Energy Policies

Wyoming: Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again–No Net Zero

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A bill is progressing through the Wyoming State Legislature, as described by the author in her op-ed Rethinking Carbon Dioxide – Wyoming’s Bold Move.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Torrington, WY (State Senator Cheri Steinmetz) January 7th, 2025 — The people of Wyoming have always believed in the value of questioning conventional wisdom, looking at the bigger picture and finding solutions that are possible and actually work. That’s the purpose of the bill titled “Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again”. This legislation is not about denying science, it is about applying science, thoroughly reevaluating the ‘climate change’ scientific assumptions and advocating for policies grounded in practicality, reality, and achievability – common sense.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is vital to life on Earth.

Without it, plants could not grow, and without plants, no life would survive. Scientists and farmers alike recognize that higher CO2 levels improve agricultural productivity. Plants thrive with more CO2 – they grow faster, use water more efficiently, and are more resilient to drought. NASA’s own research shows that rising CO2 has contributed to a global “greening” effect, expanding vegetation and helping ecosystems flourish. CO2 is plant food!

Yet, despite its essential role in sustaining life,
CO2 has been demonized as a pollutant.

But what impact are human driven CO2 emissions actually capable of? We are contributing a very small part of the natural carbon cycle. Current CO2 levels are among the lowest Earth has seen over its long history. There were times in the past when ecosystems flourished under much higher CO2 concentrations. Instead of vilifying this essential gas, we should be acknowledging its role in our ecosystems and industries and protect the benefits it has in our lives.

Wyoming is uniquely positioned to lead this conversation.

Our state is vital to energy production, agriculture and food industries, transportation and energy reliability and stability. We understand the real-world importance of CO2. And we understand the benefits of CO2 used directly. Our industries already use it to enhance oil recovery, making energy production more efficient. This technology exemplifies what we are capable of when we treat CO2 as a resource rather than a liability.

The bill Make Carbon Dioxide Great Again shifts how we think about CO2.

It proposes that we stop treating the essential gas as a pollutant or contaminant. It requires a clear-eyed look at how policies aimed at eliminating CO2 emissions, such as decarbonizing the West, making Wyoming carbon negative or popular “net-zero” mandates. They may sound good on paper but often come with high economic costs and questionable environmental benefits, and clearly negative effects on our people and our industries.

Wyoming must refuse to jeopardize our economy and energy security
for initiatives that will yield – at best – questionable results.

Critics of “net-zero” strategies have highlighted the risks of pursuing policy goals without fully considering their consequences. These frequently require massive investments, disruption of reliable energy systems, and the forced undue burdens on families and businesses. Instead, Wyoming advocates for a balanced approach – one that evaluates the risks and possible rewards of any CO2 management plans that will safeguard our economic stability and way of life.

This approach challenges the status quo, and that is precisely the point. Now is the time to rethink how we talk about CO2 and climate change. This bill is not about ignoring environmental concerns; it is about addressing them with clear-eyed pragmatism and truth.

Wyoming is taking a bold step forward to lead a balanced, science-based dialogue. We all stand to benefit from this. Our energy sector, agriculture, transportation and all other industries, and even the broader environment, will gain when we use CO2 wisely.

This conversation is just beginning and must spark
a national debate about the fundamental role of CO2.

It is a debate we need to have – not just in Wyoming, with our own Governor and citizens – but across the nation and with all the organizations leading the charge to “net zero.” Let us challenge the assumptions, ask the hard questions, and make sure our policies truly serve the people, industry and the environment. After all, that is the Wyoming way.

Text of Wyoming Bill     SF0092  Make carbon dioxide great again-no net zero.

AN   ACT   relating to   environmental quality;   providing legislative findings;
specifying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is a beneficial substance;
providing policy statements of the state associated with carbon dioxide;
repealing low-carbon energy standard requirements; repealing conflicting provisions;
making conforming amendments;  specifying applicability;
requiring reimbursement to utility customers as specified;
requiring rulemaking; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.    W.S. 35-11-215 is created to read:

1             SF0092

35-11-215.     Carbon dioxide;   beneficial treatment; state policy.

(a)   The legislature finds that:

  (i)    Carbon dioxide is  a foundational nutrient necessary for all life on earth. Plants need carbon dioxide along with sunlight, water and nutrients to prosper. The more carbon dioxide available for this, the better life can  flourish;

  (ii)    The carbon cycle, where carbon dioxide is reused and transferred between the atmosphere and organisms on earth, is a biological necessity for life on earth;

  (iii)    Agricultural production worldwide is outpacing population growth and breaking production records primarily due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide;

  (iv)    More carbon dioxide allows plants to better resist drought by using water more efficiently;

  (v)     The national aeronautics and space administration has confirmed that global vegetation is increasing from the near-polar regions to the equator. The largest contributor to this greening of  the earth is increasing carbon dioxide;

  (vi)     Carbon dioxide levels are currently at approximately four hundred twenty (420) parts per million, which is  at near-historically low concentrations.   The current carbon dioxide levels are one-sixth (1/6) of the average of  two thousand six hundred  (2,600)  parts per million over geologic time;

  (vii)     It is estimated that carbon dioxide levels  need to exceed one hundred fifty (150) parts per million to ensure the survival of plant life on earth;

  (viii)     The earth needs carbon dioxide to support  life and to  increase plant yields,  both of     which will contribute to  the health and prosperity of  all Wyoming citizens.

   (b)     It is the policy of the state of Wyoming that:

(i)       Carbon dioxide is a foundational nutrient necessary for life on earth;

(ii)       Carbon dioxide shall not be designated or treated as a pollutant or contaminant;

(iii)       The state of Wyoming shall not pursue any targets or measures that support the reduction or elimination of  carbon dioxide,  including any  “net-zero”  targets.

          Section 2.        W.S. 37-1-101(a)(intro) and 37-2-134(a)(i)  and (iv) are amended to read:

37-1-101.       Definitions.

(a)   As used in chapters 1, 2, 3, 12, and 17 and 18 of  this title:

37-2-134.       Electric generation facility closures; presumption; commission review

(a)    As used in this section:

(i)     “Dispatchable” means as defined in W.S. 37-18-101(a)(ii) a source of electricity that is available for use on demand and that can be dispatched upon request of a power grid operator or that can have its power output adjusted, according to  market needs and includes dispatchability;

(iv)    “Reliable” means as  defined in W.S. 37-18-101(a)(iv) generated electricity that is not subject to intermittent availability.

        Section    3.    W.S.    37-1-101(a)(vi)(N), 37-18-101 and  37-18-102 are repealed.

Section    4.   Not later than sixty (60) days after the effective date of this act each public utility that recovered rates from customers under W.S. 37-18-102(c)(i) or (iii),  as repealed by section 3 of this act, shall refund those rates to customers who paid them, provided that the utility shall not be  required to refund rates recovered under W.S. 37-18-102(c)(i) and (iii) that the utility had expended for carbon capture, utilization and storage technology before the effective date of this act. Refunds required under this section shall be in a form and manner specified by the public service commission

Section    5.  The public service commission shall promulgate all rules necessary to implement this act.

Section    6.  This act is effective immediately upon completion of all acts necessary for a bill to become law as provided by Article 4, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution.

 (END)

What Keeps “Energy Transition” Going? $ $ $

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Robert Gauthier answered posting on a Quora topic How could we reverse the damage done by the “green energy” global scam that brought less efficient and highly polluting energy producing projects and high energy prices? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Wind and solar power has provided politicians with an excuse to dispense favours—including taxpayer-funded subsidies and tax preferences to a supposedly “green” industry—while appearing to do something for the environment. And yet, despite more than two decades of massive subsidies, tax preferences and purchasing mandates from governments, wind and solar power still represent barely more than a rounding error of global energy production. In jurisdictions where renewables enjoyed strong but ill-considered political support, consumers and taxpayers now face much higher electricity bills and less-reliable power. And despite promises to the contrary, countries such as Germany, which have significantly increased wind and solar electricity production, have seen no meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Far from being a miracle cure-all for the shortcomings of conventional power generation, wind and solar power exaggerate the symptoms they pretend to address. Added up over the past two decades, the cumulative subsidies across the world for biofuels, wind, and solar approach about $5 trillion, all of that to supply roughly 5% of global energy.

The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified – the whole development process has been a case of too far, too fast. Again, this was both predictable and predicted. The idea that wind turbines are immune to the factors that affect other types of power engineering was always absurd. The consequence is that both capital and operating costs for wind farms will not fall as rapidly as claimed and may not fall significantly at all. It follows that current energy policies in the West are based on foundations of sand – naïve optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.

In the end, however, politicians cannot defy the laws of physics and economics. The promise of wind and solar power will always clash with the need for electricity that is low cost and reliable. That’s why voters routinely punish politicians who pursue flawed renewable energy policies. Rising electricity costs due to increased wind and solar power damage the economy by making businesses that consume significant volumes of electricity less competitive and by leaving less money in the pockets of consumers.

In Ontario, Canada during the run of the Green Energy Act there which attempted to replace coal and nuclear with wind and solar the upshot was a 138% increase in the price of electricity at the meter for the consumers. This led to the government that brought in this legislation to lose the next election so badly that they were no longer recognized as a party in the legislature. Naturally the government that replaced them killed the program and started refurbishing the nuclear reactor fleet there.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of “energy sprawl,” including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Land required for wind farms to power London UK

Building a single 100-MW wind farm—never mind thousands of them—requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of nonrecyclable plastics for the huge blades. With solar hardware, the tonnage in cement, steel, and glass is 150% greater than for wind, for the same energy output

Take batteries. It is estimated that current battery manufacturing capabilities will need to be in the order of 500-700 times bigger than now to support an all-electric global transport system. The materials needed just to allow the UK to transition to all electric transport involve amounts of materials equal to 200% the annual global production of cobalt, 75% of lithium carbonate, 100% of neodymium and 50% of copper. Scaling by a factor of 50 for world transport, and you see what is now a showstopper. The materials demands just for batteries are beyond known reserves.

And that’s just one of the issues. Others include vast costs constituting a multiple of current energy costs; the environmental impact of mining and transporting huge amounts of materials; need for vast amounts of rare elements, far beyond known world reserves; incredibly huge amounts of material to recycle when facilities wear out; and on and on.

Spend enough time researching this stuff and you gradually realize that almost everything you read about green energy shows that at best it’s really a dark shade of brown.

German Death Wish On Display

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Tilak Doshi describes the self-inflicted German downfall in his Daily Sceptic article Germany’s Economic and Political Suicide. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It’s that festive time of the year when interesting tales get told around a fireplace. So here goes (minus the fireplace).

Once upon a time there lived a country that was the envy of the world. It was among the world’s pre-eminent producers of manufactured goods. From chemicals and pharmaceuticals to precision engineering and the brewing of beer, it was second to none. Its people’s work skills, industriousness and discipline became the national hallmark of civilisational success. The country gained fame and fortune in bringing the luxuries of fine automobiles to the world’s rich and aspiring middle classes.

Alas, a blight visited that once great country not more than a score of years ago, though its destructive seed had been planted earlier. It was not some external force or act of God. Rather it was a sickness of the mind, a debilitating disease of the soul, that vexed that country’s ruling class. In restless search for virtue, the country’s rulers paid obeisance to the Goddess Gaia and promised the nation’s blood and treasure to satiate her inviolable sovereignty over her earthly domains.

This, then, is a tale of woe and misery. This Christmas shall not have been one of unalloyed merry times and good cheer. And while beer will have been drunk and dinners eaten in many a hearth and eating place, the lifeblood of that nation shall be constricted and its breathing blocked by a cursed phlegm as normal life resumes in the New Year.

Within the fateful score of years of becoming afflicted by the primordial cult of Gaia, the world’s envy has now become a sad basket case. Its economy has been tarnished as “the sick man of Europe”.

The beginning of the end of the German miracle

While the travails of Germany along with the economic stagnation of Europe as a whole have been apparent for some years now, the spate of dire headlines have gathered pace in recent weeks as the coalition government collapsed.

“Behind Germany’s Political Turmoil, a Stagnating Economy” — New York Times (December 17th)

“Germany Is Unraveling Just When Europe Needs It Most” – Bloomberg (December 15th)

“Europe’s Economic Apocalypse Is Now” – Politico (December 19th):

If Europe – and its economic powerhouse Germany – remains on its current trajectory, its future, Politico says, “will also be Italian: that of a decaying, if beautiful, debt-ridden, open-air museum for American and Chinese tourists”.

The economic rot induced by the adoption of Energiewende policies for the “energy transition” in 2010 resulted ultimately in the recession of the German economy in the last two years. Among the manifestations of this rot are the growth of corporate bankruptcies in double digits, soaring layoffs as the Federal Employment Agency said that the unemployment figure could exceed the three million mark for the first time in 10 years at the beginning of 2025, and the crown jewel of German industry, its automative sector, announcing massive job cuts.

According to a recent poll, 40% of industrial companies are currently considering reducing their production in Germany or relocating it abroad due to the energy situation; among industrial companies with more than 500 employees, more than half are now considering this. High labour costs, caused by the myriad regulations of a hyperactive administrative state, and among the world’s highest energy prices brought about by its Energiewende folly, have led to the nation’s de-industrialisation.

Germany’s governing coalition collapsed after Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, plunging Europe’s largest economy into political chaos. This occurred barely hours after Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory triggered existential questions about the future of the Continent’s economy and its energy security. Mr. Trump – a climate sceptic who has promised to bring the U.S. out of the UN’s Paris Agreement and its financial commitments for large scale transfers of funds to developing countries – will pull the rug out from under the EU’s famed if quixotic climate leadership.

Europe’s economic implosion is self-induced. Its ruling elites over-tax and over-regulate the private sector and obsess with promoting unreliable renewable energy to replace fossil and nuclear fuels in its crusade to ‘save the planet’ from an alleged impending climate apocalypse. Its attempt to blame Russia’s President Putin for high energy prices is hollow and self-serving.

Perhaps most revealing of Europe’s regulatory hubris is the Qatari Energy Minister’s recent statement that “I am not bluffing”. He warned that Qatar, one of the world’s largest natural gas suppliers, would cease gas exports to the EU if the bloc’s countries imposed penalties under recently adopted legislation on “sustainability due diligence”. For Europe to tell the world that it would punish foreign countries that did not buy into their “sustainability” beliefs might seem to most non-European observers as the height of arrogance. But such is the delusionary might of the Gaia cult.

The EU’s “Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive”, which entered into force in July, allows for fines of up to 5% of a company’s annual global revenue “if the management fails to address adverse human rights or environmental impacts”. Bumptious Brussels bureaucrats seem to believe that their ideas of “sustainability” command universal acceptance. This, in a world where China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and other populous developing countries, accounting for most of the world’s population, are busy expanding their capacity to mine coal and other fossil fuels so as to afford their citizens access to affordable and reliable energy.

 

Back to barbarism

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

So said Adam Smith, the great sage of political economy, over 250 years ago. Germany has shown that the converse may also be true. To go from opulence to poverty and potential barbarism is but a short road, assured by the burden of high taxes in service of an alleged climate crisis, and an intolerable administration of “climate justice” that demands suffocating regulations on the private sector.

UK Labour Caught in Own Net-Zero Trap

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Rupert Darwall explains how UK Labour ensnared itself in his Spectator article  Labour has walked into a net-zero trap of its own making. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The government’s net-zero noose draws tighter. At energy questions in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst asked the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband if the recent report by the National Energy System Operator (Neso) projected higher or lower bills under his policies. Miliband replied that Neso forecast lower overall costs. ‘It is completely logical to say that that will lead to a reduction in bills,’ he said.

Logic and historic data point in the opposite direction. Between 2009 and 2020, the average price of electricity sold by the Big Six energy companies rose by 67 per cent from 10.71p per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 17.92p per kWh. This wasn’t caused by any increase in the cost of natural gas. In fact, the average price paid by major power generators fell by 15 per cent over the period. There was, however, a spectacular explosion in the amount of wind and solar on the grid which rose from 4.5 gigawatts (GW) in 2009 to 37.95 GW in 2020.

Source: efficientbuildingsolutions.co.uk

The upward pressure on prices will only increase as Miliband pushes for more offshore wind. Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported a senior energy investment banker commenting on the hubris of the offshore wind industry, which has been hit by higher interest rates and supply chain inflation. Renewable energy projects require enormous upfront investment costs. The pay-off, its advocates argue, is that renewables have no fuel input costs. But it would be a mistake to assume they have minimal ongoing costs.

Source: Gordon Hughes See: https://rclutz.com/2024/08/21/the-short-lives-of-wind-turbines/

The North Sea is a harsh environment for wind turbines; fixing a defective wind turbine in the middle of the ocean is no easy matter. A 2020 forensic analysis of wind company accounts by Edinburgh University’s Professor Gordon Hughes found that Year 1 operating costs for deepwater wind projects averaged £44 per megawatt hour (MWh), rising to £82 per MWh in Year 12. Moreover, the output efficiency of wind turbines degrades at a rate of around 4.5 per cent a year. When plotted against the market price obtained for wind output, Hughes concluded:

 ‘a significant portion of wind output is expensive to produce and of no value in terms of its contribution to national wellbeing’.

Renewable subsidies are awarded in allocation rounds. The fifth allocation round (AR5), conducted under the previous government, was a dud because of rising project costs caused by higher interest rates and supply chain inflation. Coming into office, Miliband was determined to make a big splash with AR6. He threw bill payers’ money at it with a record-breaking £1.555 billion subsidy pot. The government accepted bids totalling 9.6 GW, which includes 5.34 GW of offshore wind and 3.29 GW of solar, capacity which is useless when it’s likely to be most needed to meet peak electricity demand on winter evenings.

The government gives successful bidders guaranteed prices, irrespective of how much – or, more often, how little – the market values their output. Consumers are then forced to make up the difference between the market price and the set strike price they bid for. The average strike price for AR6 was very nearly £80 per MWh. Based on Professor Hughes’s analysis of load factor decay and rising maintenance costs, there is a high risk that offshore wind becomes lossmaking well before Year 12. Floating offshore wind, which Miliband says ‘is at the heart of the government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower’, was awarded an eye-watering strike price of £176 per MWh.

Larger subsidies and floating offshore wind are hardly conducive to cutting bills.

Until mid-October, the wholesale price of electricity in 2024 averaged £78.70 per MWh. The more wind and solar added at strike prices above wholesale prices mathematically drives up the amount of subsidy consumers must pay. But the cost of renewables doesn’t stop there. Because wind farms are mostly located hundreds of miles from where electricity is used, when grid connections get congested, wind farms are paid constraint payments not to generate electricity.

Decongesting all the wind power on the grid doesn’t come cheap either. Miliband’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, published earlier this month, envisages building twice as much new transmission infrastructure in the next five years as was built in the past decade. The faster the planned build-out, the higher the cost. It means that renewable strike prices are a floor on which constraint payments and higher network costs are added.

That’s not all. There’s a second net-zero factor driving up energy costs. Net-zero policies have been forcing conventional power stations off the grid. Britain’s dispatchable generating capacity (principally coal, gas and nuclear) peaked in 2010, by 2020 declining by 25.1 GW and shrinking dispatchable capacity by 28.5 per cent. This was mostly because 18.3 GW of coal-fired capacity was retired as Britain demonstrated its green virtue to the world by powering past coal. The problem comes when there’s insufficient wind to power the grid. That’s what happened this autumn. Unseasonably windless conditions saw wholesale electricity prices rise through October and November with a huge spike at the beginning of December.

The latest renewable lobbyist talking point is that gas sets the wholesale electricity price. The implication is that gas prices are driving up the cost of electricity. However, gas prices this year have been lower than they were in 2023. The culprit behind the surging electricity prices is not the price of gas, but politicians kicking coal off the grid and Britain not having sufficient gas-powered generating capacity to meet demand when there’s not enough wind. Vladimir Putin and Qatari gas sheikhs are not to blame for home-grown net zero policies that have left Britain with dangerously inadequate non-weather dependent generating capacity.

In this, Britain is not alone. As other countries are finding out, having more renewables on the grid destabilises the electricity market. Sweden has also had soaring electricity prices, says Ebba Busch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister and energy minister. Like Britain, Sweden has an extremely weather-dependant energy system which makes prices highly volatile, worsened by its German neighbour on the other side of Baltic. The need, Busch argues, is for ‘more dispatchable power production’.

This is politically impossible for the Starmer government. Labour is trapped by net zero and decarbonising the grid constitutes its overriding mission. So far, neither the Conservatives or Reform have stepped up. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch calls herself a net-zero sceptic and Reform’s Nigel Farage wants more nuclear. Whatever the merits of nuclear, there is no way in which new nuclear power stations can be built and commissioned fast enough to offset the retirement of Britain’s old ones, let alone substantially increasing the amount of nuclear power. They should be thinking and talking like Ebba Busch: Britain needs an emergency programme to build 20 GW of new gas-fired power stations. If that means suspending net zero, they should make the case that keeping the lights on and electricity bills down is a price worth paying.

 

Straight Talk on Climate Science and Net Zero

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Michael Simpson of Sheffield University did the literature review and tells it like it is in his recent paper The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis published at Journal of Sustainable Development (2024).  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

The UK Net Zero by 2050 Policy was undemocratically adopted by the UK government in 2019. Yet the science of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ is well known and there is no reason to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O) because absorption of radiation is logarithmic. Adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere will make little difference to the temperature or the climate. Water vapor (H2O) is claimed to be a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2, CH4 or N2O but cannot be regulated because it occurs naturally in vast quantities.

This work explores the established science and recent developments in scientific knowledge around Net Zero with a view to making a rational recommendation for policy makers. There is little scientific evidence to support the case for Net Zero and that greenhouse gases are unlikely to contribute to a ‘climate emergency’ at current or any likely future higher concentrations. There is a case against the adoption of Net Zero given the enormous costs associated with implementing the policy, and the fact it is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide. Therefore, Net Zero does not pass the cost-benefit test. The recommended policy is to abandon Net Zero and do nothing about so-called ‘greenhouse gases’. [Topics are shown below with excerpted contents.]

1. Introduction

The argument for Net Zero is that the concentration of CO2 in air is increasing, some small portion of which may be due to human activities and that Net Zero will address this supposed ‘problem’. The underpinning consensus hypothesis is that the human emission of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ will increase concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere and thereby increase the global near surface atmospheric temperature by absorbance of infrared radiation leading to catastrophic changes in the weather. This leads to the idea that global temperatures should be limited to 2°C and preferably 1.5°C to avoid catastrophic climate change (Paris Climate Agreement, 2015).

A further hypothesis is that there are tipping points in the climate system which will result in positive feedback and a runaway heating of the planet’s atmosphere may occur (Schellnhuber & Turner, 2009; Washington et al., 2009; Levermann et al., 2009; Notz & Schellnhuber, 2009; Lenton et al., 2008; Dakos et al., 2009; Archer et al., 2009). Some of these tipping point assumptions are built into faulty climate models, the outputs of which are interpreted as facts or evidence by activists and politicians. However, output from computer models is not data, evidence or fact and is controversial (Jaworowski, 2007; Bastardi, 2018; Innis, 2008: p.30; Smith, 2021; Nieboer, 2021; Craig, 2021). Only empirical scientifically established facts should be considered so that cause and effect are clear.

From the point of view of physics, the atmosphere is an almost perfect example of a stable system (Coe, et al., 2021). The climate operates with negative feedback (Le Chatelier’s Principle) as do most natural systems with many degrees of freedom (Kärner, 2007; Lindzen et al., 2001 & 2022). The ocean acts as a heat sink, effectively controlling the air temperature. Recent global average surface temperatures remain relatively stable (Easterbrook, 2016; Moran, 2015; Morano, 2021; Marohasy, 2017; Ridley, 2010) or warming very slightly from other causes (Sangster, 2018) and the increase in temperature from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0°K (Frank, 2010; Statistics Norway, 2023) and is less than predicted by climate models (Fyfe, 2013). This shows the difference between the consensus view and established facts.

The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2. Dagsvik et al. 2024

The IPCC has produced six major assessment reports (AR1 to 6) and several special reports which report on a great deal of good science (Noting that the IPCC does not do any science itself but merely compiles literature reviews). The Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) are followed by most politicians. Yet the SPM do not agree in large part with the scientific assessment by the IPCC reports and appear to exaggerate the role of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in climate change. It appears that the SPM is written by governments and activists before  the scientific assessment is reached which is a questionable practice (Ball 2011, 2014 and 2016; Smith 2021).

Other organizations have produced reports of a similar nature and using a similar literature (e.g. Science and Public Policy Institute; The Heartland Institute; The Centre for the Study of CO2; CO2 Science; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Net Zero Watch; The Fraser Institute; CO2 Coalition) and arrived at completely different conclusions to the IPCC and the SPM (Idso et al., 2013a; Idso et al., 2013b; Idso et al., 2014; Idso et al., 2015a, 2015b; Happer, et al., 2022). There are also some web pages (e.g. Popular Technology) which list over a thousand mainstream journal papers casting doubt on the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as a source of climate change. For example, a recent report by the CO2 Coalition (2023) states clearly Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:

  • “Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions.
  • Rely on computer models that do not work.
  • Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science.
  • Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels.
  • Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero.
  • Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.” (CO2 Coalition, 2023; p. 1)

With such a strong scientific conviction the entire Net Zero agenda needs investigating. This paper reviews some of the important science which supports and undermines the Net Zero agenda.

2. Material Studied

A literature review was carried out on various topics related to greenhouse gases, climate change and the relevant scientific literature from the last 20 years in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology, paleoclimatology, geology etc. The method used was an evidence-based approach where several issues were critically evaluated based on fundamental knowledge of the science, emerging areas of scientific investigation and developments in scientific methods. The evidence-based approach is widely used (Green & Britten, 1998; Odom et al., 2005; Easterbrook, 2016; Pielke, 2014; IPCC, 2007a; IPCC 2007b; Field, 2012; IPCC 2014; McMillan & Shumacher, 2013).

Evidence-based research uses data to establish cause and effect relationships which are known to work and allows interventions which are therefore expected to be effective.

3. Greenhouse Gas Theory

The historical development of the greenhouse effect, early discussions and controversies are presented by Mudge (2012) and Strangeways (2011). The explanation of the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gas theory of climate change is given in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007, p. 946):

“Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to some gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.”

This is plausible but does not necessarily lead to global warming as radiation will be emitted at longer wavelengths in other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum where greenhouse gases do not absorb radiation potentially leading to an energy balance without increase in temperature. To further complicate matters the definition continues with the explanation:

“Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.”

This sort of statement is not comprehensible to the average person, makes no sense scientifically and is immediately falsified by recent research (Seim and Olsen, 2020; Coe etal., 2021; Lange et al., 2022, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020, 2021(a), 2021(b), 2022, Sheahen, 2021; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Zhong & Haigh, 2013). It also contradicts the work of Gray (2015 and 2019) and others and has been heavily criticized (Plimer, 2009; Plimer, 2017; Carter, 2010).

3.1 The Falsifications of the Greenhouse Effect

There are numerous falsifications of the greenhouse gas theory (sometimes called ‘trace gas heating theory’, see Siddons in Ball, 2011, p.19), of global warming and/or climate change (Ball, 2011; Ball, 2014; Ball, 2016; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009; Hertzberg et al, 2017; Allmendinger, 2017; Blaauw, 2017; Nikolov and Zeller, 2017).

Fundamental empirically derived physical laws place limits on any changes in the atmospheric temperature unless there is some strong external force (e.g. increased or decreased solar radiation). For example, the Ideal Gas Law, the Beer-Lambert Law, heat capacities, heat conduction etc., (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Barrow, 1973; Daniels & Alberty, 1966) all place physical limits on the amount of warming or cooling one might see in the climate system given any changes to heat from the sun or other sources.

3.1.1 The Ideal Gas Law

PV = nRT (1)

The average near-surface temperature for planetary bodies with an atmosphere calculated from the Ideal Gas Law is in excellent agreement with measured values suggesting that the greenhouse effect is very small or non-existent (Table 1). It is thought that the residual temperature difference of 33K between the Stephan-Boltzmann black body effective temperature (255K) on Earth and the measured near-surface temperature (288K) is caused by adiabatic auto-compression (Allmendinger, 2017; Robert, 2018; Holmes 2017, 2018 and 2019). An alternative view of this is given by Lindzen (2022). There is no need for the ‘greenhouse effect’ to explain the near surface atmospheric temperature of planetary bodies with atmospheric pressures above 10kPa (Holmes, 2017). The ideal gas law is robust and works for all gases.

3.1.2 Measurement of Infrared Absorption of the Earth’s Atmosphere

It is now possible to calculate the effect of ‘greenhouse gases’ on the surface atmospheric temperature by (a) using laboratory experimental methods; (b) using the Hitran database (https://hitran.org/); (c) using satellite observations of outgoing radiation compared to Stephan-Boltzmann effective black body radiation and calculated values of temperature.

The near surface temperature and change in surface temperature can be calculated. The result is that climate sensitivity to doubling concentration of CO2 is (0.5°C) including 0.06°C from CH4 and 0.08°C from N2O which is so small as to be undetectable. Most of the temperature change has already occurred and increasing CO2, CH4, N2O concentrations will not lead to significant changes in air temperatures because absorption is logarithmic (Beer-Lambert Law of attenuation) – a law of diminishing returns.

Figure 1. Delta T vs CO2 concentration

The important point here is that the Ideal Gas Law, the logarithmic absorption of radiation and the theoretical calculations by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020 and 2021), Coe et al., (2021) based on the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann Law show that there is an upper limit to the temperature change which can occur by adding ‘greenhouse gases’ to the atmosphere if the main source of incoming radiation (the Sun) does not change over time. The upper limit is ~0.81°C.

3.1.3 Other Falsifications

Many climatologists ignore the well-established ideas of the Ideal Gas Law, Kinetic Theory of Gases and Collision Theory which explain the interaction of gases in the atmosphere (Atkins & de Paula, 2014; Salby, 2012; Tec science). For example, it is difficult for CO2 to retain heat energy (by vibration, rotation, and translation) as there are 1034 collisions between air molecules per second per cubic meter of gas at a pressure of 1 atmosphere (~101.3kPa) and on each collision, energy is exchanged leading to a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (similar to a normal distribution) of molecular energies across all molecules in air (Tec science). The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has been experimentally determined (Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Thus, the major components of air (nitrogen and oxygen) retain most of the energy, cause evaporation of water vapor by heat transfer (mainly by conduction and convection) and emit radiation at longer wavelengths. The small concentration of CO2 in air (circa 420ppmv) cannot account for large changes in the climate system which have occurred in the past (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023; Ball, 2014). Plimer (2009 and 2017) presents a great deal of geological scientific evidence which covers paleoclimatology concluding that:

“There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from the Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation, and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.” (Plimer 2009: p.364).

Ball (2014) summarizes a great deal of the geological science:

“The most fundamental assumption in the theory that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. The problem is that every record of any duration for any period in the history of the Earth exactly the opposite relationship occurs temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. Despite that a massive deception has developed and continues.” Ball (2014: p. 1).

This statement agrees with many other scientists working in geology, earth sciences, physics and physical chemistry as can be seen in cited references in books (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone 2017 and 2023; Plimer, 2009; Plimer 2017; Ball, 2014; Ball,2011; Ball, 2016; Carter, 2010; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024; Hodzic, and Kennedy, 2019). Easterbrook (2016) uses the evidence-based approach to climate science and concludes that:

“Because of the absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the main argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests largely on computer modelling.”  Easterbrook (2016: p.5).

The results of the models are projected far into the future (circa 80 to 100years) where uncertainties are large, but projections can be used to demonstrate unrealistic but scary scenarios (Idso et al., 2015b). The literature that is used for the IPCC reports appears to be ‘cherry picked’ to agree with their paradigms that increasing CO2 concentrations leads to warming. They ignore the vast literature in climatology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, physics, physical chemistry, geology, biology and palaeoclimatology much of which contradicts the IPCC’s assessment in the summary for policymakers (SPM).

The objective of the IPCC was to find the human causes of climate change – not to look at all the causes of climate change which would be the sensible thing to do if the science were to be used to inform policy decisions. However, there is no experimental evidence for a significant anthropogenic component to climate change (Kaupinnen and Malmi, 2019) which leaves genuine scientists and citizens concerned about the role of the IPCC.

3.1.4 Anthropogenic CO2 and the Residence time of Carbon Dioxide in Air

There is a suggestion (IPCC) that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is different for anthropogenic CO2 and naturally occurring CO2. This breaks a fundamental scientific principle, the Principle of Equivalence. That is: if there is equivalence between two things, they have the same use, function, size, or value (Collins English Dictionary, online). Thus, CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from, and each molecule will behave physically and react chemically in the same way.

The figures above illustrate how exaggerated claims are made for CO2 based on the false assumption that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for long periods and can affect the climate. These results are enough to falsify the ideas of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 and shows how little human activity contributes to CO2 emissions and concentrations in air. The argument is clear, that if the fictitious greenhouse effect were real for CO2 the human contribution would have no measurable effect upon the climate in terms of global average surface temperature.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 3.0 and 4.1 years using the IPCC’s own data and not the supposed 100 years or 1000 years for anthropogenic CO2 suggested by the IPCC summaries for policy makers (Harde, 2017) which contravenes the Equivalence Principle (Berry, 2019).

“These results indicate that almost all of the observed change of CO2 during the industrial era followed, not from anthropogenic emission, but from changes of natural emission. The results are consistent with the observed lag of CO2 changes behind temperature changes (Humlum et al., 2013; Salby, 2013), a signature of cause and effect.” (Harde, 2017a: 25).

It is well-known that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 5 years (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2007: 1124; 1137; Kikuchi, 2010). Skrable et al., (2022), show that accumulated human CO2 is 11% of CO2 in air or ~46.84ppmv based on modelling studies. Berry (2020, 2021) uses the Principle of  Equivalence (which the IPCC violates by assuming different timescales for the uptake of natural and human CO2) and agrees with Harde (2017a) that human CO2 adds about 18ppmv to the concentration in air. These are physically extremely small concentrations of CO2 which suggest most CO2 arises from natural sources. It can be concluded that the IPCC models are wrong and human CO2 will have little effect on the temperature.

4. Conclusions

Like many other researchers it was assumed there was robust science behind the greenhouse gas theory and that Net Zero was essential to achieve, but after investigation it now appears that the greenhouse gas theory is questionable and has been successfully challenged for at least 100 years (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009). Much better explanations for planetary near surface atmospheric temperatures are available based on robust, empirically derived scientific laws such as the Ideal Gas law.

Better assessments of the potential increase in temperature with doubling CO2 concentrations are available and the calculated increase is small ~0.5°C (Coe et al., 2021; van Wijngaarden & Happer, 2019, 2020 and 2021; Sheahen, 2021; Schildknecht, 2020) and will remain very small with increased CO2 concentration because the infrared CO2 absorption bands are almost saturated and absorption follows the logarithmic Beer-Lambert law (Figure 1). Much of the work using the Hitran database has been tested against satellite measurements of the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s atmosphere and the calculations are in almost perfect agreement (Sheahen, 2021).

This suggests that the physicists are correct in their assessment of the likely very small increase in atmospheric temperature and therefore there is a strong case against Net Zero as it will have no discernible effect on temperature and the cost of Net Zero is huge. Therefore, the Net Zero project does not pass the cost-benefit test (Montford, 2024b; NESO, 2024). That is the costs are disproportionately high for little or no benefit. Thus, the correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing. The monies being wasted on Net Zero should be spent for the benefit of citizens (e.g. education, health care, public health, water infrastructure, waste processing, economic prosperity etc.). There are many other pressing public health problems from burning fossil fuels which should be addressed (e.g. air pollution especially particulates and carbon monoxide).

Better calculations of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentrations are available and it is small ~18ppmv (Skrable et al., 2022; Berry, 2020; Harde 2017a & 2017b; Harde, 2019; Harde 2014). The phase relation between temperature and CO2 concentration changes are now clearly understood; temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2 likely from outgassing from the ocean and increased biological activity (Davis , 2017; Hodzic and Kennedy, 2019; Humlum, 2013; Salby, 2012; Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023 & 2024).

“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” Alimonti etal. 2022: 111.

Many researchers are addressing the ‘CO2 and climate change problem’ by suggesting decarbonization and other approaches such as Net Zero. CO2 is more than likely not the temperature control and has a very minor to negligible role in global warming (The Bruges Group, 2021; De Lange and Berkhout, 2024; Manheimer, 2022; Statistics Norway 2023; Lindzen and Happer, 2024; Lindzen, et al., 2024).

The scientific literature was examined and found to provide several alternative views concerning CO2 and the need for Net Zero. The objectives of this paper have been achieved and the conclusions can be briefly summarized:

  1. CO2 is a harmless highly beneficial rare trace gas essential for all life on Earth due to photosynthesis which produces simple sugars and carbohydrates in plants and a bi-product Oxygen (O2). CO2is therefore the basis of the entire food supply chain (see Biology or Botany textbooks or House, 2013). CO2 is close to an all-time low geologically (Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and controls on CO2 emissions and concentrations in air should be considered as very dangerous and expensive policy indeed. Net Zero is not necessary and should be abandoned.
  2. The greenhouse gas theory has been falsified (i.e. proven wrong) from several disciplines including paleoclimatology, geology, physics, and physical chemistry. CO2 cannot affect the climate in such small concentrations (~420ppmv or ~0.04%) and basing government policy on output from faulty climate models will prove to be very expensive and achieve nothing for the environment, public health, or the climate.

“There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus, it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.” (Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009: 354).

  1. The oceans contain approximately 50 times as much CO2 as is currently present in the air (Easterbrook, 2016; Wrightstone, 2017 and 2023) and as such Henry’s Law will work to maintain the dynamic equilibrium concentration in air over the longer term as the ocean will absorb and outgas CO2(Atkins & de Paula, 2014). Net Zero will, therefore, achieve nothing for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the volcanic sources of CO2 are as Kamis (2021), the IPCC and others suggest many times the human contribution, then Net Zero will have no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Net Zero should, therefore, be abandoned.
  2. The contribution to greenhouse gases, especially CO2, attributable to humans is extremely small, almost negligible (~4.3% or ~18ppmv total accumulation) and half is absorbed by the ocean and biomass. Other naturally occurring so-called greenhouse gases are present in very small/negligible quantities (e.g. CH4, N2O). The systematic attempts to eliminate these trace gases from the atmosphere by reducing industrial output, reducing farming, eliminating fossil fuel use, and changing the way human civilization lives is totally unnecessary – again the ‘do-nothing strategy’ is strongly recommended.
  3. The sciences have been largely ignored by politicians and activists. There have been numerous failings of governments to take notice of scientific findings and they have succumbed to unnecessary pressure from activist groups (including the United Nations and the IPCC). Net Zero is just one example where costly efforts by governments will achieve nothing and not address the real problems of air pollution, public health, or economic well-being of citizens.

“There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way disturbed.” (Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, 2015:3).

  1. Circular reasoning is used by the climate modelers. That is, the fictitious greenhouse effect is built into the models such that when the parameter of CO2concentration is increased then the temperature output of the models increases, producing models which run relatively hot compared to natural variability. This reduces the so-called greenhouse effect to little more than a ‘fudge factor’ or ‘parameter’ within models which essentially gives you the answer that you set out to prove. This circular reasoning is hardly scientific enquiry and with data ‘homogenization’ and infilling of missing data begins to look rather peculiar. Climatologists need to recognize these issues, address the real reasons for climate change and offer genuine solutions to any real problems.
  2. The claim of consensus is completely unscientific in its approach (Idso et al, 2015a). Noting that 31,000 US scientists and engineers signed the petition protest (Robinson et al., 2007), recently 90 Italian scientists wrote an open letter to the Italian government (Crescenti et al., 2019), and 500 climatologists and scientists signed an open letter to the UN Secretary General (Berkhout, 2019). All explaining that CO2 is not the cause of climate change. There are thousands of academic papers and books questioning anthropogenic climate change with good data.

Many other concerned individuals have looked at the evidence for anthropogenic climate change based on CO2 and found it wanting (e.g. Davison, 2018; Rofe, 2018).

“If in fact ‘the science is settled’, it seems to be much more settled in the fact that there is no particular correlation between CO2 level and the earth’s temperature.” (Manheimer, 2022).

and

“If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change!” (Field, 2013).

The academic literature in science offers numerous and far better explanations for climate change than the fictitious greenhouse effect. Researchers should recognize this fact and start to look at dealing with the real causes of climate change. Net Zero is an enormously expensive solution to a non-problem and has no obvious redeeming features. The Net Zero policy is not financially sustainable and should be abandoned.

 

 

 

How To Fix US Energy After Biden Broke It

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The Energy Bad Boys provide a road map at their blog 7 Quick Energy Takeaways from the 2024 Election.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

How a Donald Trump second term could reshape energy policy

Donald Trump’s comeback victory in the presidential election, which included carrying all seven swing states and winning the popular vote, along with Republican majorities in the Senate and potentially the House of Representatives, means big changes are coming to our nation’s energy policies.

Here are 7 quick takeaways for what might change in the next administration.

1. Regulatory Rollback

The incoming Trump administration will take concrete steps to repeal or scale back the regulatory overreach emblematic of the Biden-Harris administration’s energy and environmental policy.

Some of the regulations that could see a repeal or rework under the Trump administration include the tailpipe emission standards (which were effectively an electric vehicle mandate), the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and of course, the rules on carbon dioxide emissions on power plants. 

The D.C. Circuit Court is set to hear arguments on the Clean Power Plan 2.0—which we determined would leave millions of Americans in the dark—in the coming months.

Capacity shortfall events – or blackouts – in Southwest Power Pool (SPP) when we modeled EPA’s proposal for carbon mandates, stemming from the agency’s use of 80% or higher capacity values for solar energy.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to stay the rules at this time, so the outcome of the case will likely impact the Trump administration’s strategy in addressing these rules. They may opt to do a scaled-down version of the rules, similar to when they replaced the Clean Power Plan 1.0 with the Affordable Clean Energy rule. Time will tell.

What we know now is this: the Biden Administration’s goal
of imposing carbon dioxide limits on existing
natural gas plants is dead in the water.

2. A Re-emphasis on Federalism

The repeal or reworking of several of the electricity-sector mandates imposed by the Biden-Harris administration will mean states have more say in their energy affairs.

This is both a blessing and a curse, as blue states pursue aggressive renewable buildouts, and utilities in red states attempt to boost their corporate profits by “green plating” their grids. Utilities do this by enacting internal carbon-free goals that are similar to policies in blue states, hoping it goes unchecked by regulators and lawmakers.

Xcel Energy’s profits in Minnesota have been skyrocketing since the state’s first renewable energy mandate, signed into law in 2007.

Policymakers in moderate and conservative states need to understand that the utilities pursuing wind and solar in their resource portfolios are not working in the interest of their constituents, and appropriate market signals are desperately needed through reforms that value reliability and affordability.

This is why we are seeing a groundswell of interest in our “Only Pay for What You Get Act,” where utility companies would only be allowed to charge their customers for the reliable portion of a power plant that will bolster grid reliability while keeping costs as low as possible.

This shows the difference between profits earned by utility companies under normal regulation and what profits would be under Only Pay legislation.

Please feel free to reach out to us if you are interested in learning more about how Always On Energy Research can help policymakers in your state understand the stakes of getting their energy policy correct, and offer forward-looking solutions to the challenges we’ll all face in the coming years.

3. Repeal the IRA?

As we noted in our piece, Grassley v. The Grid, subsidies paid to wind and solar operations are no longer harmless feel-good incentives for alternative energy. Today, these subsidies are actively undermining the reliability of our nation’s electric grid.

IRA subsidies paid to wind and solar developers are used as an excuse by utility companies to justify closing down reliable coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants while pretending that their plans to replace them with wind, solar, and battery storage facilities are better for consumers.

As Travis Fisher has noted at his Substack, he estimates that the IRA will cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and between $2 trillion and $4 trillion by 2050. These massive subsidies are so lucrative that companies are pursuing projects that only make sense if the subsidies exist, irrespective of whether they make any sense for customers. This is a recipe for enormous malinvestment of taxpayer dollars.

Repealing the investment tax credits and production tax credits for wind and solar facilities will be an indispensable part of reversing this trend and restoring rational market signals to the electricity sector.

4. Keystone Pipeline

During his appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast, President Trump said he liked Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ideas on a lot of things, but we were relieved the President said he would need to keep him away from environmental policy decisions because he was hostile to “the black gold.”

Always On Energy Research’s oil and gas analyst, Trevor Lewis, notes that beginning day one, the Trump administration can take several steps to ensure America’s economy will have enough oil and gas to fuel decades of growth.

Restarting construction on the Keystone XL pipeline should be at the top of the list of priorities, which would bring job opportunities and economic activity to countless small towns from North Dakota to Kansas while simultaneously bolstering America’s energy security.

While America has vastly improved its energy independence from the rest of the world, our nation is still importing several million barrels of heavy sour crude from OPEC and other foreign nations. Restarting Keystone will allow American refineries to friend-source crude from Alberta and would, as an added benefit, reduce SO2 emissions from tanker ships, which negatively impact air quality and contribute to ocean acidification.

5. Drill Baby Drill

For domestic production, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will reverse the Biden Administration’s disastrous drilling policies.

In the first two years of the Biden Administration, total leases offered declined by 70 percent. By 2023, Biden’s BLM leased 95 percent fewer acres than Trump in 2019. Trump’s BLM can reverse this trend and award prime oil-rich lands to eager drillers in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado. Offering these leases will replenish acreage inventories and reverse the 20-year decline in active acres, and the royalties paid on federal lands will be distributed through BLM’s oil and gas revenue splitting program with state governments and local communities.

Trump will also likely reverse the Biden Administration’s pause on permitting new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities and appoint commissioners to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that will approve the construction of new natural gas pipelines.

6.  Solar and Wind on Federal Lands

In 2023, the Biden Administration’s Department of Interior (DOI) gave renewable energy developers a sweetheart deal slashing the annual lease rate for wind and solar on federal lands by 80 percent. Months later, Biden’s BLM announced the Western Solar plan which will bridle 31 million acres of Federal lands – most of which in Western States thousands of miles from Washington D.C. – with 25 gigawatts of solar power.

Unless reversed by the Trump Administration’s BLM, the Western Solar Plan will erect inefficient solar panels over pristine western landscapes while damaging fragile ecosystems in the process. Worse still, communities would not be compensated for the damages done by these solar developers because, unlike oil and gas leases, BLM does not share the revenues paid by wind and solar lease rents or bonus payments on the Federal lands with local communities.

The revenues communities receive from royalties strengthen local budgets, create jobs, and support the care and maintenance of the local environment, which wind and solar currently don’t contribute to. Trump’s BLM will have an opportunity to end Biden’s free ride for wind and solar developers. President Trump can advocate for western lands and their inhabitants by leveling the playing field by ensuring renewable energy developers pay rates equivalent to those paid by oil and gas producers.

7. Halting Offshore Wind

The Biden Administration has pledged to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. To meet this target, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) offered 10 offshore wind leases and scheduled auctions for 12 more leases through 2028.

Offshore wind energy is one of the most expensive energy sources on the grid—even before accounting for the hidden costs of maintaining reliability with intermittent electricity generation.

Additionally, offshore wind has been the center of ongoing environmental controversies, from killing whales to the breakdown of blades in the middle of the ocean, only to washup onshore

To prevent another Vineyard wind disaster, in addition to saving consumers from expensive and unreliable energy, Trump should direct the BOEM to terminate the 12 scheduled leases. As for the 10 auctioned leases, Trump could (and should) rescind these leases from offshore developers, in a similar move to Biden rescinding Alaskan oil and gas leases.

French Fishermen Join U.S. Fishermen in Fighting Offshore Wind – IER

Conclusion

Biden Bad, Trump Good.

After 4 years of one of the worst presidencies for reliable and affordable energy, the Trump administration has the opportunity to unleash energy dominance by ensuring a level playing field for all energy resources, ending the subsidies and handouts to renewable and battery developers, repealing egregious regulations aimed at prematurely retiring coal and natural gas plants, and promoting an energy dominant policy which will help end Bidenomic’s policy of energy inflation.

 

 

 

Energy Realism Marching Ahead

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. reports at WSJ on observing the Irresistible March of Energy Realism.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The publishing gods have smiled on French energy historian Jean-Baptiste Fressoz. His book, whose U.S. edition is coming out in August, is already getting wide notice. Its French title essentially means “there is no transition.” Mr. Fressoz tells a podcaster he’s even happier with the English title, “More and More and More.”

Energy sources are additive and symbiotic, he writes. Coal, oil, gas,
wood, nuclear and renewables all grew together, they didn’t replace each other.

An increase in coal provided steel piping to enable oil and gas production. More wood than ever was consumed to support British coal mines. The world’s biggest maker of wooden barrels at one time was John D. Rockefeller. A car in the 1930s consumed more coal via its required steel than it would consume in fossil fuels in its lifetime.

In the U.K. today, a single wood-burning electric plant consumes more wood than Britain’s entire 18th-century economy and yet accounts for a small fraction of Britain’s current energy output. The only transition has been to more energy consumption.

As this column has pointed out, subsidies for green energy, adopted globally by the Obama imitators in lieu of carbon taxes, only end up subsidizing more energy use, including copious fossil energy to make batteries, wind turbines and solar panels.

In a blue moon, honest greens will admit as much and argue that when green energy has been sufficiently built up with government aid, the U.S. will lead the nations to introduce carbon taxes.

The faulty assumption here is that phasing out fossil energy will be any easier in 50 years when the world is consuming twice as much energy and half is still fossil energy, producing the same emissions as today. A likelier outcome: When the green subsidies stop, as inevitably they must, the result will be a burst of emissions as the formerly subsidized users shift to fossil energy to stay solvent.

The Trump election poses a special puzzle for domestic U.S. automakers: How much of their $110 billion investment in electric vehicles to write off? In the absence of subsidies and mandates, what’s the natural market for EVs and, importantly, what kind?

The Rube Goldberg effect of U.S. policy has led to heavily subsidized status pieces for high-end consumers, whose large batteries are mainly used to haul around their large batteries.

These are net losers for the stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Unknowables loom. An Oxfam report finds up to $41 billion in World Bank climate spending, backed by U.S. taxpayers, unaccounted for. This is only the beginning. What happens when voters realize not billions but trillions doled out to the green-energy lobby have had no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels or climate?

Meanwhile, hard to find are detailed climate or emissions projections that don’t effectively assume successful efforts to stabilize warming at the putative 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius levels.

 

These efforts at stabilization aren’t happening. In the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a study finds that of 1,500 “climate” policies announced around the world, a mere 63, or 4%, produce any reduction in emissions.

Mr. Fressoz, in the “Decouple” podcast, delves into the fascinating 1970s. Governments everywhere, along with the oil industry, well recognized the CO2 problem. The British government of Margaret Thatcher realized its emissions were becoming too small a share of the total for reductions to make a difference. A U.S. panel calculated that even a heroic U.S. effort would delay warming only by a few years.

A Chinese representative warned a 1979 conference that by 2000, his country intended to burn more coal than the world’s then-annual total.

Our path—unavoidable adaptation—was laid down long before today’s believer-denier debate, a language effectively developed and deployed to promote climate pork, not meaningful climate action. Last year, by one accounting, global emissions topped 40 billion tons for the first time. I suspect carbon taxes may yet be adopted, albeit for fiscal reasons. Solar geoengineering, using particulates to adjust the amount of sunlight landing on Earth, is probably in the cards at some point.

In Chris Wright, the Liberty Energy CEO, Donald Trump has nominated to head the U.S. Energy Department a determined evangelist for energy realism. This is why I introduced him to readers earlier this year.

Mr. Wright, founder of a fracking services company, believer in climate change, enthusiast for nuclear energy, is the antidote to what Mr. Fressoz calls the “troubling” politics of climate change, which has consisted entirely of false promises.

Mr. Trump isn’t the climate outlier you think. Any U.S. presidential race in the past 40 years was a contest of two versions of doing nothing about climate change. The only difference: Certain versions of doing nothing were a lot more expensive for taxpayers than others.

Energy Realism from Next US Dept. Head

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Last year Chris Wright dished out climate and energy realism in an interview on CNBC Squawk Box hosted by Andrew Ross Sorkin.  Now he is to be appointed Secretary of Energy in the coming Trump administration.  Here are his candid and unvarnished views from inside the energy industry.

For those who prefer reading below is a transcript lightly edited from the closed captions in italics with my bolds and added images. AS refers to Sorkin’s questions and CW to responses from Wright.

AS: President Biden conceded last week that the U.S is going to be needing oil and gas for as he says at least the next decade as the country transitions to Renewables. But our next guest says that we are not in the midst of an energy transition and claims the so-called climate crisis is overblown. Last month he railed against what he called an alarmist move away from fossil fuels in a video on LinkedIn. The Microsoft owned company removed the post citing misinformation, only put it back up days later.

So let’s talk right now to Chris Wright–Chairman and CEO of Liberty Energy, North America’s second largest fracking company Chris good morning to you.

Reaction to the State of the Union

AS: Let’s start with your reaction after watching the State of the Union. President Biden makes the statement twice actually. The first time he says we’re going to need fossil fuels for a while. Later he follows up with: We’re going to need it for something like a decade or so. There was laughter in the chamber, certainly from the GOP, but it very well might have been both sides of the aisle at that point.

CW: Yeah, likely it was. Of course it’s great to see an acknowledgment the world run on oil and gas and we need that. But to throw out a decade, it’s just an absurd time frame. We’re not going to meaningfully change the demand for oil and gas one way or the other in the next decade. And I think politicizing energy and opposing infrastructure is standing in the way of Today’s Energy System before we’ve built a new Energy System. There’s just no upside in that.

Realistic timeline for energy

AS: When you think about the timeline, what do you think is a realistic timeline to the degree you think there is one.

CW: It’s multiple, as we’ll talk about that. The Energy Information Administration is our government agency that projects forward demands for varied energy sources, They have in 2050 roughly flat demand for oil and gas as what we have today; maybe it rises a little bit the next decade or two, maybe it comes down a little bit in the next decade or two after that. Maybe that’s true, but I think you’ll see no meaningful change of our hydrocarbon system in the next three decades. I’m all for investing in new energy sources: nuclear has a great future if we could regulatorily issue a permit. We haven’t issued a new permit for a nuclear plant in 50 years.

There’s great new things we can bring; but standing in the way
of what runs the world today just isn’t productive.

Nuclear energy

AS: I’m a big fan but it’s quite unpopular talking about nuclear energy. Usually when I say something on the air it causes some kind of strange firestorm. Do you think there’s any realistic chance we have nuclear energy in the United States in the next decade?

CW: I think probably not in the next decade. Nuclear will have a Renaissance right now, but it more likely starts overseas where there’s a less onerous and less fear-driven regulatory system. I think we’ll see small modular reactors come. What’s great about nuclear is they bring not just electricity which is the only place wind and solar can play. Electricity is less than a quarter of global energy. Process heat that you need for manufacturing is just critical, and nuclear could bring process heat as well as electricity. Today it’s just fossil fuels that bring processed Heat.

SEC disclosure

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

AS: Chris, I wanted to ask you two big big other questions. One regards the SEC pushing for more disclosure for companies around ESG and and in particular their plans around climate and energy. It
may get softened a bit, in part because of the comments that have come back to them. What is your sense of what the SEC was proposing and where you think they’re going to land?

CW:  Well what they proposed is totally nuts. And I wrote a long comment letter on it. A lot of public company CEOs won’t do that, But it’s just making an enormously complicated expensive reporting thing so people can sue us because they think we didn’t quite properly estimate our scope three emissions. Those are emissions from the products we produce when someone else burns them on the other side of the world or on the other side of the country. No one can really account for that.

Why are they doing that? They’re doing it so this Administration can signal they’re against fuels. Again that’s just unproductive.

LinkedIn censorship

AS: Your LinkedIn post went down tell me what happened. People talk about censorship all the time, who should be the Arbiter of Truth and all of that.

CW: Yeah it was crazy. I made a sort of an amateur video just talking about energy climate transition with just some basic data so you can get background on it. And it was taken down as misinformation. I hit the appeal the decision button, and they came back and said it violated their spams and scams policy.   I posted it again it’s taken down again from misinformation. Then upon appeal they said sorry, on further review it didn’t violate their policy. That’s probably not LinkedIn but people complaining because I’m not talking the climate alarmist narrative. For LinkedIn to go along and take that down is just a symbol of where we are today, unfortunately.

Oil and Gas Industry Productivity

AS: When we finally hit Peak production again, we haven’t yet since 2019. So there’s a lot of finger pointing on why that is. I mean fracking had its own problems when there was a slow period. When we try to reopen from a pandemic we can’t get the workers that we need for the you know for the whole oil and gas industry. But add in ESG and add in President Biden’s pitch: Read my lips, I will end the fossil fuel industry.” How much do you think ESG and that type of of rhetoric scared away producers? Is ESG a positive or negative for society?

AS: I think from an investor movement it’s a negative. Of course we should care about the environment and the societies we operate in. And of course company and government should be aligned with the owners of businesses, that’s a very real point. The other point is of course that’s what businesses do in a free Society. If you’re not a great member of society, if people don’t believe they’re part of something bigger than just getting a paycheck, you’re going to have trouble getting workers.

So the idea is right but it’s really become sort of a top-down thing: if you’re admitting greenhouse gas emissions you’re bad, if you’re reducing them or shrinking your business there you’re good. And then of course a top-down check box list to decide if we’re socially virtuous or not. These are bad ideas. Investors should care about ESG but it shouldn’t be like a third party imposing a scorecard to tell me who’s virtuous and who’s not.

On the on the margin it has indeed reduced Capital to our industry which absolutely raises the cost of capital on the margin. We produce less oil and gas because of it and the main impact of that is higher oil and gas prices.

 

 

 

 

Washington State Votes Against “Electrify Everything”

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Gas stoves are the thin edge of the wedge.

 

Update November 18, 2024

From the Olympian: WA natural gas measure I-2066 set to pass.

The sponsors of Initiative-2066, the Washington ballot measure that aims to expand access to natural gas in the state, have declared victory as votes have continued to trickle in from last week’s election. Early results showed the ballot measure holding a slim lead, which has slowly grown in the days since the election. As of Monday, Nov. 11, there are 51.64% of votes counted in favor of the measure, compared to 48.36% against it, according to the Secretary of State’s office. With approximately 274,171 votes left to be counted, I-2066 leads by a 112,203 vote margin. In order for the measure to fail, over 70% of the remaining votes would need to go against the initiative, leaving it all-but-guaranteed of a victory.

No on I-2066 has conceded the race, although it’s exploring possible legal challenges to the measure. The campaign claims that I-2066 is misleading, since it implies that Washington has a natural gas ban in place when it doesn’t. Additionally, the campaign said it’s looking into the possibility that the measure violates a section of the state constitution that asserts that “no bill shall embrace more than one subject.”

Results won’t be official until they’re certified by Washington’s 39 counties on Nov. 26 in and are sent to the Secretary of State, who has to certify them by Dec. 5.

Background Post

Megan K. Jacobson explains the fight and what’s at stake at msn A Washington State Revolt Against the Gas-Stove Grabbers.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Environmentalists have waged a campaign against natural gas, but users of this efficient, low-emission fuel are fighting back. A wide range of industry groups are backing Washington state’s Initiative 2066 to protect the right to choose natural gas.

By 2030, Washington is supposed to reduce carbon emissions to 45% below 1990 levels—one of its many overlapping climate goals. The state’s most recent energy plan declares that the cheapest route to meeting Olympia’s climate targets is to switch many uses of oil and gas to electric sources. Last year the Building Code Council amended the state energy code to make it prohibitively costly to install gas appliances in new buildings. In March the Legislature passed a law allowing the state’s largest natural-gas and electricity utility, Puget Sound Energy, to pass the costs of going green onto consumers and mandating the utility files a plan “to achieve all cost-effective electrification of end uses currently served by natural gas.”

To the Washington Hospitality Association and the Building
Industry Association of Washington, Initiative 2066’s cosponsors,
this sounded like an economic wrecking ball.

Anthony Anton, CEO of the hospitality association, says 84% of the restaurateurs he represents rely on natural gas. Remodeling to go electric is a “massive cost at a time where operators just can’t afford it,” he says. Some say the quality of their product would suffer, as some cooking methods, such as stir-frying, are difficult to perform on lower-heat electrical stoves. Most of the association’s members are very small businesses with substantial debt from Covid lockdowns.

The building association worries the new energy code will raise the state’s already high housing costs, locking out potential buyers. The code requires that new buildings meet a certain environmental “score.” Without the points from an electric heat pump, a builder will have to make up the difference with other green measures that run between $15,000 and $20,000 in a single-family home. “Every time they raise the price $1,000, it prices out another 500 Washington families,” says Greg Lane, the association’s executive vice president.

Dozens of varied industry groups support Initiative 2066. Each has its own reasons. The Washington Denturist Association worries about the expense of switching from propane- or gas-based equipment and a lack of reliable power. Most members are small businesses and it’s a good path for immigrant dentists whose credentials don’t carry over to the U.S.

The Washington State Tree Fruit Association (of which my paternal grandfather’s company, Apple King, is a member) is concerned about rising costs of refrigeration to keep produce fresh. A sudden power outage could be catastrophic for the state’s apple industry. Trade regulations for its top two export markets require that fruit be constantly refrigerated at a specific temperature for as long as 90 days.

The state’s cheapest energy plan would almost double electricity demand in Washington by 2050, putting an unprecedented strain on the grid. The only real option is to increase wind and solar generation, since the state’s plentiful hydroelectric capacity can’t do more without potentially threatening salmon. Wind and solar tend to falter in Washington in the winter, when energy demand peaks.

Consumers would also suffer in Washington’s green utopia. Everything from a haircut to a ballgame would become more expensive as the price of electricity rises. Climate advocates argue that Washingtonians will recoup their costs over time thanks to efficiency gains. But a 2021 report from Home Innovation Labs estimates that recovering the cost of a heat-pump installation could take 47 to 49 years. It’s worse for existing gas customers. The Building Industry Association of Washington estimates that switching from natural gas to electricity in a single-family home would cost as much as $70,000. Heat pumps also tend to fail in the sort of frigid weather that hits rural Washington in winter.

Proponents of electrification insist that technology will improve over time. But if they’re really confident that green energy will be the best option for consumers and businesses, then Initiative 2066 is no threat. Washington voters should ask why climate advocates still see it as one.

Trump WH Focuses Energy Governance

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Yesterday I posted on Repurposing US Energy Agencies. Today comes the news of Trump announcements consolidating energy governance in a WH National Energy Council chaired by the newly appointed Secretary of the Interior, ND Governor Doug Burgum.  While there is not yet much detail on how this will function, some reports suggest the organizing logic of this approach. This article is from the North Dakota Monitor Trump names North Dakota Gov. Burgum to combined Interior, energy role.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum will serve as Interior secretary and chairman of the newly formed National Energy Council, President-elect Donald Trump announced Friday.

The new council will consist of all departments and agencies involved in the permitting, production, generation, distribution, regulation, transportation of “ALL forms of American Energy,” Trump said in the announcement.

“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation,” Trump wrote.

Burgum, who is completing his second term as governor, has railed against what he sees as government overreach and bureaucracy under the Biden administration, especially on energy policy. He frequently calls for industry innovation rather than more regulation. Burgum said at an energy industry conference in Bismarck in May:

“We have to turn this around, not just for this industry, not just for North Dakota, but for national security, for peace in the world,”

Trump also said in his statement that his administration will “undo the damage done by the Democrats to our Nation’s Electrical Grid, by dramatically increasing baseload power.”  In addition, Trump said Burgum will have a seat on the National Security Council.

The $18 billion Department of the Interior manages federal natural and cultural resources, with about 70,000 employees.

The department includes 11 agencies: the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement, and the bureaus of Indian Affairs, Indian Education, Land Management, Ocean Energy Management, Reclamation, Safety & Environmental Enforcement, and Trust Funds Administration.

“Serving as Interior Secretary is an opportunity to redefine and improve upon the federal government’s relationship with tribal nations, landowners, mineral developers, outdoor enthusiasts and others, with a focus on maximizing the responsible use of our natural resources with environmental stewardship for the benefit of the American people,” Burgum said.

North Dakota is the nation’s third largest oil producing state, with some of the production coming from federal lands on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. North Dakota also has large amounts of coal, wind energy and biofuel production.

When asked Tuesday about the potential for an “energy czar” position, Burgum told North Dakota reporters that the nation needs a more coordinated approach to energy policy.  He said an “energy czar” would be able to do more than a lone Cabinet secretary because other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Land Management, among others, all affect the nation’s energy policies.

U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., acknowledged that some environmentalists will not be happy with the direction the Trump administration’s policies on federal lands. Cramer said having Burgum in that role should ease some concerns.

“Doug’s a good conservationist,” Cramer said. “It’s not a ‘Drill, baby, drill’ attitude, it’s a, ‘Utilize the resources of the federal government for the benefit of the country and its people,’” Cramer told the North Dakota Monitor. “He delivers the message beautifully and I think he can go a long ways in sort of calming people down.”

An article at Politico explores how this structure might function Interior nominee Burgum to head new National Energy Council.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Burgum, a self-made multimillionaire, had been wary of taking on a role of “energy czar,” according to people familiar with his thinking, and instead had sought a position that came with formal power. This role atop the new council will combine the authority of the cabinet position with the broad reach across the top other agencies.

David Goldwyn, chair of the energy advisory group at the Atlantic Council think tank and a former State Department official in the Obama administration, said combining the two roles for Burgum showed how much influence he would have in the administration, but it could also could stretch him across the broad energy portfolio.

The energy council could be a more institutionalized version of initiatives by earlier White Houses to create an all-of-government approach to coordinating policy, but it could also lead to tension between Burgum and other department heads.

“Anytime you establish a policy coordination body at the White House, there will be natural tension with principles in agencies,” Rapidan’s McNally said. “It’s like herding cats a little bit, but it should minimize tensions so you either get to consensus or tee up pros and cons for the president to make a decision.”

The dual role idea won plaudits from North Dakota GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Burgum ally, who said he had been wary of limiting him to a czar position.  “But when you have a council made up of confirmed people and one of those confirmed people heads it, … it’s a brilliant idea,” Cramer said. “There is a synergy you gain by organizing it this way that you don’t get if you have a bunch of silos.”

Trump has made clear that a focus of his second administration would be to complete permitting reform that has struggled to gain bipartisan traction in Congress during the Biden administration. Fossil fuel companies and renewable energy companies alike have complained that critical infrastructure they need to get fuel and electricity to market takes too long to win federal approval.