Tag: EPA

Honey, I Shrunk the Power Plant!

In May 2024, Mark Christie, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), had this to say during U.S. Senate testimony.

From Watts Up With That?

Kevin Kilty

 In May 2024, Mark Christie, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), had this to say during U.S. Senate testimony.

“The United States is heading for a reliability crisis. I do not use the term “crisis” for melodrama, but because it is an accurate description of what we are facing. I think anyone would regard an increasing threat of system-wide, extensive power outages as a crisis.

In summary, the core problem is this: Dispatchable generating resources are retiring far too quickly and in quantities that threaten our ability to keep the lights on. The problem generally is not the addition of intermittent resources, primarily wind and solar, but the far too rapid subtraction of dispatchable resources, especially coal and gas.”

The executives of large systems operators like PJM and MISO have said the same, as has the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Mark Christie is only wrong about one thing – the adoption of renewable energy is a contributor to the crisis.

Slowly, too slowly I’d say, it is dawning on people that a reliable network supplying adequate supplies of affordable energy is one of the few things that separates, Massachusetts say, from becoming the equivalent of Albania; or more to the point of this essay preventing Wyoming from becoming like Afghanistan. This is not a made-up crisis.

Chapter 18

Back in the 2020 legislative session, the Wyoming legislature passed a bill adding Chapter 18 to Title 37, the enabling legislation for the Wyoming Public Service Commission. The purpose of Chapter 18 was to head-off in the only way that people could imagine, the impacts of EPAs endangerment finding and the fallout from Massachusetts vs. EPA – shuttering coal mines and also coal and gas fired power plants within the state. Its intent is pretty clear from this statement:

“Consistent with the objective of ensuring Wyoming electric utilities maintain access to reliable and cost effective electric generation resources, the public service commission shall establish by rule energy portfolio standards that will maximize the use of dispatchable and reliable low carbon electricity.”

Although it isn’t spelled out explicitly, and wiggle room is available for other technologies such as burning hydrogen, the term “low carbon electricity” means Carbon Capture, Use and Storage (CCUS). In fact, we can probably dump the “U” from this because while CO2 is a valuable commodity, it isn’t clear that a market for CO2 exists within reach of the coal and gas plants affected. There are 2-4 billion barrels of oil recoverable by CO2 flooding of fields in the Rocky Mountain region out of the 22 billion barrels of recoverable oil remaining in those fields. What this means for “Use” of CO2 isn’t clear to me and a recent order from the Wyoming PSC reveals that it isn’t clear to the PSC or affected utilities either.[1] There’s no point discussing the technical details of CCUS or its use in stimulating oil production further at this time.

Senate File 92

A bill before the Wyoming Legislature this session is intended to remove the provisions of Chapter 18 almost completely. It is currently stalled in committee and very likely may die there.  A standard way of killing a bill that is in danger of passing if it reaches the floor, is to bottle it up in committee. As I told several people, “I know how politics works. I often hate to see it work.”

On Monday February 3 was scheduled a committee hearing intended to decide on advancing this bill. It was quite clear as the hearing progressed that the committee had no interest in advancing the bill. I was called upon to make a case for the bill only on January 31 along with a staff member of the CO2 Coalition, Byron Soepyan. Byron has done research on the costs of adding CCUS to existing thermal plants and also its costs in building new plants with CCUS incorporated from the beginning. I felt I could use his numbers to make an argument for the unnecessary waste that CCUS represents. However, after the usual protocol of having public officials weigh in on the bill, and then allowing lobbyists for the affected industries to make their positions clear, all further public commenters were reduced to a two-minutes limitation. Period. Byron and I had no time to make our cases clear.

However, the testimony of officials and lobbyists was informative in several ways. First, it revealed that there is a wedge issue involved that Byron and I knew nothing about. This is the issue of primacy. Primacy means that a state has the authority to enforce state laws and regulations instead of EPA regulations. Right now only three states, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Louisiana are allowed primacy over regulation of class IV wells for CCS. Everyone had concerns that Senate File 92 would upset this primacy status, and make a number of industries subject to getting permits from multiple agencies – something they dread which then puts their interests in maintaining cheap power against other costs. It would have been helpful to have known about this in advance.

The head of Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) suggested a rephrasing of the bill that he felt would resolve this issue. It was a constructive suggestion. His suggestion, though, would have made supporters of the bill feel it was watered down. Probably it would have not mollified the primacy warriors. Suggestions that leave everyone dissatisfied are sometimes the basis for progress. However, that was not proved true here.

Second, The chairperson of our PSC testified, not clearly as to position on the bill in question, but appeared to assure the committee that the Commission would still have power to examine the prudence of proposed CCUS facilities in any event.

Stating that the PSC would remain undeterred in its mission to ensure that investments in electric service are prudently made should comfort those of us worried about the course of grid reliability and service affordability.[2] Yet, there are reasons to believe that the chairperson’s definition of prudence and that of people who frequent this website are not aligned.

At an energy conference held in September 2022 in Laramie, this person made these statements.  First, “This isn’t your Grandmother’s PSC.” That, in her words, the old mission of reliability and affordability is outdated. She also said quite clearly that, paraphrasing here, “Coal is not the enemy; CO2 is.” and then “We will never allow a coal-fired facility that emits CO2.” Possibly, prudent means weighing economic value against CO2 orthodoxy. 

Finally, speaking of CO2 orthodoxy, I expected but still found it surprising the extent that the typical concerns  dominated the statements of people opposing the bill. Concerns about public perception of Wyoming industry, the desires of voters in other states with utility ties to Wyoming, concerns about climate change, fears that we continue to put CO2 into the atmosphere. The orthodoxy about CO2 is now well cemented in the minds of a huge segment of the public. My guess is that Senate File 92  dies in committee.

Attacking CCUS

Byron has produced figures for the costs of CCUS based on the numbers provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the National Energy Technology Laboratory, to comply with Biden’s 2024 EPA rule. Summarized for existing coal power plants they are: 1) capital costs of $4.1 billion to retrofit six long-term Wyoming coal power plants, 2) 24% net power output reduction and 3) a 44% increase in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Costs for incorporating CCS into a natural gas plant from inception are different per category, but the end effect on utility rates is roughly the same. Figure 1, below, shows a highly simplified

Figure 1.

rate setting algorithm. With CCS the O&M costs rise by 44%. Taxes, depreciation and base rate  costs will rise in some way proportional to the $4.1 billion in capital costs, but in the case of a utility like Rocky Mountain Power with ratepayers in three states, the costs would have to be made proportional in some way. In the best case, Wyoming’s share would rise by one-sixth, or $700 million, which is an increase of about 33% over current values. Thus, costs rise by an average of, say, a factor of around 1.4.

What people fail to realize is that the calculation of rate structure has sales volume in the denominator which Figure 1 shows. Because of the parasitic CCS load, capacity of the plant is reduced by a factor of  0.76. The result is that commodity costs from this source of service rise over 1.8 times what it had been originally. This estimate compares favorably with LCOE in a design study done by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) of a 300MW advanced supercritical AUSC which showed an increase of 1.8.

Obviously, there are other generating sources, and overall rates won’t rise necessarily by 1.8. There are subsidies that will pay for some of this in a hidden manner. However, there are times even now when thermal plants produce nearly all the power being consumed and CCUS will just reduce that available power. Figure 2 shows the situation in the last week of January in the PacifiCorp balancing authority (PACE). During the bitter cold, wind was generally absent.

Figure 2.

Note the constant ramping of the thermal plants needed to balance wind/solar, which obviously have priority. Note in particular that coal never seems to reach above 4,800MW. That is the coal capacity we have left in PACE. Note, finally, at midnight on the 29th that wind is significantly gone, having slowed to under 10% capacity factor. Figure 3 shows PACE working to deliver increasing amounts of energy to Idaho Power throughout the period shown, and gradually increasing rates to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power throughout the night and morning of January 29-January 30. At this same time PACE was drawing energy from the Western Area Power Authority (WACM) at a rate of 1,200MW. Imagine the same situation with the coal assets in PACE reduced because of CCS to a maximum of 3,600MW. In that case we would be drawing perhaps 2,400MW from WACM. Could WACM deliver?

Figure 3.

Figure 4 shows that generation of energy in WACM at this time includes almost nothing from wind. WACM is in the wind drought also. What is contributing mightily at WACM is coal, under the same pressures to convert or die as coal elsewhere.

Figure 4.

In Wyoming we have gotten used to feeling that we have an abundance of energy. Yet, with increasing demand and closing or conversion of plants, we are terribly close to having inadequate energy supply during common winter conditions. Even with balancing area interchange, the remaining coal-fired plants are becoming the most valuable resources on the grid, critically needed for balancing wind/solar. Yet, adding CCS to existing plants is equivalent to closing one out of every four. It is a stealth plant closure through shrinkage and it is presently the policy of Wyoming to require CCUS for combustion/thermal plants.

Benefits of CCS?

Are there compensating benefits to CCS that make up for the expense and risk of unreliable and inadequate energy supplies? No. The benefits come from complying with an imposed orthodoxy and placating a class of customers many of whom live in other states. One of the great ironies here is that while Rocky Mountain Power believes its CO2 emissions will decline by 50 million tonnes per year once they close plants or convert all plants to CCS, by 2030 China will emit this much every 22 hours. We dig holes at great effort, they fill them in effortlessly. It does nothing toward advancing the dubious goal of reducing CO2, or improving the climate, to say nothing about generating lots of new high-paying jobs.

Why all the noise?

Given the cost, risks, and lack of benefits, why is there lots of support for CCUS? Cheyenne perhaps suggests one answer. Cheyenne lies at the intersection of two major rail networks with associated long haul internet backbone fiber, two major interstate highways, and a satellite uplink/downlink and satellite flying operation. For these reasons, and its cheap local electrical energy, a number of social media, data centers and AI facilities want to locate there. However, the wokeness of these companies dictates that they use clean energy. Powerful business interests and state politicians see all this as economic opportunities.[3] In addition there are plans for building a green hydrogen hub and even trying direct air capture of CO2. Then, there are subsidies to harvest.

Unfortunately Wyoming ratepayers are at risk of being dragooned into providing support for this effort through undoubtedly higher electrical rates. There is no other possibility.  

References:

1- Wyoming Public Service Commission (http://psc.wyo.gov) 20000-660-EA-24           Record No.: 17536  Order No.:30681, 1/23/2025, Rocky Mountain Power, IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER FOR AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH FINAL LOW-CARBON ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARDS, Memorandum Opinion, Findings and Order

2- One mention of prudence in investment occurs in Chapter 18 (bolding here is mine) – “Beginning in 2023, and occurring every second year thereafter, the commission shall report to the joint minerals, business and economic development interim committee and the joint corporations, elections and political subdivisions interim committee regarding implementation of the electricity portfolio standards and recommend whether it should be continued, modified or repealed. To the extent the electricity portfolio standards are modified or discontinued, nothing shall impair the ability of a public utility that has incurred costs to comply with the electricity portfolio standards to recover its prudently incurred costs as authorized by the commission.”

But what takes precedence, prudence or recovery of incurred costs in an effort to aid the climate?

3-People will argue that CCUS has financial benefits if it is used for enhanced oil recovery. This idea is so complex that a separate essay is needed to explain it. Yet, the financial difficulties experienced by the few full-scale attempts at CCUS provide a powerful counterargument. If there is any real industrial future to CCUS, it has only now reached the innovation stage. As Rogers’s classic work on the “Diffusion of Innovation” revealed, innovators often get wiped out.

Erasing the IRA’s “greenhouse gas pollution” words

The infamous Inflation Reduction Act is best known for throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at green causes. Along the way it also says repeatedly and falsely that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases (except water vapor) are pollution.

Words Matter, in wooden alphabet letters isolated on red background

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The infamous Inflation Reduction Act is best known for throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at green causes. Along the way it also says repeatedly and falsely that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases (except water vapor) are pollution.

This is important because it is the first time Congress has said such a thing in law. Alarmists are now claiming that this saying somehow certifies the bogus EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding and requires EPA regulation of GHGs. Technically this is not true, but a Court might think it is, so we need to get that language out of the law.

Fortunately this false language occurs in ways that make it relatively easy to erase. Repeal of major provisions of the IRA, while highly desirable for other reasons, is not necessary. Repeal is hard but making small changes in language might not be especially difficult when these do not affect the cash flow.

Most of the worst green language occurs in a small part of the bill called “TITLE VI — Subtitle A — Air Pollution.” There are 16 sections, and a few refer to actual pollution, but they are mostly about GHGs so the “Air Pollution” title is already wrong. It should be changed to something accurate like “Greenhouse Gas Money For Nothing.” Such a change would have no effect on the ridiculous law.

The primary wrong is in a definition that appears in a lot of different sections. It says this:

‘‘GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”

None of these airborne chemicals acting as GHGs are pollutants so here is the obvious, corrected replacement:

‘‘GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”

This is easily done and it has no effect on the law except to stop calling GHGs pollutants. It would be even more correct to add water vapor to the list but there are no billions for reducing water vapor emissions just the listed harmless GHGs.

Another bit of name calling occurs when both GHGs and actual air pollutants are referred to. Here we repeatedly find locutions like this

“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants…”

Here the word “other” implies that GHGs are also pollutants. Phrases like this are easily corrected to this:

“…reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants…”

Simply taking out “other” does not change the substance of the law.

It would not be that hard to find every incorrect instance of the words pollutant, pollutants, pollution, etc., and write a simple amendment that corrects their misuse. Careful reading might find other cases that need corrected.

Since this simple change has no effect on the hundreds of billions of wasteful dollars being given away by the IRA it might actually be passable. It would go a long way on the road to reversing the bogus Endangerment Finding.

In fact it would clearly signal that Congress does not consider GHGs to be pollutants.

EPA’s “Carbon Scare Framework” aka “Endangerment Finding” – A Classic Case of Government Overreach

President Trump’s first week marked a significant shift in U.S. climate and energy policy. His administration prioritized energy independence, rolled back burdensome regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing disproportionate costs to the American economy. Among his most consequential moves was rolling back Obama-era climate policies that were rooted in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Trump’s executive actions highlighted the urgent need to revisit and rescind that Endangerment Finding.

From Watts Up With That?

By Anthony Watts

President Trump’s first week marked a significant shift in U.S. climate and energy policy. His administration prioritized energy independence, rolled back burdensome regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, citing disproportionate costs to the American economy. Among his most consequential moves was rolling back Obama-era climate policies that were rooted in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Trump’s executive actions highlighted the urgent need to revisit and rescind that Endangerment Finding. This 2009 EPA edict underpins much of the federal government’s sweeping climate agenda, driving regulations that increase costs for consumers, harm industries, and expand government overreach into nearly every aspect of life.

The Endangerment Finding, classified carbon dioxide (CO₂) and five other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This allowed the EPA to regulate these gases despite the fact that the Clean Air Act was originally intended to address harmful pollutants like smog, soot, and sulfur dioxide—substances with direct and immediate health impacts.

Carbon dioxide, however, is neither toxic nor harmful at current atmospheric levels. It is a naturally occurring gas, essential to life on Earth, and plays a vital role in plant growth and food production. By declaring CO₂ a pollutant, the EPA dramatically expanded its regulatory reach. This finding set the stage for far-reaching mandates on power plants, vehicles, appliances, and more, giving the federal government a license to micromanage industries and individual choices alike.

CO₂ has been unjustly vilified in the political and media narrative surrounding climate change. While it is true that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, its role in the climate system is far from simple or all-encompassing. For instance, water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas in terms of its warming potential, accounting for roughly half of it due to its abundance in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gases, yet it is rarely discussed because it is beyond the scope of regulation.

The Endangerment Finding has triggered a cascade of regulations with far-reaching and often harmful consequences for industries, consumers, and the broader economy.

  1. Energy Costs and Reliability:
    Regulations targeting coal and natural gas power plants have forced many reliable energy sources offline, driving up electricity costs for consumers. Affordable, dependable energy is a cornerstone of economic growth, yet these regulations undermine it.
  2. Transportation:
    Vehicle emissions standards linked to the finding have raised car prices and accelerated the push for electric vehicles (EVs). Consumers are left with fewer choices and higher costs, all in the name of reducing CO₂ emissions.
  3. Housing and Appliances:
    Energy efficiency mandates stemming from the finding have increased costs for home construction and everyday appliances like refrigerators, water heaters, and air conditioners. These mandates often result in products that are less effective or less durable, burdening households with higher costs for questionable benefits.
  4. Agriculture and Food Prices:
    Farmers are now under pressure to reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, two other greenhouse gases identified in the Endangerment Finding. These regulations drive up farming costs, which are inevitably passed on to consumers. This has serious implications for food security and affordability.
  5. Erosion of Individual Freedoms:
    The Endangerment Finding enables the federal government to intrude into everyday decisions, from the kind of car you drive to the appliances you use to how you heat your home. What were once personal choices are increasingly dictated by federal mandates, all justified by the need to reduce emissions.

The unintended consequences of this EPA overreach hurts average Americans.

One of the greatest flaws of the Endangerment Finding is its tunnel vision. By focusing almost exclusively on CO₂, it ignores the broader environmental picture.

Similarly, the push for renewable energy has downsides that are often overlooked. Wind and solar energy require vast amounts of land, disrupt ecosystems, and rely on mining rare materials that cause significant environmental damage. Meanwhile, the policies driven by the Endangerment Finding disproportionately harm low-income households, who are least able to absorb rising energy and food costs.

The Endangerment Finding must be rescinded – it’s out of step with American values.

President Trump’s rollback of climate policies highlighted the dangers of the Endangerment Finding but did not go far enough. To truly safeguard America’s energy independence, economic growth, and individual freedoms, the Endangerment Finding must be rescinded. Its foundation is shaky built on exaggerated claims about CO₂ and a misinterpretation of climate science. Eliminating it would free industries from burdensome regulations, lower costs for consumers, and restore balance to environmental policymaking.

Rescinding the finding would not mean abandoning environmental stewardship. Instead, it would allow for a more rational approach to climate and energy policy—one that respects scientific complexity, avoids alarmism, and considers the real-world consequences of overreach. A balanced policy would prioritize innovation, voluntary efforts, and adaptation over heavy-handed mandates.

The EPA’s Endangerment Finding, better understood as the “Carbon Scare Framework,” represents a gross overreach of regulatory authority. By declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, the federal government has imposed costly and far-reaching rules that affect every aspect of life, often to the detriment of the economy, individual freedoms, and even the environment itself.

The path forward begins with rescinding the Endangerment Finding and reevaluating the role of CO₂ in climate policy. America needs a balanced, evidence-based approach—one that prioritizes innovation, economic freedom, and environmental stewardship without succumbing to alarmism or ideological agendas. If policymakers are serious about addressing real challenges, it’s time to step away from the carbon scare narrative and toward rational, practical solutions.

Suing Big Oil for LA Fires is All Wet – The Climate Realism Show #143

The historic and devastating fires in Los Angeles exposed the incompetence of leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. So how do state legislators want to address that? By allowing victims who had their lives destroyed sue Big Oil. Of course. The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition blow holes in that absurd political stunt and also discuss other recent to abuse the courts to push climate alarmism.

From The Heartland Institute

The historic and devastating fires in Los Angeles exposed the incompetence of leaders such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. So how do state legislators want to address that? By allowing victims who had their lives destroyed sue Big Oil. Of course. The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition blow holes in that absurd political stunt and also discuss other recent to abuse the courts to push climate alarmism.

Also, Lee Zeldin has just started his first week as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and already the environmental left is terrified that the days of considering human emissions of carbon dioxide are coming to an end. We will dig deeper into the EPA’s “endangerment finding” for CO2 and whether it can be overturned in the next four years. We will also cover some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.”

Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET and join us in the chat where we will share your comments and answer our questions.

It’s Time to Purge the Climate Scam from the Federal Websites

This time around, Trump and his people are doing a far better job of hitting the ground running on many issues. That is notably true in the area of climate and energy communications: a week in, there are already some meaningful changes at the websites of various agencies. However, changing communications on these issues is not a small task; the government websites during the Biden era had pervasive climate propaganda in thousands of locations.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

On November 12, 2024 — a week after the election — I had a post titled “Ideas For An Incoming Trump Administration: Climate And Energy Edition.” The first subject covered in that post was “Communications.” I stated there:

[C]hanging the communications of the prior administration should be an easy and obvious first priority. However, the Trump people notably did a poor job on this subject the first time out. The subject of climate and energy is pervasive through the websites of dozens of federal agencies.

I had followed the EPA website in particular during the first Trump term, and it had been little changed even a year after Trump took office.

This time around, Trump and his people are doing a far better job of hitting the ground running on many issues. That is notably true in the area of climate and energy communications: a week in, there are already some meaningful changes at the websites of various agencies. However, changing communications on these issues is not a small task; the government websites during the Biden era had pervasive climate propaganda in thousands of locations.

So, a week into the new administration, here are some of the things that have either changed or not so far.

Department of Energy

My November post noted that there was a big section, dominating the Department’s website, titled “Combating the Climate Crisis.” Today, if you go to the Department’s opening web page, it’s quite different. The front page headline is “Restoring Energy Dominance,” followed by “President Trump’s Day One Actions will Return the Department to Regular Order.” Here’s how it starts:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), effective today, is ending the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) pause and returning to regular order following direction given by President Donald J. Trump to “unleash American Energy Dominance.”

Another big front-page topic back in November was “Energy Justice.” Today, if you go to the link that I had then for “Energy Justice,” you will be taken back to the opening page with the headline “Restoring Energy Dominance.” The whole “Energy Justice” thing seems to have disappeared. That’s great progress. On the other hand, if you go to the old November link for “Combatting the Climate Crisis,” you will find that a page full of the old Biden-era claptrap is still up:

There is no greater challenge facing our nation and our planet than the climate crisis. That’s why President Biden has laid out the boldest climate agenda in our nation’s history—one that will spur an equitable clean energy economy and cement America on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. . ..

To their credit, the old links to this stuff on the introductory page are gone, and using the site’s search function doesn’t turn this up. Likely, it will be memory-holed shortly.

And yet there is still plenty of junk stuff up on this website that needs to go. As a few examples:

  • A section on “Decarbonization” (“The shift to a low-carbon economy will be one of the most significant economic transformations in history. Through the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) decarbonization initiatives, the United States is poised to capture the economic and other benefits of revolutionary decarbonization technologies.”)
  • A section on “Carbon Management” (“Carbon management encompasses a suite of technologies used to capture, transport, convert, and store carbon dioxide, as well as remove it directly from the atmosphere.”)
  • A section on the “Floating Offshore Wind Shot” (“The Floating Offshore Wind Energy Shot™ seeks to reduce the cost of floating offshore wind energy by more than 70% by 2035 for deep water sites far from shore.”)
  • A section on the “Net Zero Economy” (“A net-zero economy averts or removes as much greenhouse gas as it produces. Achieving this balance by 2050 is a pivotal undertaking for the United States”)

And there are many more such. So there is a long way to go. However, they have made a reasonable start. Given that it has only been a week, I would rate the effort an A-.

EPA

In my November post, I noted that there was a huge Climate Change section of the website that dominated from the opening page. Today, references to the subject on the opening page are gone. If you look under the tab “Environmental Topics” on the opening page, you will not find “climate change,” and if you try the closest topic on that tab, “Air,” you will not find “climate change” there either. They certainly are not making this easy!

However, if you type the words “climate change” into the search function of the site, the first link that comes up is http://www.epa.gov/climate-change, which is the exact same address I had back in November. It will take you to the old Climate Change section of the website that appears to be changed little if at all. It’s buried, but still very much still there. And it contains plenty of the same old nonsense. Examples:

  • They continue to pretend that CO2 in the atmosphere has something to do with “human health”: Understanding and addressing climate change is critical to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.
  • There are sections on things like “Causes” and “Impacts” of climate change that pretend that this is a huge human-caused problem.
  • Endless pages on climate change “indicators” pretend to link all the usual extreme weather events, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc., etc., to human use of fossil fuels. (“Rising global average temperature is associated with widespread changes in weather patterns. Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change.”)

There are vast amounts of stuff here that need to go sooner rather than later. Yes, it has only been a week. Still, I rate the effort a B.

NOAA/NASA

These are the people who keep track of the weather and climate data and are famous for scaremongering with endless press releases and hype about “warmest day/month/year ever.” My November 2024 post had this link to a typical NOAA release from January 2024, titled “2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far.” That link is still live at the NOAA website.

Overall, it is not clear to me that the NOAA or NASA websites have yet changed much if at all. The “News” tab of the NOAA website has a list of “Latest News Releases” that include several last-minute initiatives of the Biden-Harris administration, including this gem: “Biden-Harris Administration, NOAA invest $15 million to help protect Western U.S. communities from wildfire.”

Go to the NASA website, and down at the bottom of the opening page you will find a link for “Earth & Climate.” At that page you will find a further link for “Climate Change,” that is as full of climate propaganda as any government page I have seen. Small excerpt:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause. . . . While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. . . . The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.

You get the idea. Somebody needs to start paying attention to this quickly. Yes, it has only been a week. Still, I would give this effort a C at best.

I’ll be watching these pages for periodic updates from time to time. I can’t wait to see a lot of this stuff disappear.

How To Rescind the Endangerment Finding in a Way That Will Stick

As discussed in my previous post, one of President Trump’s first-day Executive Orders — the one entitled “Unleashing American Energy” — directed a reconsideration of EPA’s so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF) of 2009. The EF is the EPA regulatory action where it claimed to determine that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” qualify as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act because they are a “danger to public health and welfare.” President Trump’s January 20 EO directs that EPA, within 30 days, submit “recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

As discussed in my previous post, one of President Trump’s first-day Executive Orders — the one entitled “Unleashing American Energy” — directed a reconsideration of EPA’s so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF) of 2009. The EF is the EPA regulatory action where it claimed to determine that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” qualify as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act because they are a “danger to public health and welfare.” President Trump’s January 20 EO directs that EPA, within 30 days, submit “recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”

Since the EF is the foundation underlying all the Biden-era regulations restricting and suppressing fossil fuels, you can be sure that any attempt to eliminate it will be met with a full-bore litigation attack from the forces of the crazy left. Can the EF really be rescinded in a way that will stand up to these attacks?

Absolutely, it can. Let me address a few of the issues.

Massachusetts v. EPA

This is the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that held that EPA was required to make a determination as to the status of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Here is a link to the Supreme Court’s opinion. Some commenters have suggested that Mass v. EPA must be reversed before the EF can be undone.

I disagree. I’m not saying that Mass v. EPA is a model of clarity, and there is some language in it that would suggest the opposite. However, I think that the language at the very end of Justice Stevens’s majority opinion is the holding:

We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPAís actions in the event that it makes such a finding. . .. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Thus Mass v. EPA did not determine that CO2 was a “pollutant” as defined in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, but only directed EPA to determine whether it was or was not. Thus a new well-reasoned determination by EPA that CO2 and the other GHGs are not pollutants would not violate that case.

West Virginia v. EPA

The other important Supreme Court decision bearing on the EF is West Virginia v. EPA, the 2022 decision where the Supreme Court held that EPA’s Clean Power Plan was beyond its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. The basis for the Court’s decision was what it called the Major Questions Doctrine, by which it held that a “transformative expansion” of EPA’s regulatory power would require a clear direction from Congress, which had not been given.

In 2024, despite West Virginia v. EPA, and without any further clear direction from Congress, EPA went ahead and finalized two gigantic new regulations to restrict use of fossil fuels, one regarding power plants and the other regarding automobiles. They essentially decided to dare the Supreme Court to try to stop them (much like Biden with his repeated efforts to forgive student loans).

West Virginia v. EPA did not explicitly overrule Massachusetts v. EPA, but the two are fundamentally in tension. The big difference is that the Court that decided Massachusetts v. EPA has since been largely transformed in personnel. Of the nine justices on the Court in 2007, only three remain — Roberts, Thomas and Alito — and all of them dissented in Mass v. EPA. The five justices in the majority plus Scalia have been replaced by three conservatives (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett) and three liberals.

On today’s Court, I think it highly likely that a majority will uphold a well-reasoned rescission of the EF, and will not think it necessary to overrule Mass v. EPA.

Substance of the rescinding determination

Three main points need to be made in an EPA regulatory action rescinding the EF: (1) Empirical evidence accumulated since the original EF invalidates the finding and makes it impossible to conclude that CO2 and other GHGs constitute a “danger” as required by the statute; (2) due to huge increases since 2009 in CO2 and other GHG emissions outside the U.S. and thus outside the ability of EPA to regulate, no regulations promulgated by EPA could have any meaningful impact on the overall atmospheric concentrations of the gases, and (3) efforts by EPA to control the climate by restricting CO2 and other GHGs, by contrast, would almost certainly have drastic adverse effects on public health and welfare by, for example, destabilizing the electrical grid and causing blackouts, driving up the cost of electricity or mobility, bringing about massive battery fires and explosions, and lots of other such things.

Only the first of these three points deals with the “science” of whether GHGs do or do not cause any significant global warming. Most important is that this argument needs to be written carefully to not take on more than needs to be taken on. To rescind the EF, EPA does not need to contend that GHGs will not or cannot cause any global warming. Rather, they can put the burden of proof on the other side to show that GHGs emitted under EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction will inevitably cause dangerous warming. EPA need only conclude that there is no sufficient proof of that.

Framed in that way, this is not a complicated or difficult task. There are hundreds of scientific papers in the peer reviewed literature since 2009 accumulating empirical evidence that the dangers predicted 15 years ago have not happened. For example:

  • There have been no upward trends in hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, wild fires, or other dangerous weather events.
  • Sea level has not risen beyond the slow rate of rise over the prior century.
  • Sea ice has not declined as predicted. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have not meaningfully changed.

EPA can just create lists of dozens or hundreds of such scientific papers, and perhaps add a quote of a line or two from the abstract for each.

Points (2) and (3) are actually more important to the rescission than the point about the science of atmospheric warming. Trying to replace the fossil fuel energy system with something untried and untested actually does pose many real and immediate dangers — far more real, immediate, and dangerous than anything that might result from a hypothetical warming of a degree or two a hundred years from now. California is only up to about 30-40% of its electricity from wind and solar and yet has suffered multiple instances of rolling blackouts. The extent of these blackouts has been relatively small only because California has the ability to import fossil-fuel-generated power from neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada. If EPA eliminates that safety valve by banning fossil fuel power plants in all the states, the blackouts will become lengthy and catastrophic. Similarly, batteries are proposed as the backup for intermittency of wind and solar generation. California and New York have both begun building massive battery farms to serve this role, although neither state has yet reached nearly 1% of the battery capacity, they would need to back up a predominantly wind/solar generation system. But even with that small amount of batteries, both have suffered massive and explosive fires at their battery facilities. California had such a fire just last week at the facility known as Moss Landing in Monterey County. This was the fourth large fire at the Moss Landing facility over the past few years.

I actually have a high degree of confidence that a reconsideration of the EF will be successful. Likely, that will sweep away all of the restrictions on fossil fuels that have been put in place via regulation during the Biden years. One more thing: Once CO2 and GHGs are declared to no longer by “pollutants,” all of the billions of dollars of government grants under the Inflation Reduction Act to “reduce GHG pollution” can be suspended and never spent.

UPDATE, January 27, 2025:

Some commenters raise the issue of whether something in the Inflation Reduction Act of August 2022 may have changed the playing field. I don’t think so. The summary of the reason is that the IRA does not amend Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, let alone even attempt to provide the clear direction from Congress necessary under West Virginia v. EPA to enable EPA to transform the economy by severely restricting CO2 (let alone other GHGs).

Here is the text of the IRA from the Congressional website. You need to go all the way to the end, in Sections 60101 to 60108, to find the language that people are talking about. These sections of the IRA add new sections 132, et seq., to the Clean Air Act, which new sections provide funding and grants (aggregating in the tens of billions of dollars) for various sorts of “greenhouse gas” reduction programs. The language in question appears in a definition of the term “greenhouse gas,” which is repeated word for word in each of the sections:

“GREENHOUSE GAS. — The term ‘greenhouse gas’ means the air pollutants carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.”

Thus they have, in a definition, applied the word “pollutant” to the six gases. But here’s what they did not do:

  • They did not repeal or modify in any way Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. That section does not give EPA blanket authority to regulate any and all substances that may get the label “pollutant,” but only “any air pollutant . . . which in [the Administrator’s] judgment cause [sic], or contribute [sic] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Thus, the statute remains such that there must be an endangerment finding to support regulation at least of CO2 (the other five gases have different issues).
  • They did not make any legislative finding that any of the six gases, and particularly CO2, causes or may be anticipated to cause any danger to human health and welfare. (This is a much bigger deal than you might think, because all kinds of legislative findings are used to make completely false determinations that the courts then will not second-guess.)

Also, note that the IRA was a so-called “reconciliation” bill that was able to clear the Senate with only 51 votes (one of which was a tie-breaker from VP Harris) only because it was not allowed to contain anything but financial and budgetary provisions. Thus an amendment to the Clean Air Act to give EPA explicit new authority to regulate the six GHGs would clearly have been non-germane and not allowed into the statute.

Our excellent commenter Beta Blocker points to an article from the Environmental Law Reporter from 2023 titled “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2022: Clean Air, Climate Change, and the Inflation Reduction Act,” by Greg Dotson and Dustin Maghamfar (D&M). In the article, D&M take the position that the sections of the IRA that amended the Clean Air Act “to make explicit that GHGs are air pollutants and that reducing them is a core objective of the Act.” In my opinion, that is D&M engaging in wishful thinking and attempting to create a record, not found in the statute, to try to “Trump-proof” the EF.

Note that a footnote on the first page of the article identifies Dotson and Maghamfar respectively as having been the Chief Counsels to the Senate and House Committees that developed the language of the Clean Air Act amendments included in the IRA. In other words, they are giving their partisan version of something they were trying to sneak through in the IRA which the rules of reconciliation specifically did not allow to be included.

Finally, there is no way that these definitions of the term “greenhouse gas” constitute the kind of “clear direction” from Congress for EPA to engage in “transformational change” of the economy, that would be required for EPA to suppress the use of fossil fuels in the economy.

So, I say to Messrs. Dotson and Maghamfar, good try, but the odds of your sneaky gambit succeeding in saving the EF are slim to none.

The Endangerment Finding: It Looks Like Trump 2.0 Will Be Much More Fun Than Trump 1.0

The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I’ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply familiar with: the EPA’s so-called Endangerment Finding of December 2009.

From Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I’ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply familiar with: the EPA’s so-called Endangerment Finding of December 2009.

I have seen differing counts of the number of Trump’s first-day EOs. ABC News here counts 42. One of the most consequential has the title “Unleashing American Energy.” There is a large amount of important material in this EO. In overall summary, it directs the reversal of all of the Biden administration efforts to restrict and suppress the production and development of America’s energy resources. But one provision, I would argue, is important above all the rest. That is Section 6(f), which directs a reconsideration of the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) of December 2009. That provision of the EO reads as follows:

(f)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

This provision is of overriding importance because, as long as the Endangerment Finding remains on the books, it gives a license to the courts, and to activist left-wing judges anywhere in the federal system, to enjoin and undo all the other de-regulatory efforts of this and other energy-related EOs. However, if the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned and well-supported basis, then all the other energy-related initiatives will have a far clearer path to success.

Background on the EF will help readers to understand its significance. Back in the early 2000s, as the climate scare was cranking up, activists got the idea of trying to get the courts to compel EPA to regulate (and suppress) fossil fuels through getting CO2 declared a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. A group of states, led by Massachusetts and New York, petitioned EPA to declare CO2 a “pollutant,” which would then give EPA the ability, and arguably even the obligation, to regulate CO2. Since CO2 is an inherent product of fossil fuel combustion, “regulation” of CO2 emissions could include anything up to and including banning fossil fuel combustion entirely if EPA so decided. Such a ban would outlaw 80+% of the current U.S. energy system.

Those opposing this gambit responded that the Clean Air Act was never intended to deal with CO2, which is colorless and odorless and non-toxic and is an inherent product of the large majority of energy production and consumption. But the language of the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was of course vague enough to give an opening. Here is the relevant language of Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as it existed at the time the Massachusetts/New York case made it to the Supreme Court:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare … .”

Other similar provisions gave the EPA Administrator comparable authority to regulate “pollutants” from sources other than motor vehicles.

So the statute defines “pollutant” to mean anything that, in the “judgment” of the EPA Administrator, “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” During the administration of George W. Bush, despite the states’ petition, EPA declined to make such a finding as to CO2. So Massachusetts, New York, and co-plaintiffs sued to try to compel EPA to make that finding. In 2007, that case reached the Supreme Court. Here is the Court’s Opinion, issued under the caption Massachusetts v. EPA. In summary, the Court ordered EPA to make a determination whether CO2 was or was not a “pollutant,” in the sense of constituting a “danger to public health or welfare.”

To its shame, the GW Bush people punted this determination over to the Obama administration, which then took office in 2009. The Obama people got right to work, and to no one’s surprise, issued a long regulatory document in December 2009 finding that CO2 did indeed pose a danger to human health and welfare, and thus was a “pollutant” subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. This is the document known as the Endangerment Finding, that is referenced and cited in Trump’s EO.

The EF then gave the Obamanauts license to go wild regulating CO2. As one extreme example, the Obama people promulgated what they called the Clean Power Plan, which, by ratcheting down allowable CO2 emissions over time, would have forced the closure of essentially all fossil fuel power plants.

That is where things stood when the Trump 1.0 administration took office in January 2017. I and many others were hopeful that the new administration would roll back many of the destructive anti-energy policies of the Obama people, but at the same time we were wary that any de-regulatory initiatives would get blocked by the courts, using the EF as the basis. After all, if EPA had found CO2 to be a danger to human health and welfare, then how could it fail to take efforts to restrict emissions?

As Trump took office in 2017, it was unclear to us whether the new President or his people had any concept of the drastic significance of the EF. And thus, a group known as the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) was formed to petition EPA to rescind the EF. That entity filed a Petition to EPA on January 20, 2017 — the first day of the Trump 1.0 administration. I acted as one of the lawyers for CHECC. Fundamentally, the idea was to bring this issue to the attention of the new Trump EPA and make sure that they paid attention to it. We also presented compelling scientific evidence as to why the idea that CO2 was a “danger” was preposterous.

Somewhat to our surprise, our Petition was then completely ignored. Over the course of four years, we continually tried to get information as to what was going on (with little success), and also filed seven supplements to our Petition, each bringing to bear new scientific articles or evidence making clear that CO2 was not at all a “danger” to human health and welfare. But through the entirety of Trump 1.0, there was no action on this issue. On January 19, 2021 — that is, one day before leaving office — the Trump EPA denied our Petition with a one-paragraph summary dismissal. The incoming Biden administration then took another year and three months and came out with a much longer and more devious denial of our Petition in April 2022.

Many readers here are undoubtedly familiar with the saga of our efforts after that denial. We could have just given up, but we had the idea that if we saw this through the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, we might get a decision compelling a reconsideration of the EF just in time for a new Trump administration to take office. With such a decision, the Trump people could no longer ignore this issue, and would be forced to look at it. However, our efforts were unsuccessful in both the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court. Our petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on December 11, 2023. For those interested, here is a link to the court dockets of the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court for these cases.

During the months since the recent election, I have been involved in many discussions about whether a new petition process should be started to try to get the EF rescinded this time around. And now suddenly,, upon entering office, Trump 2.0 immediately is taking on the Endangerment Finding, without any new petition getting filed at all. Hallelujah! Somebody over there must finally understand the importance of this. Maybe even the Donald himself! I would like to think that our previous efforts had something to do with educating Trump and his people, although I have no way of knowing that.

The job of rescinding the EF does not have to be difficult. The EF itself is totally full of holes. All EPA has to do to make for a bullet-proof rescission is to cite some dozens of scientific papers in the fifteen years since the EF that collect evidence contradicting the hypothesis of catastrophic CO2-caused warming. Lots of very knowledgeable people stand ready to help, including the members of the CO2 Coalition, which is a collection of eminent scientists that consider the EF to be thoroughly flawed.

I don’t mean to be overly optimistic, but I’ll make this prediction: If the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned regulatory action, the courts will have little to no ability to stop the Trump roll-back of all the Obama/Biden restrictions on fossil fuels and energy transition. And after four years in which essentially all of those restrictions have been undone, and in which the EPA has been swept clean of climate activists, the ability of the government ever again to try to force an unwanted energy transition will be gone for good.

UPDATE, January 23:

I thought it would be appropriate to add to this post a word of thanks for those who participated in our effort from 2017 to 2023 to try to get a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. These people and organizations included:

(1) Jim Wallace. Jim was the lead author of several scientific papers that formed the principal basis for the challenge to the EF. The gist of these papers was that the existing empirical evidence was insufficient to conclude that greenhouse gases including CO2 had had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures, after accounting for natural factors like solar irradiation, volcanoes and ocean currents. (Note that we never argued that CO2 does not cause any warming, or that evidence disproved any relationship between CO2 and temperatures, but only that the claim that greenhouse gases including CO2 were causing dangerous warming was unproved and could not be proved with existing evidence.)

(2) Co-authors with Jim Wallace on the scientific papers included Joseph D’Aleo (of the icecap.us website), John Christy (of the University of Alabama at Huntsville), and Craig Idso (of the co2science.org) website.

(3) Jim Wallace also became one of the members of CHECC and helped round up a motley group of co-members. Joe D’Aleo also joined as a member of CHECC.

(4) Harry MacDougald (of the law firm Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach in Atlanta) was my co-counsel. Harry is much more knowledgeable than I about administrative law, and he is the one who made the argument in the D.C. Circuit.

(5) The Competitive Enterprise Institute and FAIR Energy Foundation also joined us as petitioners before EPA to seek reconsideration of the EF. FAIR also joined with us in the appeal process.

All of the above people and organizations participated in this effort on a pro bono basis. If we have made a small contribution to rescuing the country from the Net Zero energy transition disaster, it was well worth it.

COP29: The Globalist Climate Grift Collides with Trump’s America First Renaissance

As COP29 wrapped up in Baku, it left behind a trail of broken promises, hollow platitudes, and a $300 billion-per-year climate finance pledge that’s already being treated like Monopoly money. For the attendees, this summit was supposed to be a turning point—a global kumbaya to double down on the Paris Agreement and guilt developed nations into more climate cash giveaways. Instead, they woke up to a rude reality: President Donald J. Trump is back, and he’s armed with a cabinet determined to shred the green bureaucratic utopia faster than Greta Thunberg can say, “How dare you?”

NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 09: Republican president-elect Donald Trump delivers his acceptance speech during his election night event at the New York Hilton Midtown in the early morning hours of November 9, 2016 in New York City. Donald Trump defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

As COP29 wrapped up in Baku, it left behind a trail of broken promises, hollow platitudes, and a $300 billion-per-year climate finance pledge that’s already being treated like Monopoly money. For the attendees, this summit was supposed to be a turning point—a global kumbaya to double down on the Paris Agreement and guilt developed nations into more climate cash giveaways. Instead, they woke up to a rude reality: President Donald J. Trump is back, and he’s armed with a cabinet determined to shred the green bureaucratic utopia faster than Greta Thunberg can say, “How dare you?”

The $300 billion package to “help” developing nations has been hailed as a win—if you define a win as forcing Western taxpayers to underwrite wind farms in nations where electricity is still considered a luxury. Naturally, the recipients aren’t satisfied. They’re already calling it “woefully insufficient,” which roughly translates to, “Nice start—now double it, and maybe we’ll stop complaining.”

But the real story isn’t the faux climate unity in Baku; it’s the cataclysmic shift coming out of Washington, D.C. With Trump’s return, the U.S. is poised to leave the Paris Agreement (again), freeze out the global climate aristocracy, and make American energy great again.

The Paris Agreement: RIP (Again)

The Paris Agreement has always been an expensive farce, a symbolic gesture masquerading as a global solution. Its main purpose? To transfer wealth from productive nations to the politically corrupt under the guise of “climate justice.” Of course, China—the world’s largest emitter—sits pretty with vague promises and no actual obligations. Trump’s exit from this scam is as much common sense as it is a necessity.

Trump and his new team understand what the COP29 crowd can’t admit: The Paris Agreement was designed to shackle the U.S. economy while letting the real polluters off the hook. It’s nothing more than a glorified wealth redistribution scheme, and the American taxpayer is the mark.

Meet Trump’s Cabinet of Climate Wreckers

If COP29 delegates are sipping antacids with their organic, fair-trade coffee this morning, it’s because Trump’s cabinet picks read like a climate alarmist’s worst nightmare.

Doug Burgum: Secretary of the Interior

Burgum’s move to Interior promises a full-throttle return to energy dominance. Forget Biden’s endless federal land drilling moratoriums—Burgum is unlocking American resources faster than climate activists can chain themselves to a bulldozer. The Department of the Interior will no longer be a playground for environmental lawyers; it will become what it was always meant to be—a steward of American land for energy, jobs, and growth.

His first move? Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, where billions of barrels of oil lie under pristine tundra that activists think is too good for human use. Burgum isn’t here to hug trees—he’s here to power the nation.

Lee Zeldin: EPA Administrator

Trump’s pick of Zeldin to head the EPA is genius. A staunch critic of the administrative state, Zeldin knows that the EPA has been hijacked by ideologues who care more about regulating cow flatulence than addressing real environmental issues. Expect Zeldin to gut the EPA’s endless red tape, dismantle Biden’s climate executive orders, and end the absurd “waters of the United States” rule that treats mud puddles like the Mississippi River.

Zeldin isn’t here to make friends with European technocrats; he’s here to dismantle their favorite tool of economic sabotage. If COP30 delegates want to weep into their carbon-neutral cocktails, so be it. Zeldin has one message for them: “Regulate your own economy.”

Chris Wright: Fossil Fuels’ Fierce Defender

Chris Wright’s appointment as Secretary of Energy is a seismic shift in U.S. energy policy. An unapologetic champion of oil, gas, and nuclear power, Wright knows that the foundation of modern civilization isn’t powered by wishful thinking. Forget solar panels that sputter at night or wind turbines that freeze in the cold—Wright’s focus is on what works: affordable, reliable energy that powers America’s industries and homes.

His first order of business will be dismantling the subsidy gravy train for inefficient renewables, forcing wind and solar to compete on merit rather than handouts. Wright has made it clear: energy policy shouldn’t bankrupt Americans to chase unproven green dreams. Instead, he’ll double down on expanding domestic fossil fuel production, slashing regulations, and reviving nuclear energy to ensure a stable grid and energy independence.

Globally, Wright’s leadership signals that the U.S. is back in the energy game. LNG exports will surge, allies will be strengthened, and adversaries reliant on oil and gas leverage will lose their power. As the climate elite lament his appointment, Wright will be too busy making energy affordable, accessible, and undeniably American.

Ramifications: A Climate Cold War

The global climate aristocracy is in full meltdown mode. Trump’s America First resurgence will embolden other nations to reassess their commitments to the Paris Agreement. Why should Europe foot the bill for global decarbonization if the U.S. isn’t playing along? China and India, of course, will continue building coal plants while pretending to care. The entire climate house of cards is about to collapse under its own contradictions.

Domestically, Americans will see an energy renaissance. Expect gas prices to plummet as drilling returns to full force. The war on natural gas? Over. The assault on coal? Done. Nuclear power? Back in the game. The result: jobs, growth, and cheaper energy for everyday Americans. Meanwhile, climate elites will find themselves increasingly ignored.

COP29: A Comedy of Errors

Let’s take a moment to appreciate the absurdity of COP29 itself. Delegates from 196 nations spent two weeks lecturing the world on carbon footprints while chartering private jets, dining on caviar, and pushing “solutions” that enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense. They even celebrated a global carbon credit market that’s destined to become the Enron of environmentalism.

And then, just as they were finalizing their grandiose agreements, Trump announced his cabinet picks. It’s almost poetic. The timing couldn’t have been better if it were scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. While COP29 patted itself on the back, Trump’s America signaled that it has no intention of playing along.

The Final Word

The COP29 agreements will go down as another entry in the annals of climate grift history—a collection of empty promises and unenforceable pledges. Trump’s return, coupled with his America First cabinet, ensures that the U.S. will focus on real priorities: energy independence, economic growth, and putting Americans first.

For the climate elite, COP29 wasn’t just a failure; it was a funeral. The Paris Agreement is dead. The global climate agenda is on life support. And America? It’s roaring back to life. Sorry, Greta. Sorry, Baku. The adults are back in charge.

Legal Fight to Stop EPA Rule Closing Power Plants

Analysts say that if the rule is implemented, more than 5 million
people could experience blackouts, some lasting for 41 hours.

The Supreme Court ruled against a bid to block the EPA’s power plant rule while legal challenges make their way through the courts, but West Virginia, which is leading the coalition of states challenging the rule, vows the fight isn’t over.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Update on ominous overreach by Biden/Harris regime comes from Just the News  While the SCOTUS denies request to block EPA power plant rule, challengers vow to continue fight.  As explained below, EPA intends to require expensive and impractical CO2 Capture and Storage on all power plants using carbon fuels, thereby forcing shutdowns. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images,

Analysts say that if the rule is implemented, more than 5 million
people could experience blackouts, some lasting for 41 hours.

The Supreme Court ruled against a bid to block the EPA’s power plant rule while legal challenges make their way through the courts, but West Virginia, which is leading the coalition of states challenging the rule, vows the fight isn’t over. 

In a brief order, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch said that the applicants “have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of the challenges to the” EPA’s rule.

However, the justices explained, the stay wasn’t needed because compliance requirements wouldn’t begin until June 2025, which means the applicants wouldn’t “suffer irreparable harm” before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decides the merits of the case. Injunctive relief, such as sought here, requires clear and convincing proof that the harm be immediate and irreparable.

The lower court is expediting the case, the justices noted, meaning it would be resolved in the court’s current term. Afterward, the case would still have time to return to the Supreme Court, if it’s warranted. 

The EPA rule, which was finalized in April, requires that coal-fired power plants be fitted with carbon capture technology controlling 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2039, and new gas-fired power plants will need to do the same starting in 2035, depending on the amount of runtime they have.

Energy analysts Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling revealed that the EPA failed to do a proper analysis of the impacts of the rule, and if implemented, over 5 million people will experience blackouts, some lasting for 41 hours. While the EPA has defended the rule and argues that carbon capture is “well proven,” its own modeling showed it expected only one coal plant and no gas plants to be fitted with the technology as far out as 2055.

Two dozen states led by West Virginia filed a lawsuit against the EPA in May, arguing that the agency exceeded its authority with the rule. Utilities and industry groups also filed legal challenges to the rule. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the parties’ requests to block the rules while the courts considered the challenges, and the court ruled the applicants wouldn’t succeed on the merits of their case.

In court filings, the EPA noted that the lower court ruled the applicants are unlikely to succeed in arguing the agency exceeded its authority, and it stood by the rule and its carbon capture requirements, arguing that the technology has been “adequately demonstrated.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a
statement on the high court’s ruling that the fight isn’t over.

“This is not the end of this case: we will continue to fight through the merits phase and prove this rule strips the states of important discretion while forcing plants to use technologies that don’t work in the real world,” Morrisey said.

In 2022, the Supreme Court had sided with West Virginia and other states in a challenge to the Obama-era “Clean Power Plan.” Morrisey said that the high court had made clear limits to what the EPA can do, and the Biden administration’s “green new deal agenda” is ignoring those limits.

“This rule is yet another attempt of unelected bureaucrats to push something the law doesn’t allow,” Morrisey said.

Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming joined the application to the Supreme Court.

Offshore wind’s bogus benefits bragged on

Resources for the Future (RFF) has produced a combined cost benefit analysis for 32 U.S. offshore wind projects now in development. They proudly point to the benefits outweighing the costs by a whopping 14 times. But these supposed benefits are not just exaggerated; they are fabricated. They simply do not exist.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Resources for the Future (RFF) has produced a combined cost benefit analysis for 32 U.S. offshore wind projects now in development. They proudly point to the benefits outweighing the costs by a whopping 14 times. But these supposed benefits are not just exaggerated; they are fabricated. They simply do not exist.

Their lengthy title is “Offshore Wind Power Examined: Effects, Benefits, and Costs of Offshore Wind Farms along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts”. See https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/new-modeling-shows-offshore-winds-benefits-to-climate-health-and-energy-bills/.

The analysis is fairly simple which makes it easy to see the fallacies. There are just four basic benefit claims. And of course it is all based on highly questionable modeling.

Before looking at each of these benefit claims it is worth noting a pervasive misconception. They assume that when a MWh of wind displaces a MWh of coal or gas fired power the emissions of the latter are reduced by the amount it takes to produce a MWh. As I have written at length this is not true.

Baseload fossil fueled power plants run on very high pressure steam produced by gigantic boilers. These plants have to be ready to produce power while wind and solar run intermittently. They are typically running while their output is temporarily displaced by offshore wind. The reduction in emissions is relatively quite small compared to the power displacement.

Each of the RFF benefit quantities is based on this mistaken displacement assumption. Thus each would be much smaller than they estimate if it were real. But as we shall now see they are not real.

The first and by far the biggest purported benefit is in changing climate change. This benefit is greater than the other three combined.

The claimed climate benefit is in reducing global climate change deaths for just under the next 300 years. I am not making this up. Here is their preposterous explanation:

“The GIVE Model, one of the three models on which the EPA (2023c) social cost of CO2 is based, projects that each million short tons of CO2 emitted in 2020 will cause 43 premature deaths globally between then and 2300 (after which the GIVE model does not project effects). Using this deaths-per-million-tons value, we estimate that the CO2 emissions reductions caused by the modeled offshore wind farms, in each year of their operation, will prevent 1,600 premature deaths. This mortality reduction is a major part of the overall estimated dollar value of the GHG emissions reductions caused by the offshore wind farms.”

Our emissions are not causing any climate change deaths, much less from now until 2300 so this benefit does not exist.

The next biggest benefit is in reducing the purported deaths caused by power plant pollution. Here is their summary:

“Our model estimates that the offshore wind farms will prevent approximately 436 premature deaths per year in the United States by reducing ground-level PM2.5. We estimate an additional 84 avoided premature deaths per year from reductions in ground-level ozone pollution; however, this is more uncertain than our PM2.5 related mortality estimate because ozone formation is more sensitive to background assumptions, and we base the estimate on a national average estimated ozone mortality rate of power plant emissions (EPA 2023a) rather than on modeling that accounts for the locations of the emissions changes.”

Power plant emissions are not causing these EPA dreamed up deaths so this benefit does not exist. In particular a great book on the PM2.5 hoax is Steve Milloy’s “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA”.

The third supposed benefit is “electric bill savings”. Again I am not making this up. That the cost of backup makes renewables expensive is well established and offshore wind is very expensive renewables so bills will go way up not down.

To get these supposed savings they basically rebuild the land based power generation system and given the offshore generation they build with cheaper stuff. Here is their opaque summary:

“In our results, building 35 GW of offshore wind farms reduces the average capacity factor of non-variable generation capacity and causes a change in the mix of such capacity. The change is a shift of several GW of capacity from types with higher fixed costs and lower operating costs to types with lower fixed costs and higher operating costs, which reduces costs and increases profits in light of the lower capacity factor.”

That lowering the capacity factor reduced people’s electric bill sounds like a model driven fantasy for sure. Moreover it sounds like the so-called savings are from what bills would otherwise be in some future scenario, not from what they are today. In that case the claim is a trick.

The last benefit is even more far fetched. It is “Natural gas user savings outside the electricity sector”. The simple idea is that so much gas is displaced by wind that the price of gas to everyone goes down. Not much mind you but a little bit.

They say “The offshore wind farms reduce the US and Canadian projected average natural gas price by 2.5 percent, from $4.12 to $4.02 per MMBtu, because of decreased demand for natural gas in the power sector.”

If only economics were that simple but it is not. Gas is a huge market besides electric power. Also most of the area in question is now served by fracked gas that runs around $2.00. So this tiny 2.5% change is not credible.

That is it for the bogus benefits. They are claimed to be 14 times the cost but they do not exist. The costs however are very real. At least RFF did not include jobs as benefits, as they are costs. They just used fairy tales.

Perhaps this report is written for politicians and other people who will cite it but never read it. Or maybe for people who believe the fairy tale of America’s tons of emissions killing people around the world for the next 300 years. I like to think my readers are smarter than that.

Offshore wind has no benefits; it is a destructive and wildly expensive policy mistake.