower. Today and tomorrow, different authors revisit what was the free-market-movement’s first full-scale rebuttal, on economic and environmental grounds, to so-called “green” energy policy .]

“The policy implication of [a thorough examination of renewable technologies] is, stop throwing good money after bad. All renewable energy subsidies from all levels of government should cease.”

Such is the conclusion voiced today by a rising chorus of energy experts, economists, even politicians, after many years of failed renewables projects and more expensive utility bills in the growing shadow of a $16 trillion national debt ($140,000 per taxpayer). But, remarkably, fifteen years have passed since Rob Bradley crafted this statement for the Cato Institute as the bottom line of his comprehensive six-part policy alarum, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’‘

An Opening Shot

Few knew about or shared Bradley’s concerns at the time.…

Consider the preconceptions that surface in your mind when you read the name “Enron”. Chances are that they are negative, and not particularly nuanced — fraudulent business activity, tarnishing the idea of free markets by trying to manipulate them using the political process, and so on.

If that’s true for you, then you are probably in a pretty similar mental space to mine when I started reading Rob Bradley’s Edison to Enron: Energy Markets and Political Strategies. Rob’s detailed and thoroughly researched book is a well-told analysis of the valuable and interesting regulatory and business history that formed the backdrop of Enron’s spectacular failure.

Samuel Insull, Father of Modern Electricity

The name of the book is somewhat misleading, because the first third of the book focuses not on Thomas Edison but on Samuel Insull.…

“The state’s Public Utility Commission, or PUC, approved the CREZ concept in 2008 in response to a directive [mandate] from the [Texas] Legislature in 2005.”

– Kate Galbraith, “Texas’ Wind Transmission Project Keeps Rolling,” The Texas Tribune, September 8, 2010

“Lt. Governor David Dewhurst was the largest recipient of [CREZ] contractor funds with $419,250 from January 2005 through February 2010. …. The CREZ project has turned out to be a money-making opportunity for many politicians and companies.”

– Dan Byfield, “The Politics of Transmission Lines.”  San Angelo Standard Times, June 29, 2010.

A political fight of national import is on in Texas for the U.S. Senate between Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz and Republican-establishment favorite David Dewhurst. Voting this week has put these two in a runoff come July 31st for the Republican nomination.…

It was an opinion-page editorial that was not warmly received by my employer at the time, Enron Corp. “Wind power poses several major dilemmas,” my Washington Times piece read.

Among them, it remains uneconomical despite heavy subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers over the last two decades—through 1995 the Department of Energy (DOE) had spent $900 million in wind energy subsidies. Second, wind farms are noisy, land intensive, unsightly, and hazardous to birds, including endangered species.

In response, Ken Karas, chairman & CEO of Enron Wind Corporation, wrote to Tom White, chairman & CEO of Enron Renewables Corporation:

Does Bradley still work for Enron? If so, I believe he should be terminated. This article is pure yellow journalism….

I was not terminated, but I reached a (fair) agreement with Enron CEO Ken Lay that I would stop writing about windpower given the obvious commercial interest and stockholder stake Enron had in this sector.…