Energy Resources 101: AOER’s resource primer makes it easy to understand the differing attributes of various energy resources.

Americans rely on affordable, reliable electricity to power their homes and businesses every second of every day. However, not all energy sources are created equal—some provide consistent power at a lower cost, while others come with hidden expenses and reliability concerns.

📊 What Americans Need to Know:

• Coal and natural gas offer some of the lowest-cost electricity options, with costs of $34.10/MWh and $33.07/MWh, respectively. They are dispatchable, meaning they can be ramped up or down to match demand.
• Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source, operating at 90% capacity. Existing plants provide low-cost power ($32.54/MWh), but new plants come with high upfront costs.
• Wind and solar appear cheap on the surface but require expensive backup infrastructure, making them much more costly in practice. Real-world costs can reach $272/MWh for wind and $472/MWh for solar, far exceeding advertised prices.

🌎 Why This Matters: The way we produce and consume energy has real consequences for families, businesses, and the economy. High energy costs can lead to increased prices for goods and services, putting additional financial pressure on working families. Furthermore, unreliable power sources can result in grid failures, leading to blackouts and disruptions in daily life. Industries that depend on stable energy—such as manufacturing, agriculture, and technology—suffer when energy policies favor ideology over practicality.

⚡ The Bottom Line: Energy policies must prioritize cost-effectiveness and reliability. Relying too heavily on wind and solar without proper backups raises prices and increases blackout risks. Instead, a balanced approach—including coal, natural gas, and nuclear power—ensures that consumers have access to affordable and dependable energy without compromising economic stability. Voters should demand policies that keep energy affordable, dependable, and practical for all Americans. The key to a strong energy future is embracing diverse, proven, and reliable energy sources, not just following political trends.

By focusing on affordability, reliability, and efficiency, we can ensure a strong, stable, and sustainable energy future that works for everyone—not just special interests.

Click here to read the Resource Primer.

In March 2024, New Mexico became the fourth member of a group of states, including California, Oregon, and Washington, determined to make their drivers pay to enact California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s state-based, free market think tank, partnered with us to determine how much drivers in the Land of Enchantment are likely to pay for being shackled to California’s draconian LCFS. The results aren’t pretty.

AOER’s modeling shows that “[b]y 2040, the regulations will cause gas prices to be 45 cents per gallon higher than they otherwise would be, and diesel prices will be 52 cents higher.” Read the full report here.

On August 6, 2024, Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her Vice Presidential running mate.

The media are trying to portray Walz as a “folksy” “moderate.” AOER’s Vice President of Research Isaac Orr and Research Director Mitch Rolling know better. The two have spent the last six years dissecting and analyzing Walz’s every move in energy policy.

They conclude, “Walz has never seen a California energy policy he didn’t try to implement in Minnesota. His standard tactic has been the bait-and-switch, first proposing a seemingly moderate policy during election season and then lurching to the extreme end of the spectrum at his first opportunity.”

Under a Harris-Walz administration, Americans can expect higher gasoline prices and utility bills. At the same time, they should prepare for blackouts and crumbling infrastructure.

Click here to read The Green New Walz.

AOER Fellow Trevor Lewis explains in a research brief for the Independence Institute: “Colorado’s 2.05 million natural gas-using households, businesses, and manufacturers will inevitably need to pay an additional $9,500 to $71,000 over the next 15 years.”  It does make us wonder if Coloradans have been asked if they want to pay this much for experimental energy sources to power their state.

The North Dakota Transmission Authority (NDTA) included AOER’s analysisas an exhibit for North Dakota’s participation along with 24 other states’ motion to stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon regulations.

AOER’s Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling opined about their study and the new regulations on their Energy Bad Boys Substack post: “5.2 Million Americans Will Be Left in the Dark by EPA’s Carbon Rules on Power Plants.”

They write that the new rules are “worse than you can possibly imagine. This is especially true in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), where EPA regulations would leave five million people shivering in the dark”… because the “EPA doesn’t conduct hourly reliability analyses, it has no idea when wind and solar resources are available on the system to serve demand. As a result, the EPA simply assumes that wind and solar generation will magically match perfectly with demand.”

AOER was hired to model and analyze the cost and reliability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently finalized carbon rules officially titled “New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.”

These new rules will set limits on greenhouse gas emissions for existing coal and new natural gas power plants. Our analysis found that EPA’s proposal would cost Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) $382 billion and Southwest Power Pool (SPP) $66 billion through 2055 and, if implemented, lead to devasting blackouts, especially in SPP.