Climate Change

From: CO2 Coalition

By: Richard Lindzen, William Happer

Date: June 13, 2025

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food.
Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and
Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.

SUMMARY
At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).

As to food and oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth by creating food and oxygen by photosynthesis.  Further, it creates more food as its level in the atmosphere increases.  For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.

As to carbon dioxide as a GHG, the United States and countries worldwide are vigorously pursuing rules and subsidies under the Net Zero Theory that carbon dioxide  and other GHG emissions must be reduced to Net Zero and the use of fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.  A key premise stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is  the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” where “main driver means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”

The Biden Administration adopted over 100 rules and Congress has provided enormous subsidies promoting alternatives to fossil fuel premised on the Net Zero Theory. The EPA Endangerment Finding, for example, asserts “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”

On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued a “Memorandum on Directing Repeal of Unlawful Rules” and Fact Sheet stating “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any [unlawful] regulation” under Supreme Court precedents, inter alia, where “the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong,” or “where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”  We understand the Supreme Court has also ruled in the leading case State Farm that an agency regulation is arbitrary, capricious and thus invalid where, inter alia:

“the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
“the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”
We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2  and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere.  In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,” and  violate these two State Farm mandates.(continue reading)

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

President Trump has issued several Executive Orders (EOs) intended to encourage the continued operation of existing coal generating stations, to return some recently shuttered generating stations to operation and to restore access to available coal resources to help meet the expected rapid growth of electricity demand and consumption.

While these EOs would likely help avoid some further loss of reliable, dispatchable generating capacity, it is unlikely that they would stimulate investment in major life extension projects for existing generators or in new coal generating facilities, since the EOs could easily be reversed by a subsequent federal administration focused on Net Zero by 2050 or some other CO2 emissions reduction goal.

Investment in construction of new coal generating capacity would likely require Congressional action to assure that those powerplants, once constructed, would be permitted to operate throughout their expected useful lives, preferably including life extension, without the imposition of extremely expensive high percentage carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems which would both increase operating costs and reduce powerplant net generating capacity to support the parasitic power requirements of the CCS systems.
 
Coal powerplants have the advantage of relatively inexpensive onsite fuel storage to assure their availability even during periods of fuel supply disruption. Their output can also be adjusted to match changing grid demand as well as the changing supply from intermittent renewable generators, though they cannot adjust as rapidly as natural gas combined-cycle or simple-cycle turbine generators.

States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), while they would likely allow continued operation of existing coal generating facilities as backup for intermittent renewable generation, would also likely resist life extension for those coal plants or the construction of new coal generation capacity, even if additional conventional generation capacity were required to provide additional backup for a growing renewable generation fleet.

State RPSs were intended to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and to achieve zero emissions from electricity generation by some earlier date, typically 2035 or 2040. The transition of energy end uses other than electric generation would require an approximate tripling of electric generation capacity by 2050. The anticipated growth of AI and other data centers would require substantial additional growth of generating capacity.

However, the developers of AI and data centers are unwilling to rely on intermittent renewable generation to power their facilities. Various developers have taken differing approaches to reliable electricity supply, including restarting currently inactive nuclear generating capacity, installing multiple natural gas combined-cycle powerplants and installing fleets of small modular nuclear generators (SMRs). Most of these proposed approaches would be independent of the existing, regulated electricity generation systems in the regions in which they would be located.

While these independent generation facilities would likely be acceptable in states without RPSs, it is uncertain how the states with RPSs would respond to the installation of large generating facilities which did not advance the percentage of renewable generation operating in the states. This issue could have a major influence on the location of AI and data centers.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: May 28, 2025

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Part 3 of this series examines power markets, promoted by policymakers (FERC) and industry advocates to lower costs through competitive bidding and merit-order dispatch. While markets can optimize resource allocation in many sectors, they struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electricity systems dominated by intermittent renewables. This post first explains how power markets operate, then highlights their challenges, and finally explores why they amplify the cost challenges associated with wind and solar.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the fat tail problem undermines the cost-saving potential of wind and solar.  It’s easy to supply electricity most of the time.  The fat tail occurs in the rarer periods of maximal demands, when wind and solar are not available.  These periods, not savings during easy times, drive system economics.  Part 2 discussed how rate structures distort perceptions of affordability for solar applications. 

How Power Markets Work (and Fail)

Power markets use a merit-order dispatch system, where generators bid their costs, and the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed. During “easy” times—when demand is low or renewable output is high—wind and solar often dominate. Their near-zero marginal costs (no fuel expenses) allow them to bid low, displacing higher-cost fossil fuel plants and driving down market prices. This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.

However, during peak or extreme conditions, wind and solar often underperform due to weather or diurnal constraints. For example, wind speeds may drop during heatwaves, or solar output may be negligible at night or during cloudy winters. When demand spikes or renewables falter, markets rely on dispatchable resources—combined cycle plants, combustion turbines, or even older coal units—to meet the shortfall. These resources have higher marginal costs and are often called upon during the most expensive hours, driving market prices skyward. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, ERCOT prices surged to $9,000/MWh as renewables underperformed and demand soared. As discussed in the first posting, doing well most of the time is not enough. The challenge in providing costly backup during peak shortages exposes the limitations of power markets, as explored below. (continue reading)

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Increasing the capacity of the electric utility grid requires both expansion of electricity transmission and the expansion of natural gas production and pipeline transmission capacity.

Increasing electric transmission capacity to support coal, natural gas and nuclear generators would be relatively straightforward compared with increasing capacity to support wind and solar generation and storage. The conventional generators would require a smaller number of sites and could be located adjacent to existing transmission corridors, whereas renewable generation installations are generally lower generating capacity facilities, frequently located in remote areas some distance from existing transmission corridors and requiring construction of new transmission facilities in new rights of way.

The capacity of conductors in existing transmission corridors would have to be increased to accommodate the output of the additional generators, but approvals for such capacity expansion would be expected to be less difficult and more rapid than approvals for new transmission corridors. The incremental investment would also be far lower than for new transmission corridors. The incremental transmission investment required to connect renewable generation facilities could also be reduced by the impact of grid-scale storage at the renewable generation sites.

The situation for natural gas transmission is similar. The natural gas transmission and storage system is designed to meet current customer demands. Many existing natural gas generators rely on curtailable or interruptible transmission service and on spot market gas availability to reduce costs. However, during periods of peak demand, transmission service to these customers is frequently curtailed and spot market gas is unavailable or in very short supply. This situation significantly affects electric utilities ability to meet peak demand.

Data centers and AI facilities would require firm transmission service and firm gas supply contracts. However, this should not be a significant issue for them, since their demand is relatively consistent throughout the year, reducing cost per unit delivered. However, satisfying their demand would require pipeline capacity expansion, though much of that expansion could likely be accomplished by installing parallel pipelines in existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or adding compression and storage. The additional capacity requirements of other additional natural gas generation facilities could be included in the pipeline and storage expansions.

The extent of the generation and transmission expansion would be reduced, at least in the short term, by the termination of the federal “all-electric everything” focus, which would have required a rough tripling of generation, transmission and distribution capacity to replace the energy currently supplied by natural gas, propane and fuel oil in the residential, commercial and industrial markets.

Again, Congress could improve the investment environment by clarifying the intent of the Clean Air Act regarding CO2 emissions. The investments required to support data center and AI energy requirements are very large and would typically be subject to 40-year straight line depreciation. It would be essential that the investors be able to rely on fully depreciating their investments over their useful lives. A consistent policy and regulatory environment would reduce the costs and risks associated with the required investments and consequently the consumer costs.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: May 26, 2025

Musings on the AMO

We hear a lot about the AMO, or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. How much does it influence the global mean surface temperature or GMST? Exactly what is the AMO? These are the issues we will discuss. First let’s look at various definitions of the AMO.

Enfield, et al.: “The AMO index [is a] ten-year running mean of detrended Atlantic SSTA [sea surface temperature anomaly] north of the equator.”

Gray, et al.: Uses detrended raw tree-ring measurements to demonstrate a strong and regular 60-100 year variability in basin-wide (0-70°N) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) that has been persistent for the past five centuries.

Trenberth & Shea: “To deal with purely Atlantic variability, it is highly desirable to remove the larger-scale global signal that is associated with global [anthropogenic] processes, and is thus related to global warming in recent decades … Accordingly, the global mean SST has been subtracted to derive a revised AMO index.”

NCAR uses the Trenberth & Shea method, but NOAA uses the original methodology and detrends the North Atlantic temperatures using a least squares linear trend. We will also use the original Enfield and Gray method in this post.

The reason for the AMO SST 60-70-year pattern is unknown, but according to Gray et al. it extends back to 1567AD, so it is a natural oscillation of some kind. Some have speculated that it is a result of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic or a “combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.” (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020). But while interesting these ideas are speculative. Further if the oscillation has existed since 1567, it seems unlikely that it is caused by human CO2 and aerosol emissions.

It is clear that “global” warming is mostly an extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. This is discussed here in figures 1A & 1B and here in the discussion around figure 1, which is also shown as figure 1 below. Regions outside the extratropical Northern Hemisphere don’t change temperature as quickly or as drastically. (continue reading)

Musings on the AMO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Cornwall Alliance

By: David Legates

Date: February 28, 2025

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

If only it were that simple!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Climate Etc.

By: Ross McKitrick

Date: February 21, 2025

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

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

Background

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

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

IPCC AR6 Chapter 12, in its section on the Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers, identifies high confidence that increasing mean air temperatures and extreme heat have already emerged in the historical period and medium confidence that decreasing cold spells are beginning to emerge.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines heat waves and cold waves as follows:

HEAT WAVE: a heatwave can be defined as a period of marked and unusually hot weather persisting for at least two consecutive days.

COLD WAVE: a cold wave can be defined as marked and unusually cold weather, which can be associated with a sharp and significant drop of air temperatures near the Earth’s surface and persisting for at least two consecutive days.

Heat wave definitions vary by country, largely as a function of their climates. For example:

• a period of at least 3 consecutive days in which the average maximum temperature across more than half the country exceeds 28°C (82.4°F) (Denmark)
• at least five days in a row with a daily high exceeding 25°C (77.0°F) (Sweden)
• three consecutive days with temperatures at 39°C (102°F) or higher (Greece)
• a period of at least five consecutive days in which the maximum temperature in De Bilt exceeds 25°C (77°F). During this period the maximum temperature in De Bilt must exceed 30°C (86°F) for at least three days. (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg)
• at least three days above 25°C (77°F) across much of the country. Greater London has a threshold of 28°C (82°F). (UK)
• temperatures exceeding 25°C (77°F) for five or more consecutive days. (Ireland)
• temperatures between 28°C (82°F) in Newfoundland and 35°C (95°F) in interior (British Columbia)
• five consecutive days at or above 35°C (95°F), or three consecutive days at or over 40°C (104°F) (Australia)
• temperature threshold ranging between 27°C (81 °F) in Greymouth and 32°C (90°F) in Gisborne.  (New Zealand)
• temperature reaches or exceeds 90°F (32.2°C) for three consecutive days (US Northeast).
• temperature reaches 100°F (37.8°C) for three or more consecutive days over a wide area (California)

Cold wave definitions are less country or region specific. For example:

• a rapid fall in temperature within a 24-hour period requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry, commerce, and social activities. (US National Weather Service)
• temperature below 20°F

The relatively mild temperatures which define heat waves in much of Europe and portions of Canada and New Zealand lead to a significant increase in heat waves, whereas the requirement for a rapid decrease in temperature within a 24-hour period and a 20°F temperature lead to a significant decrease in cold waves. There is greater interest in heat waves than in cold waves, since heat waves support the global warming / climate change narrative, despite the fact that cold causes more than an order of magnitude more deaths annually than heat according to data reported by Lancet.

While both heat waves and cold waves are described as extreme weather, temperatures at or below 20°F are far more dangerous (~78° below body temperature) than temperatures at or above 77-95°F (3-20°F below normal body temperature).

Clearly, some extremes are more extreme than other extremes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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