“(Disclosure: My wife works for a private equity firm that invests in clean energy companies, and they have projects in Texas. But my interest in climate change and energy dates back 30 years, and like most spouses, my wife will tell you she has little influence over my opinions.)” – Tomlinson (below)

It is a start—but only a start. In a recent lobbyist-like editorial for the Houston Chronicle, the climate-religionist, bully-like, cut-the-beef Chris Tomlinson confessed to a conflict-of-interest. But the conflict is more than being married to a person that “works for a private equity firm that invests in clean energy companies”; his wife is a multi-millionaire rainmaker in wind and solar–the very two energies that Chris champions so completely and extensively.

His term “clean energy companies,” moreover, euphemizes the deep nature of wind and solar: government-enabled, cost-inflating, dilute, intermittent energies.…

“The Houston Chronicle (Hearst) refuses to answer the simple question: Have environmental groups donated funds, directly or indirectly, for “environmental education” or “environmental reporting” (climate alarmism/forced energy transformation)? Color me suspicious….”

When it comes to energy, Chris Tomlinson is about as anti-consumer and anti-taxpayer as one can get. And he is about as pro-industrial wind and pro-grid solar as possible.

The business editorialist does not see Texas’s $65 billion investment in parasitic, dilute, intermittent energies as the villain in destabilizing a once reliable, secure electric grid. He wants 1) more wind and solar; 2) enormous grid batteries, as if they were off-the-shelf and cheap; and 3) Big Brother demand-management in the home and business.

Chris Tomlinson is a committed climate alarmist without a care to doubt himself. He is unable to be neutral in his business columns: to present the best arguments on each side and let you, the reader, decide.…

“… the economist is looking for the why-behind-the-why. And that is where negative pricing for wind and low margins in general from the regulatory setup ruined the economics of the [natural gas] industry, resulting in premature retirements, a lack of new capacity, and cost avoidance. Are you saying that there was a ‘market failure’ with natural gas in [the Texas blackout of February 2021]?” (Bradley to Kiesling, below)

She engages and then disappears. She is the “classical liberal” who refuses to question the climate alarm and favors the government-forced energy transformation to wind, solar, and batteries–and demand control from the political center. And she is all-in with the centrally planned wholesale power markets, better known as Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations (ISOs and RTOs).

She trumpeted the Texas ISO as the national model until it imploded in February 2021–and now blames natural gas, not wind and solar or central government planning.…

“Fossil fuel-supporting Chicken Littles have done their best to spread fear of renewable energy, warning that relying on wind, solar and storage would lead to blackouts and economic devastation.”  (Tomlinson, pre-Storm Uri)

“The Republicans’ goal [with new legislation] is to keep coal plants open and burn more natural gas … [and] wreck the climate….” (Tomlinson, today) 

Chris Tomlinson rides again–bashing gas/coal-based grid reliability in favor of more wind, more solar, enormous battery reliance, and government demand-side management to ration demand to (wounded)  supply.

The latest is his editorial in the Houston Chronicle last week, “Lawmakers to Send Electric Bill Much  Higher” (March 22, 2023). Rather than admitting that the unreliables have wounded (and will further wound) the reliables because of government intervention and planning (see here, here, and here), he  fusses at fossil fuels and muckrakes (hypocritically [1]) against the rich.…