Revolution Wind Stop Order: Remember Keystone XL (Obama) and LNG Exports (Biden)

Ed. Note: The government giveth and taketh. The Stop Order issued last Friday regarding Revolution Wind Farm invites a relook at the similar orders against the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline (Obama 2015) and in-process liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports (Biden 2024).

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline (November 6, 2015)

Several years ago, the State Department began a review process for the proposed construction of a pipeline that would carry Canadian crude oil through our heartland to ports in the Gulf of Mexico and out into the world market.

This morning, Secretary [John] Kerry informed me that, after extensive public outreach and consultation with other Cabinet agencies, the State Department has decided that the Keystone XL Pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States.  I agree with that decision.  

This morning, I also had the opportunity to speak with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada.  And while he expressed his disappointment, given Canada’s position on this issue, we both agreed that our close friendship on a whole range of issues, including energy and climate change, should provide the basis for even closer coordination between our countries going forward.  And in the coming weeks, senior members of my team will be engaging with theirs in order to help deepen that cooperation.

Now, for years, the Keystone Pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse.  It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter.  And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.

To illustrate this, let me briefly comment on some of the reasons why the State Department rejected this pipeline.

First:  The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy.  So if Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this was not the way to do it.  If they want to do it, what we should be doing is passing a bipartisan infrastructure plan that, in the short term, could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would, and in the long run would benefit our economy and our workers for decades to come.  

Our businesses created 268,000 new jobs last month.  They’ve created 13.5 million new jobs over the past 68 straight months — the longest streak on record.  The unemployment rate fell to 5 percent.  This Congress should pass a serious infrastructure plan, and keep those jobs coming.  That would make a difference. The pipeline would not have made a serious impact on those numbers and on the American people’s prospects for the future.   

Second:  The pipeline would not lower gas prices for American consumers.  In fact, gas prices have already been falling — steadily.  The national average gas price is down about 77 cents over a year ago.  It’s down a dollar over two years ago.  It’s down $1.27 over three years ago.  Today, in 41 states, drivers can find at least one gas station selling gas for less than two bucks a gallon.  So while our politics have been consumed by a debate over whether or not this pipeline would create jobs and lower gas prices, we’ve gone ahead and created jobs and lowered gas prices.

Third:  Shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America’s energy security.  What has increased America’s energy security is our strategy over the past several years to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world.  Three years ago, I set a goal to cut our oil imports in half by 2020.  Between producing more oil here at home, and using less oil throughout our economy, we met that goal last year — five years early.  In fact, for the first time in two decades, the United States of America now produces more oil than we buy from other countries.

Now, the truth is, the United States will continue to rely on oil and gas as we transition — as we must transition — to a clean energy economy.  That transition will take some time.  But it’s also going more quickly than many anticipated.  Think about it.  Since I took office, we’ve doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas by 2025; tripled the power we generate from the wind; multiplied the power we generate from the sun 20 times over.  Our biggest and most successful businesses are going all-in on clean energy.  And thanks in part to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.

The point is the old rules said we couldn’t promote economic growth and protect our environment at the same time.  The old rules said we couldn’t transition to clean energy without squeezing businesses and consumers.  But this is America, and we have come up with new ways and new technologies to break down the old rules, so that today, homegrown American energy is booming, energy prices are falling, and over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, America has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Today, the United States of America is leading on climate change with our investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.  America is leading on climate change with new rules on power plants that will protect our air so that our kids can breathe.  America is leading on climate change by working with other big emitters like China to encourage and announce new commitments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.  In part because of that American leadership, more than 150 nations representing nearly 90 percent of global emissions have put forward plans to cut pollution.

America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change.  And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.  And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.  

Today, we’re continuing to lead by example.  Because ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.

As long as I’m President of the United States, America is going to hold ourselves to the same high standards to which we hold the rest of the world.  And three weeks from now, I look forward to joining my fellow world leaders in Paris, where we’ve got to come together around an ambitious framework to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can.  

If we want to prevent the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late, the time to act is now.  Not later.  Not someday.  Right here, right now.  And I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish together.  I’m optimistic because our own country proves, every day — one step at a time — that not only do we have the power to combat this threat, we can do it while creating new jobs, while growing our economy, while saving money, while helping consumers, and most of all, leaving our kids a cleaner, safer planet at the same time.  

That’s what our own ingenuity and action can do.  That’s what we can accomplish.  And America is prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward.

Statement from President Joe Biden on Decision to Pause Pending Approvals of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (January 26, 2024)

In every corner of the country and the world, people are suffering the devastating toll of climate change. Historic hurricanes and floods wiping out homes, businesses, and houses of worship. Wildfires destroying whole neighborhoods and forcing families to leave their communities behind. Record temperatures affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans, especially the most vulnerable.

From Day One, my Administration has set the United States on an unprecedented course to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad – securing the largest climate investment in the history of the world, unlocking clean energy breakthroughs that will power a clean economy and create thousands of jobs, advancing environmental justice for all, and rallying world leaders to transition away from the fossil fuels that jeopardize our planet and our people.

But more action is needed.

My Administration is announcing today a temporary pause on pending decisions of Liquefied Natural Gas exports – with the exception of unanticipated and immediate national security emergencies. During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment. This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.

While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future, my Administration will not be complacent. We will not cede to special interests.

We will heed the calls of young people and frontline communities who are using their voices to demand action from those with the power to act. And as America has always done, we will turn crisis into opportunity – creating clean energy jobs, improving quality of life, and building a more hopeful future for our children.

The post Revolution Wind Stop Order: Remember Keystone XL (Obama) and LNG Exports (Biden) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/1OdqIKw

August 26, 2025 at 01:04AM

STEVE MILLOY: Rescinding Key Obama EPA Finding May Prove Tougher Than Trump Admin Thought

From THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Steve Milloy
Contributor

This column has been cheering the Trump Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to rescind the Obama EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions. If successful it would end what President Trump calls the climate “hoax.”

But I differ with the Trump EPA over the process for doing so. Now, two new developments threaten to delay or even derail the Trump EPA.

The Trump EPA formally proposed to rescind the endangerment finding on Aug. 1. The proposal seeks public comments (due Sept. 15) on these two alternative rationales for rescinding the endangerment finding: (1) that the endangerment finding is illegal under recent Supreme Court decisions; and/or (2) that the Obama EPA improperly issued the endangerment finding by failing to follow proper rulemaking procedures, including failure to properly consider the relevant science.

In response, two radical greens groups filed a lawsuit on Aug. 12 to stop the rulemaking in the Democrat-friendly federal district court of Massachusetts. Greens somehow also convinced the taxpayer-funded National Academy of Sciences to do a surprise and rush review of the EPA’s proposal. (RELATED: MELANIE COLLETTE: The AI Energy Crunch Has A Cure: End The Endangerment Finding)

The lawsuit has no substantive merit and is just a nuisance filing. Yet it injects much unnecessary uncertainty into the inevitable legal wrangling over the rescission of the endangerment finding. Let’s look at the lawsuit first.

In April, President Trump issued an Executive order ordering the repeal of regulations made illegal by recent Supreme Court decisions. The endangerment finding qualifies as one of these. The Executive order says that illegal regulations can be summarily terminated without the usual public notice and comment procedure required by the Administrative Procedures Act. An illegal rule, after all, cannot be enforced.

In the case of the endangerment finding, any litigation over that process would be required by the Clean Air Act to be filed in the Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit. An appeal by the loser could go straight to the Supreme Court where the validity of the controversial 2007 SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA would almost certainly be the deciding issue.

The Trump administration would likely prevail on this because of the 2022 SCOTUS decision in West Virginia v. EPA that held major EPA regulatory programs require express authorization from Congress. Massachusetts v. EPA was all about the EPA not having such authorization. In that case, a narrow 5-4 majority invented a basis for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases despite there being no express congressional authorization.

In addition to the applicable law now being materially different, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the majority along with the late Justice Scalia. None of the majority’s five justices remain on SCOTUS. Three have been replaced by Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, all of whom were in the majority for West Virginia v. EPA.

The newly filed lawsuit alleges the Trump administration has violated the obscure Federal Advisory Committee Act, a lawsuit that can be filed in any federal district court. The Massachusetts federal district court judge conceivably could issue an injunction at any time to stop the rescission rulemaking or decide to conduct a trial that may take a year or more.

The district court circus could be followed by appeals to the Trump-unfriendly First Circuit Court of Appeals. And no one knows how long that could take. For perspective, consider that it took seven years to resolve the West Virginia v. EPA case.

The green groups would not have filed in the Massachusetts district court unless they had some confidence that they would prevail there and in the First Circuit on appeal. This uncertain, unpredictable and undesirable outcome could have been prevented by simply just rescinding the endangerment finding as provided by President Trump’s April 9 Executive order.

The review of the EPA proposal by the National Academy of Sciences is absolutely unheard of. Although the NAS was established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific issues, it usually does so at the request of agencies like EPA, which contract with it for the advice. This self-initiated and self-funded rush review is unprecedented. Yet it is somehow not a surprise.

Like many government-dependent organizations, the National Academy of Sciences has become politicized, if not just woke, over the past few decades. Moreover, the NAS has played a central role in developing and promoting the climate hoax. Its review of the EPA’s proposal will not be a de novo review of the climate issue with differing viewpoints or basic issues being considered. It is certain to be just another climate report with a pre-determined conclusion boosting the climate hoax.

There is no way the NAS will have its report completed and submitted to EPA by the comment deadline of Sept. 22. The period for public comment on the proposed membership of the NAS committee doesn’t close until Sept. 2, and the public comment period for submitting material to the committee is even earlier, Aug. 27. All this is highly unusual to say the least.

Here’s how the lawsuit ties in with the NAS review: The green group plaintiffs may hope to convince the Massachusetts district court judge to halt the rescission rulemaking until the NAS “review” can be completed. They will then insert the rigged NAS report into the litigation so as to argue that the Trump administration has no scientific basis for rescinding the endangerment finding. The NAS review will carry weight not because it is any good, but because it comes from the public’s probable default perception of the NAS committee as a legitimate group of highly qualified scientists.

If science becomes the issue in the endangerment finding litigation, the outcome becomes essentially a jump ball given our leftist-loaded judicial system. Ironically, the recent SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo — barring judicial deference to federal agency decisions on issues like science — actually robs the Trump EPA of a useful defense against the NAS review.

And then, who can say there will be no other anti-rescission litigation filed in other district courts in other circuits? These would only further and unnecessarily complicate matters.

Implementing President Trump’s April 9 Executive order to simply rescind the endangerment finding would have prevented the uncertain litigation mess now being faced. Maybe I’m wrong and all will turn out well. I hope so.

But I would consider withdrawing the current proposal so as to terminate the ongoing litigation, cut out the NAS and preempt new litigation on other than the desired legal issue. Then, start over. Do the right thing. Just rescind the endangerment finding.

Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer, publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


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/rH4kIjy

August 26, 2025 at 12:06AM

U.S. Offshore Wind: Politics Giveth, Taketh

From MasterResource

By Allen Brooks 

Ed. Note: The government-enabled on-grid wind and solar industries are on the downside of a political business cycle. The lesson for sustainable entrepreneurship is to meet underlying consumer demand, not rely on special favor from temporary political majorities.

Last Friday, the Daily Caller News Foundation broke an exclusive story that the U.S. had ordered a halt to construction on the offshore Revolution Wind Farm project. The article, “Trump Admin Kills Massive Offshore Wind Project,” announced the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Department of Interior.

Revolution Wind is a 704-megawatt (MW), 65-turbine wind project located 15 miles south of Rhode Island’s Point Judith port and 32 miles southwest of Martha’s Vineyard. The capacity has been contracted under 20-year power-purchase agreements to utilities in Massachusetts (304 MW) and Rhode Island (400 MW).

A second project (Revolution Wind 2) was rejected by Rhode Island Energy (PPL Corporation) and Rhode Island’s Public Utilities Commission and U.S. Department of Energy staff as too expensive.

The project is located on the federal lease area (OCS-A 0486), which developer Ørsted acquired when it purchased Deepwater Wind LLC, the developer of the Block Island Wind farm and holder of various offshore wind leases, in late 2018 for $510 million.

The locations of significant offshore wind projects.

Construction began on Revolution Wind in 2023, with the installation of the first offshore wind turbine in September 2024. Completion and operation of the project is scheduled in early 2026. Ørsted reported Friday night that the project was 80 percent complete with 45 of 65 wind turbines installed. The project was hailed as the first multi-state offshore wind project in the United States.

The DOI Director’s Order was issued by Matthew Giacona, Acting Director. Compare and contrast his letter with the one issued by Walter Cruickshank on April 16, 2025, ordering stoppage of Empire Wind.

DOI Letters: Empire State vs. Revolution Wind

In the Empire Wind stop-work order, the DOI cited as its reason to freeze work 

to allow time for it to address feedback it has received, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about the environmental analyses for that project. BOEM received this and other feedback regarding Empire Wind as an outgrowth of the review that the Department is engaged in related to offshore wind projects.

In contrast, the Revolution Wind order stated: 

… BOEM is seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas, as described in that subsection of OCSLA.

There are two relevant facts and one supposition.

Fact 1: The fact we know about the Empire Wind stop-work order is that, in response to a freedom of information request, the DOI released a 36-page study related to its stop-work decision. The report was titled “Screening Analysis: A Summary of the Record for the Empire Wind Project-NMFS Fisheries Resources.” Twenty-seven of the pages were entirely redacted, a privilege due to the deliberative nature of the report and its role in the review process underway at the time. The public has learned that government agencies are entitled to protect internal studies from public release until final reviews are completed.

Fact 2: With respect to the DOI stop-work order for Revolution Wind, the issue is compliance with Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provisions. Consulting firm PLANET A* STRATEGIES℠ studied the compliance of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) with the provisions of the laws governing the use of our nation’s oceans. The report was titled, Cancelling Offshore Wind Leases with a subheading of “Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Non-Compliance in Offshore Wind Plant Leasing and Permitting Programs.” Their report was completed in early May, and the findings were presented to the DOI.

Supposition: The supposition relates to the reported agreement between the Trump administration and New York Governor Kathy Hochul for her support in the issuance of previously blocked permits allowing the construction of two natural gas pipelines into the state. That would boost supply to both New York and New England, both of which are short of natural gas supply for generating electricity during the winter months when the gas is diverted to home heating. That shortage causes winter electricity prices in the region to be much higher than during the summer months.

Sunrise Wind Next?

At the time of the Empire Wind stop-work order in April, I predicted the summer would be an interesting period for offshore wind legal activity. So far, so true. Adding to the legal activity, a petition was recently sent to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum requesting a re-examination of the approval of Sunrise Wind, a 924 MW, 84-turbine project. It is located about 19 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, 30 miles east of Montauk Point, Long Island, and 17 miles from Rhode Island’s Block Island. This is another Ørsted project.

The approval process for Sunrise Wind is being challenged by the former members of the Rhode Island Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB), established under legislation regulating the state’s Department of Environmental Management’s review and approval of offshore wind projects that impact the state’s waters.

The complaint demonstrates

… misapplication of section 8(p)(4) of OCSLA and misapplication of NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act), attest to the illegal impacts to the fishing industry that were ignored in permitting the project, attest to the environmental impacts that were ignored in permitting the project, and request that all approvals of the project be rescinded.

Looking Ahead

There is much to come with the above projects given the plight of Ørsted, which is trying to raise $9.4 billion of additional capital to support its ongoing developments.

Offshore wind developers are speaking out about violations of the legal approval process, which have and will continue to harm other legitimate users of the ocean shared with the wind project. As summer winds down, the legal battles over offshore wind are heating up.


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/OGEISK5

August 25, 2025 at 08:02PM

It turns out people didn’t want to spend twice as much on fake meat to fix the weather

By Jo Nova

Beyond Meat may be beyond saving — it turned $4b into “a dumpster fire”

Like a microcosm of the climate change debate, a group of investors thought they could make a profit while also saving animals, making people healthier, and changing the global climate all at the same time in a nifty 4 for 1. The UN recognised it as a Champion of the Earth for “science and innovation”. Bill Gates tossed money at it.

But it turns out it was hard to recreate a steak without having a cow or 100 million years to evolve something competitive, economical and tasty. Cows are very efficient factories, in that they come with their own chemical plants, filters, thermostats, and barriers to stop infection, they can transport themselves and they make more cows too. So the factory imitation was never going to be cheaper, at least not for years.

Like everything in the climate debate — everyone says they believe, but no one believes enough to spend $19.95 on fake burger meat. So it was a wildly ambitious product, not-yet-invented, not-safety-tested, and without much appeal to 99% of the population.

Financial teardown: How Beyond Meat burned $4 billion […]

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/duyTqJP

August 25, 2025 at 04:23PM