More than four years later, it’s fair to say the favored solution — increasing energy supply by building methane-burning power plants — may already be failing. Aren’t cheaper and easier-to-deploy options for reducing demand better?
The Texas Gas Rush Can’t Meet Energy Demand Without Renewable Energy
State leaders continue to push the wrong energy policies in the face of surging demand and need for wind and solar sources
By Adrian Shelley
This piece was first published in the San Antonio Express-News on April 30, 2025
When Winter Storm Uri caused widespread power outages in 2021, state leadership predictably favored more fossil fuels as the fix.
New methane plants face significant hurdles, including community opposition, supply chain issues and cost. As of today, the methane plant strategy under the Texas Energy Fund hasn’t generated a single megawatt of electricity. Meanwhile, population growth, the crypto industry and large artificial intelligence-driven data centers continue to drive up electricity demand.
The widespread gas plant failures during Uri proved that even so-called “dispatchable” power — power that can be turned on quickly — can be unreliable. Nevertheless, Gov. Greg Abbott and the Legislature doubled down, sending a constitutional amendment to voters to create the Texas Energy Fund, known as TEF, and subsidize new gas plants at taxpayer expense.
We can’t blame voters for approving the plan. We all want a reliable grid, and state leadership didn’t offer another solution.
In May, officials announced that the state received 81 applications for TEF funding, which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick celebrated as an “overwhelming response.” Since then, however, applicants have pulled out, projects have been canceled and communities have fought back.
One cancellation caused embarrassment. After one company was named a TEF finalist, we learned its CEO had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud as part of what federal authorities called an “embezzlement scheme.” The application also included another company as a co-applicant without its permission.
Other projects have also stumbled.
The firms behind two TEF-approved plants in Corpus Christi withdrew in February because of supply chain delays. You can’t just buy gas-powered, electricity-generating turbines off the shelf. They’re expensive and in short supply. The news outlet Heatmap reported that customers could wait until 2029 before securing a turbine from certain manufacturers. No turbine, no power plant.
In Sugar Land, a city-backed proposal faced significant opposition from grassroots groups. The project looked doomed once it was rejected for TEF funding, but city leadership tried to push it through anyway before abandoning it in February.
And in April, two more projects were rejected when the applicants failed the state’s due diligence requirements.
According to our review and monitoring, only three of the remaining initially approved projects appear ready to break ground.
In Granbury, for example, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality granted a request from residents to challenge the air emissions permit for a TEF-funded methane plant. This delay caused the applicant to withdraw. This was followed by a TEF participant seeking to build five gas units in the Houston area announcing its withdrawal due to market uncertainty.
New gas plants aren’t coming online anytime soon, and, again, demand continues to grow. Voters approved the TEF, and we acknowledge it as part of an “all-of-the-above” strategy. State leaders, however, have so far put all their eggs in this basket.
Fortunately, they have other options.
The TEF contemplated other strategies beyond gas. There’s resiliency funding that could build battery backup systems. Texas’ abundance of sunshine has made it a leader in utility-scale solar, and when paired with battery storage, solar becomes dispatchable. The 10,000 megawatts of battery storage installed since Uri has helped keep the grid afloat.
There are also demand-side strategies, such as energy efficiency and demand response. Energy efficiency makes our homes more comfortable, and demand response — a program that pays utility customers to reduce usage during times of peak demand — puts money back in our pockets.
Where’s the lawmaker enthusiasm for these strategies that directly benefit us? In addition to being cheaper than gas, they can be deployed more quickly. Permitting and building home insulation, heat pumps and smart thermostats don’t take years.
The Texas gas rush hasn’t gotten us anywhere. There are more straightforward, cheaper solutions. They don’t line the pockets of fossil fuel companies, but they will provide a clean, affordable, reliable grid.
Adrian Shelley is the Texas director of Public Citizen