Subscribe now

When geopolitical chaos erupts - Iranian tankers in the dark fleet, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, Russian refineries under fire - oil prices should skyrocket. Yet here we are in August 2024 with WTI crude at just $83 a barrel, and the market hasn't collapsed.

Why? Because the U.S. is producing nearly 14 million barrels a day, pipelines are bypassing chokepoints, and refineries are running flat out. But there's a catch.

Share

In this episode of the Energy Impact Podcast, Trisha Curtis - CEO of PetroNerds, Chief Economist of the American Energy Institute, and Senior Consultant at the U.S. Department of Energy - joins David Blackmon and Stu Turley to break down the real story behind oil markets.

They debate whether prices reflect reality, expose the refining capacity crisis that's keeping gas prices high, and challenge the media narratives that get it wrong.

From China's strategic stockpiling to Iran's fading leverage to why the oil industry desperately needs better PR, this conversation separates market hype from hard data—and reveals what's really at stake for American energy security.

Connect with Trisha Curtis at https://www.linkedin.com/in/trisha-curtis-... or @petronerds633 on YouTube

Enjoy the show!

Run of show:

1. U.S. Oil Production & Global Market Dominance
The hosts emphasize that the U.S. produces nearly 14 million barrels per day, making it the world's largest oil producer. This production level hasn't received adequate attention in media coverage, despite its significant geopolitical and economic implications. The Permian Basin, particularly in Texas and New Mexico, is driving record output growth.

2. Oil Market Resilience During Geopolitical Disruptions
Despite major disruptions—including attacks on the Strait of Hormuz, Red Sea blockades by Houthis, and the Ukraine-Russia conflict—the oil market has adapted remarkably well. The hosts credit market forces, refinery efficiency, and alternative supply routes (like the East-West Pipeline) for preventing catastrophic price spikes that many predicted.

3. Current Oil Pricing ($83/barrel WTI)
The discussion explores why oil prices have remained relatively moderate despite geopolitical chaos. They debate whether prices reflect reality, with consideration for tanker insurance costs, physical delivery premiums, and crack spreads (refinery profit margins).

4. Refining Capacity Crisis
A critical issue: the U.S. has 128 operating refineries with an average age of 75-80 years, and only one new refinery (Brownsville) is coming online by 2027. California is losing refining capacity (6 of 7 refineries slated to close), which will have serious economic consequences. Refining capacity is the key bottleneck limiting gasoline and diesel price relief.

5. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) & Exports
The hosts discuss the SPR release strategy and defend continued crude oil and refined product exports as essential to global energy security. They emphasize that allowing exports supports the market and benefits U.S. energy interests.

6. China's Energy Strategy & Stockpiling
China has significantly reduced oil imports (down 5 million barrels/day) and is drawing on massive strategic reserves. The hosts suggest China is using this period as a "test run" for potential future blockades (like closing the Strait of Malacca during a Taiwan conflict).

7. Middle East Geopolitical Complexity
The discussion covers Iran's leverage (tanker fleet, strait control), OPEC's fragmentation (UAE's departure), Iraq's alignment with Iran, and the role of alternative pipelines reducing dependence on the Strait of Hormuz.

8. Turkey, Pakistan & Regional Mediation
The hosts highlight emerging geopolitical tensions involving Turkey and Pakistan as mediators, with concerns about extremism funding and the potential for regional escalation.

9. Industry Communication & Leadership
The hosts criticize the oil and gas industry for poor public relations and not taking credit for market stability and affordable energy. They call for better industry leadership and advocacy.

This podcast presents a nuanced view of global energy markets, emphasizing market adaptation, U.S. strategic advantages, and the critical importance of refining infrastructure and policy decisions around exports and reserves.

Subscribe now

[Note: Excellent piece here by Kyle Kohli at EnergyInDepth/Climate.]

August 10, 2026 | Kyle Kohli

After nearly six months of scrutiny, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) announced in a press release on Friday that it is temporarily removing the controversial chapter on climate science from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, while it investigates the processes used to develop the chapter.

Share

The “processes” in question allowed the chapter to be written and reviewed by climate litigation supporters, including at least one attorney who represents states and local governments in climate lawsuits against energy companies – a clear violation of the NAS’s own conflict of interest policies.

It’s a much-needed review, especially as NAS faces a parallel scandal regarding its attribution science report. It’s clear that climate plaintiffs and their supporters will continue their long march through the institutions, absent a serious investigation and accountability for the players involved.

How We Got Here

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), which serves to educate federal judges across the country, published its fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence in late 2025, in collaboration with the NAS. The reference manual is meant to provide objective scientific guidance for judges on issues like human DNA, advanced statistical models, and epidemiology.

But the reference manual didn’t stop there. For the first time, this edition included a chapter on climate science. The source of the controversy? The chapter was written and reviewed by several individuals that have clear interests in advancing climate lawsuits.

Michael Burger, Executive Director of the Sabin Center and Of Counsel to Sher Edling, the firm representing more than two dozen states and municipalities in climate lawsuits, was found to have ghost-written entire sections of the chapter, and also listed as an official reviewer.

Sher Edling operates largely under contingency fee agreements, meaning the firm stands to rake in millions of dollars if climate lawsuits are successful. At the same time, Sher Edling has received millions in grants from dark-money pass through groups – a fact that has been independently investigated by Congress.

For months, the NAS has refused to remove the chapter, even as President Trump, 27 state attorneys general, and others have called for them to follow the FJC’s decision to take down the chapter. Even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the foreword to the Reference Manual distanced herself from the climate science chapter, telling a Congressional panel that she never even read it.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Alliance, pointed out why the stakes were so high:

“Federal judges rely on this manual to decide cases […] When activists capture the process used to write it, they capture the courts themselves.” Now, the NAS has agreed to temporarily remove the chapter while it undergoes an “independent review” of how activists were allowed to infiltrate the chapter’s development, writing in a press release:

“The NAS has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review, and the chapter will not appear on our website while that review is underway.”

In a post on X, Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Network, also criticized the “biased climate science chapter” and she called for it to be permanently removed:

“We already know that this entire process was improper. Those who produced the climate science chapter are involved in climate litigation. Without question, that alone warrants that NASEM and the FJC never reinstate this chapter in its reference manual.”

A Pattern of Activists Influencing the NAS

Why might NAS choose this moment to review the climate science chapter? Perhaps because it is facing similar criticism over a new climate science report that involves many of the same players supporting climate plaintiffs.

In July, NAS released a new report on climate attribution – the science underpinning all of the climate lawsuits and climate superfund efforts. That report was also influenced by Burger, among other activists.

In November 2024, the NAS Attribution Committee heard a presentation titled “Use of Attribution Science in Legal Contexts” from Burger. During his presentation, Burger disclosed that he was “actively involved” in Sher Edling’s cases.

Yet none of the authors or others in the room raised concerns that Burger’s participation, which is noted in the report’s acknowledgements, violated NAS’s stated conflict of interest policies to offer advice “free from undue influence from sponsors, donors, or other interested parties.”

The published report on climate attribution also neglects to mention that Delta Merner served on the report’s authorship committee until January 2025. Merner simultaneously led the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Accountability Campaign which touts attribution science as a tool for litigation.

The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has taken notice, with Chairman Brian Babin and Subcommittee Chairman Rich McCormick already investigating the NAS. Congressional oversight is a necessary step, given flagrant violations of the NAS’s own policies, but questions remain.

Why remove the FJC chapter while the “processes” are being investigated, while leaving the climate attribution report, developed with the same processes and the same plaintiff lawyer’s input, published on the NAS’s website?

BOTTOM LINE: Withdrawing the controversial climate science chapter is a good, albeit very late, first step but it does not answer how Burger was allowed to present in front of the climate attribution report authors as well. How was Burger and other climate litigation activists able to get so embedded into NAS?

Subscribe now

Nevada’s Railroad Valley is home to a tungsten deposit that could be the largest ever found in the United States. Developer 3 Proton Lithium (3PL) reports an inferred resource of 1.78 million tons, making the resource more than five times bigger than the next known domestic deposit, with an in-situ value pegged around $152 billion at current prices.

Share

Tungsten prices have skyrocketed since early 2025 amid surging demand from aerospace, defense, and industry. Export controls from China, which controls about 80% of global supply, have accelerated that price rise.

The United States largely walked away from domestic mining 40 years ago and now depends on imports for a metal essential to munitions, armor-piercing rounds, high-temperature alloys, and a range of Pentagon systems. As 3PL’s Kevin Moore put it bluntly to the Financial Times: “This is not a mining story. It is a national security story.”

Yet a big chunk of the prize remains off-limits because NASA objects to mining on about one-third of the company’s claims. The space agency uses the barren desert expanse to calibrate satellite instruments and insists that activity would interfere with a unique site for receiving and verifying satellite signals.

At NASA’s request, the Bureau of Land Management withdrew roughly 17 square miles from mining and exploration in 2023. 3PL is lobbying the Trump administration and Congress to reverse the withdrawal, arguing it was imposed without complete geological information. NASA’s position is unchanged.

Read more

Subscribe now

Confusion continues to rule the day related to global crude oil markets as a dearth of reliable data related to oil flows frustrates the ability of analysts and companies alike to make accurate assessments. Recent reports by both U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and the International Energy Agency illustrate the challenge.

Controversy Over Crude Estimates Through Hormuz

On Tuesday, August 11, Secretary Wright posted an estimate on his X account that crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz for the previous 7 days had been much higher than prevailing estimates:

Share

“Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the U.S. military and our gulf allies, the seven-day average for oil leaving the Strait of Hormuz is currently up to almost 9 million barrels per day,” Wright says. “When combined with the additional 5-7 million barrels per day leaving the region via newly upgraded pipelines and export facilities, total oil flows are currently averaging approximately 15 million barrels per day. On Sunday alone, over 20 million barrels left the Arabian gulf region, which is above the pre-conflict average.”

Read more

Subscribe now

[Note: A great piece of investigative journalism from Parker Thayer at the Capital Research Center]

Courier’s news machine turns against data centers

Share

Courier Newsroom is a nationwide political operation designed to look like independent local news outlets. Since April 2026, Courier’s shadowy network has been waging a coordinated offensive against the construction of AI data centers, publishing more than 200 negative articles, videos, and news blasts on a topic its newsrooms hardly discussed last summer. This has all the hallmarks of a left-wing astro-turfing operation.

by Parker Thayer

August 11, 2026

Readers encountering The ‘Gander in Michigan, UpNorthNews in Wisconsin, and the Copper Courier in Arizona might think these news outlets providing skeptical coverage of artificial intelligence (AI) data centers are refreshing examples of homespun, objective journalism. But their folksy branding hides a secret. All of them are fronts for a DC-based, left-leaning political advocacy firm named Courier Newsroom.

Founded by Democratic strategist Tara McGowan, Courier was initially incubated inside a left-of-center nonprofit named ACRONYM. Courier has since become a for-profit firm running news outlets in at least 20 states. The Courier affiliates are still regurgitating talking points from left-of-center advocacy groups, but now with a profit motive. One target audience lately is Americans with worries about data centers being built in their communities.

Frustrated with recent policy setbacks and eager for a path back to popularity, several left-wing anti-energy climate groups have begun to stoke these concerns about data centers into flames of hysteria. Some far-left environmental activists have even gone as far as helping to create activist groups claiming to be conservative that organized nationwide protests against datacenters.

The Courier network seems to have taken up this cause. Since 2025, Courier outlets in sixteen states have published at least 242 media products (such as articles, videos, and newsletters) attacking or otherwise unfavorably mentioning artificial intelligence and AI data centers using the guise of an ordinary local paper.

Read more

In the rolling hills of northeastern Pennsylvania, where the echoes of the coal industry still linger in the landscape and the local economy, a new battle over energy and technology is unfolding in the borough of Archbald. Cornell Realty Management LLC wants to build a massive data center campus called Wildcat Ridge on more than 500 acres.

Share

Like data centers everywhere, it would need reliable power, backup generation, and yes, some environmental trade-offs. But instead of a straightforward zoning process focused on the facts, the developer now finds itself asking a majority of the Archbald Borough Council to step aside. Six of the seven members, the company argues, have already shown their hand.

This is not some abstract legal technicality. It is a textbook case of local politicians forgetting the difference between campaigning and governing. The council members in question - Madonna Munley, Erin Owen, Larry Marchetti, President Lou Rapoch, Lisa Osborne, and Larry West - have been widely quoted in the local media expressing clear bias against data center development in general and this specific project in particular. They have framed the proposal not as a land-use question subject to the borough’s own zoning code, but as an existential threat to the community’s character. In doing so, they have crossed a bright legal line.

Here is Page 1 of the letter which the Cornell’s lawyers sent to each of the 6 council members:

Under Pennsylvania law, members of a municipal body performing quasi-judicial functions like deciding a conditional use application must avoid not only actual bias but even the appearance of it. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code and longstanding due-process principles demand impartiality. When officials publicly telegraph their opposition before the evidence is fully heard, they risk forfeiting the right to sit in judgment.

The developer’s attorneys are most likely correct under the law: these six members are obligated to recuse themselves. The only alternative is to appoint a hearing officer and restore some measure of fairness to a process that has already stretched across eight hearings and is heading into a ninth.

What we are witnessing in Archbald is a familiar and unfortunate pattern. Local politicians, sensing the political winds, rush to align themselves with the loudest voices in the room. In this case, those voices belong to residents organized under banners like “Stop Archbald Data Centers,” armed with studies predicting dire health and noise impacts from the facility’s diesel backup generators.

That’s fair enough: Citizens have every right to raise concerns. But elected officials charged with quasi-judicial duties do not get to join the protest before the hearing is over. Their job is to weigh the evidence, apply the ordinance, and decide according to the law, not according to which side generates the most applause or the most social-media outrage.

By inserting themselves so publicly into the opposition, these council members have not only likely violated the standards of impartiality required by state law, but also undermined the legitimacy of the process they oversee. Due process is not a slogan for the applicant chant without meaning. It is the foundation that protects everyone involved - developer, residents, and the borough itself - from arbitrary decision-making.

When officials treat a zoning hearing like a political rally, they invite exactly the kind of legal challenge now before them. And if a court later finds the process tainted, the delays and costs will fall on the taxpayers who elected these officials in the first place.

This episode also reveals something larger about the current moment in American energy and technology policy. Data centers are the physical infrastructure of the digital economy. They power the cloud, artificial intelligence, and the everyday services people take for granted. They require substantial electricity, and yes, backup generation that must meet state air-quality standards.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection already regulates those emissions through a permitting process designed to protect public health. Yet local politics often prefers theater to the quieter work of regulation. Officials who campaign against “the industry” in general make it harder for any specific project, whether good, bad, or indifferent, to receive a fair hearing based on its actual merits and compliance with existing rules.

This example is thick with irony. Archbald’s council previously amended its zoning to accommodate data centers. Now a majority of its members appear determined to make sure this particular one never gets built. Rather than inspiring confidence in local governance, this kind of bait-and-switch signals to investors that the rules are only as stable as the next election cycle or the next wave of public meetings. Communities that treat every large project as a political opportunity rather than a regulatory one eventually find themselves left behind.

There is a better way. Council members who cannot set aside their publicly stated opposition should simply recuse. Let an impartial hearing officer complete the record. and allow the evidence to speak for itself. If the project fails to meet the borough’s or state standards, deny it cleanly. If it complies, then approve it.

That is how the system is supposed to work. Currying favor with voters by abandoning the obligations of office is not leadership. It is the shortest path to legal trouble and long-term economic stagnation.

Archbald’s data center fight is a small story in a small borough. But it is also a clear example of a larger problem: the temptation of local politicians to play activist rather than referee. To be clear: These council members are far from isolated examples. Right now, the governors of two of America’s most populous states - Kathy Hochul in New York and Greg Abbot in Texas - are engaged in similar behavior.

Back to Pennsylvania: Its’ law is unambiguous. Those who have already declared their bias have an obligation to step aside. The sooner they do, the sooner the process can return to the only standard that matters - whether the project follows the rules the community itself and the state have put in place. The only thing public posturing to please protesters can do for officeholders is get them into a self-imposed jam.

And there they are.

That is all.

Russian transportation fuel shortages are caused by Ukraine drone attacks, while California shortages are directly related to political over regulations

Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”. He has been featured in the CIO Look Magazine as one of The Most Influential ENERGY LEADERS Shaping the Future of the ENERGY SECTOR.

Share

Mike Ariza is a US Navy veteran with over twenty years of experience in the refining industry. His refining experience extends from the Chevron Refinery in Richmond California, the Flying J refinery in Bakersfield, and the Valero Refinery in Benicia. Mike held the positions of number one control board Operator at Flying J and Senior Refinery Control Board Supervisor at Valero. He was an instructor of both operator field and control board classes. Among his peers he is often referred to as one of the top ten control board operators in the country. 

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, and Mike Ariza

Published August 10, 2026, at America Out Loud NEWS

https://www.americaoutloud.news/the-coming-fuel-crisis-what-ukraine-and-california-have-in-common/

Read more

The Energy Transition is not happening because we are in an energy addition phase, but the real issue is that a crisis is looming in the next few years. The financial treadmill of doom requires the short-lived wind, solar, and storage generation systems to be replaced. The world has spent 10.4 trillion dollars for a 3% gain in energy, and where do we go from here?

Subscribe now

The Energy Reality Gang of 3 - Stu Turley, Dr. Tammy Nemeth, and David Blackmon are here to discuss the details in this fast-moving hour.

Share

Enjoy the show:

Run of Show:

1. Financial Costs of Renewable Energy Transition
The hosts open with a striking statistic: Germany's energy transition has cost approximately €1 trillion with minimal tangible benefits. The episode explores the massive financial burden of renewable energy infrastructure, noting that $10.3 trillion has been spent globally to achieve only 3% energy gains.

2. Wind Turbine Blade Recycling Crisis
A major focus is the environmental and economic disaster of wind turbine blade disposal. Key points include:

Turbine blades cannot be easily recycled due to their composite construction
The EU has strict recycling mandates (65% collection target), but only 37.5% has actually been collected
Blades are being buried in landfills across the US and exported to unknown destinations
Companies like ROSSI can only recycle 1,700 tons per year—just 1% of waste generated
The lack of viable recycling technology despite 20 years of development
3. Grid Stability and Blackout Risks
The episode discusses serious grid reliability concerns:

The UK is reducing minimum inertia requirements, risking blackouts similar to Spain's 2024 crisis
A solar eclipse warning in the UK demonstrates grid fragility
The US Southwest Power Pool experienced a near-crisis when a data center went offline
Texas ERCOT came dangerously close to mandatory conservation measures when solar generation dropped to zero at sundown
4. Renewable Energy's Reliability Limitations
The hosts argue that wind and solar cannot provide baseload power:

Data centers (Meta, Amazon, Google) are abandoning renewable-only power plans and switching to natural gas, nuclear, or coal
Wind and solar require equal capacity in backup dispatchable power (natural gas, coal, nuclear)
These technologies fail precisely when needed most—during severe weather
Battery storage cannot scale to meet grid demands
5. Decommissioning and Regulatory Gaps
Unlike coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants, renewable installations have no mandatory decommissioning requirements in the US
Texas alone faces an estimated $89 billion cleanup bill for wind installations
No regulatory body has clear authority to enforce proper retirement of wind and solar facilities
Landfills of wind turbine blades are accumulating across West Texas and South Texas
6. Environmental Concerns Beyond Carbon
Balsa wood forests in South America are being devastated to supply wind turbine materials
A wind turbine blade explosion off New York caused environmental damage comparable to the Exxon Valdez
Improper solar and battery installations have caused fires, including one that burned down a UK hospital
7. The "Treadmill of Doom" Concept
The hosts describe a self-perpetuating bureaucratic cycle where:

Problems created by renewable policies generate new regulations
New regulations create additional problems requiring more solutions
This expands government control and job security rather than solving actual issues
The focus is on control rather than environmental benefit
8. Policy Priorities vs. Reality
For 30 years, net zero and climate change have been prioritized over practical energy policy
This has led to deindustrialization in Europe, the UK, and Canada
Citizens bear the costs through higher electricity rates
Media and academic institutions produce studies supporting predetermined conclusions
9. Data Center Power Requirements
The episode highlights that even tech companies committed to green energy recognize that reliable baseload power is essential for operations, contradicting the viability of renewable-only systems.

10. Future Predictions
The hosts predict that within two years, as subsidies expire, consumers will face unprecedented cost increases and grid reliability will deteriorate significantly across the US, EU, and UK.

The overall theme is that renewable energy transition, while well-intentioned, has become economically unsustainable and environmentally problematic, creating a "treadmill of doom" that benefits bureaucracies and special interests rather than solving energy or environmental challenges.

Check out for Stu Turley on The Energy News Beat Substack:

Energy News Beat

At The Intersection of Energy and Finance - By Sandstone Group

By Stu Turley

For David Blackmon

David Blackmon's Energy Additions

There is no 'Energy Transition' taking place. Instead, what is taking place is the most massive addition of energy in all its forms in the history of mankind. Learn all about this energy addition and the public policies that drive it here.

For Tammy Nemeth

The Nemeth Report’s Substack

The Nemeth Report delivers sharp, evidence-based analysis on energy, environment, and climate policy. Dr. Tammy Nemeth challenges net-zero ideology, green energy myths, and selective environmental activism with realism and common sense.

Subscribe now

[Note: Another excellent expose’ from the folks at the Institute for Energy Research here.]

Key Takeaways

Share

1 The One Big Beautiful Bill Act repealed lucrative tax credits for wind and solar, but a loophole allowed the tax credit for battery storage to continue until 2036.

2 New solar capacity is being built with battery storage to capitalize on its tax credit.

3 A recent study of the costs of a renewables system backed by storage batteries for the PJM grid shows buildout costs of more than $4 trillion through 2045, with capacity increases of 800%.

4 Other scenarios limited to new natural gas and nuclear capacity, with and without battery storage, through 2045 saw costs drop significantly and capacity builds of 48 to 62%.

5 A number of states have net-zero carbon policies and battery storage procurement mandates.

6 If policies continue to incentivize intermittent renewable energy backed by expensive battery systems, electricity costs for consumers will likely skyrocket.

7 Europe is already reeling from similar programs that threaten to deindustrialize the continent.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) of 2025 phased out hefty solar and wind tax credits created under former President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) passed in 2022. But instead of phasing out battery storage tax credits along with the wind and solar tax credits, the OBBBA phases them out much later — in 2036—which solar developers are now capitalizing on by adding battery storage components to new builds, allowing them to keep earning lucrative clean energy tax credits despite the phaseout. Warren Buffett pointed out more than a decade ago: “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Read more

Rare Earth in concert, ca. 1971.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Says the Strait of Hormuz is about to lose its strategic importance - Check out this clip from Bessent, telling an interviewer that most Middle East oil will be able to bypass the Strait of Hormuz within the next 2-3 years:

Subscribe now

Transcript:

Interviewer: There’s some who’ve speculated the straight will never go back to being the way it was before. What would you say?

Bessent: I would say, I would take, I think they’re saying that in a doomsday sort of way. I would put it in another way. The Strait is never going back to the way it was, because the Iranians have tried to use it as a choke point. We are going to see over the next two years, the Strait’s going to become irrelevant. It is going to just become another body of water. And I would say that more than 50 or 70 percent. Of the energy that moves through the strait now is going to go through underground pipelines.

[End]

Say, where have readers here heard that prediction before? Why, right here at David Blackmon’s Energy Additions way back in April, as it happens.

Share

Here’s part of what I wrote on April 9 in a piece for the Daily Caller:

All these factors and more highlight an urgent need to build a direct trade route to the Mediterranean for Middle East-produced commodities that are so vital to global supply. That is the vision of the IMEC plan.

NewMed Energy CEO Yossi Abu told the Financial Times: “You need oil pipelines, railway connectivity throughout the region, onshore, without giving others bottlenecks to choke us,” adding that alternatives to shipping via Hormuz were needed for people “to control their own destinies, with their friends.”

It seems beyond argument that the ongoing Iran crisis has starkly illustrated the risks involved in allowing the terrorist regime to threaten global supply chains – and thus, the health of the global economy – for 47 long years without developing alternative routes. This is madness that cannot be allowed to persist.

The major holdup to moving forward with the IMEC plan is gaining Saudi Arabia’s approval of funneling the oil and other key commodities through Israel to Haifa. In addition to the longstanding religious conflicts between the two nations, there is the fact that Haifa has also been vulnerable to terrorist attacks by Hezbollah and other Iranian proxy groups.

So, IMEC is not a perfect solution, but any alternative will also face risks in this historically high-risk region of the world. A perfect alternative may not even be possible, but preserving the status quo is the highest risk option of all.

[End]

Bessent focuses on pipelines to the Med as the alternative, but it is more than that. Every exporting country on the Arabian Peninsula is already also working on solutions involving rail and highways because oil is far from the only commodity being disrupted by the on and off closures at Hormuz. Urrea for fertilizers, 20% of the global helium supplies and other crucial commodities need to sustain the global economy are also being held up.

It’s all a massive need that, as Bessent correctly says, will be resolved within the next 2-3 years.

****************

Read more

Subscribe now

Hey, y’all: it turns out that some former Interior Department staffers harbor grievances against Secretary Doug Burgum. Who could have possibly seen that coming?

Share

E&E News by POLITICO’s August 7, 2026, hit piece, “Inside Doug Burgum’s rocky tenure at Interior,” delivers a familiar product: a cascade of anonymous complaints from people who no longer work there, interspersed with policy disagreements dressed up as managerial catastrophe, all under the banner of journalistic revelation. The article is a classic specimen of the genre that has flourished in the second Trump administration: Selective sourcing, heavy reliance on the disaffected, and a framing that treats energy dominance and workforce reduction as inherently scandalous.

The core narrative is that optimism about Burgum - the former North Dakota governor, tech entrepreneur, and energy advocate - has given way to “confusion and concern,” secrecy, a toxic leadership team, and mass staff departures. Career veterans are quoted lamenting that Burgum does not sufficiently solicit their advice.

Anonymous voices allege nondisclosure agreements (a standard exercise in employee dismissals in both the public and private sectors for decades now), excessive document shredding (see: James Comey’s FBI), disappearing Signal messages, and even an alleged desire for an extra SCIF. High-profile exits are detailed: the Senate-confirmed legal counsel, a chief of staff, an assistant secretary for land and minerals management, and others.

Read more

Subscribe now

[Note: Another excellent investigative piece from real journalist Audrey Streb at Heartlander News.]

A historic Christian monastery is fighting a proposed wind farm that it says would surround the property and disrupt the peaceful setting where worshippers pray, serve and bury their dead.

Holy Trinity Monastery, an Orthodox Christian monastery in Jordanville, New York, about 30 minutes north of Cooperstown, fears the wind project could “destroy” one of the main reasons pilgrims visit the monastery – its serenity, local news outlet WKTV first reported. The Trump administration is backing the monastery’s fight, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Heartlander News.

Share

The monastery, which has served the community for nearly a century, sits near the area where Terra-Gen LLC hopes to build its Rolling Hills wind project. The project remains in the early planning stages, and Terra-Gen told Heartlander News it expects to build about 50 turbines in rural Herkimer County, where the monastery is located.

“It would nearly encircle us,” the Rev. Luke Murianka, vicar bishop of the Eastern American Diocese, told WKTV on Tuesday. “People come very frequently to their loved ones in the cemetery, and they’ll ask us to do a special memorial service. And they stand there, with the grave and the cross… and these monstrosities.”

The final number of turbines and the project’s footprint will be determined during the permitting process, a Terra-Gen spokesperson said, adding that the company expects the project’s footprint to be substantially smaller than early estimates.

The monastery has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for 15 years, according to National Park Service records.

“There should be some sort of protection under that,” Archimandrite Nektarios, business manager at Holy Trinity Monastery Seminary, told WKTV.

Fighting foreign projects

A USDA spokesman told Heartlander News that “the Trump USDA stands with Holy Trinity Monastery as they work to protect this historic property from foreign-owned wind projects.”

Terra-Gen is jointly owned by Masdar, the United Arab Emirates’ state-backed green energy company, and Igneo Infrastructure Partners, a global investment manager.

“The Trump Administration has been crystal clear that we should not be reliant on unaffordable, unreliable energy sources as we work to assert the President’s Energy Dominance Agenda,” the USDA spokesman said.

The Trump administration has previously moved to revoke wind project permits, including for a project in Idaho approved during the Biden administration that was planned near a World War II memorial. The administration has instead promoted conventional energy sources, including coal, oil and natural gas, as well as baseload power sources such as nuclear energy.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has also become involved in disputes involving agricultural land. In August 2025, the USDA announced it would stop providing incentives for solar projects built on “prime farmland.”

Rolling Hills is the third wind project developers have proposed near the monastery, WKTV reported.

“The first project would have put 90 wind turbines to the east, about a mile from where we are sitting right now. They are four times higher than our bell tower,” Murianka said.

People come to the monastery to pray, and Orthodox Christians traditionally face east while praying.

Church officials told WKTV that about 4,000 people are buried on monastery grounds and that pilgrims visit from around the world, including Europe, Canada and South America.

They also told the outlet they face a more difficult fight after New York expanded the authority of its Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) in 2024. ORES has final authority over permits for renewable energy projects such as wind and solar farms, and church officials said they worry local communities will have less input on projects such as Rolling Hills.

Read the rest at this link.

That is all.

Germany’s once-mighty auto industry is trembling under pressure that strikes at the heart of that country’s national psyche. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW, the industrial icons that helped define modern Germany’s former economic might, are reeling from a toxic mix of American tariffs, a botched electric vehicle transition, and relentless competition from Chinese manufacturers.

Subscribe now

Sales in China, long a key profit engine for these companies, have cratered. Volkswagen moved 26 percent fewer vehicles there in recent periods. Mercedes saw a 28 percent drop and BMW slumped 20 percent. Company executives are now considering factory closures, model cancellations, and tens of thousands of job cuts. Such moves would slow the bleeding, but they’re akin to putting Band-Aids on a bullet wound. Chinese rivals churn out new models in 18 months or less while Western firms lumber along on multi-year cycles. The result is cheaper, better-equipped EVs flooding markets and eroding the Germans’ once-dominant position.

Share

As so often is the case when Western firms enter joint ventures with Chinese companies, what initially were lucrative partnerships have devolved into liabilities. For decades German brands enjoyed massive profits from China’s booming market through these joint ventures. Beijing’s engineers watched, learned, and invested heavily with state subsidies. Now they outpace the teachers on the technology that Brussels and Washington insisted would define the future.

What is happening to German carmakers now is the predictable outcome of governments forcing a rapid shift to electric vehicles while China controlled the supply chains for batteries, critical minerals, and the manufacturing scale to undercut everyone else on price and speed. German labor protections and consensus management, long sources of strength, have proven slow to adapt. The EU’s stubborn clinging to climate alarm dogma has only amplified the problem.

Read more

Washington Update

Subscribe now

Trump’s Gunna Trump

As you know our week started out with President Trump stating that we make too much money and we need to lower our prices now. An interesting message and it sounds vaguely familiar. Almost as if it is a President looking at the midterms. That got us wondering who said it better – Trump or Biden? You be the judge.

Share

Biden:

“Oil and gas companies shouldn’t pad their profits at the expense of hardworking Americans.”

“Bring down the prices you’re charging at the pump to reflect the cost you pay for the product—do it now.”

Trump:

“They’re making too much money based on a shortage—Chevron, too much money; Exxon Mobil, too much money.”

“The big Oil Companies are not dropping their price at the pump commensurate with the sharply lower prices they are paying for Oil.”

So the Wall Street Journal weighed in an it is worth the read in full

Trump, Big Oil, and ‘Too Much Money’

The billionaire President offers an odd critique of companies.

“Everyone knows President Trump plays the role of political populist, but sometimes all you can do is laugh. Take his lashing Monday of American oil companies for “making too much money.”

Mr. Trump is worried about gasoline prices going into the midterm election, and the President needs someone to blame. Voila, Big Oil.

“When you look at one company where they made 12 times what they made the year before, they ought to give some of that back to the public,” Mr. Trump said Monday. “And they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.” It’s unclear which company he was referring to, but previously he had criticized Chevron CEO Mike Wirth for not praising Mr. Trump as the reason for his company’s success.

Oil and gas giants always make more money when oil prices rise, as they have given the threat to oil supplies from Mr. Trump’s war with Iran. But this is the same industry that Mr. Trump has been cheering for producing more oil in the U.S. Does he want the companies to make less money, so they’ll have less to invest in exploration and drilling? Which is it, sir?

Read more

Subscribe now

The White House is reportedly preparing to extend the temporary Jones Act waiver that has allowed foreign-flagged tankers to move refined products between U.S. ports for the past four-and-a-half months. Good. They should not only extend it - they should make the suspension permanent and then urge Congress to repeal this century-old protectionist relic once and for all.

Share

According to Reuters, the current waiver, set to expire August 16, has been invoked nearly 200 times through the end of July. That makes it the longest and most heavily used suspension in the history of the program. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has already signaled another extension is likely, noting that fuel prices should ease in the coming weeks as a result.

Trump’s Jones Act Waiver Is a Godsend

The numbers back him up: the waiver has eased bottlenecks, particularly for California and the East Coast, by increasing tanker availability and allowing more efficient movement of gasoline and diesel where domestic Jones Act vessels simply cannot meet demand.

Anyone who has watched this market for more than five minutes understands why. The Jones Act requires that cargo traveling between U.S. ports must ride on ships built in American yards, owned by American companies, and crewed by American mariners. In theory it protects a domestic fleet and national security.

Read more

Subscribe now

[Note: Another excellent analysis by Doug Sheridan here. Doug is one of the most astute commentors on energy matters posting at LinkedIn today. If you aren’t following him there, you are missing out.]

Share

The WSJ reports battery energy storage systems (BESS) are moving from niche to scale in the US, with residential deployments accelerating. Base Power Company has installed roughly 23,000 home batteries, reports about 550 MWh of cumulative capacity, and completes roughly 100 installations per day—a pace it aims to double. It recently closed a funding round that values the firm at $13B.

The broader market is expanding rapidly. In Q1, the US added 3.3 GW—about 8.4 GWh—of BESS, with the home‑battery segment setting a quarterly record near 1.3 GWh. Investors and incumbents alike are pursuing residential storage; startups, solar installers and legacy energy firms see home batteries as a fast, modular way to add dispatchable capacity and grid services.

The WSJ notes batteries promise flexibility and resilience as they scale. Pilot programs such one as El Paso Electric Company is undertaking, which places utility‑owned batteries on crowded feeders, underscore the operational rationale—deferring costly infrastructure upgrades, providing backup power to customers, and supply peak relief when aggregated.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't mention the fact that subsidy‑driven buildouts of BESS risk further undermining the investment signals already being distorted by wind and solar. When energy policies indiscriminately steer capital toward intermittent or storage‑dependent resources, they crowd out investment in the dispatchable generation and transmission assets needed for when demand arrives at times the sun is gone, the wind is still, and batteries are depleted. There is no disputing this fact.

To be clear, BESS has legitimate and valuable uses. But BESS is not a cure‑all for the structural challenges facing power systems. A rapid expansion in BESS fueled by aggressive subsidies doesn’t change the fact that grids must still pay for the fixed and ongoing operations of the conventional generation and wires needed to meet demand for the inevitable periods when wind, solar and BESS aren’t available. Those costs are both real and large.

Texas offers an early example of the costly math working it way to customers. ERCOT—long a showcase for subsidized renewables and now a major center of BESS deployment—is seeing residential power prices rise. The latest U.S. Energy Information Administration data show Y-O-Y increases in retail electric rates over 8% in the state, well above overall inflation—which itself is pushed higher by electricity prices. Similar dynamics are emerging in other markets as investors in essential, but non‑subsidized assets, demand higher rates to justify the risk of operating on grids that favor renewables and storage.

Across the US, the bell of higher required rates for essential assets has been rung, and it's not going to be unrung easily. Some want to argue it's the fault of data‑centers. Don’t fall for it. The real cause is years of politically driven, poorly aligned energy policy now expressing itself.

Subscribe now

[Note: Great investigative piece here by real working journalist Audrey Streb at Heartlander News. In the story, Audrey Documents how the apparatchiks at the Biden Autopen pretend presidency deployed Machiavellian tactics to cut several huge private equity firms in on “green” subsidy programs in direct violation of their original intent. The kind of really great, real journalism work the corrupt legacy media refuses to do.]

Share

Three days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Biden administration approved changes that let a green energy nonprofit route $2.65 billion in taxpayer money to four funds managed by Wall Street firms in a move that limited government oversight, according to sources and records reviewed by Heartlander News.

Sources said the firms’ involvement does not appear to match what the grantee originally told the Biden administration it would do with the taxpayer money. The Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Heartlander News that the Biden EPA approved a “substantive” last-minute workplan and budget changes for the grantee, which flipped the program’s deployment model “on its head” and allowed the nonprofit to circumvent statutory limitations.

The Biden EPA’s landmark $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), created in 2022 to finance green energy projects in low-income communities, is now under investigation by the agency’s inspector general, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI after it reportedly awarded billions to politically-connected nonprofits.

The Trump EPA froze a vast majority of the program’s funding and cancelled the grants once Administrator Lee Zeldin took charge of the agency, though the funds had already been transferred to the four subgrantees managed by the firms before the freeze, the agency said.

Documents reviewed by Heartlander News reveal that one grantee under the program, the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC), asked the Biden administration for expedited approval to revise its workplan and budget days before Trump’s inauguration. CGC then routed over half of its $5 billion award out of the third-party financial agents approved by the Biden EPA and into the four subgrantees managed by the Wall Street firms, parking the funds outside the agency’s direct oversight, the Trump EPA confirmed.

The four major firms – StepStone, Brookfield, Apollo and Energy Capital Partners – each manage one of the four subgrantees, according to CGC’s filings with the EPA.

Brookfield and Apollo have over $1 trillion of assets under management, dwarfing the $2.65 billion routed to the entities they manage.

Subawards appear on USASpending.gov for Brookfield’s CGC Renewable Credit Mobilization Fund, Apollo’s CGC Clean Energy Mobilization Fund, Energy Capital Partners’ CGC Clean Energy Mobilization Fund and StepStone’s CGC Clean Energy Investment Mobilization LLC, all dated Jan. 31, 2025.

According to USASpending.gov and documents, the Brookfield and Apollo entities each received $450 million, while $300 million and $1.45 billion went to the Energy Capital Partners and StepStone vehicles, respectively.

A former senior EPA official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told Heartlander News that given the agency’s two-year timeline to implement the program, the official believed EPA had assumed that grantees like CGC wouldn’t misrepresent their ability to manage the money or “just transfer billions to private equity firms.”

“It’s just incredible that someone would do that with government funds,” the official said.

Brookfield, Apollo and Energy Capital Partners did not respond to Heartlander News’ multiple requests for comment, and CGC did not respond to a request for an on-the-record comment.

A spokesperson for StepStone said it does not comment on specific client investments, mandates or ongoing proceedings, and that it carries out its work consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities and the law.

‘Not in line with the original spirit of the award’

When it notified the agency of the transfers, CGC told the Biden EPA it would retain veto and consent rights over the funds’ investment decisions, according to emails included in court documents.

CGC’s annual report to EPA, published June 29, discloses that its “strategic financial partners” – the four firms – manage the funds, though CGC helps to both “source and shape investments” and confirm that the investments are aligned with the GGRF program’s requirements.

[End Excerpt]

READ THE FULL STORY AT THIS LINK

That is all.

Subscribe now

Amid a series of record and near-record profits being reported by the world’s corporate major integrated oil companies, venerable British major BP announced this week its intent to sell off its position in the UK-governed portion of the North Sea. The move signals an end of a 63-year era in which BP was the first to run seismic surveys in a search for oil and gas resources in 1963, and obtained one of the earliest leases auctioned by the British government in 1964.

Share

For CEO Meg O’Neill, it is also a signal that her management team is intent on making moves from a reality-based standpoint rather than the aspirational, green-narrative-based strategies deployed since the year 2000. That was the year when then-CEO John Browne decided to change the company’s name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum, one of the most in-your-face virtue signals of all time.

Since that move, BP has become increasingly less competitive with former peer companies like Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil as it strove to burnish its green street cred by targeting a significant share of a shrinking capital base to less profitable wind, solar, carbon capture, and biofuels projects.

Read more

Subscribe now

The United States is finally starting to dig itself out of a rare earth metals hole it spent decades digging. The effort got a boost on July 29, when Energy Fuels announced that construction has begun on a commercial-scale expansion at its White Mesa Mill in Utah. The expansion of the only fully licensed and operating conventional uranium processing facility in the United States, will enable the plant to produce heavy rare earth oxides at meaningful volumes. This key event, along with other developments in the U.S. and allied nations like Australia, represent concrete steps toward breaking China’s chokehold on the materials that power everything from electric vehicle motors and humanoid robots to advanced weapons systems and data centers.

Share

Heavy Rare Earth Metals: A Supply Chain Pinch Point

Heavy rare earths are the severe pinch point in current Western permanent magnet supply chains. These elements give high-performance magnets the coercivity and heat resistance needed for smaller, lighter, and more powerful motors. Energy Fuels already has commercial capacity for up to 1,000 tons per year of separated neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxide, the lighter rare earths that form the bulk of most magnets. The new circuits will add roughly 20 tons of terbium, 120 tons of dysprosium, 140 tons of samarium, 20 tons of europium, and 140 tons of gadolinium annually, with terbium and dysprosium online by the end of 2027 and the rest by the end of 2028.

“Those heavy rare earth metals are sort of the holy grail that allow these magnets to work across all temperature ranges and don’t lose their magnetism over time,” Energy Fuels CEO Ross Bhappu told me in a recent interview. “These are vitally important components to these magnets. They’re used in tiny quantities but they’re extremely important, and that’s where China has an incredible grip on the market today.”

Read more

Subscribe now

To meet the growing demand for continuous, uninterruptable, and emissions-free electricity, the world economies are pursuing Nuclear Power generation.

Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”. He has been featured in the CIO Look Magazine as one of The Most Influential ENERGY LEADERS Shaping the Future of the ENERGY SECTOR.

Share

Dick Storm is a Registered Professional Engineer with over 50 years’ experience in coal electric power generation. Today, Mr. Storm serves as a consultant to Storm Technologies and as a part-time instructor of short courses in continuing education programs for the University of South Carolina Beaufort – Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (UCSB-OLLI) related to current needs for energy and electricity generation. Over the years he has authored numerous articles for POWER Magazine and has published numerous technical papers and presentations.

Co-authored by Ronald Stein, and Dick Storm

Published August 3, 2026, at America Out Loud NEWS

https://www.americaoutloud.news/america-is-watching-the-worlds-movement-to-nuclear-power-generation/

Most California politicians have hated the zero-emissions generated electricity from nuclear generations since 1976 when they passed the moratorium on new nuclear power plants. Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, proven, least emitting fuel of all and yet, most of California’s politicians hate it. Once California had multiple operating nuclear power plants including San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, Rancho Seco and a partial ownership in Palo Verde located in Arizona. Now, only Diablo Canyon and Palo Verde remain in operation.

For many years the politicians enacted policies and laws that were anti-nuclear. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 budget request is $892.3 million, which includes 2,606 full-time equivalents (FTE).

Not too long ago, coal and nuclear together provided about 70% of America’s electricity generation. Since the enormous investments from federal and state subsidies for electricity generation by wind turbines and solar panels, electricity prices across the country have more than doubled.

Fortunately, worldwide nuclear generation has survived despite the demonization of it by California celebrities and politicians.

The World Nuclear Association shows about 80 nuclear reactors are under construction across the world. About 120 further reactors are planned. Most reactors under construction or planned are in Asia.

The list of multiple nuclear reactors under construction is as follows:

• China 37

• India 8

• Russia 5

• Egypt 4

• Korea 4

• Turkey 4

• Bangladesh 2

• Japan 2

• Ukraine 2

• UK 2

In America, President Trump has incentivized the nuclear industry with up to $300 billion in loan authorities, sponsored a slate of permitting reform legislation, and issued executive orders to modify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and streamline reactor licensing approvals from a decade to 18 months.

California was one of the largest producers of U.S. crude oil and petroleum products. Today, with oil production in California in terminal decline, the State imports between 60% and 70% of its crude oil from foreign countries to meet State’s demand at operating refineries.

It’s shocking that the State imports most of its crude oil demands when California’s Pacific Outer Continental Shelf contains massive, mostly untapped, and undeveloped heavy oil reserves that are among the largest reserves in the world.

California’s estimated undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR) range between 4 and 14.2 billion barrels of oil, depending on the region and the specific federal assessment. The lower end corresponds with long-term downgrades of onshore shale, while the upper end highlights the potential of the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

The California economy runs on transportation. The 4^th largest economy in California demands from the remaining 7 refineries operating in the State, a reliable supply chain of 48 million gallons of transportation fuels DAILY (these include jet fuel for 40 military airports and 9 international airports, three grades of gasoline for its 30 million vehicles, and diesel for the trucking and construction industries).  During the 1970’s there were dozens of refineries in California. Today, because of demonization of fossil fuels to inflame the public, harmful laws, rules and restrictions have been applied. Now, only 7 operating refineries remain to provide the supply chain of those transportation fuels that are running the 4^th largest economy in the world.

Now let’s move on to affordable electricity generation. A popular misunderstanding is that intermittent solar and wind are “free”, but increasing electricity costs are caused by at least three factors:

1. Two electricity generating systems need to be built. The fact is that because wind and solar are intermittent, two power generation systems need to be built. The renewable system that is powered by wind and solar energy and then a backup generation system powered by coal, gas, nuclear or other “Dispatchable” generation. The second generating system is necessary to provide uninterrupted generation when the sun sets and the wind doesn’t blow.

2. The gas fuel for the gas turbine backup power is volatile and usually at a higher cost than coal or nuclear fuel.

3. Wind and solar farms require vast acreage away from populated areas; thus, transmission lines and substations must be constructed to connect the power generation from remotely located solar and wind farms. to bring that “free” electricity back to where people and businesses are located.

Of course, there are numerous and complicated reasons unique to each area. However, the pattern of results is clear. The more solar and wind is installed, the higher the cost of electricity. At this point in time the end results of other states and other countries cannot be ignored.

• Hawaii which prematurely shut down their 180 MW coal plant about five years ago has the highest electricity rates in all the U.S. Hawaii is an energy island and cannot backup the wind and solar that is installed with gas turbines or imported power from neighboring utilities. There are no gas lines in Hawaii so, the backup is Diesel fueled generation.

• Germany tried to transition to wind and solar and the high electric rates created de-industrialization because energy intensive industries could not compete in the world markets.

• Then there are numerous other U.S. states that have shut down their coal plants with a similar result as Germany and Hawaii. Extreme price escalation. These are simply facts from published electricity rates and state energy profiles of generation by fuel.

Then came politically driven energy laws that forced coal plants to shut down.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) owned a large portion of the well designed, well run, clean and affordable 1900 MW Intermountain Power Coal Plant in Delta Utah. The power from Delta, Utah flowed over special high voltage D.C. power lines very reliably for many years. The Intermountain Power Coal plant was shut down in 2025 and no longer operates on coal fuel. Almost a fifth of LADWP electricity was generated from coal fuel as recent as 2016. Now, zero generation is from coal fuel.

The escalating power costs are likely to force any electricity intensive industry to move toward continuous, uninterruptable, and emission free electricity. Thus, America is watching the world’s movement to nuclear power generation.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein