On this day in 2008, I launched MasterResource. The inaugural post, A New Energy Blog, read:

We are just getting started here, but some of us veterans of the energy debate from a private property, free-market perspective have teamed together to offer our thoughts on late breaking energy items. When I read my newspapers each day, I have some thoughts that I wish I could share with folks from a historical, worldview perspective. I think we all have something to add–and thus the inspiration for this endeavor.

We have a good core group of principal (and principled) bloggers, as well as a growing list of guest bloggers. We aim to post new material most every day. What we have to provide to the reader is frequent insight so that you visit us regularly.

There will be some trial and error, but this is the time to launch.…

“New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. Higher energy prices are in effect a regressive tax that places low-income households in the state in peril.”

Energy policies that originate from a political or quasi-religious agenda—propelled by climate zealots, misinformation, and obliviousness to basic economic principles—are on trial in the new political environment. Such policies sacrifice the public good to benefit special interests wed to rent-seeking.

While this commentary focuses on New Mexico, its urgings are applicable to other jurisdictions that currently have or are considering government-driven energy policies featuring mandates and subsidies that encourage consumers to transition away from fossil fuels. 

Three Hard Truths

Three truths should determine energy policy in New Mexico.

1. No climate benefit. Whatever action the state takes to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has a negligible effect on climate change. …

“The Deep State is cancer-like in nature. Like cancer, it must be rooted out before it metastasizes—as it would have if subject to another four years of a Harris (Obama 4.0?) Administration.”

“It’s time to go big. Scrap DOE and part-out whatever missions are worth saving.  And whatever missions are deemed worth saving should be saved only with thorough scrutiny of zero-based budgeting.”

Our March 2017 post, DOE’s EERE: Reform Ideas for Secretary Perry, stated that while “a trace of consumer focus still exists,” the department’s heavy bias was towards society-wide electrification under the guise of “Net Zero”.

Whatever trace of consumer focus may be remaining within DOE is not worth salvaging. In fact, eliminating the pipe dream of an all-electric society would likely save US citizens $18 to 29 trillion in capital costs alone.…

“Energy policy will be on the ballot this fall, and American voters deserve meaningful answers from all candidates about how to drive production of affordable and reliable natural gas and oil for decades to come.” – American Petroleum Institute

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is no better or worse than its membership. If the companies like the free market, they are on solid consumer, taxpayer grounds. If the membership tilts toward special government favor (rent-seeking), API works against consumers and taxpayers.

Oil and gas companies should work from fundamental consumer demand out rather than political correctness in. They would have avoided boondoggles like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the 1970s and hydrogen and carbon capture today. They also should have fought hard against wind and solar for on-grid electricity and for batteries to overcome intermittency.

Today, API has many free-market views, given the Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-oil-and-gas agenda, 250 actions (and counting) worth.…