East Bay Renewable Energy Costs: Why Taxpayer-Funded Green Dreams Fail Where Free Markets Succeed

Richmond Mayor Eduardo Martinez envisions a future where his city’s economy no longer depends on the Chevron refinery that has operated there for over 120 years. Instead, he dreams of offshore wind manufacturing, battery storage facilities, and a waterfront transformed by “green” businesses creating “cleaner air, good jobs, and long-term stability.”

It’s an appealing vision—until you examine who’s paying for it.

The California Energy Commission just awarded Richmond a $750,000 grant to study offshore wind feasibility. Battery manufacturer Viridi Parente received $9.3 million in state funds to open a facility in a building vacated by bankrupt competitor Moxion Power, which laid off hundreds of employees in 2024. Across the East Bay, local officials are pursuing renewable energy initiatives funded not by private investment betting on profitable technologies, but by taxpayer dollars subsidizing politically favored industries.

This pattern reveals a fundamental problem with government-driven energy transitions: when politicians rather than markets pick winners and losers, taxpayers foot the bill for expensive experiments while the promised benefits remain perpetually just over the horizon.

The Subsidy Addiction

Richmond’s $750,000 offshore wind planning grant represents just a fraction of California’s renewable energy spending spree. The state has committed over $225 million to offshore wind port development, including grants to Oakland, Humboldt, Benicia, Stockton, San Francisco, and Redwood City. A proposed facility in Humboldt Bay alone carries a $4.7 billion price tag.

These aren’t private companies risking their own capital on promising technologies. They’re government agencies spending taxpayer money on projects that may never generate positive returns.

Consider Viridi’s story. The company took over a facility abandoned by Moxion Power, which filed for bankruptcy after failing to make its business model work. Rather than letting market signals guide investment decisions, California handed Viridi $9.3 million to try again in the same location. If Viridi’s battery storage systems were genuinely cost-effective and market-ready, private investors would fund expansion without needing taxpayer subsidies.

The fact that these renewable energy projects require massive government grants reveals an uncomfortable truth: they’re not yet economically viable without forcing taxpayers to underwrite the risk.

The Real Cost of “Cheaper” Energy

East Bay Community Energy—recently rebranded as Ava Community Energy—markets itself as providing electricity at rates 5% below PG&E for its “Bright Choice” service. Sounds great, right?

Look closer. That “discount” comes with caveats. Customers choosing Ava’s “Renewable 100” option—100% renewable energy—pay a quarter-cent more per kilowatt-hour than PG&E rates. And those PG&E rates? They’ve increased over 92% between 2014 and 2024, making California’s electricity among the most expensive in the nation.

Comparing Ava’s rates to PG&E is like bragging about being slightly less expensive than the most overpriced option available. It’s not a real discount—it’s a marginal improvement over rates inflated by decades of renewable energy mandates, utility mismanagement, and regulatory costs.

Meanwhile, California residents and businesses pay the price. Commercial electricity rates hit 29.31 cents per kilowatt-hour in August 2025—far above the national average. These high energy costs drive businesses out of state, increase the cost of goods and services, and hit working families hardest.

Conservatives understand that truly affordable energy comes from abundant, reliable sources developed through competitive markets—not from government-subsidized alternatives that require perpetual taxpayer support to remain “competitive.”

The Reliability Question

San Rafael Mayor Kate Colin, speaking at a December tour of Viridi’s Richmond facility, acknowledged the pressure on local officials to “manifest” state renewable energy policies. But manifestation requires more than political will—it requires physics and economics to cooperate.

California has made progress adding renewable capacity, with officials celebrating days when the grid ran entirely on renewable energy. Yet the state still faces reliability challenges, particularly during extreme heat events when demand spikes and solar production drops as the sun sets.

Battery storage systems like those Viridi manufactures aim to address this “intermittency” problem by storing excess renewable energy for later use. It’s a reasonable technological approach—if it works at scale and proves cost-effective.

But here’s the conservative concern: we’re betting billions of taxpayer dollars on technologies that haven’t yet proven they can reliably power a modern economy without backup from conventional sources. When those bets fail—as Moxion Power’s bankruptcy demonstrates—taxpayers absorb the losses while politicians move on to the next subsidized venture.

A truly market-driven approach would let private companies develop and test these technologies using private capital. Successful innovations would attract investment and scale naturally. Failed experiments would close without forcing taxpayers to cover the losses.

The Job Creation Myth

Renewable energy advocates promise that offshore wind manufacturing and battery production will create “thousands of high-quality jobs” replacing those lost as traditional energy industries decline. Richmond officials particularly emphasize diversifying beyond Chevron’s refinery employment.

Economic diversification makes sense—but not when it’s driven by government subsidies rather than genuine market demand.

The Chevron refinery employs Richmond residents because it produces products people actually want to buy at prices they’re willing to pay. The refinery generates tax revenue that funds city services because it’s a profitable business. Renewable energy facilities subsidized by taxpayer grants don’t operate under the same market discipline.

When Moxion Power failed, it laid off hundreds of employees. Those weren’t just statistics—they were real people who took jobs at a company that seemed promising but couldn’t sustain operations without continued subsidy infusions. Now Viridi operates in the same facility with $9.3 million in state support. What happens when that money runs out?

Conservatives believe in job creation through genuine economic growth, not through government spending that creates temporary positions dependent on continued taxpayer funding. Real jobs come from profitable businesses serving actual customer demand—not from political initiatives pursuing ideological goals regardless of economic viability.

The Chevron Double Standard

Richmond’s relationship with Chevron reveals progressive hypocrisy about energy and economics. City activists pushed a ballot measure to force the refinery to fund Richmond’s transition away from fossil fuels—essentially demanding that a private business pay for its own elimination. A $550 million settlement over ten years resulted in the measure being pulled.

Think about that. Richmond officials simultaneously depend on Chevron’s tax revenue to fund city services while working to eliminate the company’s operations. They want the refinery’s money but not its continued existence.

This approach reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth creation works. Chevron generates revenue by producing energy that powers vehicles, heats homes, and enables modern life. That productive activity creates jobs, generates taxes, and supports communities. You can’t replace that with government-subsidized alternatives and expect the same economic benefits.

If renewable energy businesses were genuinely more profitable and productive than refineries, they wouldn’t need government grants to compete. They’d simply outcompete fossil fuel companies in the marketplace. The fact that Richmond needs $750,000 just to study offshore wind feasibility—while Chevron has operated profitably for over a century—tells you which model actually works economically.

The Federal Pushback

The Trump administration has taken steps to block wind energy projects through executive orders and canceled $679 million in grants for offshore wind development. California officials and progressive activists have responded with resistance and legal challenges.

This federal-state conflict highlights a key conservative principle: energy policy shouldn’t be dictated by government mandates at any level. If offshore wind makes economic sense, private companies will develop it without federal or state subsidies. If it doesn’t make economic sense, forcing taxpayers to fund it anyway wastes resources that could be invested more productively.

The Trump administration’s skepticism toward renewable energy subsidies reflects a market-oriented approach: let technologies compete on their merits rather than their political connections. California’s resistance reflects the progressive belief that government knows better than markets how to allocate resources.

Conservatives side with markets. Not because we oppose renewable energy—but because we oppose forcing taxpayers to subsidize any energy source that can’t compete economically.

The Alternative: Market-Driven Innovation

None of this means opposing renewable energy development. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies have improved dramatically and continue advancing. Some applications already make economic sense without subsidies.

But the path to affordable, reliable renewable energy runs through competitive markets, not government mandates and taxpayer subsidies.

Let prices signal value: When renewable energy becomes genuinely cheaper and more reliable than conventional sources, consumers will choose it voluntarily. Government doesn’t need to force that transition with mandates and subsidies.

Let investors bear risk: Private companies risking their own capital make better decisions than politicians spending other people’s money. Successful innovations attract investment naturally. Failed experiments close without burdening taxpayers.

Let local conditions vary: Richmond’s energy needs differ from rural California’s needs, which differ from Texas’s needs. One-size-fits-all mandates from Sacramento or Washington ignore these differences. Local control and market competition produce better outcomes.

Let technology compete: Don’t pick winners and losers based on political fashion. Let all energy sources—including nuclear, natural gas, and emerging technologies—compete on reliability, cost, and environmental performance.

Let consumers choose: Some people prioritize renewable energy and will pay premium prices for it. Others prioritize affordability. Markets can serve both preferences. Government mandates serve neither effectively.

The Fiscal Accountability Problem

California faces massive budget deficits, unfunded pension liabilities, and crumbling infrastructure. Yet the state continues committing hundreds of millions to renewable energy subsidies that may never generate positive returns.

Every dollar spent on grants to battery companies or offshore wind studies is a dollar not available for roads, schools, public safety, or reducing the tax burden on working families. Fiscal conservatives understand that government resources are limited and should be spent on core functions that markets cannot provide.

Energy production is not a core government function. Private companies have successfully provided energy for over a century without requiring taxpayer subsidies. The renewable energy industry should meet the same standard.

When politicians like Richmond’s Mayor Martinez talk about creating an economy “not dependent on a single fossil fuel employer,” they’re really proposing an economy dependent on continuous government subsidy flows. That’s not economic diversification—it’s replacing market-driven employment with politically allocated funding.

True fiscal accountability means letting businesses succeed or fail based on their ability to serve customers profitably, not on their ability to secure government grants.

What Conservatives Should Demand

East Bay residents and California taxpayers deserve better than expensive energy experiments funded by their tax dollars. Here’s what conservatives should demand from elected officials:

Transparency about costs: Every renewable energy grant should include full disclosure of taxpayer costs, expected returns, and accountability measures for failure. Voters deserve to know what they’re paying for.

Market competition: Remove mandates and subsidies for all energy sources—renewable and conventional—and let them compete on level playing fields. The best technologies will win.

Reliability standards: Before closing conventional power plants or refineries, prove that renewable alternatives can actually provide equivalent reliability without backup systems.

Fiscal responsibility: Stop committing taxpayer funds to speculative energy projects while the state faces budget deficits and unfunded obligations.

Local control: Let communities decide their own energy futures without Sacramento mandates. If Richmond wants offshore wind, let Richmond pay for it—not California taxpayers.

Performance accountability: When subsidized companies like Moxion Power fail, investigate why taxpayer money was committed and hold responsible officials accountable.

Conclusion: Dreams vs. Reality

There’s nothing wrong with dreaming about cleaner energy, technological innovation, and economic transformation. But dreams should be pursued with private capital risking its own money, not with taxpayer funds subsidizing politically favored industries.

The East Bay’s renewable energy initiatives reveal the fundamental flaw in government-driven energy transitions: they prioritize political goals over economic reality, substitute mandates for market signals, and force taxpayers to fund experiments that private investors won’t support.

Richmond Mayor Martinez dreams of a future where green businesses replace oil refineries. But Chevron has operated profitably for 120 years because it produces products people value at prices they’ll pay. The renewable energy companies receiving millions in taxpayer subsidies haven’t demonstrated the same economic viability.

Conservatives offer a better path: trust markets to drive innovation, let consumers choose their energy sources, hold politicians accountable for spending decisions, and stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize industries that can’t compete economically.

The East Bay deserves genuine economic opportunity and affordable, reliable energy. Government subsidies and mandates won’t deliver either. Market competition, fiscal responsibility, and individual choice will.

The question for East Bay residents: do you want energy policy driven by political dreams funded with your tax dollars, or by economic reality tested through market competition?

Your electricity bills suggest you’re already paying for the answer California politicians have chosen. Maybe it’s time to demand a different approach.

CALL TO ACTION

Don’t let politicians spend your tax dollars on unproven energy experiments. Here’s how you can push for market-driven solutions:

Contact your local officials in Alameda and Contra Costa counties and demand transparency about renewable energy spending. Ask how much taxpayer money is being committed and what accountability measures exist when projects fail. Find contact information at your city or county website.

Attend city council and county supervisor meetings when energy policy is discussed. Ask tough questions about costs, reliability, and alternatives. Your presence matters.

Support market-oriented energy policies by contacting state legislators and demanding an end to renewable energy mandates and subsidies. Let all energy sources compete fairly.

Share this article with neighbors and friends who pay high electricity bills but may not understand why California energy costs so much more than other states.

Vote with your wallet by researching your energy options and choosing providers based on cost and reliability rather than political messaging.

Hold failed projects accountable by demanding investigations when subsidized companies like Moxion Power fail. Taxpayers deserve answers when their money is wasted.

California’s energy future should be determined by market competition and consumer choice, not by politicians allocating subsidies to favored industries. Make your voice heard before more of your tax dollars disappear into the next “green dream” that can’t survive without government support.