Democrats - slow learners - are learning about green power.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reality killed renewable energy. It cant meet the demand of AI. Building it is economic suicide

Leftards never let reality interfere with their plans.

 

[sartre play]

What I KNOW about SOME of the company's that are investing in America
APPLE. all the money is going towards AI.
Soft BANK. Owned by Billionaire, 2nd richest man in JAPAN.
ARAB EMIRATES. MONARCHY all ARAB COUNTRYS. ISLAM is main religion
Not saying this is bad or not, Just wish More investments from actual AMERICANS.

 

[Nobody911]

MSN

^^ Green power is great! (when others are paying for it)

It's not so great any longer.

Zapped!

Good reasoning overall, but with important flaws.

- What's good: The piece cites concrete data (price increases, % toward targets) and notes real challenges: aging grid, lost nuclear capacity (Indian Point), and slow rollout of offshore wind/storage. Those points legitimately explain higher costs and missed targets.

- What's weak or misleading:
- Causation vs correlation: Higher bills are blamed mainly on the green law, but other drivers (inflation, supply-chain issues, wholesale market dynamics, storm damage, utility investment needs) also raise costs. The article downplays those.
- Cherry-picking: Emphasizing failures (offshore wind, storage) while noting solar is on track can skew the overall picture. Progress and technology learning curves matter.
- Timing and policy choices: Blaming the law itself ignores implementation choices, regulatory delays, permitting hurdles, and the premature closure of Indian Point — decisions distinct from the law’s goals.
- Lack of counterfactual: No clear analysis of what bills or reliability would look like without decarbonization efforts (e.g., continued fossil fuels, long-term price risks, health/climate costs).
- Political framing: The headline and tone are partisan and rhetorically loaded; that can overstate “failure” without balanced nuance.

- Bottom line: The factual pieces are valid, but the argument overstates that the law alone is an “undeniable failure.”

I found the article (NY Post republished via MSN) citing a report by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Quick analysis of possible lobbying/dark‑money influence:

- Who's quoted: The story centers on a PPI report and quotes its author Neel Brown. When a single think tank drives the narrative, it's a potential advocacy piece rather than neutral reporting.

- About PPI: PPI is a long‑standing centrist-to‑center-left think tank historically associated with the Democratic Leadership Council; it is not a secret "dark money" group like an untransparent 501(c)(4). PPI typically files tax forms (Form 990) and lists some funders, though not every grantor is named publicly.

- Funding transparency: PPI does receive corporate and foundation support. That support is generally disclosed at a high level, but it does not publish a fully granular donor list for every dollar — common for many think tanks. That means influence is possible but not hidden in the way of classic dark‑money groups that refuse disclosure entirely.

- Lobbying ties: PPI itself is a policy advocacy organization, not a registered lobbying firm. Its reports aim to influence policy and public debate. That’s standard for think tanks. Look for overlaps (staff who became officials, advisory board members with industry ties) to spot stronger influence lines; PPI has had personnel who moved in and out of government and business.

- Editorial amplification: The NY Post/MSN presentation is partisan‑toned and highlights the report's criticisms prominently without substantial pushback. That increases the chance the article functions as an echo of PPI’s advocacy rather than independent investigative journalism.

Bottom line: The piece is driven by an advocacy report from a mainstream think tank (PPI). That’s normal advocacy, not clear evidence of hidden "dark money." It’s wise to treat the report as partisan policy advocacy: useful but one‑sided.

source:

- Dem-leaning group roasts NY’s green energy law as an ‘undeniable’ failure as customers zapped by soaring costs

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

What about this?

Last-In, First-Out Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies – allows companies to undervalue their inventory, reducing taxable income; oil and gas companies account for over one third of LIFO benefits
Subsidy?

Or this?

Deduction for Intangible Drilling Costs – 100% tax deduction for independent producers for costs not directly part of the final operating of an oil or gas well

Subsidy

What about this?

Last-In, First-Out Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies – allows companies to undervalue their inventory, reducing taxable income; oil and gas companies account for over one third of LIFO benefits
Subsidy?

Or this?

Deduction for Intangible Drilling Costs – 100% tax deduction for independent producers for costs not directly part of the final operating of an oil or gas well

Subsidy?

YES and YES.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

YES and YES.

I guess every business in the US in the last 100 years had a subsidy.

Leftists are so ******* stupid, it's a miracle you survived childhood.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I guess every business in the US in the last 100 years had a subsidy.

Your guesses like Trump's are, as usual......... wrong, Q-NUT.

Leftists are so ******* stupid, it's a miracle you survived childhood.

You are an insult to stupid people Q-NUT.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your guesses like Trump's are, as usual......... wrong, Q-NUT.

You are an insult to stupid people Q-NUT.

Did you hear, businesses get to deduct expenses before their taxes are calculated.
SUBSIDY!!!

Durr

 

[CrazyTrader55]

Did you hear, businesses get to deduct expense before their taxes are calculated.
SUBSIDY!!!

Durr

Everyone likes to beat up on the oil companies, but getting oil out of the ground isn't easy, and keeping the country running, is a pretty darn important task.