The problem outlined by the economist article essentially boils down to the fact that the government wanted to subsidise renewable energy but didn't want to pay

The problem outlined by the economist article essentially boils down to the fact that the government wanted to subsidise renewable energy but didn't want to pay the subsidy so foisted the extra cost onto consumers with legislation requiring the utility companies to buy renewable energy when it was available. That's not a problem specific to all "green laws" as you seem to imply. The Economist does seem to come across as slightly biased in its reportage (I'm surprised), when they say "renewables undercut relatively climate-friendly natural gas on price". Relative to what? It becomes clearer as you read further, relative to coal, but the quoted statement makes it sound like natural gas is more climate-friendly than renewables. Clearly not.