If you want to gamble, the Mississippi has a long history of riverboat casinos.
Iowa’s power grid shouldn’t be one.
Energy policy really isn’t that complicated. Before politicians start talking about climate targets, federal tax credits, “transitions,” or whatever phrase is fashionable in Washington this week, they ought to answer three basic questions:
Is the energy affordable? Is it reliable? Is it secure?
If the answer is no, then we’ve got a problem.
That’s what makes the energy debate in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District worth paying attention to. State Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, the Democratic challenger for the Republican-held seat, says that, if elected to Congress, she would support federal investments in wind, solar, and biofuels as part of her climate agenda.
Fine. But “investment” is one of those wonderful Washington words that usually means somebody else is picking up the tab.
And there’s a much bigger question hiding behind it: What happens when government starts designing an electrical system around politically preferred energy sources instead of affordability and reliability?
The groups backing Garriott give us some idea where this road leads.
The League of Conservation Voters, which endorsed her, advocates moving away from fossil fuels and decarbonizing the economy by 2050. GiveGreen, another organization supporting Garriott, goes much further. It supports halting new fossil-fuel infrastructure, rapidly phasing down fossil-fuel extraction, ending drilling on federal lands and waters, and stopping expansion of natural-gas export infrastructure.
That’s not an energy policy. That’s an ideological wish list.
And Hawkeye families, farmers, and businesses are the ones being asked to bet that it all works out.
Wind and solar don’t become reliable simply because Washington subsidizes more of them. Electricity still has to show up when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Farmers don’t get to tell their equipment to wait until weather conditions improve. Manufacturers can’t schedule production around a cloudy afternoon. Hospitals, data centers, homes, and businesses need electricity when they need electricity.
Then there’s the security problem.
America has spent years warning about becoming dependent on China while simultaneously pursuing energy policies that can deepen our reliance on Chinese-dominated supply chains. Incumbent U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn has specifically criticized electric-vehicle mandates on the grounds that major components are sourced from China and has pointed instead to American-made biofuels as an option particularly suited to rural America.
And this isn’t just an economic problem. It’s an ethical one.
Parts of the global renewable-energy supply chain have been linked by the U.S. government to forced labor, including Chinese polysilicon used in solar manufacturing. Cobalt mining used in some battery supply chains has also been associated with child labor. We should be very careful about calling an energy supply chain “clean” when some of its inputs can carry a very dirty human cost.
There is something profoundly backward about making American energy production harder while becoming more dependent on countries that do not share our labor standards, environmental standards, or strategic interests.
Rep. Nunn has taken a very different approach.
He opposed the Biden administration’s restrictions on liquefied-natural-gas exports, warning that they undermine American energy independence and benefit our adversaries. He also supported the Lower Energy Costs Act, which sought to expand domestic energy and mineral production, cut regulatory barriers, and speed up permitting.
That gets much closer to what energy policy should actually be about.
Energy sources should have to earn their place based on what they deliver; not because politicians gave them a politically fashionable label. Can they keep the lights on? Can families afford them? Can America produce the fuel, equipment, and critical materials without putting our economy in Beijing’s hands?
Those questions aren’t particularly glamorous. But neither is opening the electric bill.
Affordable. Reliable. Secure.
That should be the test.
Because Iowa can afford plenty of things. What it can’t afford is turning its energy future into a riverboat bet and hoping the house doesn’t win.
Cameron Sholty is the Executive Director of Heartland Impact, the advocacy arm of The Heartland Institute, a 40-year-old public policy think tank based in Schaumburg, IL.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
