Purpose This study examines an emerging energy paradox in which large-scale renewable electricity expansion coexists with rising energy demand and uneven system-level decarbonization outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a comparative, system-level analytical approach, focusing on contrasting policy-led and market-led transition pathways in California and Texas. It analyzes renewable electricity growth, energy demand trajectories, carbon intensity, and system coordination to assess how institutional design conditions decarbonization outcomes. Findings The results show that policy-led and market-led systems can converge on similar levels of renewable electricity generation, yet diverge substantially in demand restraint, fossil fuel displacement, and infrastructure integration. Market-led pathways enable rapid renewable deployment but often coexist with rising demand and weaker system coordination, whereas policy-led pathways more effectively align renewable expansion with demand management and emissions reduction. Originality/value By moving beyond deployment metrics, this study highlights the limits of supply-side expansion alone and demonstrates how institutional design shapes the environmental effectiveness of renewable growth. The findings contribute to energy transition research by clarifying how similar renewable outcomes can produce divergent sustainability trajectories under different governance logics.
Ahmet Hakan Özkan (Wed,) studied this question.