The impact of corporate decisions on energy reliability

American Thinker ^ | 27 Mar, 2026 | Bill Ponton

[MtnClimber]

Xcel learned the hard lesson that if you feed the crocodiles, do not be surprised when they bite you.

Alex Epstein was not exaggerating when he wrote recently that we are all indebted to the politicians who have cut solar and wind subsidies and saved our grid by incentivizing reliable generation, which was having its operating revenue looted by subsidized, unreliable solar and wind. Of course, more work to preserve reliable generation is required at the state level, but at least sanity has returned to federal energy policy. However, the political sphere is only one arena in which the struggle to preserve reliable generation plays out. The other sphere that influences the direction of future energy policy is the corporate.

In a prior article, I wrote about the long odyssey that British Petroleum embarked upon to discover its true self. Rebranding itself with the catchy slogan, “Beyond Petroleum,” British Petroleum went on a two-decade destructive binge, showing undisguised disdain for its product, petroleum. The BP ship was ultimately righted with management changing course and ending its ill-conceived transition away from its core competency of oil production, but the damage to its reputation had been done.

Over the last decade, other energy companies, including many electric utilities, have embarked on a similar soul-searching quest. Notable amongst them is Xcel Energy. In 2018, its leadership had a vision of the company as one of the first to make deep carbon emissions reductions in its electric business by 2030 and attain a carbon-free electric system by 2050. At the time, its commitment to chart a path to a clean energy future was applauded by environmental advocacy groups, policymakers, and many in the public who believed that climate change posed an existential threat to humanity.

Assurances were given by Xcel management that reliable

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: leftism

[MtnClimber]

Right now we should be planning to rely on nuclear plants for our base load electricity production.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- "Right now we should be planning to rely on nuclear plants for our base load electricity production."

Yup. And producing what we need ourselves, in large part.

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

We’re a few hundred miles from Richmond, but since our last Democrat Governor sold our state’s only Fortune 500 company to Washington DC city-state’s energy company, they split the gas part off and are now forcing us into the wind-and-solar mandates of Gov. Northam.

We’re paying the price but nobody wants to admit it. Reading journals help. It reminds me of what happens at the gym. The same Mouseheads replace FNC, FBN, and Newsmax with ESPN channels because they are unable to see we understand policy, and those freaks care only about pushing legalised sports gambling.

[Tell It Right]

---- "Right now we should be planning to rely on nuclear plants for our base load electricity production."

Followed by:
Yup. And producing what we need ourselves, in large part.

Right on both parts. But perhaps most importantly is teach the masses to never, ever, ever trust the Dims and their doomsday cult environment policies and "experts". Or they'll be shutting down the nuclear sites in a decade. Just like they hated on nuclear in the past. Just like they hated on natural gas after promoting natural gas in the Oama years as "clean burning".