Energy Policy

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) have warned that the reliability of the US electric grid is threatened by the increasing percentage of intermittent wind and solar generation being connected to the grid and the premature closure of conventional generation capacity, particularly coal, but also natural gas and nuclear generators. The transition to renewable generation has been driven by massive federal incentives for renewable generation and state renewable portfolio standards, all focused on achieving Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The FERC and NERC concerns are heightened by the projected rapid increases in electricity demand and consumption required to serve data centers and AI.

The Trump Administration has shifted focus from Net Zero by 2050 to achieving American energy dominance. The Administration has removed restrictions on new coal mining projects and is encouraging the retention of existing coal generation and the construction of new coal generation facilities. The Administration is also working to eliminate restrictions on natural gas production and gas pipeline expansion. The Administration also plans to remove unnecessary restrictions on and excessive delays in approval and construction of new nuclear generation facilities including small modular reactors (SMRs).

This new federal policy direction would permit utilities to select the best mix of generation technologies to serve the needs of their markets, although utilities in states with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) would be constrained to comply with the RPS requirements, unless they were modified or eliminated by state or federal actions. The Trump Administration should strongly encourage the RPS states to reconsider the application of those standards, which are driving increasing electricity costs.

The data center and AI developers have made it clear that they are not satisfied with the reliability and stability of renewable generation. In states with RPS, they are likely to build dedicated conventional generation facilities to serve their needs, rather than expose themselves to the growing utility renewable generation fleets. Several are planning to build natural gas combined-cycle generators while others are considering nuclear SMRs. In non-RPS states, they are considering either connecting to the serving utility or partnering with the serving utility to construct additional generation.

Unfortunately, the policy changes implemented by the Trump Administration could be reversed by a subsequent Administration committed to Net Zero by 2050. This creates an uncertain investment environment for utilities and independent generation developers, particularly those operating and developing coal and natural gas generation capacity. Reinstitution of controls such as the Biden Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) could adversely affect the generating capacity and operating economics of those generators or ultimately require their premature closure.

Congress should act to clarify its intent regarding CO2 and Methane emissions under the Clean Air Act. That action, in combination with the recent Supreme Court position on Chevron Deference, would improve the investment environment and make utilities, independent generation developers and their investors more willing to move forward timely and aggressively to restore and maintain grid reliability and resiliency.

Fires require a source of ignition at a temperature above the ignition temperature of the available combustible material and possessing sufficient energy to raise the temperature of the available combustible material above its ignition temperature. The common natural source of ignition is lightning. However, faulty electric transmission and distribution infrastructure, accidental spread of cooking and campfires from homeless encampments and intentional arson are also common sources of ignition which cause fires which can develop into wildfires if there is sufficient combustible material available.

Climate change has been accused of making wildfires more frequent and/or more intense. However, climate change cannot cause a fire because it does not possess the necessary characteristics of a source of ignition, so it is incapable of making wildfires more frequent. Wildfire intensity is a function of the mass and condition of available combustible material, which some have suggested are more available or more prone to ignition as the result of climate change. However, there are far more significant factors which affect combustible material availability, including poor forest and grassland management. No data are available to support an assertion of incremental climate change effect.

However, the pursuit of climate change policies by governments have introduced several new “fire starters” which could cause wildfires if not properly managed. Solar collector arrays, wind turbines and grid-scale storage systems all have the potential to catch fire and to start secondary fires in the presence of combustible materials.

This image shows a fire in a ground mounted solar collector array. The solar array is surrounded by grass, which could easily spread the fire if it were sufficiently dry. One recent fire in Australia spread to tall grass in the area surrounding the collectors. Australia has experienced fires at solar installations caused by electric transformer and inverter failures. Damage to solar collector arrays caused by high winds or tornadoes can damage collector electrical connections and interconnecting wiring. Solar array fires are relatively easy to address because the collectors and other system components are located near the ground and accessible to firefighters.

Wind turbine fires are more frequent than solar array fires, and are not accessible to firefighters because of the height of the turbine assemblies. The most common cause of wind turbine fires is lightning strikes, which can ignite the turbine blades or the lubricating oils in the turbine machinery. Firefighters are limited to controlling the spread of secondary fires on the ground surrounding the wind turbine resulting from burning debris falling from the burning turbine. Such fires can spread quickly if the wind turbines are surrounded by relatively dry vegetation. Firefighters must also maintain a safe distance from the base of the turbine in case the unipole on which the turbine is mounted fails and falls onto the ground.

Grid-scale battery storage systems have experienced numerous fires. These fires are believed to have resulted from internal faults in the batteries, rather than from any external cause. The recent fire at the Moss Landing facility in California destroyed the older portion of the facility. These battery fires are very intense and very difficult to extinguish. Fire personnel have learned to allow them to burn themselves out while protecting the surrounding areas from secondary fires ignited by the burning batteries. These batteries also emit massive quantities of toxic smoke when they burn, frequently requiring evacuation of local residences and commercial buildings.

Most government environmental regulations are based on observations of atmospheric concentrations, exposure durations and adverse health effects. Specific sources of emissions of the pollutants in question are measured individually and the combined exposure levels calculated. Studies are conducted to determine the safe exposure to each pollutant as a function of concentration and frequency and duration of exposure. The technologies available to control emissions from each of the sources of concern are evaluated to determine their technical and cost effectiveness. Regulations are then developed which establish the emissions limits for each controlled source required to establish and maintain safe exposure.

This regulatory approach has worked well when applied to the emissions of pollutants which remain largely local or regional. It has been used to limit vehicle tailpipe emissions, powerplant emissions, refinery emissions and other industrial and commercial emissions. It has also been applied to eliminate the use of tetraethyl lead in gasoline and to ban the use of lead in paint and other coatings in combination with the application of the Linear No Tolerance (LNT) concept to emissions other than ionizing radiation.

However, this regulatory approach is not well suited to the regulation of “globally well-mixed trace gases” such as CO2, for several reasons. While atmospheric concentrations can be measured, no individual nation can regulate the atmospheric concentration of a “globally well-mixed trace gas” which is emitted by multiple sources in every nation on the globe. Control of exposure duration is also not possible because exposure is continuous globally. Finally, there are no observed adverse health effects at current exposure levels, or at exposure levels an order of magnitude higher than current exposure levels.

The supposed ”global” effort to control CO2 “pollution” is based on supposition of adverse effects on global climate which would lead to adverse human heath effects. This supposition is based on the outputs of numerous climate model studies which suggest the possibility of large global temperature increases, more frequent and more intense extreme weather events and ultimately crop failure. The timing and severity of these changes is very much a function of the climate model chosen and the starting assumptions for the model run.

However, current observations dispute the supposition. The potential atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is essentially “saturated”, in that additional CO2 concentrations would have a minor effect on atmospheric temperatures (<1°C for a doubling of CO2 concentration). Observations confirm that the additional atmospheric CO2 concentration has contributed to increases in agricultural production and to global greening, both as a result of CO2 fertilization and the ability of plants to use available water more efficiently Observations do not confirm any increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events and actually suggest some reductions in frequency and intensity, with the exception of heat waves which are typically not extreme (climatology plus 3°F for 2-3 or more days).

The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is well below the optimum concentration for plant growth and also well below the concentration at which adverse human health effects might be expected.

The supposed “endangerment” is unsupported and, in fact, countered by observations. It is an unreasonable basis for regulation.

“Nobody’s honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By honest I don’t mean that you only tell what’s true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind”  — Richard Feynman “The Unscientific Age”

The Trump Administration has paused funding of climate research to allow it to develop a comprehensive inventory of the projects being funded and their importance from the Administrations perspective. The responses to this pause have ranged from concerns that the US is ending climate research and will forfeit its global research leadership position to concerns about the effects on researchers’ careers and the future of graduate research programs.

It is very likely that numerous “tactical” research programs intended to support the climate crisis narrative will be terminated, since supporting the crisis narrative is of no interest to the Administration. While the organizations directly funding those programs and the researchers conducting them will be affected, the loss of those programs will have little or no impact on our understanding of climate. There is already no shortage of computer model generated “scary scenarios” depicting potential future climate calamities. Many of these “scary scenarios” were developed based on high climate sensitivity estimates and unrealistic Representative Concentration Pathways.

Future US climate research will likely focus on improving our understanding of phenomena such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the various ocean current systems, underwater volcanism, clouds, climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. There will likely also be attempts to develop a climate model which actually models the climate.

Future climate research contracts should require that the researchers provide open access to all project data, computer codes and the statistical analyses conducted to demonstrate the significance of the research results. Projects involving human subjects should code subject names, but provide all other subject characteristics.

Climate researchers have a history of unwillingness to provide access to all of the information which would be required to replicate the project results, as reflected in the Climategate e-mails. Climate research also has a history of shoddy and inappropriate statistical analysis, as reported by Steve McIntyre and William Briggs among others. This situation will need to be reversed to restore confidence in climate research.

A reproducibility crisis affects numerous scientific disciplines, including climate science. It certainly is not necessary that every scientific result be reproduced, but it is necessary that they be reproducible, and that the information required to conduct a reproduction effort be available. Certainly, some climate research will produce surprising or even shocking results. There will likely be efforts to reproduce such results to ensure that they are not erroneous. Irreproducible research results are of no value and their use in the development of government policy is totally inappropriate.

Climate researchers who do not comply with full disclosure should not be permitted to participate in future climate research efforts.

From: Cornwall Alliance

By: David Legates

Date: February 28, 2025

Hydrogen Energy: Not Clean, Not Green, and Not Cheap

If only it were that simple!

Hydrogen. The first element in the Periodic Table and the most abundant element in the Universe. It is also the simplest element—the most common isotope has only one proton and one electron. It has been called the “Future of Energy”; after all, the Sun relies on hydrogen to keep emitting light and, if it is good enough for our Sun, why isn’t it good enough for us?

No doubt you have heard all the clamor associated with a hydrogen-based energy economy. Jeremy Rifkin published a book entitled The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth. He claimed that “globalization represents the end stage of the fossil-fuel era” and that turning “toward hydrogen is a promissory note for a safer world.”

In his State of the Union Address, the President stated that “with a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles” to taking hydrogen-fueled automobiles “from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” The Administration then announced a collaborative effort with the European Union to develop a hydrogen economy, including the technologies “needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles,” and stated that this would “improve America’s energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil.”

The Chicago Sun-Times ran a story that proclaimed, “The first steps toward what proponents call the hydrogen economy are [now] being taken.” And the US House of Representatives held the first of two “investigative hearings on the subject of hydrogen—its production, utilization, and potential effects on our energy economy of the future.” The chairman of the hearing claimed hydrogen “has the potential of playing the same kind of role in our energy system as electricity does today.” (continue reading)

Hydrogen Energy: Not Clean, Not Green, and Not Cheap

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and clean energy standards (CES) are either requirements or goals for energy producers or providers to supply energy from low- or zero-carbon emission sources. US EIA

The Trump Administration has ended the federal government focus on Net Zero and refocused on energy dominance. This refocus includes assuring that the US has sufficient economical energy to satisfy the demands of a vigorously growing economy. The Administration has also announced its support for restarting shuttered coal generators and constructing new clean coal power plants as well as new natural gas generators. The Administration position allows electric utilities to select the generation mix which best suits the needs of their growing customer base.

The Administration is also expected to dramatically reduce or eliminate the federal incentives currently available for renewable generation, storage and transmission interconnections. Utilities would still be able to select wind, solar and storage options as part of their generation portfolios, though without the support of substantial federal subsidies.

However, most US states have legislated RPS and utilities in those states and their utility commissions will not have the full flexibility offered by the Administration positions.

Utilities in the RPS states will be required to increase their renewable generation fleets in line with the legislated percentages and deadlines or targets. The states with RPS will continue to see their electric rates increase as renewable generation is expanded in parallel with the conventional generation required to provide backup for the intermittent renewable generation. These increases will result both from the incremental returns required by the increased generation investment and from the effects of Dutch Auction pricing on the entire generating fleet.

As the percentage of generation from renewables increases, the percentage of generation from the conventional generation fleet, which must remain capable of meeting grid demand in the absence of renewable generation output, continues to decrease, adversely affecting the operating economics of the conventional generation fleet. Plant retirements resulting from aging or unacceptable operating economics would eventually require the addition of energy storage capacity to provide renewable generation backup or the installation of Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs). Either of these alternatives would require substantial investment in new generation or storage facilities, significantly increasing utility ratebases and thus utility rates.

The developers of data centers and artificial intelligence facilities have determined that renewable generation is not a suitable source of power for their high demand, continuous operation facilities. In states without RPS, these developers might choose to take their power from the local grid. However, in states with RPS they might choose to install their own dedicated generation systems to assure the desired reliability and stability. It is not certain whether these dedicated generation systems could be fossil fueled in RPS states, since they would not be part of the state utility grid. That decision would depend of the specific wording of the state RPS and might become the subject of litigation.

The differences in state utility rates resulting from the different generation fleets would likely result in increased competition among the states for data centers and other new industrial customers.

US EPA  Administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced the EPA would be reassessing a number of past regulatory actions. Many of the actions being questioned were developed based on the application of the concept of the Linear No Threshold model to pollutant exposure. Essentially, the application of this model assumes that if a pollutant is dangerous at some concentration, it is dangerous at any concentration and must be controlled; and, once a control method has been identified, it must be applied.

Many of these regulations were initiated by lawsuits filed by environmental organizations or other NGOs, many funded in part by EPA. EPA then agreed to settle the lawsuit by implementing a new or enhanced regulation. This process, typically referred to as “Sue and Settle” appears to have originated with EPA, though it has since metastasized to other Executive Branch departments and agencies.

The reassessments planned by EPA will almost certainly result in numerous lawsuits by states, cities and NGOs which would expect to be affected. However, it appears that Administrator Zeldin has ended “Sue and Settle” at EPA and will choose to litigate. This suggests that the process of implementing the results of the reassessments will be long and acrimonious, both in the courts and in the media.

The EPA 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding vehicle emissions led to the combination of much more restrictive CAFÉ Standards and much more restrictive tailpipe emission standards which are commonly referred to as the “Electric Vehicle Mandate”, since only electric vehicles could meet the standards while supposedly providing the required vehicle utility.

The EPA Endangerment Finding also led to the Clean Power Plan 2 (CPP2). Under this plan, as with the motor vehicle standards, EPA did not ban the continued operation of existing coal and natural gas generators or the construction of new natural gas generators. Rather, it established emissions standards for these powerplants which are unattainable with currently available technologies and which would result in reduced net generator capacity of 25-40% if advanced versions of those control technologies were able to achieve the required emissions reductions. CPP2 is essentially a wind, solar and storage mandate.

CPP2 caused numerous owners of existing coal generating stations to move forward their scheduled retirement dates rather than commit the capital necessary to adapt existing and partially depreciated powerplants for operation with carbon capture and storage systems which might not be capable of achieving the required emissions reductions, but would reduce generating capacity and increase operation and maintenance expenses. The powerplant owners also expected resistance to the required plant investment from state regulatory commissions because of the projected adverse impacts on rates.

The prospect of early powerplant closures driven by CPP2 became a cause of concern for both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) because of the projected loss of dispatchable generating capacity at a time when capacity reserve margins were already shrinking and electricity demand was projected to grow rapidly, driven by federal electrification initiatives and the projected growth of data centers and AI.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Ross McKitrick

Date: February 21, 2025

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

I have a new paper out in the journal Nature Scientific Reports in which I re-examine some empirical work regarding agricultural yield changes under CO2-induced climate warming. An influential 2017 study had argued that warming would cause large losses in agricultural outputs on a global scale, and this played a large role in an upward revision to the Biden Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimate, which drives regulatory decision in US climate rulemaking. I show that a lot of data had been left out of the statistical modeling, and once it is included there was no evidence of yield losses even out to 5 C warming.

Background

In 2023 a team of economists working for the Biden Administration concluded the SCC needed to be increased by a considerable amount. The higher the SCC, the costlier the regulatory burden that can be justified by the agency. This not only affected US regulations but Canada’s as well since our own environment ministry adopted the new US values when justifying a sweeping set of new greenhouse gas regulations. I wrote an op-ed about the SCC change in May 2023 in which I drew attention to the important role played by a revision to projected agricultural yield damages. While it is difficult to trace where, precisely, all the changes came from, I estimate about $50 of an approximately $100 increase in the 2030 value of the SCC (holding the discount rate constant) was attributable to the revised agricultural yield damage estimates. (continue reading)

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

An appropriate topic for any discussion of lawfare, whether lawsuits alleging violation of existing laws or legislation leading to new law, is the issue of standards of evidence.

Standards of evidence refer to the amount of evidence or certainty required to prove a fact or claim in legal cases. The three primary standards of proof are:

1. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Preponderance of the evidence
3. Clear and convincing evidence

The State of California sued several major oil and gas companies and the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 2023, accusing the companies of lying about the effects of the use of their products on the climate and seeking compensation for alleged damages and state investment in climate adaptation. The state lawsuit is a variation on the theme ”Exxon knew”, which has been unsuccessful in numerous similar lawsuits, including a lawsuit by New Jersey. More recently, legislation was introduced to provide a path for insurance companies and individuals to sue the companies for damages resulting from wildfires.

Wildfires are a special case, in that they cannot be caused by climate change. Rather, there is clear and convincing evidence that wildfires require a source of ignition at a temperature above the ignition temperature of the available combustible material and possessing sufficient energy to raise the temperature of the available combustible material above its ignition temperature. The common natural source of ignition is lightning. However, faulty electric transmission and distribution infrastructure, accidental spread of cooking and campfires from homeless encampments and intentional arson are also common sources of ignition which cause wildfires.

California has experienced more than 200,000 wildfires in the period since 1878. Relatively accurate records are available after 1925 which show a dramatic decrease in acres burned through 1983, followed by a slow increase largely resulting from electric spark and human ignition, aggravated by poor forest management practices, beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of these wildfires occurred before global warming and climate change became a significant issue.

The preponderance of the evidence surrounding the recent Pacific Palisades and Eaton wildfires establishes that the damage caused by the fires was aggravated by failure to pre-position firefighting resources in anticipation of forecasted severe Santa Ana winds, the unavailability of water in the nearby Santa Ynez reservoir, low water pressure and numerous non-functional fire hydrants in the immediate area of the fires.

The preponderance of the evidence, as collected and analyzed by the IPCC in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, Chapter 12) indicates no linkage between global warming and climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with the exception of heat waves, or wildfires.

California has made numerous bad decisions regarding wildfires, including abandoning aggressive forest management projects and failing to build and fill additional reservoirs. Governor Newsom also disbanded a National Guard highly trained volunteer fire service.

Regardless of the above, California has focused the “blame game” on major oil and gas companies and the API, largely because the industry represents “deep pockets” which could help fund the recovery efforts from the recent fires.

From: IER

Date: January, 2025

POLICY BRIEF: American Energy Blueprint

Summary

The American Energy Blueprint is a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to guide the new Trump administration's approach to energy policy. The Blueprint outlines key reforms in areas such as federal land and water use, expanding consumer choice, reducing subsidies, curbing government spending and taxation, streamlining regulations, and modernizing the permitting process.

Federal Lands and Waters

The Biden administration launched an unprecedented attack on energy development on federal lands. From restricting land use to slowing or halting permitting approvals and raising fees, the administration did seemingly everything to make energy development on federal lands more difficult and more expensive as part of its pledge to “end fossil fuels.” The Trump administration should take swift action to reverse these actions and Congress should update statutes to ensure such abuse cannot happen again in the future.

Administrative Actions:

• Reverse restrictive Biden actions in ANWR and NPR-A, and revoke other Alaska land-use limitations on energy and minerals. Alaska is over twice the size of Texas; two-thirds of it is federally owned and 86% of it is inaccessible by road.
• Reverse the illegal denial of an access road to Alaska’s Ambler Mining District, one of the U.S.’s most potentially prolific sources of valuable rare earth minerals.
• The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management should proceed with Lease Sale 262 in 2025, as planned, and create a new, more comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five-year leasing program, including at least two lease sales per year in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). With the current OCS five-year leasing program under litigation, the administration should request a voluntary remand to resolve all pending petitions.
• Release a new offshore leasing plan.
• Approve permits for new mines.
• Executive order to reconsider all Biden administration decisions on land withdrawals from energy or mining leasing.
• Reverse the Biden actions requiring higher fees and costs for production in certain areas.
• Review, reverse, and shrink Biden and Obama-era national monument designations. (continue reading)

POLICY BRIEF: American Energy Blueprint

The Clean Air Act (CAA) became law in 1970. It was later amended in 1970 and 1990. Congress considered including CO2 emissions under the Act but elected not to do so both during debate on the Act and during debates on the amendments.

Massachusetts and several other states and cities petitioned EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA because they were “pollutants”. EPA rejected the petition because it was not authorized to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. In 2007, Massachusetts and several other states and cities sued EPA at the US Supreme Court to have EPA regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. The Supreme Court ruled that EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA because they were “pollutants”. This ruling ignored the clear intent of Congress regarding the CAA.

US EPA issued an Endangerment Finding (EF) in 2009 regarding emissions of six key well mixed “greenhouse gases”. carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The EF was originally targeted at motor vehicle emissions. However, EPA has used it as the basis to control emissions from stationary sources as well.

The CAA requires EPA to base its actions on its own research. However, EPA relied on IPCC as the source of its research results. The EF was not based on observations, but rather on the output of computer models which themselves have proven to be inaccurate and largely unfit for purpose.

The CAA requires EPA to issue National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants subject to an EF. EPA has failed to issue the NAAQS for CO2 in the 16 years since the EF was issued. Development of an NAAQS for a “globally well-mixed trace gas” whose atmospheric concentration is increasing, largely driven by emissions from other nations, would be a monumental challenge, as would administering it.

The endangerment identified by EPA remains unfound in those 16 years. Public health and safety have not been diminished as a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Heat-related deaths remain an order of magnitude lower than cold-related deaths. The frequency and severity of extreme weather events have not increased. The rate of sea level rise has not increased. The globe has greened, largely as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Crop yields have continued to increase, in part as the result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Research conducted by numerous research teams over the 16 years since the issuance of the EF suggests that the endangerment envisioned by the EPA EF was largely overblown. The climate is not as sensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations as the EF envisioned. Warming is not occurring as rapidly as reported by the “adjusted” near-surface temperature records or projected by the unverified and unvalidated climate models.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has recommended to President Trump that the 2009 EF be re-evaluated and either revised or rescinded. This action would not conflict with the 2007 Supreme Court decision, since the Court merely ruled that EPA could regulate CO2 under the CAA, not that it was required to do so.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: January 30, 2025

How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things

Prequel to “Unravelling the narrative supporting a green energy transition.”

There is a powerful but misleading narrative supporting a green energy transition. A follow up piece will look more broadly at the general narrative supporting a transition to net zero.  This prequel will provide some detail on a few  components of the energy narrative and how this misleading narrative was established. The green energy narrative works somewhat like a magician’s patter, overemphasizing many things of irrelevance and distracting the audience from the important things going on. Misdirection ensures small truths are misinterpreted and magnified, leading to completely unrealistic hopes and expectations.

Misleading green narratives often start with Academics. As I noted here:

Overwhelmingly the academic articles I read are good. Usually, the authors carefully describe the limitations of their findings and recommendations. Sometimes they hint as to what remains to be worked out. I’m afraid this does not stop individuals, the media, and some policy makers from ignoring the qualifications and limitations inherent in their findings. The situation is worse when they leave it to the reader to ferret out the limitations of their findings. In very rare instances some academics will go beyond what has been demonstrated with exaggerated claims. I don’t know if this is done through ignorance, accident, hubris or for purposes of self-advancement.

For example, there have been many simple studies examining how much energy might be produced by a green resource, or set of green resources, such as wind and solar power. These studies ignore important issues such as  deliverability, timing, reliability and costs. Based on simple studies the media, activists and policy makers frequently  conclude that such resources can be used near universally on a large scale to provide electric service to consumers effectively, efficiently and economically. (continue reading)

How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers asserts that climate change is causing more frequent and more intense extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and heat waves; and, that climate change is increasing the loss and damage these events cause. These assertions are repeated frequently by the US Secretary General, other members of the UN Secretariat and numerous national leaders. The UN Secretary General combines these assertions with a variety of hyperbolic descriptions of the current situation. Interestingly, these assertions regarding causation are not supported by the analyses of IPCC Working Group I. However, they are widely accepted and repeated by the global media.

The UN and numerous of its member nations have requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rule on the legal obligations of governments regarding reducing CO2 emissions to limit the climate change they are accused of causing. While an ICJ ruling would be advisory in nature, it would likely be “played up” by the UN secretariat and the media as requiring “greater ambition” on the part of global governments to reduce CO2 emissions. Nations failing to adhere to the ICJ ruling would likely be accused of Ecocide and subjected to additional lawfare.

Extreme weather events have occurred throughout history. The loss and damage they cause has increased over time, largely as the result increasing infrastructure investment, land use changes and GDP growth. Roger Pielke, Jr. and others have determined that when loss and damage from extreme weather events are adjusted for growth in GDP, the trend lines are flat or slightly negative, indicating that climate change is not exacerbating the effects of the weather events.

Tropical cyclones are an interesting case in point. While there is a defined “tornado season” during which they normally occur, we do not know when a disturbance will occur, whether a particular disturbance will develop into a tropical depression, tropical storm or hurricane/typhoon. We also do not know the track a particular storm will follow or whether it will eventually make landfall and, if so, at what intensity. These uncertainties make it effectively impossible to identify and quantify the extent to which any particular storm might have been affected by climate change, though the purveyors of Attribution Analysis assert that they are able to do so. The damage caused by a storm is a function of its intensity, its track and the value and durability of the infrastructure in its path.

Flooding is another interesting case. Flooding can result from heavy precipitation and/or from storm surge associated with storms offshore. Each conversion of landscape (exposed soil) to hardscape (buildings, parking lots, roads and sidewalks, etc.) increases the runoff resulting from heavy rains and increases the geographical extent of storm surge. The likelihood of flooding increases if facilities to handle runoff are not expanded as the percentage of hardscaped surface increases.

Numerous Pacific Island nations have expressed concerns about the potential effects of rising sea levels. However, sea level has been rising since the trough of the Little Ice Age, prior to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The rate of rise of sea level has not increased as the result of climate change according to the tide gauge records. The area of most of these islands has increased or remained stable as sea level has increased.

From: JD Supra

By: Alan Claus Anderson, Andrew Schulte, Christine Soares

Date: January 23, 2025

What President Trump’s Energy Plan Means for the State Regulatory Environment, the Generation Mix and Electric Transmission

Signaling the prioritization of energy, President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency on inauguration day. He issued several Executive Orders (EO) and Presidential Memoranda either unwinding the Biden administration’s energy policies or entering his own Orders to address what he described as inadequate energy supply in the United States and to encourage the expedient development of fossil fuel resources. Here, we will outline the key Orders and what they mean for the state regulatory environment, generation mix and electric transmission construction.

The Rescissions
Let’s start with the rescissions. President Trump revoked most of President Biden’s EOs and Presidential Memoranda on energy matters, some of which were entered in the weeks before he left office. The following is a summary of the key rescissions:

• EO 13990 of January 20, 2021 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis) entered on President Biden’s first day in office. The Order revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, established an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and directed federal agencies to support a transition to clean energy.
• EO 14008 of January 27, 2021 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) that paused “new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.”
• EO 14057 of December 8, 2021 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability) setting forth the policy of achieving a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050.

(continue reading)

What President Trump’s Energy Plan Means for the State Regulatory Environment, the Generation Mix and Electric Transmission

The consensed climate science community and their allies in government, environmental organizations and the media are focused on Net Zero by 2050.  They assert that solar and wind can power an economical, stable and reliable electric grid and that all energy end uses can be powered electrically. Neither of those assertions has been demonstrated, nor is there a plan to achieve Net Zero by 2050.

However, there are numerous cautionary tales which should cause them to question their assertions. Two relatively small and relatively isolated communities built their electric systems to rely on renewable generation plus storage. Both have failed to achieve stability and reliability.

El Heirro in the Canary Islands built a system consisting of wind turbines and a pumped hydro storage reservoir system. The system, designed to provide all of the island’s electricity, has averaged approximately 50% and has required backup from a diesel generator system. The island does not have the potential to replace its non-electric energy consumption with additional electricity generation which would require more than quadrupling the island’s generating and storage capacity.

The community of Broken Hill NSW, Australia has a 36 MW load which is served by ~200 MW of wind capacity,,~60 MW  of solar PV and ~50 MW / 100 MWh battery storage system, plus backup diesel turbine generators. While Broken Hill had more than adequate generating capacity, it experienced blackouts when it lost connection to the larger grid, which provided reliability services. While generating capacity is ~7 times load, storage capacity is woefully inadequate.

Every jurisdiction which has installed renewable generation has experienced increased electricity rates and the rates have continued to increase as the percentage of renewable generation has increased. The UK and Germany have both experienced electric rate increases by a factor of 3-4, which have made many of their industries uncompetitive and have caused energy poverty to spread among their populations.

California has the highest electric rates of the contiguous 48 states and frequently produces excess solar generation which must be sold at discounted prices or wasted, while it must also import electricity during periods of high demand.  California’s storage capacity is woefully inadequate to time shift generation to periods of high demand.

Numerous states on the US East Coast have had offshore wind installations cancelled because the existing contracts had become uneconomic. Recent proposed contracts are for delivered wholesale electricity prices 3-4 times the current wholesale cost of electricity in the states.

It is highly likely that the Trump Administration will dramatically reduce or eliminate the federal subsidies for renewable generation, particularly offshore wind, and for grid-scale storage. It is also highly likely that the Trump Administration will reduce or eliminate subsidies and incentives for residential and commercial gas to electric appliance and equipment conversions to achieve “all-electric everything”.

Industries which depend on federal or state subsidies and incentives are subject to changes in the political priorities of the current political administrations, as well as the interest of the buying public in their products and services. The buying public has clearly lost some of its enthusiasm for electric vehicles and the all-electric everything transition.