Day: January 12, 2025

Alaska Energy Shenanigans: Eklutna Dam and the RPS (Part II: Political Highjack)

With yesterday’s background, Part II examines the politicization of one of Alaska’s major hydroelectric projects to reveal ulterior motives from “stakeholders” and elected officials.

From Watts Up With That?

Ed. Note: With yesterday’s background, Part II examines the politicization of one of Alaska’s major hydroelectric projects to reveal ulterior motives from “stakeholders” and elected officials.

“Once an RPS becomes law, the boards will be able to point to the new law in effect requiring them to adopt unreliable and expensive sources and be held harmless once things start to spiral out of control, up to and including rolling brownouts and blackouts.”

“Pumped energy storage is only necessary as a mitigating backup to the planned 100% unreliable not-so renewables. The Renewable Portfolio Standard will mandate a government-subsidized solar, wind and transmission build-out by grifters and profiteers. Wind and solar power producers should be made to pay for all infrastructure that makes them as reliable as a gas turbine.”

For environmental groups and their political carriers, the question is how to expand wind and solar power in the state, the very resources that are dilute, intermittent, fragile, expensive, and taxpayer dependent. Here is where the proposals, deceit, and back-door blackmail come in.

Pumped/Energy Storage

Per US Department of Energy: Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is a type of hydroelectric energy storage. It is a configuration of two water reservoirs at different elevations that can generate power as water moves down from one to the other (discharge), passing through a turbine. The system also requires power as it pumps water back into the upper reservoir (recharge). PSH acts similarly to a giant battery because it can store power and then release it when needed.

On February 3, 2020, a report by the Alaska Institute for Climate and Energy (ALICE), titled “Pumped Energy Storage for Alaska – A path to lower energy costs for Alaska’s new energy future,” was published.  The idea is to build on to the existing Eklutna Hydropower infrastructure, pumping water uphill for a conversion to stored energy.  With water flowing back down hill, it works as a regulator of sorts for unreliable sources of power.  It is a closed-loop concept involving five reservoirs and new phased-in wind sites for $4.7B.  This project requires massive excavation, adding more dams and tunnels – all to address the problem of wind and solar intermittency. 

The executive summary paints the picture that Railbelt energy is expensive because it is generated from expensive fuel.  Since fuel for the Railbelt is coming from Cook Inlet as a single source, the authors suggest ratepayers are left “vulnerable to swings in price or supply,” and the prices may “increase further due to taxes and regulations aimed at emissions reductions.”

For what appears to be the justification for their proposal, they reference Alaska’s non-binding goal of generating 50 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and state, “currently, the Railbelt generates only 15 percent of its power from renewable sources.”  To meet the stated non-binding renewable goal, the report compares the idea of the pumped storage hydro and wind combination to Susitna-Watana Hydro. 

According to the authors, the pumped storage and wind combination solution wins.  As this land is located in the Chugach State Park, the report offers the “careful design and construction of an aerial tram system instead of roads” to build and maintain the reservoirs, while also providing “low-impact access to the high country above Eklutna Lake.”  The time and costs to permit such a project are so staggering they could not be included. 

False Claims

In a April 2020 letter to the coordinator of the Eklutna Fish and Wildlife Plan, ALICE provided written comment early on in the process to the Initial Information Package (IIP), showcasing their idea of pumped storage, wherein they state they have been working on the Eklutna Pumped Energy Storage concept for several years and that in January 2020, “Governor Dunleavy became interested in the idea and requested more information.” 

Egregious claims in the ALICE report include that wind is the cheapest solution.  It states that proposed and existing wind sites would provide a capacity factor of 48-60%.  The report states fallaciously that Fire Island wind is at a capacity factor of 48%.  Chugach Electric actually notes the annual capacity factor for CIRI Fire Island wind is 32%.  As stated previously, Fire Island has demonstrated to be much lower than 32% when Alaskans have needed it most. 

To justify cost, the authors use Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) to state that new wind projects are less expensive than new gas plants.  The problem is LCOE doesn’t account for the cost of necessary redundancies for non-firm renewable generation, such as the pumped storage itself for $1.5B, which is required for wind.  

The authors of the report believe that 100% of the Railbelt energy can be provided by the PES wind combo for a price tag of $4.7B.  The project would require massive and wasteful public financing, and the idea has piqued the interest of other investors, which was brought to light when Governor Dunleavy wrote Berkshire Hathaway in May of 2020 expressing his interest in “Transitioning Alaska.”  Additionally, the report mentions that Independent Power Producers (IPPs) “(including Alaska Native corporations) are well placed to build and profit from the wind farms.”

In a November 2020 comment on the October 2020 draft study plan, NVE provides a glimpse into their vision for Eklutna, stating “The Eklutna pumped hydro storage battery would solve the problem of excessive costs to power companies from releasing large flows into the river, while allowing for full restoration of river flows, lake access, and stabilization of lake levels for salmon habitat.”  And “Government should supplement responsible restoration of the Eklutna River ecosystem, along with private enterprise that could profit from pumped hydro development.”

The October 2023 draft Fish and Wildlife plan referenced other entities conducting studies in the Eklutna basin, two of them include references to pumped hydro:

  • State-wide Pumped Hydro Study conducted by AEA
  • Pumped hydro system flow analysis and animation conducted by ALICE in coordination with NVE.

Narrative Shift

Resolutions from the Anchorage Assembly calling for the restoration of the full river date back to 2017.  The 2024 Legislative Program, presented by the Anchorage Assembly and Mayor Dave Bronson, listed supporting full restoration of the Eklutna River as a statutory and policy request.  This legislative program was approved by the Anchorage Assembly on December 5, 2023. 

That same day, the Anchorage assembly read AO 2023-131 into the record – the creation of a new section of the electric service code establishing that it was official policy of the Municipality of Anchorage, in part to “restore the continuous water flow of the Eklutna River and the fish populations of the River and Eklutna Lake, to the greatest extent possible, subject to all provisions of the 1991 Fish & Wildlife Agreement.” 

In February of 2024, the Anchorage Assembly approved Resolution 2024-40.  As a body, through resolution, they submitted public comment on the Draft Fish and Wildlife Program, reiterating their support of restoring the Eklutna River since 2017.  In the resolution, the Assembly touts their “creation of a specific law” regarding restoration of the river in 2023; they raise doubts about whether the proposed $57M solution by the Project Owners will work.  The Assembly goes on to admonish the Project Owners for their refusal to consider the removal of the dam as an alternative.  The resolution closes by stating they oppose the Draft Fish and Wildlife Program and request a two-year extension of the 1991 Agreement.

In the months leading up to the October 2024 final decision date of the Fish and Wildlife Program, expansion of the scope of fish and wildlife mitigation became apparent.

Although the Municipality was no longer a voting member of the project, they were desperate to demonstrate technical expertise to the RCA to get their voting rights back for greater input on the Fish and Wildlife Program.  On July 3, 2024, per press release Mark Corsentino, P.E. was confirmed by the Anchorage Assembly to be Anchorage’s Hydropower Utility Director. According to the assembly, this was a “critical step in reclaiming the Municipality’s voting seat on the Eklutna Hydroelectric Project owners group.” 

Much of this appointment has to do with attempting leverage over the 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement, there was a shift to another topic with Chris Constant stating “Not only does this give the Municipality more oversight and input on the Eklutna Hydropower project, it also provides exciting opportunities for the Municipality to pursue new forms of renewable energy in response to the Cook Inlet gas shortage.”

The Latest

On August 23, 2024, new Anchorage Municipality Hydropower Utility Director, Mark Corsentino gave a presentation on a modified pumped energy storage concept with wind & solar.  The proposal scaled back the proposal originally offered in 2020 by ALICE, with Anchorage Hydropower stating that the original concept “didn’t appear to offer additional water or provide downstream river flows.” 

Devoid of cost estimates, the Muni proposal offered an opened loop concept with 1 reservoir, new wind and solar that claimed to provide “Full instream river flows, fish passage and lake connectivity.”  It included an idea to construct an entire river for fish to get up and around the dam to the lake.

On September 3, 2024, in preparation for a meeting with Governor Dunleavy on September 9, the Anchorage Assembly passed a resolution approving a legal brief addressed to Governor Dunleavy’s office.  At this point, the assembly is fully selling the idea of pumped storage where they admonish the project owners for excluding it as an alternative by stating:

The Minority Owners mistakenly overlooked the pumped storage hydropower alternative without realizing that using existing infrastructure would sharply limit costs.

And

Pumped storage hydro is widely used in the U.S. and eligible for federal funding. It could re-water all 12 miles of the Eklutna River, reconnect the River to the Lake, create the conditions for the return of sockeye salmon to the Lake, and provide improved fishing and recreation for all Alaskans in a crown jewel of the Chugach State Park—all while also increasing useful power production by providing what would essentially be an enormous battery to save variable wind-and-solar power for later usage any time of the day or year, regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining at any given moment.

On September 5, 2024, a joint resolution by the Assembly and NVE “In support of exploration of alternative solutions to attain our shared policy goals for full restoration of the Eklutna River” was signed.  This joint resolution “urge Governor Dunleavy to establish a Final fish and Wildlife Program that requires the owners to use two years of the three year pre-implementation period to explore alternative infrastructure options, including pumped storage hydropower”

On September 9, an output of the meeting with the governor’s staff provided revealing answers in response to the idea of pumped storage from project owners MEA and Chugach.  Regarding the $4.7B ALICE concept, the owners reiterate that this venture is out of the scope of the 1991 Agreement, which was to “mitigate the effects of the existing project, not build a new project, which would likely be FERC regulated.” 

In response to the modified pumped-energy-storage concept proffered by the Anchorage Municipality, the Project Owners state that the plan appeared to be infeasible.  The Project Owners list a myriad of incorrect and costly assumptions Anchorage Hydropower made in their proposal, including the idea to build a massive new river (40-50’ deep by a few hundred feet wide) effectively proving the idea to be DOA in their quest for it to become a viable option in the final fish and wildlife plan.

Massive amounts of energy and water would be required to simultaneously provide water to two rivers, fill the lake, serve as the battery to regulate unstable sources of energy and supply water to 90 percent of Anchorage residents who rely on it.  In the end, the Final Approved Program, approved by Governor Dunleavy on October 2, 2024, included the request by the Municipality of Anchorage and NVE to study “Pumped Storage Hydro.”  The low-end 35-year cost presented in the final plan to restore 11 out of 12 miles of the river came in at $58.2M, with the high end at a potential of $72.2M for a maximum owner commitment of $10M for a fixed wheel gate to replace the overfill spillway if determined to be required in the future.  The Chugach rate impact is estimated to be anywhere from 0.78-1.15 percent. 

What is Going On?

It is now known that “restoring the river” did not include plans to remove the dam.  As the experts tell us, this was never about the fish.  What, then, is the real goal of the activists?

The Alaska State Legislature has been turned over to the Democrats.  With the Red Wave sweep across the nation at a federal level, the Alaska Democrats, seeking to line the pockets of cronies and ENGOs through the Inflation Reduction Act, will be looking for any and all opportunities to codify mandates to snuff out their free-market competitors, particularly in the energy realm. 

To this end, a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is imminent.  Given these conditions, if introduced for a third time, it has a high likelihood of passing.  RPS mandates that utilities adopt increasing percentages of renewable sources. 

There are multiple nefarious reasons why an RPS is sought.  Utilities have adopted decarbonization goals.  Chugach Electric’s 2022 Strategic Plan includes “a goal of reducing Chugach’s carbon intensity, from a 2012 baseline year, by at least 35% by 2030, and by at least 50% by 2040, provided there is not a negative material impact to electric rates or reliability.”  The RPS is important because co-ops cannot achieve the decarbonization goals without adding liability and cost. 

Once an RPS becomes law, the boards will be able to point to the new law in effect requiring them to adopt unreliable and expensive sources, and it also allows them to be held harmless once things start to spiral out of control, up to and including rolling brownouts and blackouts.  There is no doubt that it will come at great cost (mandates always do) with no known effect to the underlying goal – and that is to stop the planet from warming. 

Chugach took ratepayers down the first step to energy serfdom when they signaled support for the RPS in January of 2024 when they approved the resolution with the stipulation that the legislation “provide waivers for non-compliance due to reasons beyond the reasonable control of the utility.”  The last proposed RPS in 2023 called for 25% renewable by 2027, 55% by 2035 and 80% by 2040.  The Railbelt is at 15% renewable.

There is a greater interest in pumped energy storage in Alaska at the federal level, in an U.S. Department of Energy report dated July of 2023, “The Prospects for Pumped Storage Hydropower in Alaska.” The experts listed on the Advisory Group for the project include Ceal Smith of ALICE, and Brian Murkowski, Senator Lisa Murkowski’s brother.  The key summary finding is the state’s “potential for more than 1,800 closed loop PSH systems in Alaska, with a total energy storage capacity of about 4TWh.” 

The Railbelt System Analysis provides a scenario where RPS has been adopted “The RPS scenario shows a rapid increase in PV and wind investments.”  The study shows age-based retirements of primarily natural gas provided assets in the Anchorage area in 2028 with battery, PSH, solar and wind outpacing natural gas by 2037. 

Pumped energy storage can be considered as an insurance policy to sell reliability and “green” to the public.  Stand-alone wind and solar have already shown their true colors in Alaska.  Pumped energy storage is only necessary as a mitigating backup to the planned 100% unreliable not-so renewables.  The RPS will force by mandate the government-subsidized solar, wind and transmission build-out provided by grifters and profiteers, the pumped energy storage is supposed to make up for the unreliable power we get in return.  Wind and solar power producers should be made to pay for all infrastructure that makes them as reliable as a gas turbine, with their consumers footing the bill many times over.  What would the tariffs be for independent power producers if had to pay for their own grid upgrades and pumped storage unit?  The only way renewables are going to exist in this state is if they are mandated by way of the Renewable Portfolio Standard.

RCA against RPS

In early 2024, Chugach Electric took public testimony before the vote on the resolution supporting an RPS.  Of note was the board’s complete disregard for the fact that two of the testifiers referenced.  There was a unanimous decision by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) on December 13, 2023, to oppose RPS legislation. Pointing to Germany’s demise, RCA Commissioner Robert Pickett stated:

We’ve heard about the German miracle for, I would say, at this Commission, for six or seven years at least, that it’s a shining example, points in time where the penetration of renewables has been 70 percent, 80 percent, but if you look at what’s happened in the last couple of years, it is clear it is not an economic miracle. In fact, it has devastated German industry and the German government itself is forced to pour in massive amounts of subsidy and Germany has some of the – if not the highest rates per kilowatt in Europe, it’s right at the very top and it’s getting worse, and reliability issues are associated with that.

Commissioner Pickett went on:

And so, I guess what has sort of shaped my thinking, when I look at the bill, and there’s some very aggressive, by admission of the bill sponsors for SB 101 and HB 121, that today, they’re estimating about 15 percent of the supply is renewable. And they’re proposing by 2027 to get that up to 25 percent and here we are almost 2024 and so, how does that work?  It takes 50 years to get to 15 percent and you’re going to increase that by, you know, 65, 67 percent in the next three years? It doesn’t make any sense and that’s even if the external environment was more stable. I mean, our financial system is sort of on the cusp right now with 35 trillion dollars worth of debt and a massive wall of federal debt coming back to the market in the next two years and the interest rates, compared to what they were a year ago, are astronomically higher and all the project sponsors are going to be confronted with that.

It is with much fecklessness and hubris that the six CEA board members ignored the RCA’s ruling.

Stopping the RPS

We will know with a high degree of certainty what direction Alaska will be going in if the RPS is passed.  With calls for the Trump Administration to work towards a full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, the subsidies that prop up the green ventures may dry up.  This will cause an epic collapse to all the mini-Enron’s of the world who selfishly put their chips all in on the wrong bet for consumers. 

This is a huge risk to the green lobby and if successful, will result in exponential costs to ratepayers whose fate now relies on lawmakers to make economical and environmentally sound decisions. 

It is not too late to start the preemptive messaging to your representatives that an RPS is too risky for Alaskans.  As the saying goes “follow the money.”  As outlined herein, it’s not about the fish, it’s not about the environment, and there is no limit to the lengths that special interests will go for the sake of a payout.  Alaska is on multiple parallels to wastage; we need to ditch the “all of the above” mentality and move forward with only sensible solutions.

—————

This concludes a two-part series. Part I was yesterday.

Climatists Make Their Case by Omitting Facts

Stiglitz, a Columbia University economics professor and former World Bank chief economist, concludes that increasing global warming will have huge costs on society and that a fossil fuel-based system “is causing imminent, significant, and irreparable harm to the Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children more generally.” He explains in a footnote that his analysis also examines impacts on “as-yet-unborn youth, the so-called future generations.”

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

One of the world’s top economists has written an expert court report that forcefully supports a group of children and young adults who have sued the federal government for failing to act on climate change. (Source: Inside Climate News  here) Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Stiglitz, a Columbia University economics professor and former World Bank chief economist, concludes that increasing global warming will have huge costs on society and that a fossil fuel-based system “is causing imminent, significant, and irreparable harm to the Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children more generally.” He explains in a footnote that his analysis also examines impacts on “as-yet-unborn youth, the so-called future generations.”

But, he says, acting on climate change now—by imposing a carbon tax and cutting fossil fuel subsidies, among other steps—is still manageable and would have net-negative costs. He argues that if the government were to pursue clean energy sources and energy-smart technologies, “the net benefits of a policy change outweigh the net costs of such a policy change.”

“Defendants must act with all deliberate speed and immediately cease the subsidization of fossil fuels and any new fossil fuel projects, and implement policies to rapidly transition the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels,” Stiglitz writes. “This urgent action is not only feasible, the relief requested will benefit the economy.”

Stiglitz has been examining the economic impact of global warming for many years. He was a lead author of the 1995 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an authoritative assessment of climate science that won the IPCC the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, shared with Al Gore.

The Stiglitz expert report submitted to the court is here.

An Example of Intentional Omissions

Since this is a legal proceeding, Stiglitz wrote a brief telling the plaintiffs’ side of the story. In a scientific investigation, parties would assert theories attempting to explain all of the evidence at hand. Legal theories have no such requirement to incorporate all the facts, but rather present conclusions informed by the evidence deemed strongest and most pertinent to one party’s interests.

While the Pope accuses us with the Sin of Emissions, we counter with the Sins of Omissions by him and his fellow activists.

Let’s consider the Stiglitz brief according to the three suppositions comprising the Climatist (Activists and Alarmists) position. Climate change is a bundle that depends on all three assertions to be true.

Supposition 1: Humans make the climate warmer.

As an economist, Stiglitz defers to the IPCC on this scientific point, with references to reports by those deeply involved and committed to Paris Accord and other UN climate programs. In the recent California District Court case (Cities suing Big Oil companies), both sides in a similar vein stipulated their acceptance of IPCC reports as authoritative regarding global warming/climate change.

Skeptical observers must attend to the nuances of what is referenced and what is hidden or omitted in these testimonies. For example, Chevron’s attorney noted that IPCC’s reports express various opinions over time as to human influence on the climate. They noted that even today, the expected temperature effect from doubling CO2 ranges widely from 1.5C to 4.5C. No mention is made that several more recent estimates from empirical data (rather than GCMs) are at the low end or lower.

In addition, there is no mention that GCMs projections are running about twice as hot as observations. Omitted is the fact GCMs correctly replicate tropospheric temperature observations only when CO2 warming is turned off. In the effort to proclaim scientific certainty, neither Stiglitz nor IPCC discuss the lack of warming since the 1998 El Nino, despite two additional El Ninos in 2010 and 2016.

Figure 5. Simplification of IPCC AR5 shown above in Fig. 4. The colored lines represent the range of results for the models and observations. The trends here represent trends at different levels of the tropical atmosphere from the surface up to 50,000 ft. The gray lines are the bounds for the range of observations, the blue for the range of IPCC model results without extra GHGs and the red for IPCC model results with extra GHGs.The key point displayed is the lack of overlap between the GHG model results (red) and the observations (gray). The nonGHG model runs (blue) overlap the observations almost completely.

Further they exclude comparisons between fossil fuel consumption and temperature changes. The legal methodology for discerning causation regarding work environments or medicine side effects insists that the correlation be strong and consistent over time, and there be no confounding additional factors. As long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for a set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. Such is the null hypothesis in legal terms: Things happen for many reasons unless you can prove one reason is dominant.

Finally, Stiglitz and IPCC are picking on the wrong molecule. The climate is controlled not by CO2 but by H20. Oceans make climate through the massive movement of energy involved in water’s phase changes from solid to liquid to gas and back again. From those heat transfers come all that we call weather and climate: Clouds, Snow, Rain, Winds, and Storms.

Esteemed climate scientist Richard Lindzen ended a very fine recent presentation with this description of the climate system:

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.

Supposition 2: The Warming is Dangerous

Billions of dollars have been spent researching any and all negative effects from a warming world: Everything from Acne to Zika virus. Stiglitz links to a recent Climate Report that repeats the usual litany of calamities to be feared and avoided by submitting to IPCC demands. The evidence does not support these claims.

Stiglitz: It is scientifically established that human activities produce GHG emissions, which accumulate in the atmosphere and the oceans, resulting in warming of Earth’s surface and the oceans, acidification of the oceans, increased variability of climate, with a higher incidence of extreme weather events, and other changes in the climate.

Moreover, leading experts believe that there is already more than enough excess heat in the climate system to do severe damage and that 2C of warming would have very significant adverse effects, including resulting in multi-meter sea level rise.

Experts have observed an increased incidence of climate-related extreme weather events, including increased frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events and more severe droughts and associated heatwaves. Experts have also observed an increased incidence of large forest fires; and reduced snowpack affecting water resources in the western U.S. The most recent National Climate Assessment projects these climate impacts will continue to worsen in the future as global temperatures increase.

Alarming Weather and Wildfires

But: Weather is not more extreme.

And Wildfires were worse in the past.

But: Sea Level Rise is not accelerating.

Litany of Changes

Seven of the ten hottest years on record have occurred within the last decade; wildfires are at an all-time high, while Arctic Sea ice is rapidly diminishing.

We are seeing one-in-a-thousand-year floods with astonishing frequency.

When it rains really hard, it’s harder than ever.

We’re seeing glaciers melting, sea level rising.

The length and the intensity of heatwaves has gone up dramatically.

Plants and trees are flowering earlier in the year. Birds are moving polewards.

We’re seeing more intense storms.

But: Arctic Ice has not declined since 2007.

But: All of these are within the range of past variability.

In fact our climate is remarkably stable.

And many aspects follow quasi-60-year cycles.

Climate is Changing the Weather

Stiglitz:  Other potential examples include agricultural losses. Whether or not insurance
reimburses farmers for their crops, there can be food shortages that lead to higher food
prices (that will be borne by consumers, that is, Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children).
There is a further risk that as our climate and land use pattern changes, disease vectors
may also move (e.g., diseases formerly only in tropical climates move northward).36 This
could lead to material increases in public health costs

But: Actual climate zones are local and regional in scope, and they show little boundary change.

But: Ice cores show that it was warmer in the past, not due to humans.

Supposition 3:  Government Can Stop it!

Here it is blithely assumed that the court can rule the seas to stop rising, heat waves to cease, and Arctic ice to grow (though why we would want that is debatable).  All this will be achieved by leaving fossil fuels in the ground and powering civilization with windmills and solar panels.  While admitting that our way of life depends on fossil fuels, they ignore the inadequacy of renewable energy sources at their present immaturity.

Stiglitz: Conclusion
The choice between incurring manageable costs now and the incalculable, perhaps even
irreparable, burden Youth Plaintiffs and Affected Children will face if Defendants fail to
rapidly transition to a non-fossil fuel economy is clear. While the full costs of the climate
damages that would result from maintaining a fossil fuel-based economy may be
incalculable, there is already ample evidence concerning the lower bound of such costs,
and with these minimum estimates, it is already clear that the cost of transitioning to a
low/no carbon economy are far less than the benefits of such a transition. No rational
calculus could come to an alternative conclusion. Defendants must act with all deliberate
speed and immediately cease the subsidization of fossil fuels and any new fossil fuel
projects, and implement policies to rapidly transition the U.S. economy away from fossil
fuels.

But CO2 relation to Temperature is Inconsistent.

But: The planet is greener because of rising CO2.

But: Modern nations (G20) depend on fossil fuels for nearly 90% of their energy.

But: Renewables are not ready for prime time.

People need to know that adding renewables to an electrical grid presents both technical and economic challenges.  Experience shows that adding intermittent power more than 10% of the baseload makes precarious the reliability of the supply.  South Australia is demonstrating this with a series of blackouts when the grid cannot be balanced.  Germany got to a higher % by dumping its excess renewable generation onto neighboring countries until the EU finally woke up and stopped them. Texas got up to 29% by dumping onto neighboring states, and some like Georgia are having problems.

But more dangerous is the way renewables destroy the economics of electrical power.  Seasoned energy analyst Gail Tverberg writes:

In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic. Also, the presence of intermittent electricity disrupts competitive prices, leading to electricity prices that are far too low for other electricity providers, including those providing electricity using nuclear or natural gas. The tiny contribution of wind and solar to grid electricity cannot make up for the loss of more traditional electricity sources due to low prices.

These issues are discussed in more detail in the post Climateers Tilting at Windmills

Footnote regarding mention of “multi-meter” sea level rise.  It is all done with computer models.  For example, below is San Francisco.  More at USCS Warnings of Coastal Floodings

UN Scrambling to Save the Credibility of the Paris Agreement

“… Individual years pushing past the 1.5-degree limit … means we need to fight even harder to get on track. …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Individual years pushing past the 1.5-degree limit … means we need to fight even harder to get on track. …”

Press Release | WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level

WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level 

  • The past ten years 2015-2024 are the ten warmest years on record
  • We have likely seen the first calendar year with a global mean temperature of more than 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average
  • Six international datasets are used to reach the consolidated WMO global figure
  • 2024 saw exceptional land and sea surface temperatures and ocean heat
  • Long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement not yet dead but in grave danger

Geneva (WMO – The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has confirmed that 2024 is the warmest year on record, based on six international datasets. The past ten years have all been in the Top Ten, in an extraordinary streak of record-breaking temperatures.

…

“Today’s assessment from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) proves yet again – global heating is a cold, hard fact,” said UN Secretary-General Antóno Guterres.

“Individual years pushing past the 1.5 degree limit do not mean the long-term goal is shot. It means we need to fight even harder to get on track. Blazing temperatures in 2024 require trail-blazing climate action in 2025,” he said. “There’s still time to avoid the worst of climate catastrophe. But leaders must act – now,” he said.

The WMO provides a temperature assessment based on multiple sources of data to support international climate monitoring and to provide authoritative information for the UN Climate Change negotiating process. The datasets are from the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), Japan Meteorological Agency, NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UK’s Met Office in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT), and Berkeley Earth.

“Climate history is playing out before our eyes. We’ve had not just one or two record-breaking years, but a full ten-year series. This has been accompanied by devastating and extreme weather, rising sea levels and melting ice, all powered by record-breaking greenhouse gas levels due to human activities,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo.

“It is important to emphasize that a single year of more than 1.5°C for a year does NOT mean that we have failed to meet Paris Agreement long-term temperature goals, which are measured over decades rather than an individual year. However, it is essential to recognize that every fraction of a degree of warming matters. Whether it is at a level below or above 1.5°C of warming, every additional increment of global warming increases the impacts on our lives, economies and our planet,” said Celeste Saulo.

…Read more: 

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2025/01/press-release-wmo-confirms-2024-as-warmest-year-on-record-at-about-1-55c-above-pre-industrial-level/

Anyone feel the apocalypse?

Scientists claiming their settled science models didn’t see it coming is also funny.

Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory

Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

Gavin Schmidt

When I took over as the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, I inherited a project that tracks temperature changes since 1880. Using this trove of data, I’ve made climate predictions at the start of every year since 2016. It’s humbling, and a bit worrying, to admit that no year has confounded climate scientists’ predictive capabilities more than 2023 has.

For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened.

…Read more: 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z

2023-24 appears to have totally messed up the planned climate narrative. The UN and climate scientists looked all set to milk each fractional advance on 1.5C, then suddenly we blow past it and they have nothing to talk about. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets failed to slide into the sea, the North Pole Ice Cap is still there, and you can still buy food in the supermarket.

There are feeble attempts to bring forward the 2.0C fear narrative, but they don’t seem to be gaining much traction. After the Covid lockdown debacle, suddenly discovering 1.5C hype was just as fake as Covid lockdown narratives appears to have killed much of the remaining credibility of climate alarmists.

2025 is going to be a very good year for climate skeptics.

Gas Storage Plunges to “Concerningly Low Levels”

Not only did we come perilously close to blackouts this week, but our reserves of gas are also dangerously low

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Not only did we come perilously close to blackouts this week, but our reserves of gas are also dangerously low:

Plunging temperatures and high demand for gas fired power stations have reduced UK winter gas storage to concerningly low levels.

The UK’s gas storage is under pressure this winter as the UK battles both extreme cold and high gas prices. The ongoing colder-than-usual conditions in the UK combined with the end of Russian gas pipeline supplies through Ukraine on 31 December 2024 has meant that gas inventory levels across the UK are down. As of the 9th of January 2025, UK storage sites are 26% lower than last year’s inventory at the same time, leaving them around half full. This means the UK has less than a week of gas demand in store. 
Gas storage was already lower than usual heading into December as a result of the early onset of winter. Combined with stubbornly high gas prices, this has meant that it has been more difficult to top up storage over Christmas. 
The situation is echoed across Europe. By 7 January 2025, despite many countries mandating minimum storage levels ahead of winter, European storage was at 69% capacity, down from 84% at the same time the previous year. The UK’s total gas storage capacity is around 10 per cent or less than in France, Germany, or the Netherlands. 
As energy demand spikes due to the freezing weather, the UK has seen a particular strain on its gas storage. Despite being full ahead of winter, current gas inventory at Rough, the country’s largest gas storage site, which is operated by Centrica, is 20% lower than at the same time last year. Rough has played a crucial role so far this winter by supplying almost 420 million cubic meters (mcm) of gas since early November, enough to heat three million homes every day. 

https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2025/perfect-storm-reduces-uk-winter-gas-storage-to-concerningly-low-levels

Natural gas still supplies over a third of the UK’s energy, seven times as much as wind and solar:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics-dukes-2024

But in winter months, gas consumption can double or even triple from summertime, as power demand increases, and heating is switched on.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gas-section-4-energy-trends#full-publication-update-history

Average gas consumption over the year averages around 175 mcm/day, but the forecast for today is 363 mcm:

https://data.nationalgas.com/gas-system-status

Little wonder then that gas stocks get depleted. As of yesterday, we had 18752 of natural gas and 10365 GWh of liquified gas in store, enough for seven day’s consumption. This however is misleading, as it implies there will be no gas supplied.

https://data.nationalgas.com/gas-system-status

What is perhaps a more meaningful indicator is that we get about 200 mcm/day from the North Sea, both own production and import from Norway. This can reasonably be regarded as a secure supply.

With demand running at 363 mcm/day, that means we need to import 163 mcm/day of LNG, a big increase on the annual average of 50 mcm/day. Our gas storage of about 2600 mcm therefore represents sixteen days of LNG imports.

If we have not got enough gas in storage, we have to pay through the nose for imports in winter, when prices peak.

But of much greater concern is what will happen when North Sea gas production drops away. Demand for natural gas will still remain high in winter for many years to come – we still need it to heat our homes and generate electricity in weeks like this one. Banning further North Sea development, as Miliband wants, will simply make us ever more reliant on imported LNG, something that will not only cost money but also endanger our energy security.

The Interests of the U.S. and the Honolulu Climate Case Before the U.S. Supreme Court

The Office of the Solicitor General — part of the Department of Justice —was created by the Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870. The Act states that there shall be an officer “learned in the law,” to be called the Solicitor General, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his or her duties. The “mission of OSG is to represent the interests of the United States before the Supreme Court and to oversee appellate and certain other litigation on behalf of the United States in the lower federal and state courts.”

From Watts Up With That?

By Benjamin Zycher

The Office of the Solicitor General — part of the Department of Justice —was created by the Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870. The Act states that there shall be an officer “learned in the law,” to be called the Solicitor General, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his or her duties. The “mission of OSG is to represent the interests of the United States before the Supreme Court and to oversee appellate and certain other litigation on behalf of the United States in the lower federal and state courts.”

The term “interests of the United States” is not defined in the Act, and it is obvious that any administration has an interest in keeping it undefined so as to keep its options open with respect to its future positions on legal questions that emerge. Can anyone believe that the political interests of a given administration will not affect its positions on “the interests of the United States? Those positions might be wholly inconsistent with the interests of the U.S. economy or citizenry or taxpayers or the many other groupings that could be subsumed under the heading “interests of the United States,” as distinct from the political interests of the current administration.

Which brings us to the climate case that the U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide as to whether to grant certiorari: Sunoco LP ET. AL. v City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, ET. AL. In a nutshell: The City and County of Honolulu, pursuing litigation against the energy producers for — don’t laugh — having knowingly caused the purported climate crisis, won a ruling in the Hawaii Supreme Court to the effect that federal law does not preempt state/local legal actions. Accordingly, the Honolulu lawsuit was directed by the Hawaii Supreme Court to proceed in state court under Hawaii state law rather than federal law, despite several contrary rulings in federal courts that claims arising from greenhouse gas emissions are the purview of federal law and Congress.

The OSG has entered the case as an amicus curiae, but what is notable is that nowhere in its brief does OSG tell us what the “interest of the United States” is in the context of this case. Instead, the OSG brief merely asserts that it is in the interest of the United States that the “petitions for writs of certiorari should be denied,” because “this Court’s resolution of the federal issue ‘can await final judgment [after the case works its way through the Hawaii and federal courts] without any adverse effect upon important federal interests.’”

The OSG takes this position despite admitting (page 12) that “petitioners may ultimately prevail on their contention that respondents’ claims are barred by the Constitution — specifically, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clauses, the Due Process Clause, and federal constitutional structure — to the extent the claims rely on conduct occurring outside Hawaii.” Indeed, the OSG cites a precedent to the effect that “principles of state sovereignty and comity” mean “that a State may not impose economic sanctions on violators of its laws with the intent of changing the tortfeasors’ lawful conduct in other States.” No one claims that the ordinary business operations of the fossil producers — the production and sale of fossil fuels — was unlawful.

Nor does OSG argue — any such argument would not pass a laugh test — that “awai[ting] final judgment” would fail to create enormous costs for the fossil producers and for the economy as a whole. Instead, OSG argues implicitly that litigation inconsistent with “the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Clauses, the Due Process Clause, and federal constitutional structure” would not affect the “interests of the United States.” Seriously?

Put those constitutional issues aside. Do the “interests of the United States” not include national energy policies and the aggregate cost of fuels, employment, the effect of the Hawaii and similar litigation on national wealth, international trade flows for the U.S., and numerous other major parameters of U.S. economic performance? Do they not include a forced substitution of one set of environmental impacts attendant upon the use of fossil fuels with another set caused by the available alternatives? As the costs of energy rise hugely but unevenly across the country, do the “interests of the United States” not encompass the large resulting economic shifts and dislocations? Etc.

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari on this case. There is a clear conflict between several federal court rulings, specifically and most clearly the Second Circuit’s dismissal of New York City’s virtually identical lawsuit in 2021and the ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Both court rulings reveal a conflict on the issue of whether federal law precludes claims brought under state law and whether a given state may apply its laws to address purported injuries caused by emissions from another state. Moreover, the Hawaii Supreme Court decision clearly is incorrect: Interstate emissions, international emissions, and negotiations with foreign governments inherently are issues for the federal government to address.

Back to the OSG amicus brief: It is a purely political document, reflecting the Biden administration efforts to force a substitution of expensive and unreliable unconventional energy in place of fossil fuels that have proven competitively superior for over a century. The arguments that the OSG’s brief presents have nothing to do with “the interests of the United States,” notwithstanding the various assertions presented therein. A grant of certiorari in this case implicitly will send a signal that the OSG arguments are poor and that future such briefs from OSG should substitute rigor in place of political posturing. That alone would be a real service for the true interests of the U.S.

Benjamin Zycher is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Temperature Spike Due to Reduced Sulfate Emissions

After two years of fabricated alarmism about the apparent shift upwards in global temperatures, scientists have now established that the main culprit has been the reduction in sulfate emissions from shipping!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

After two years of fabricated alarmism about the apparent shift upwards in global temperatures, scientists have now established that the main culprit has been the reduction in sulfate emissions from shipping!

Abstract

The summer of 2023 saw an anomalous increase in temperatures even when considering the ongoing greenhouse-gas-driven warming trend. Here we demonstrate that regulatory changes to sulfate emissions from international shipping routes, which resulted in a significant reduction in sulfate particulate released during international shipping starting on 1 January 2020, have been a major contributing factor to the monthly surface temperature anomalies during the last year.

We do this by including the appropriate changes to emission databases developed for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project version 6 (CMIP6) in Community Earth System Model (CESM2) simulations. The aerosol termination effect simulated by the updated CESM2 simulations of W m−2 and 0.08 K±0.03 K is consistent with observations of both radiative forcing and surface temperature, manifesting a similar delay as the one observed in observational datasets between the implementation of the emission changes and the anomalous increase in warming. Our findings highlight the importance of considering realistic near-future changes in short-lived climate forcers for future climate projections, such as for CMIP7, for an improved understanding and communication of short-term climatic changes.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1527/2024

This really should not have come as a surprise to anyone, which strengthens the impression that the climate establishment have deliberately ignored sulfate emissions, in order to focus the public’s minds on greenhouse gases.

It has long been recognised that sulfate pollution was a factor in the global cooling between the Second World War and the 1970s. As countries began to clean their air, temperatures naturally rose. Even the Met Office admitted this was probably why UK temperatures rose in the 1980s and 90s.

Cornell University have more detail on their researchers’ study:

Mandated reductions in sulfate emissions from international shipping routes in 2020 are partly responsible for the record high temperatures, the researchers found. Reducing the amount of aerosol particles in the atmosphere reduces cloud coverage; thus, clouds’ ability to reflect solar radiation back to space is diminished. The paper’s findings suggest future policy decisions around abrupt reductions in tropospheric aerosols should take into account their surface temperature impact.

Past research indicated that such change would lead to a minor increase in the global temperature due to a reduction in cloud formation, but Visioni and co-author Ilaria Quaglia, postdoctoral researcher in the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Cornell Engineering), used Earth system model simulations to prove the significance of the sudden drop in sulfate shipping emissions.

These changes in the shipping industry had been discussed for years, Visioni said, with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) making a decision in 2014 to begin enforcing stricter sulfate emissions by 2020. Fuels with lower sulfur are much more expensive, so it took some time for the industry to adjust, he said.

The regulation required ships to use fuel with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5%, down from the previous limit of 3.5%. This reduction led to a more than 80% decrease in total sulfur oxide emissions from shipping.

And while there was some talk of this tradeoff within the shipping industry, he said, there was little attempt to call widespread attention to the potential effect.

The Cornell researchers looked at monthly global temperature anomalies over the period 2020-23, removing the assumed linear contribution from greenhouse gases and seasonality, in order to determine the shipping industry’s impact on temperature anomalies. They found that removing sulfur dioxide from shipping fuel likely increased the planet’s temperature by 0.08 degrees Celsius.

“The unprecedented heat became a normal warm year once you accounted for that,” Visioni said.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/01/shipping-emissions-mandate-led-spike-global-temperatures

That last sentence is worth repeating:

“The unprecedented heat became a normal warm year once you accounted for that,”

‘A Huge Win’: Woke ‘Cartel’ Of Financial Giants Dealt Death Blow 11 Days Before Trump Takes Office

Asset management behemoth BlackRock wrote a letter to institutional investors Thursday announcing its exit from an emissions-focused investor group, according to the Financial Times (FT).

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Owen Klinsky
Contributor

Asset management behemoth BlackRock wrote a letter to institutional investors Thursday announcing its exit from an emissions-focused investor group, according to the Financial Times (FT).

The firm, which manages over $10 trillion and has been a leader in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, has left the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) coalition — a United Nations–sponsored collection of financial services companies that have pledged to achieve net-zero portfolios by 2050 or sooner, the FT reported. The move comes less than two weeks before President-elect Donald Trump, who plans to embrace fossil fuels in his second term, takes office, and follows the exits of a slew of other corporations, including Goldman Sachs Group, Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (RELATED: UN Reportedly Moves To Unlock Tens Of Millions In Climate Funding For Country Run By Terrorists)

In the letter to investors, vice-chair Philipp Hildebrand wrote that the asset manager’s membership in NZAM had “caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials,” according to the FT.

https://twitter.com/WillHild/status/1877446080994111992

The firm began its ESG initiative in 2020, with CEO Larry Fink stating that “climate risk is investment risk” and that climate change would spark a “fundamental reallocation of capital.” However, the world’s largest asset manager exit has been backpedaling on its ESG efforts as of late, only supporting about 4% of the 493 environmental and social investment proposals shareholders put forward between the end of June 2023 and the end of June 2024, down from a rate of 47% in 2021.

BlackRock has also walked back some of its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, editing their DEI language to be less racially oriented.

Fellow investment firm Vanguard left NZAM in 2022, while financial services firm State Street remains in the environmental coalition.

“The news of BlackRock’s departure from NZAM should be music to the ears of every American consumer,” Will Hild, executive director of conservative nonprofit Consumers’ Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “NZAM is an illegitimate cartel of asset managers pushing harmful and costly net zero policies across the entire economy. The activities of NZAM and its members raise prices on Americans everywhere from the gas pump to the grocery store.”

When reached for comment, BlackRock referred the DCNF to a report confirming their departure from NZAM.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Alaska Energy Shenanigans: Eklutna Dam and the RPS (Part I: Background)

Alaskans are waking up to a sneak attack on electric affordability and reliability by agenda-driven special interests and their pliable politicians. The latest incident concerns the state’s third largest hydro project, which has become a Trojan Horse for Green New Deal programs. “Cronyism, abuse and manipulation of our critical energy infrastructure is the result of ‘stakeholder inclusion’,” as energy expert Kassie Andrews writes in this two-part post.

From Master Resource

By Kassie Andrews

Ed. note: Alaskans are waking up to a sneak attack on electric affordability and reliability by agenda-driven special interests and their pliable politicians. The latest incident concerns the state’s third largest hydro project, which has become a Trojan Horse for Green New Deal programs. “Cronyism, abuse and manipulation of our critical energy infrastructure is the result of ‘stakeholder inclusion’,” as energy expert Kassie Andrews writes in this two-part post.

At 40 MW capacity, the Eklutna Hydro Dam Project generates 5–6 percent of the total electricity for the Railbelt.  Eklutna provides the most significant share of renewable energy, 44 percent of Matanuska Electric Association (MEA)’s renewable portfolio and 25 percent of Anchorage area-service-provider Chugach’s renewable portfolio. 

With capital depreciation and small operating costs, Eklutna is the lowest-cost electricity source for Southcentral Alaska.  Assuming carbon dioxide is of concern, this project offsets approximately 72,500 metric tons of CO2 annually, equivalent to 16,911 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year, equating to roughly half of daily commuters on the Glenn Highway.

Chugach’s effective share of Eklutna is 64.3 percent, up to 25.7 megawatts.  Allowing for storage of spring and summer runoff, Eklutna Hydro acts as a pseudo storage battery for power generation and provides firm on-demand spinning reserve capacity. Natural economics, no special government subsidy required.

This was demonstrated in the early 2024 cold snap. During the seven-day coldest duration (January 28–February 3, Anchorage Airport reading), the average capacity factor of Eklutna was 77 percent.  Compare this to 17.6 MW Fire Island Wind at an average capacity factor of 20 percent, with 0% on February 1, 2024.  For Alaskans, wind and solar is 100% unreliable, when we need it most. 

New Hydro Politics

The Upper Eklutna Dam was a Federal Bureau of Reclamation Project, constructed in the 1950s.  While the transfer of ownership in Eklutna Hydro to the parties of today became official in 1997, a stipulation of the sale was a congressionally approved Fish and Wildlife Agreement.  Think politics, and of the worst kind.

The 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement acknowledged that hydroelectric developments may have resulted in a “yet to be quantified impact to fish and wildlife resources.” Since the project was not subject to FERC licensing, there “is no opportunity to determine the extent of that fish and wildlife impact.” 

The Project Owners, the Municipality of Anchorage, Chugach Electric Association, and Matanuska Electric Association were required to examine and quantify “if possible” the impacts to fish and wildlife from the Eklutna Project.  They were to develop proposals for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development. 

The Municipality of Anchorage lost voting rights on the Eklutna Hydro Electric Project and, subsequently, the 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement, when Chugach acquired Municipal Light & Power in 2020.

The timeline set forth in the agreement required the owners to initiate the study process “no later than 25 years after the transaction date,” this process began in 2019, three years early.  A final fish and wildlife plan was due to the Governor at least three years prior to implementation in 2027.  The final proposed plan was submitted in April of 2024.

New Proposed Agreement

The agreement gave the power to the Governor to issue the final program and remediation plan.  The agreement stipulates that the Governor must give equal consideration to the following:

  • the purposes of efficient and economical power production
  • energy conservation
  • the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
  • the protection of recreation opportunities,
  • municipal water supplies
  • the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality
  • other beneficial public uses
  • requirements of State law

A critical aspect to major projects is stakeholder engagement.  Deciding who becomes part of your project, or in this case who should not be involved, can make or break the budget and schedule, and can negatively affect the outcomes of the project.  A grand misstep in the process was the expansion of the consultation process to include “not only the parties to the 1991 Agreement, but also the Native Village of Eklutna (NVE), Eklutna, Inc., The Conservation Fund, Trout Unlimited, Alaska Pacific University, and several other stakeholders interested in the project.”

A New Narrative

Even before the study process began, a narrative was built around the idea that damages to be mitigated included bringing back a sockeye salmon run that existed prior to the placement of the original dam that was constructed in 1929.  That dam, the Lower Eklutna River Dam, was removed in 2018 with primary support and funding of the “stakeholder” Conservation Fund, headed by Brad Meiklejohn, who has written extensively in support of degrowth and overpopulation, shamelessly admitting he is in favor of “rapidly downsizing” the United States population to “one hundred million Americans.” And in a statement that should disqualify citizenship, “The last thing the world needs is more Americans, but the second to last thing the world needs is more people.” 

While the removal of the Lower Eklutna River Dam helped to solidify the standing of The Conservation Fund as a stakeholder to the future of Eklutna, it did not restore the water to the full length of the river.

The Native Village of Eklutna (NVE) on the remaining Upper Eklutna Dam states

no water spills over the Eklutna Lake Dam down the river except during floods. A 4.5-mile bypass tunnel diverts water from the lake to the power plant. Of the water diverted, 90 percent is diverted to the Knik River for hydropower, while 10 percent is diverted for Anchorage drinking and wastewater, effectively blocking the remaining 14 miles of Eklutna River from its water source.

A portion of the Eklutna River has been left dry, therefore affecting fish runs. 

Getting Fishy

In the Supporting Information Document of the Proposed Final Plan, the Project Owners highlight statements regarding fish made by NVE through Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).  The document states: “The Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) from NVE indicates that there was a sockeye salmon run in Eklutna Lake before the lower dam was constructed in 1929.”

However, in a 2011 report, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) stated

It is doubtful that significant numbers of sockeye salmon ever spawned in the Eklutna River drainage because suitable spawning area upstream of the lake is limited and water quality in the lake would likely have limited opportunities for spawning in the littoral zone of the lake. Fully 80 percent of the water entering Eklutna Lake comes from two glacial streams that would not be conducive to the consistent survival of sockeye salmon from egg to fry, and the remaining spawning area would not be sufficient to support large numbers of spawning anadromous salmon. In addition, the physical limnology studies of Eklutna Lake suggest that the turbidity in Eklutna Lake during much of the year is not conducive to significant primary production.

And

A separate study was conducted by Loso et al. to try to determine “whether there was an anadromous salmon run into Eklutna Lake prior to 1929” by using marine derived nutrients (MDN) as a biochemical marker in lake sediment. The study found that there was no significant difference in the composition of sediment layers from before and after 1929. However, a sensitivity test was conducted to assess the possibility that a small salmon run may have gone undetected by the isotopic analysis. It was determined that “a salmon run of up to 1,000 per year, and potentially as many as 15,000 per year, would be possible without noticeably altering the measured isotopic composition of the sediments in Eklutna Lake.” Therefore, the results “provide no evidence that such runs occurred, but do not preclude the possible existence of a relatively small sockeye fishery in Eklutna Lake before 1929.

Experts are telling us the lake doesn’t support fish because it doesn’t generate food.  There is, however, an abundant, albeit stocked, source of fish at Eklutna Trailrace that exists for all Alaskans, with a 2019 stocking plan stating objectives of an 7,500 return of coho and 4,000 return of chinook salmon.

The draft plan, published in October of 2023, outlined the preferred option being to return water flow to 11 of 12 miles of the Eklutna River.  This came with a price tag of $57M, with the study alone costing the project owners $8M through November 2023.

Evolution of Plan

After the draft plan was published in October of 2023, the screams by environmental activist stakeholders and the Native Village of Eklutna became louder.  In response to the plan, NVE wrote a letter to the Anchorage Assembly on November 10, 2023.  This letter highlighted NVE’s disapproval with the draft plan where they unveiled their wishes for the fate of the dam – “We propose simply removing the Eklutna Lake dam within the next decade when sufficient renewable generation capacity exists to replace any power production capacity lost at Eklutna.” 

According to NVE, the only viable solution was to remove the Eklutna Dam, along with the clean, reliable and affordable power and water to 90 percent of Anchorage residents it provides only to be replaced with other nonexistent sources – most likely not inexpensive, firm and reliable.  In closing, NVE stated:

We are committed to the expansion of renewable energy in Southcentral Alaska, and we are eager to work with all parties towards that goal. Recent projections are that Alaska will easily meet the 80% renewable portfolio standard by 2040 given the known opportunities that include a major expansion of the Bradley Lake hydro that will generate more power than the Eklutna project, and an estimated 200 MW of new wind and solar projects under consideration across the Railbelt.

In a December 4, 2023, letter to the consultant overseeing the draft fish and wildlife plan, NVE slammed the Project Owners for excluding dam removal as an alternative, calling it an “egregious error” in the environmental analysis.  According to NVE, “Dam removal is a reasonable alternative because it would provide the most protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife at a cost far lower than the alternatives considered.” 

In an attempt to validate the idea of removing the dam, NVE cited a technical report done in 2011 by the US Army Corps of Engineers –

In 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) proclaimed that “[t]rue restoration of the Eklutna River ecosystem would require removal of both dams […].”

However, NVE failed to include the rest of the sentence in the report –

at a cost estimated to be well beyond the funding limits on the 206 authority, and that would leave the majority of the Municipality of Anchorage without a water and electrical power supply.

NVE states in closing: “As such, we request that the Project Owners consider our proposed dam alternative to comply with the Agreement’s purposes and provide a myriad of public interest benefits, including the long-term benefit of affordable energy from truly renewable sources.” 

Environmentalists Against Hydro

The environmental stakeholders who have weaseled their way into the process are waging a full-on frontal assault against hydropower, aiming to convince people that it is not “green” and that we need to replace our firm and already paid for infrastructure with an extremely expensive and environmentally destructive building block to facilitate Green New Deal profiteering.  In the twisted view of depopulationist Brad Meiklejohn: “You can’t really call Eklutna hydropower a renewable resource if you are killing off Alaska’s ultimate renewable resource, salmon.”  Those salmon not being for human consumption, apparently.

————–

Part II tomorrow will examine the proposed solutions, past and present, to reveal major questionable ulterior motives from stakeholders and elected officials.

Scientific Societies Misstate “Climate Change”

Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Wallace Manheimer provides examples of the errors needing corrections in his American Thinker article Scientific Societies Err on ‘Climate Change’.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Major scientific organizations’ statements on “climate change” and the conclusions therein form the basis of much of the scientific foundation for governmental, scientific, media, and public concerns on the use of fossil fuels. Trillions of public and private dollars are currently being spent on alternative fuels to “save the planet” from the alleged harm of increasing CO2, a gas which is vital for life on earth. If the evaluations of these societies are erroneous, these measures could impoverish much of the world, to say nothing of wasting trillions. Economic damage and social unrest are already evident in some countries, including the United States.

It is therefore imperative for all that their views be based on sound science,
and if not, these societies should change their statements.

A recent publication and podcast have examined the scientific organization’s climate statements, and have found numerous errors, errors which are easy to find by simply comparing the societies’ statements with data from such reliable sources as NOAA, NASA, and others. These societies are:

♦  American Physical Society (APS),
♦  American Meteorological Society (AMS),
♦  National Academy of Science (NAS),
♦  American Chemical Society (ACS), and
♦  American Geophysical Union (AGU).    

[Manheimer refers to paper Science Societies Climate Statements: Some Concerns]

Here is one example. The AGU states “Greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are also affecting the growth and nutritional value of land plants…” Numerous studies, including measurements of terrestrial plant life from space, and measurements of crop production, have shown that if anything, increasing CO2 has increased both plant life and crop production. After all, CO2 is a vital nutrient for plants, and the slight warming we have experienced, possibly in part due to the increased CO2, has increased the growing seasons in the temperate latitudes.

As another example, the ACS statement asserts: “Extreme weather and related events, such as floods, droughts… are increasing in frequency and intensity, threatening Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being.”. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is measured by what is called NOAA’s Palmer drought index and this index is displayed as a graph vs of index versus year. It shows clearly, that in the United States the worst sustained droughts in the U.S. were in the 1930s and 1950s, and the worst sustained floods were in the 1970s through the 1990s.

Tens of thousands of scientists, including over 10,000 with Ph.Ds., have critically examined the evidence, and have concluded that a CO2-induced climate crisis is extremely unlikely. They have willingly and publicly asserted this, by adding their names to document such as, the Oregon petition, Clintel Climate Petition , and the CO2 Coalition. Among other things, the societies should not ignore these, professional conclusions of many of their members.

Accordingly, and with humility, I suggest that these societies do the following:

  1.  Replace their climate statements with ones that say there is most likely an effect humans have on the changing climate, but its importance for humanity is uncertain and it is still being debated.
  2.   Eliminate statements that are demonstrably incorrect, as shown by comparison with easily available and reliable data.
  3. Acknowledge in their statements that fossil fuels cannot be replaced in the next several decades without greatly endangering our civilization.
  4. Acknowledge in their statements that CO2 has obvious obvious benefit for human existence, as well as potential risks.

By changing their statements to ones that are more moderate and scientifically correct, these societies will not only be helping the professions they serve, but more important, will ultimately be aiding humanity. On the other hand, if they keep their statements as they are, they will remain on the wrong side of history, and posterity will not look kindly on them. And posterity may be arriving sooner than they think. With a Republican Congress and President Trump referring to the “green new scam,” these society presidents may find themselves hauled before Congress to receive the university president treatment.

After all, the APS statement says, “Multiple lines of evidence strongly support the finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have become the dominant driver of global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.”

    • What will its president say when the congressman puts up a graph showing that for 30 years in the early decades of the 20th century, the warming rate was the same or greater?
    • Or when he puts up a map proving that the northern forests, 4000 years ago extended about 200 miles further north worldwide than they do today.
    • Or shows that 2000 years ago, the Romans had vineyards in England extending all the way to Hadrian’s wall, millennia before cold weather grapes had been developed.
    • Or when he shows evidence that 1000 years ago the Vikings grew barley in Greenland, something not possible today. Surely this proves that the world had many warmer periods without the help of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

There are many such statements that Congress can quote, to very publicly humiliate these society presidents. As a committed life fellow of the APS, I hope these societies will change their statements now, before the roof collapses on them.

Background from Richard Lindzen

The above described changes in scientific culture were both the cause and effect of the growth of ‘big science,’ and the concomitant rise in importance of large organizations. However, all such organizations, whether professional societies, research laboratories, advisory bodies (such as the national academies), government departments and agencies (including NASA, NOAA, EPA, NSF, etc.), and even universities are hierarchical structures where positions and policies are determined by small executive councils or even single individuals. This greatly facilitates any conscious effort to politicize science via influence in such bodies where a handful of individuals (often not even scientists) speak on behalf of organizations that include thousands of scientists, and even enforce specific scientific positions and agendas. The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with ‘science’ – even if this involves misrepresenting the science.

Professional societies represent a somewhat special case. Originally created to provide a means for communication within professions – organizing meetings and publishing journals – they also provided, in some instances, professional certification, and public outreach. The central offices of such societies were scattered throughout the US, and rarely located in Washington. Increasingly, however, such societies require impressive presences in Washington where they engage in interactions with the federal government. Of course, the nominal interaction involves lobbying for special advantage, but increasingly, the interaction consists in issuing policy and scientific statements on behalf of the society. Such statements, however, hardly represent independent representation of membership positions. For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore.

Returning to the matter of scientific organizations, we find a variety of patterns of influence. The most obvious to recognize (though frequently kept from public view), consists in prominent individuals within the environmental movement simultaneously holding and using influential positions within the scientific organization. Thus, John Firor long served as administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 1980’s, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board Chairman at Environmental Defense– a major environmental advocacy group – from 1975-1980 [5].

One could go on at some length with such examples, but a more common form of infiltration consists in simply getting a couple of seats on the council of an organization (or on the advisory panels of government agencies). This is sufficient to veto any statements or decisions that they are opposed to. Eventually, this enables the production of statements supporting their position – if only as a quid pro quo for permitting other business to get done. Sometimes, as in the production of the 1993 report of the NAS, Policy Implications of Global Warming, the environmental activists, having largely gotten their way in the preparation of the report where they were strongly represented as ‘stake holders,’ decided, nonetheless, to issue a minority statement suggesting that the NAS report had not gone ‘far enough.’ The influence of the environmental movement has effectively made support for global warming, not only a core element of political correctness, but also a requirement for the numerous prizes and awards given to scientists. That said, when it comes to professional societies, there is often no need at all for overt infiltration since issues like global warming have become a part of both political correctness and (in the US) partisan politics, and there will usually be council members who are committed in this manner.

Source:  Climate Science: Is it Currently Designed to Answer Questions?

Comment: These bodies all claim to serve society, which as American institutions should primarily be concerned about American society.  Funded by American taxpayers and donors, they should consider first and foremost their own country’s needs.  That means stopping the fuzzy logic and blurring the truth about weather and climate.  Otherwise, they must fade into irrelevance.

And they must stop promoting the interests of a few colleagues at the expense of the many ordinary citizens.

We Are Close to Blackouts Now–But What About 2030?

Electricity demand peaked even higher yesterday evening at nearly 48 GW, and with low winds today, power supply will be tight again tonight.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/generation-by-fuel-type

Electricity demand peaked even higher yesterday evening at nearly 48 GW, and with low winds today, power supply will be tight again tonight.

We will no doubt muddle through again, but nobody in the media seems to be pointing to the elephant in the room; the fact that demand for electricity will start to rise rapidly as we transition to heat pumps and EVs.

The Future Energy Scenarios, published by the National Grid last year, projected that peak demand would rise to 65 GW in 2030, and 81 GW come 2035:

https://www.neso.energy/publications/future-energy-scenarios-fes

Even with both the 9 GW of interconnector capacity and our full CCGT fleet working flat out, we would be lucky to get 50 GW currently. (On Tuesday I/C s ran at about 6 GW because of outages).

Yet there are no plans to build new gas capacity, the output from Hinkley C will barely offset the shut down of older nuclear plant and extra wind capacity planned could only supply a couple of GW at most on a windless day like today.

And this will not simply be a matter of an odd hour of peak demand. The FES already assumes that a lot of demand smoothing will take place, EVs charging at night and so on, so the daily range will be much less than now.

In the last 24 hours, demand has averaged 39 GW. On a pro-rata basis, that 81 GW in 2035 is likely to be at least 67 GW.

According to the FES calculations, for instance, in 2035 residential heat pumps will draw 40 TWh a year, about 8 TWh a month in winter. That works out at 11 GW , and probably a lot more in really cold weather. And that assumes they are run evenly over 24 hours a day, an optimistic assumption.

EVs will also add significantly to electricity demand during off peak.

It is therefore likely that daily demand will exceed 70 GW in cold weather. While pumped storage and batteries might help out for an hour or two in early evening, they will need recharging afterwards, so will contribute nothing over 24 hour periods.

Instead we will still need at least 70 GW of dispatchable generating capacity.

At the moment we barely have 40 GW.