Month: July 2025

U.S. “renewables” mad scramble to build is on

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The big, beautiful new tax law creates a not-so pretty loophole that untold billions of dollars worth of renewable projects are going to try to squeeze through. Anytime you screw with the market, you get screwy results, and this is titanic screwing. Watching it could be great fun.

The specifics are simple enough. The massive federal subsidies for wind and solar will end soon, with one big exception. Any project that can get under construction in less than a year from now and come online by 2030 still gets all the goodies.

Given that the queue of proposed wind and solar projects tops a trillion dollars, there will be many billions worth that try to make the short-term construction deadline. That many of these likely will fail makes it especially interesting. It is a prescription for financial chaos.

Of course the huge immediate question is, what does it take to be under construction? The subsidies are in the form of investment and production tax credits so the IRS makes the rules. Happily, a similar but much smaller version of this issue occurred in 2013.

The IRS has a little rule book titled “Beginning of Construction for Purposes of the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit and Energy Investment Tax Credit” here:

The rules are only for wind projects, but the application to solar looks simple, at least for big projects. Rooftop solar might be much more complicated and something to watch.

The simplest way to do it is called a “safe harbor” by the IRS. The developer just has to invest 5% of the project cost up front in actual development and then add “continuously” to that over time.

The 5% need not include any site development, so this works for projects that do not yet have a site which might be a lot of them. The developer just has to fund binding contracts for the stuff that will go into the site once actual construction begins.

Where this gets tricky is that the wind and solar components production capacity probably does not exist to supply all the stuff needed for everybody to meet the 5% requirement in less than a year from now. This could create a seller’s market with prices quickly rising to what the highest bidders will pay. There could be a lot of losers.

It is possible that promissory contracts to make the stuff will eventually be okay. as long as they are funded and binding. But then, the second requirement of continuous development becomes a problem. Development with what?

So a mad scramble to try and quickly spend a lot of money in less than a year seems likely. Whether it can be done remains to be seen.

It is also worth noting that in the long run renewables may not live or die in this scramble. The idea that renewables require subsidies may be incorrect to a considerable degree. This is because most states have energy transition mandates that, in effect, require buying more and more renewables output.

To begin with, 28 states have “renewable portfolio standards” that specifically require ever-increasing use of renewables. Others, like Virginia, have net-zero emission reduction laws that, for practical purposes, have the same result.

But how this works out without massive federal subsidies remains to be seen. Tax credit subsidies are invisible, never showing up on someone’s bill. Absent these subsidies, the cost of the mandates hits the ratepayers in a highly visible way.

Increasing electricity rates are already becoming a political issue. The long-term effect of ending the subsidies well might be ending the mandates once their true cost becomes clear.

It looks like the U.S. renewables industry is going to be scrambling financially. This is certain for the next twelve months and maybe long after that. Watching the mad scramble could be both enlightening and entertaining.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/1eOSVjm

July 9, 2025 at 12:02PM

EU Far-Left Lose Control of Zero Carbon File

The news comes from euronews Patriots break cordon sanitaire to seize climate file in European Parliament. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Sample of Headlines:

Far-Right Patriots Take Lead on EU Climate Target Talks, Devdiscourse

EU lawmakers reject attempt to curb far right’s sway on climate talks, Reuters

Far-Right Patriots for Europe Gain Unprecedented Influence Leading EU Parliament Negotiations on 90% 2040 Climate Target. deepnews

The far right’s climate power grab, Politico Europe

PANIC IN BRUSSELS: Globalists Tremble as Patriots for Europe Group Will Lead Negotiations on the EU’s Climate ‘Target’, Ditch ‘Climate Fanaticism’ and Suicidal Policies. Gateway Pundit

Note: I had to search high and low to find an article without the adjective “far-right” attached to the coalition Patriots for Europe, who have gained control to lead the next round of negotiations regarding EU climate and energy policies.  As the articles explain there are EU politicians on the left, centrist and right; so the leftists attempt to denigrate their opponents by referring to them as “far-right”. Meanwhile the centrists failed to do their job (being the “cordon sanitaire”), to prevent the right from power over the Environmental (or any) agenda.

By taking over legislative work on the European commission’s new 2040 climate target, the Eurosceptic Patriots for Europe will increase its influence over the bloc’s climate policy.

The far-right not far-left Patriots for Europe group will lead negotiations on the EU’s new climate target, MEPs and parliament officials told Euronews, a role that could derail the bloc’s objective to reduce greenhouse emissions by 90% by 2040.

“The Patriots got the climate legislation file,” Iratxe Garcia, the leader of the socialist group told reporters during a press conference on the margins of the plenary in Strasbourg. “They’ve got the rapporteurship… I mean it is the patriots who are going to be the lead negotiators.”

Garcia referred to a recent Commission proposal to amend its EU Climate Law by setting a new target to reduce the EU’s net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 90% by 2040. It is now up to the parliament and the council to discuss and adopt the text.

Officials say giving the 2040 climate target file to the far-right Patriots for Europe in the Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee is the result of a complex system of attribution, which gives the large groups control over important files.

The Patriots for Europe is the third largest group in the European Parliament and has 11 full fledged members in the ENVI committee, including from France’s National Rally and Italy’s Lega party.  The group has systematically opposed the EU’s climate policies, with National Rally leader Jordan Bardella calling for the immediate suspension of the EU’s Green deal a few months ago.

It will give the Patriots increasing influence over the EU’s climate policy as rapporteurs are ultimately responsible for recommending a political line on the file.  Though a rapporteur won’t prevent other groups from reaching a deal on the text, he or she could slow down or complicate the legislative work.

The Commission proposal is aimed at reaffirming the bloc’s “determination to tackle climate change” according to the Commission’s website, and “shape the path” to climate neutrality, an objective that is at the heart of the EU’s green deal.

The job represents a breach of the cordon sanitaire – the process through which centrist pro-European groups effectively club together to deny the right-wing fringe top jobs such as presidencies or vice-presidencies of the European Parliament’s committees.

The practice has historically excluded lawmakers from France’s National Rally, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz and Matteo Salvini’s Lega from power roles in the Parliament.

Last October, Bardella and fellow Patriots’ MEP Hungarian Kinga Gál filed a complaint to the European Court of Justice last week against their political groups’ exclusion through the so-called ‘cordon sanitaire’ from leading positions at the European Parliament.

EU Statement to COP23

From Gateway Pundit:

In February, in a meeting in Madrid, Orbán told Europe and the world how things would proceed from now on.

France24 reported:

“’Yesterday we were the heretics. Today we are the mainstream… We are the future’, proclaimed Orban, sharing the stage with other leading extreme-right nationalists including Dutch anti-Islam firebrand Geert Wilders, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini and former Czech premier Andrej Babis.

Both Orban and Le Pen hailed Trump’s ‘tornado’ as showing the way forward for the EU, which the parties had condemned in a joint statement as riven with ‘climate fanaticism’, ‘illegal immigration’ and ‘excessive regulation’.

‘We’re facing a truly global tipping point. Hurricane Trump is sweeping across the United States’, Le Pen said. ‘For its part, the European Union seems to be in a state of shock’.”

PANIC in Brussels.

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/Mg9BvNT

July 9, 2025 at 10:04AM

OBR Assess The Cost To Govt Of Net Zero

By Paul Homewood

 

As part of their latest “Fiscal risks and sustainability – July 2025” report, the OBR have updated their estimated of Net Zero’s cost to the Public Sector:

 

 image

https://obr.uk/frs/fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-july-2025/#es

It has widely been misreported as costing taxpayers £800 billion – for instance the Telegraph here. This is misleading because about two thirds of that number is loss of fuel duties and other fossil fuel taxes.

While that will create a black hole in government finances, it is not per se a “cost”. In any event it will inevitably be offset by other taxes.

Taking out this loss of revenue, the actual cost to the public sector is estimated to be £257 billion over 26 years, at current prices. Using the OBR’s high end scenario, that cost could be 50% higher.

It must be stressed at this stage that:

a) It only covers government expenditure; it does not include all of the extra costs which will be incurred by the private sector.

b) It also does not include the current costs already being incurred subsidising renewable energy, currently running at around £20 billion a year. Some of this, of course, is already a cost to the Exchequer, as the public sector is a major consumer of electricity.

As always seems the case with official forecasts, it is jam tomorrow! Supposedly these costs will start to rapidly decline in the 2040s. Only a fool would believe that, but it matters little because it is the immediate future that concerns people – not twenty years time, when half of us will not even be here!

In the next ten years, for example, the Government will have to find £136 billion, either from taxation, reduced spending or borrowing. None of these are sustainable options.

Neither will there be any tangible benefits which might help to pay for it. It is misleadingly referred to as “investment” by the OBR. But the definition of that word is:

the commitment of resources, usually money, with the expectation of future returns or benefits. It’s the act of allocating capital with the goal of increasing its value over time.

Little of the expenditure planned on Net Zero will ever make a return. The OBR list the main items:

image

image

The costs are almost certainly understated anyway, as the OBR admit they have used the Climate Change Committees fake assumptions, including wind and solar power costs much lower than latest CfD strike prices and EV price parity with petrol by next year. Replacing government cars with electric, for instance, will cost much more than the OBR is reckoning on.

Note also that the OBR estimates do not include the £100 billion cost of upgrading the power grid, which means it will be added to energy bills.

Although this report is relevant for government finances in the strictest sense, the OBR really do need to properly audit and analyse the whole economy costs of Net Zero, rather than naively taken the CCC at their word.

Apart from anything else, a collapsing economy in itself will have drastic implications for government finances.

The two things are intricately bound together.

The OBR say one of their jobs is to assess the long-term sustainability of the public finances. They cannot do this properly without assessing the true cost of Net Zero.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/5LO0N1I

July 9, 2025 at 09:40AM

COMPARING UK TEMPERATURES IN 2025 WITH 1976

Some people are trying to claim that this summer is comparable to the record year of 1976. Paul Homewood has looked at the details and finds that, so far, 2025 is some way behind.

Comparing This Year’s Heatwave With 1976 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 

via climate science

https://ift.tt/M9JvkH7

July 9, 2025 at 09:21AM