There are few things as consistent as Texas politicians managing to outdo themselves at the intersection of energy policy and performance art. If you’re struggling to keep up, you’re not alone: the Texas Senate is advancing a bill, S.B. 715, that, in short, would require solar plants to supply power at night. Yes, after dark—the one time few expect the sunniest of renewables to pitch in.

A Gridlocked Proposal

Several outlets have chronicled these legislative developments, though few have done so without at least a hint of disbelief. As detailed in The Hill’s report, if the Texas House also passes S.B. 715, renewables—solar in particular—would be required to buy backup power (primarily from coal or gas plants) to “match their output at night.” Consultant Doug Lewin described this scenario as a demand for generation “when no one expects them to produce energy and when demand is typically at its lowest anyway”—a comparison that calls to mind the idea of demanding your local lemonade stand operate through an ice storm, just on principle.

While proponents claim the measure addresses the “volatility” of renewable energy, the approach seems to tip the scales in favor of fossil fuels—especially when combined with S.B. 388, which mandates every new renewable megawatt be matched by new gas generation. The San Antonio Express-News observes that this gets complicated quickly in a market where gas turbines are already scarce, due both to protracted supply chain bottlenecks and a slow-moving pace of new construction.

Who Asked for This?

In a twist, even business interests that might seem natural allies to fossil fuel policy aren’t rushing to support the bill. The San Antonio Express-News highlights that the Texas Oil & Gas Association and the Texas Association of Manufacturers both oppose S.B. 715. Industry resistance is echoed in a Texas Association of Business study, referenced by The Hill, which projects the bill would increase statewide power costs by $5.2 billion annually and lead to a $225 per year hike for individual consumers. The study’s authors further contend these costs come bundled with a heightened blackout risk, particularly during extreme heat and ice storms—a veritable “unintended consequences” starter pack.

The skepticism extends to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), whose CEO Pablo Vegas explained to reporters that such requirements could push renewables out of the market entirely, leaving Texas with less power precisely as demand—driven largely by data centers and AI use—is set to nearly double over the next several years. “Characterizing renewables as a problem, I don’t think is helpful to the conversation. I don’t think it’s accurate,” Vegas commented in a discussion cited by Express-News, suggesting the focus should instead be on building a balanced portfolio that draws from both traditional and renewable sources.

Spain is Not Texas: Tales from Parallel Universes

Supporters of the bill have brandished Europe’s recent power outages as a cautionary tale, but the details reveal some inconvenient differences. The Express-News recounts industry experts’ observations that Texas, with more than 10,000 megawatts of battery storage and rapid-response programs for emergencies, operates on a fundamentally different footing from Spain, which has just 60 megawatts of storage. As Aaron Zubaty, CEO of Texas battery operator Eolian, remarked, Spain’s recent blackouts were “actually a total fail in their market design” rather than a referendum on renewables. ERCOT’s Vegas likewise stressed that comparing the two is apples and oranges—or more accurately, high-voltage lines and red tape.

Mandate the Impossible, Collect the Bill

Coverage from Breitbart News describes the legislation as causing “double takes,” given its stipulation that solar provide power “in the dark.” Renewable energy groups, as reported by the Express-News, find themselves ensnared by the requirement. The Senate added an amendment to temporarily exempt projects with current power purchase contracts, but once those deals expire, the obligation to secure nighttime backup power comes due.

Meanwhile, the underlying reality of the Texas grid gets less imaginative treatment: nearly half the state’s gas and coal power plants are over 30 years old, according to figures from ERCOT conveyed by Express-News, and new “dispatchable” generation is at least several years out under the best of circumstances. Almost all recent growth in Texas electricity supply has come from solar and wind—technologies that are, somewhat ironically, keeping the lights on through record-breaking weather. Is there a logic in demanding these sources perform after dark, or is the approach more akin to requiring wind turbines to pick up the slack during a dead calm?

Irony, Policy Theater, and Real-World Consequences

The rhetoric behind these new rules leans heavily on “leveling the playing field,” but the result is a two-step: mandate what renewables cannot do, penalize them accordingly, and distribute the bill to consumers, all while likely reducing reliability. In a detail noted by The Hill, polling of Texas GOP voters indicates nearly 80% believe renewables help make the state grid more stable. Policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction—raising barriers and costs for renewables at a time when the state’s appetite for power threatens to outrun supply.

Will the Texas House pause to reflect that legislative deadlines and grid mandates are unlikely to sway the elemental rhythms of the universe? One wonders about the planning session that imagines the sun’s timetable might change if the rulebooks are thick enough. As ERCOT’s CEO and other experts repeatedly caution, managing risk requires more than wishful thinking. For now, Texas seems poised to try something else entirely: mandating sunshine after dark and hoping the grid, and consumers, can keep up.