DV Journal

Advancing domestic manufacturing, remanufacturing, and all-of-the-above energy solutions should be bipartisan objectives that we all can agree on.

Pennsylvania, a historic energy powerhouse in oil, coal, nuclear, and natural gas, can capitalize on its dominance to drive domestic energy production and focus attention on policies that support growth and innovation.

Pennsylvania’s position as a national and global energy leader is essential to our modern quality of life. Energy security and access to reliable energy resources are crucial in ensuring Pennsylvania consumers can stay cool in the summer, warm in the winter, and navigate every other climate we all come to expect living here. Likewise, security and access are key to generating electricity and making sure residential, commercial, and industrial consumers can keep the lights on.

Domestic energy dominance also means manufacturing growth and investment. Energy resources, such as oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, are the foundations for manufacturing products that modern society relies on. The chemicals and plastics derived from these resources are the building blocks for most health care products and medical equipment,  renewable energy, high-performing building materials, military equipment, food packaging, electronics, clothing, vehicles, and much more.

According to a Deloitte report, chemical, plastics, and rubber production were in the top 10 for manufacturing subsectors by value added in 2023, collectively adding over $600 billion in value. These industries play a critical role in the supply chain and support industries across the state and nation.

It’s all interconnected. When we advance energy and manufacturing dominance, we spur investment in Pennsylvania, local communities, and a brighter future for everyone.

Collaborative and thoughtful policy is the best way forward to position Pennsylvania for success. Unleashing growth in Pennsylvania is predicated on our state and federal policymakers advancing thoughtful, strategic policy approaches to energy and chemical policies. Failure to concentrate on artificial regulatory burdens that don’t address the environment and public health but create process delays and bureaucratic red tape will drive American manufacturing to other parts of the country or around the globe.

In a political world where crossing the proverbial aisle doesn’t always happen, it’s encouraging to see Tennessee Republican U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann and Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey join together to establish the American Dominance in Energy Caucus. This effort transcends party politics to focus on elevating American-made energy and manufacturing and the benefits they bring to everyday consumers and businesses.

By promoting bipartisan solutions to advance innovation in domestic energy production and manufacturing, these two leaders are prime examples of how policymakers can come together for the greater good.

As a growing national and global energy leader, Pennsylvania has a unique opportunity to play an integral role in this newly formed caucus. I encourage Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to engage with the American Dominance in Energy Caucus, and for state leaders to explore starting a similar initiative: a Pennsylvania Energy Dominance Caucus.

By leveraging its rich history of energy production and its robust manufacturing sector, Pennsylvania can lead the nation in fostering a secure, prosperous and globally competitive future through bipartisan energy and manufacturing dominance. The potential outcome:  continued growth and investment, solidifying the commonwealth’s vital role in the nation’s economic and energy security.

At the end of last year, 11 Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit that will have significant, presumably unintended, and somewhat strange consequences on the energy market. Naturally, the energy industry and the price Americans pay for that energy are balanced.

Spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the lawsuit targets the “Big Three” financial asset managers: BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. The principal accusation is that the managers manipulated the energy markets by limiting investment in coal.

The complaint alleges that these financial firms have suppressed traditional energy sources by acquiring stockholdings and using their leverage to pressure coal companies to shut down or accommodate “green energy” goals.

The supporting evidence is weak. As was reported at the time, the Big Three firms participated in environmental efforts aimed at working with businesses across various industries, curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating long-term shareholder value.

These three firms have since left many of the broad coalition initiatives they were previously committed to; State Street and BlackRock withdrew membership with Climate Action 100+, and Vanguard and BlackRock withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. These decisions gained widespread attention, with the companies citing various reasons and all affirming their commitment to providing the best investment returns for their clients.

However, during their time as participants, the lawsuit claims, the defendants plotted to lower coal prices.  This appears to be the fact on which the lawsuit hinges. That claim is wrong, to be charitable.

In reality, coal’s decline has resulted from economic and market trends. More affordable and efficient energy options, like natural gas and renewables, have slowly but steadily taken the lead, a trend that has occurred over many years.

The price of coal has spiked a couple of times in the last 25 years, and it remains higher than in the 25 preceding years. Coal production, meanwhile, has been on a steadier downward trend.

Paxton’s allegations do not line up with market behavior.

This group of attorneys general is trying to force the market back into a form of energy that has been naturally declining for a long time. Their attempt to impose different results poses a risk to domestic energy investment.

The most economically beneficial and productive energy agenda would be allowing all energy sources to compete freely and openly so that consumers and businesses can access reliable, affordable and secure energy. An artificially disrupted energy market, like this lawsuit would lead to, can create imbalances between supply, demand and investments, which can be costly to consumers.

This posture is congruent with what the administration has broadly outlined as its energy agenda. Paxton’s lawsuit not only places him at odds with these goals by trying to force an outcome that he and his cohorts prefer, but their sought-after remedy is for the asset managers to divest from coal companies, which also aligns him with environmentalists who for years have been pursuing the same goal.

Any effort that artificially redirects investment — whether by encouraging or discouraging specific businesses — distorts that balance and weakens our energy grid’s long-term resilience, which is already deeply in need of investment.

We face a situation where 70 percent of America’s power grid is more than 25 years old and needs repairs.

To update America’s declining energy infrastructure and keep pace with surging energy demand, we need broad-based investment in fossil fuels or renewables, and in nuclear power and next-generation technologies.

Creating uncertainty and having the government pick winners and losers, whether through policy or litigation, can only raise costs and reduce prospects for long-term energy reliability.

The better path forward is to allow markets to continue adapting to consumer needs and technological advancements, which may or may not include coal or any other single energy source. Building a resilient and prosperous energy future requires doubling down on principles that encourage diversity in energy sources and technological innovation that improves efficiency and environmental stewardship.

Those free-market values will help safeguard American security and unleash America’s full energy potential that fuels our economy and is a cornerstone of a prosperous future for American families.

President Trump wants to Make Coal Great Again, and that could be good news for America’s high-tech industry.

Most of the debate over coal-generated power focuses on climate, but it also affects the global technology and trade environment.

On April 8, Trump signed four executive orders aimed at bolstering the U.S. coal industry, which was targeted by Biden administration regulators. These orders directed all federal departments and agencies to eliminate policies that “discriminate” against the coal industry and accelerate permitting and funding for coal-related projects.

“Pound for pound, coal is the single most reliable, durable, secure and powerful form of energy,” Trump said at a White House event featuring coal miners. “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density, and it’s almost indestructible.”

Pennsylvania is the third-largest coal-producing state (behind Wyoming and West Virginia) and is the fifth-largest coal exporter to foreign markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In 2022, Pennsylvania’s coal mining industry generated approximately $3.8 billion in total economic output, funding 11,547 full-time jobs.

In his administrative orders, Trump pushed back on what he sees as overreach by blue states trying to use local laws to limit federal power to set energy policy. Perhaps most significantly, Trump directed the Department of Energy to assess how coal-fired power plants can meet growing electricity demands, particularly for AI data centers. It also instructs the DOE to develop a process within 90 days for issuing emergency orders to keep coal plants operational in areas with potential grid reliability issues.

The fight over who will dominate in the development of artificial intelligence is the most critical geopolitical battle facing America, experts say, and the top competitor is China. Winning that fight will require massive amounts of electricity.

“We are talking about from AI and data centers alone as much as 80 gigawatts in new electricity demand in just the next five years,” said Conor Bernstein with the National Mining Association. “That is the equivalent of the power demand needed for 60 million homes.”

Lanny Nickell of Southwest Power Pool raised similar concerns before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing, telling Congress his group is “forecasting peak demand to be as much as 50 percent higher over the next 10 years, mostly driven by the AI data center boom.”

While the United States has restricted the development of base-load power generation from coal, in 2024, China commissioned 55.3 gigawatts of additional coal-fired power capacity, according to data from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor.

There’s another Trump policy at play, Bernstein added, and that’s the push to bring more manufacturing capacity back to the United States. Those factories and facilities will need electricity, adding to the demand already rising faster than the supply.

“It’s simply not realistic to keep coal out of the mix,” said Michelle Bloodworth, the president and CEO of America’s Power.

“There’s not really another resource to replace coal that has the attributes … during periods of extreme weather like the bomb cyclones and the recent polar vortex where coal and natural gas provided 86 percent of the nation’s electricity when we needed it the most, during the day and the week in which electricity demand peaked,” Bloodworth said.

Environmental groups are pushing back. The Sierra Club claims that Trump’s orders would drive up electricity prices and increase pollution. “Choking on coal and gas plant pollution is not the American Dream,” it said.

Bonner Cohen, with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, disagrees. He said that “nothing drives up utility bills like being dependent on intermittent — which is a polite term for unreliable — energy like wind and solar.”

Experts say that America’s AI industry cannot rely on intermittent power. Because wind and solar rely on the environment to operate — the wind must be blowing and the sun shining — they must be backed up by reliable sources like coal.

Bjorn Lomborg, the president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, points out the problem.

“In the last 10 years, solar and wind power use has reached unprecedented levels. However, this increase hasn’t led to a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. In fact, fossil fuel use has grown during this period.

“Numerous studies show that adding renewable energy adds to energy consumption instead of replacing coal, gas or oil. Recent research reveals that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit displaces fossil fuels.”

“The important thing here is that we can have coal, natural gas and nuclear power spearheading our nation’s energy,” Cohen said. “Because the artificial intelligence game is a game the United States cannot allow China to win, we must have as much of our industrial policy driven by artificial intelligence as possible.”

“We’re going to be shutting these plants down all across America.”

That was President Joe Biden’s bold pledge late last year regarding coal plants nationwide. Speaking at an event in California in November, the president vowed that “coal-fired electric” plants would be shuttered en masse in favor of “wind and solar.”

“No one is building new coal plants because they can’t rely on it, even if they have all the coal guaranteed for the rest of their existence of the plant,” he said at the time.

But the latest data tell a different story. Modern economies like the U.S. and Europe aren’t ready to walk away from coal quite yet. In fact, 2022 set a global record for coal generation, and America just experienced a surge in coal-powered energy. While federal data indicate coal consumption peaked in the U.S. about 15 years ago and has been declining since it rose in 2021 for the first time since 2013.

In Pennsylvania, coal continues to play an outsized role in both local and national electricity generation. The Pennsylvania Coal Alliance says that in 2019, coal “accounted for 17 percent of the power generated in Pennsylvania, 24 percent of the power generated in the PJM Interconnection, and 23  percent of the power generated nationally.” Pennsylvania coal exports doubled from 2016-2019, the Alliance said.

Pennsylvania produced 42,460 tons of coal in 2021. Coal demand has spiked worldwide as natural gas prices have risen and supply declined. U.S. production rose 7.8 percent in 2021, and about 40,000 Americans work at domestic coal mines, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“Most people talk about coal in the past tense, as if it’s no longer relevant to energy generation,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “It’s still a fifth of all power generation.”

Chatterjee sees renewable energy production rising, but he says coal will remain a major source of electricity in the U.S. in the near future.

The numbers back him up. The Energy Information Association estimates coal comprises nearly 22 percent of U.S. “utility-scale electricity generation.” That’s down from around 50 percent a generation ago, but it’s still more than wind and solar combined (14.8 percent).

Experts and industry movers argue the path away from coal and toward next-generation energy production is not as simple as Biden appeared to suggest and that coal itself will continue playing a decisive role in the U.S. energy grid for at least the near future.

Renewable advocates are still confident in green energy’s potential. Gregory Wetstone, the president and CEO of the American Council of Renewable Energies, argues the U.S. power grid “can get to 80-90 percent generation from renewables with technology readily available today.”

“We cannot continue to rely on a transmission infrastructure designed to access coal seams in the 40s and 50s,” Wetstone said. “The economics work; the technology is there. It’s only a question of time.”

Wetstone pointed out that dozens of states have set ambitious goals for switching to some or all of their electrical generation coming from renewables.

“Those goals have been in place for many years, and states have been evolving and going for more and more ambitious renewable targets,” he said. “We don’t have any cases of states stepping back and saying, ‘We were going too fast.’”

The real question, say people watching the grid, is whether renewables can develop fast enough, particularly regarding reliability. Coal plants are, at present, often the reliability anchor on America’s energy grid, the backup when wind and solar power aren’t available.

Just last year, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned parts of the American West and the Great Lakes region faced an “elevated risk” of rolling brownouts due to a lack of reliable energy reserves. According to NERC, the loss of baseload generation from coal and nuclear plants put the grid’s reliability at risk.

That’s yet another reason, says Conor Bernstein with the National Mining Association, that coal “is essential to the affordability and the reliability of our power supply.”

“The nation desperately needs a hardy dose of energy policy pragmatism that pumps the brakes on the EPA’s runaway regulatory agenda and recognizes the immense challenges of integrating ever-increasing amounts of intermittent power,” Bernstein said. “We should be building on the shoulders of the energy infrastructure and systems we have today, not tearing them down in the hope that yet-to-be-built or proven alternatives can take their place.”

The long-term outlook is still a shift toward renewables. Chatterjee said solar will likely be the most productive next-gen energy technology in the years ahead.

“We need a breakthrough in long-duration energy storage to get there,” he said. “But I think if we get there—which I do believe will come—I believe that combination [of solar plus storage] will be potent. Solar is ready to take off.”

And even when it does, says West Virginia University’s Syd S. Peng, America will still rely on coal, at least in part.

“To underpin grid reliability, coal must be part of a diverse mix of dispatchable fuels capable of providing a bridge to the future until renewables can supply enough power to meet electricity demand,” Peng said.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Residents of Pennsylvania came close to facing rolling blackouts when winter storm Elliott hit the week of Christmas last year.

The effects of the storm, a “bomb cyclone,” were bad enough. Strong winds and temperatures dropping to 30 below with wind chill resulted in some 108,000 Pennsylvania households losing power.

In response, the state Senate held a hearing Monday to examine what can be done to improve the electric grid and power generation so consumers don’t suffer future blackouts. Representatives from the Public Utilities Commission, industry groups, and the power transmission utility PJM spoke.

Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Bradford) said some witnesses were using “politically correct” language. “I probably won’t be,” Yaw said. Society needs energy to build an economy, and after that, “you can deal with the environment.”

“We’ve been tinkering with the environmental side without considering the economics and operational side,” Yaw argued. Five years ago, the state had a “perfect mix” of natural gas, coal, and nuclear electricity generation. “We did not have reliability issues at all.”

But now there are political pressures to go to green energy. “I think we’re dealing with a lousy deck,” said Yaw.

Asim Haque with PJM, the region’s transmission utility, said a report that came out Friday found older power plants are not being replaced quickly enough with new sources, despite all the focus on green energy generation. As a result, customers face a very real possibility there won’t be enough electricity supply to meet demand.

“Keeping the lights on is PJM’s most important priority,” said Haque. But the mix of power generation is shifting, raising concerns about reliability. The state’s supply is moving from reliable generation sources like gas, coal, and nuclear power to less reliable solar and wind power.

He also sees the demand for electricity increasing with more data centers coming to Pennsylvania and more electric vehicles hitting the roads.

Gladys Brown Dutrieulle with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) said, “Reliability is the key to replacing aging infrastructure.”

Natural gas provides 53 percent of the power to generate electricity in the state, nuclear energy provides 33 percent, and coal provides 12 percent. Wind and solar make up the remainder.

Diane Holder, vice president of Reliability First, said they work with agencies in 13 states and Washington, D.C. She noted wind and solar are “weather dependent” and better battery storage is needed to make power output from those sources less variable.

She said the country needs more time to transform its energy generation from current methods to renewable energy. There are also “challenges to integrating renewables onto the grid.”

Yaw said the witnesses mentioned 94 percent of new energy coming online was from wind and solar, with only 6 percent natural gas, which is more reliable.

He asked why more natural gas and nuclear plants aren’t being built. “The more we bring (renewables) online, the more we have a problem (with reliability).” More natural gas plants “would help,” he said.

Dutrieulle noted gas plants are more expensive to build and new nuclear plants are even more costly.

Yaw said that while nuclear plants don’t produce emissions, they require “tons of concrete and plastic (to build). There is a carbon footprint to everything.”

“The projections in this study indicate that the current pace of new entry (of power plants) would be insufficient to keep up with expected retirements and demand growth by 2030,” the PJM report said.

Over the past decade, Pennsylvania has benefitted from the supply of natural gas via the Marcellus Shale source. But in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting increased reliance on natural gas around the world, there is more volatility in the market.

Haque added another obstacle to constructing new natural gas power plants: The ESG movement.

“ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) requirements, impact whether financing can be obtained,” Haque said. Some large financial institutions, such as BlackRock, have adopted ESG stipulations for their investments and won’t fund fossil fuels.

However, “we do assume we will receive new megawatts from natural gas,” he added.

Sen. Carolyn Comitta (D-Chester) picked up on Holder’s mention of a “great transition” to clean energy, noting that fossil fuels would still be needed during that time.

“Things are happening very quickly,” she said.

Haque said fossil fuels are “still essential.”

Rachel Gleason, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, said coal-powered plants stepped into the breach and saved the state from blackouts last winter.

“During winter storm Elliott, it was coal that came to the rescue again,” she said. And “unreliable wind and solar” are being subsidized and they are not required to pay fines if they do not provide the power they’ve promised. Those subsidies distort the energy market, she said.

But Andrew Williams with SolSystems said solar is part of a “comprehensive energy plan.”

“Solar works any time the sun is up,” he said. “Solar performed as needed during Elliott.” And many new data centers have solar panels on their rooftops, he said. But he admitted it will be unlikely that Pennsylvania will rely totally on renewable energy by 2035 as some people would like.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Every year, global climate summits feature a parade of hypocrisy as the world’s elite arrive on private jets to lecture humanity on cutting carbon emissions. The current U.N. climate summit in Egypt offers more breathtaking hypocrisy than usual because the world’s rich are zealously lecturing poor countries about the dangers of fossil fuels — after devouring massive amounts of new gas, coal and oil.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushed up energy prices, wealthy countries have been scouring the world for new energy sources. The United Kingdom vehemently denounced fossil fuels at the Glasgow climate summit just last year but now plans to keep coal-fired plants available this winter instead of shutting almost all of them as previously planned. 

Thermal coal imports by the European Union from Australia, South Africa and Indonesia increased more than 11-fold. Meanwhile, a new trans-Saharan gas pipeline will allow Europe to tap directly into gas from Niger, Algeria and Nigeria; Germany is reopening shuttered coal power plants; and Italy is planning to import 40 percent more gas from northern Africa. And the United States is going cap-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to grovel for more oil production.

At the climate summit in Egypt, the leaders from these countries will somehow declare with straight faces that poor countries must avoid fossil fuel exploitation for fear of worsening climate change. These rich countries will encourage the world’s poorest to focus instead on green energy alternatives like off-grid solar and wind energy. 

They’re already making the case. In a speech widely interpreted as being about Africa, the U.N. secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, said it would be “delusional” for countries to invest more in gas and oil exploration.

The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. Every rich country today became wealthy thanks to the exploitation of fossil fuels. The world’s major development organizations — at the behest of wealthy countries — refuse to fund fossil fuel exploitation that poor countries could use to lift themselves out of poverty. Moreover, the elite prescription for the world’s poor — green energy — is incapable of transforming lives.

That’s because sun and wind power are useless when it is cloudy, at night or there is no wind. Off-grid solar power can provide a nice solar light but typically can’t even power a family’s fridge or oven, let alone provide the power that communities need to run everything from farms to factories, the ultimate engines of growth.

A study in Tanzania found almost 90 percent of households given off-grid electricity just want to be hooked up to the national grid to receive fossil fuel access. The first rigorous test published on the effect of solar panels on the lives of poor people found they got a little bit more electricity — the ability to power a lamp during the day — but there was no measurable effect on their lives: they did not increase savings or spending, did not work more or start more businesses, and their children did not study more.

Moreover, solar panels and wind turbines are useless at tackling one of the primary energy problems of the world’s poor. Nearly 2.5 billion people continue to suffer from indoor air pollution, burning dirty fuels like wood and dung to cook and keep warm. Solar panels don’t solve that problem because they are too weak to power clean stoves and heaters.

In contrast, grid electrification — which nearly everywhere means mostly fossil fuels — significantly positively effects household income, expenditure and education. A study in Bangladesh showed that electrified households experienced a 21 percent average jump in income and a 1.5 percent reduction in poverty yearly.

The biggest deception is that rich world leaders have somehow managed to portray themselves as green evangelists, while more than three-quarters of their enormous primary energy production comes from fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency. Less than 12 percent of their energy comes from renewables, mostly from wood and hydro. Just 2.4 percent is solar and wind.

Compare this to Africa, the most renewable continent in the world, with half of its energy produced by renewables. But these renewables are almost entirely wood, straws and dung, and they are really a testament to how little energy the continent has access to. Despite all the hype, the continent gets just 0.3 percent of its energy from solar and wind.

To solve global warming, rich countries must invest much more in research and development on better green technologies, from fusion, fission and second-generation biofuels to solar and wind with massive batteries. The crucial insight is to innovate their actual cost below fossil fuels. That way, everyone will eventually switch. But telling the poor to live with unreliable, expensive, weak power is an insult.

There is already pushback from the world’s developing countries, who see the hypocrisy for what it is: Egypt’s finance minister recently said that poor countries must not be “punished,” and warned that climate policy should not add to their suffering. That warning needs to be heard. Europe is scouring the world for more fossil fuels because the continent needs them for its growth and prosperity. That same opportunity should not be withheld from the world’s poorest.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a strong message to Congress regarding regulating the nation’s environmental policy:

Do your job.

It’s a particularly important message in Pennsylvania, where the Biden administration’s expansive plans to regulate — and perhaps shut down — fossil fuel energy plants would have a significant effect on the state’s economy.

In West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, the Court ruled 6-3 that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants on its own.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion. “It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.

“The agency must point to clear congressional authorization for the power it claims,” Roberts added.

Supporters of the Obama-era policy argue that the threat of climate change outweighs the limits on government power set by the court and they raised questions as to whether an elected Congress is capable of regulating such an important issue.

“Members of Congress often don’t know enough—and know they don’t know enough—to regulate sensibly on an issue,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.

“The decades-long fight to protect citizens from corporate polluters is being wiped out by these MAGA extremist justices,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) “It’s all the more imperative that we soon pass meaningful legislation to fight the climate crisis.”

Court supporters noted the irony of Schumer’s call for legislation, which was the conclusion of the court majority as well.

“It was incredibly risky for the federal government to try to turn our power-generating system inside out,” says Sam Kazman with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Today the Supreme Court ruled that if the government is going to do so, then it must be clearly authorized by congressional laws rather than by the dictates of unelected bureaucrats.”

Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, said the court’s ruling walks back its 2007 decision in Massachusetts v EPA.

“The Massachusetts case held that the EPA could use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ebell. “The Court has now invoked the major questions doctrine and recognized that Congress designed the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollutants and not carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, natural gas, and oil.

“The Biden administration must now get explicit authorization from Congress if it wants to continue to enact major climate policies that will further raise energy prices,” Ebell added.

President Joe Biden has directed his legal team to work with the Department of Justice and affected agencies to review this decision and find ways that the administration can continue protecting Americans from what he calls harmful pollution that causes climate change.

“We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses,” said Biden in a press release Thursday. “The science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – the wildfires, droughts, extreme heat, and intense storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods.”

Former President Barack Obama also weighed in, saying no challenge poses a greater threat to our future than a changing climate.

“Every day, we’re feeling the impact of climate change, and today’s Supreme Court decision is a major step backward,” Obama tweeted.

But it was Obama and his team that pushed through a regulatory scheme, rather than passing legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions, that led to today’s ruling.

At the state level, Republican gubernatorial candidate state Sen. Doug Mastriano is running as an unapologetic ally of the state’s energy sector. He has pledged, for example, to pull the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade scheme on his first day in office.  His opponent, Democratic nominee Josh Shapiro, has expressed doubts about RGGI but has kept his stance intentionally vague.

Environmental groups have denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling this a dangerous decision that gives “coal executives and far-right politicians exactly what they asked for” by frustrating EPA’s efforts to protect communities and families.

“For years, EPA has had the clear authority and duty under the Clean Air Act to effectively reduce climate-disrupting carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuel-burning power plants, in line with the action the public and science demands,” said Andres Restrepo, senior attorney for the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program. “But Thursday’s decision accommodates the powerful instead of the people by seriously narrowing that authority.”

But energy sector advocates say their industry still isn’t out of the EPA woods of overregulation.

“While this decision clearly reins in EPA authority to craft carbon rules that force a remaking of the nation’s electricity mix, the agency has already signaled it’s going to use every other tool at its disposal to accelerate coal plant closures and pursue its agenda,” one industry insider told InsideSources. “If you’re concerned about grid reliability and electricity affordability, Congress needs to step up and ensure it is steering domestic energy policy, not the regulators at EPA.”

Still, some conservative groups are taking the win.

“This is a win for the climate and constitutional democracy,” says Drew Bond, president of Conservative Coalition for Climate (C3) Solutions. “Any serious person knows that innovation, not over-regulation, is the solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Instead of looking to regulators to impose top-down mandates, Bond says activists on all sides should ask legislators to pass laws that encourage bottom-up solutions.

“Our Climate and Freedom Agenda highlights dozens of actions Congress can take to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and by expanding economic freedom,” says Bond about C3 Solutions. “Let’s put our focus there. American innovation won’t disappoint.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The soundbites and images were startling. Blackouts. Burst pipes. People dead from extreme cold and carbon monoxide poisoning. This week marks one year since the coldest weather in generations hit Texas.

A year later, energy policy experts in Pennsylvania and across the nation are looking for lessons to be learned from those failures.

“There were multiple errors, but green energy failed at a critical time, and we no longer had fossil fuels and baseload power systems to back them up,” says H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., a Texan serving as senior fellow on environmental policy for the Heartland Institute.

“What led to the crisis and the blackouts is 20 years of bad policies pushed by politicians on both sides of the aisle from Washington, D.C. and here in the state of Texas that were propping up one form of unreliable variable generation over another, which is good natural gas and clean coal thermal generation that has been diminished because of these market-distorting policies, subsidies if you will,” said Jason Isaac, a four-time Texas state representative now serving as director of Life: Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).

“That’s why we’ve seen this incredible growth in this variable generation that’s now a third of our grid in the state of Texas in wind or solar that we’re dependent on when the wind blows or the sun shines, and there’s no backup generation requirements for those sources of electricity generation,” he said.

Solar was virtually non-existent in terms of electricity generation at the time of the storm. Wind dropped to 1.5 percent of the electric generation.

“It’s, again, 33­­ percent of our grid,” said Isaac. “That’s unbelievable, and over 90 percent was coming from the other 66 percent of the grid, natural gas, coal, and nuclear.”

“There’s a reason we never had something like this before in the middle of winter,” said Burnett. “That’s because we never had so little reliable baseload power as part of our system.”

It should serve as a wake-up call for other states, especially at a time when federal and state legislators are pushing the Green New Deal and related measures.

“The national takeaway on the crisis that we experienced in Texas, the energy capital of the world, if you will, is that we need good, reliable natural gas, coal, and nuclear,” said Isaac.

The Sunrise Movement, a youth movement to “stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process,” sees things differently. Sunrise said in an email it is “building an army of young people” to make climate change an urgent priority across America.

“(We want to) end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people,” according to its website.

And Sunrise has its eyes on Texas, where a primary election is scheduled for March 1.

“We have an opportunity to send our own — Jessica Cisneros and Greg Casar — to Congress to fight for us and win a Green New Deal,” Sunrise said in an email to supporters. “Republicans, corporate Democrats, and Big Oil want you to forget what happened one year ago in Texas, but we’ll never forget.”

Pointing to the remarks from Sunrise, Isaac said they are laughable at best.

“The Green New Deal is about controlling everything we do in our lives and increasing the cost of energy, and expensive energy hurts the poor more than anyone else,” said Isaac. “If we had the Green New Deal here in Texas, our electric bills would be triple what they were, the reliability of electricity would be laughable, and deaths last year would have been much more horrendous than they already were.”

“Sunrise wants to double down on the policies that created the very problem,” said Burnett. “We had 200 people die last year during this weather.”

The indoor temperature of Burnett’s home was in the 50s after he lost power.

“The Sunrise Movement wants more wind and more solar, and that’s great, unless the wind stops blowing like it did last February and snow falls and covers all your solar panels,” said Burnett. “To be fair, the wind came back up, but by then, the turbines had frozen, (and) you don’t want turbines turning on and throwing icicles across highways.”

Isaac holds firm to his position on the need for natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.

“Wind and solar is habitat and environment destroying technology that increases the cost of electricity, does nothing to improve the environment, and just winds up hurting the poor most,” says Isaac. “It increases the unreliability of our grid and the instability.”

It was a close call in Texas last year, one that should cause other states to wake up to what Isaac calls a “cult-like fascination with decarbonized electricity.”

“We were nearly four minutes away from a complete grid collapse because renewable energy was not producing any electricity,” says Isaac. “That would have been completely devastating to Texas. We would still be rebuilding today. Millions of people would have fled the state because of this, and just thousands of people would have died.”

“ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) made some terrible decisions,” says Burnett. “After the power outage, they wanted to get the lights on immediately, so they said, ‘natural gas plants, you have to ramp up,’ but then they cut off power to switching stations for natural gas and for storage for natural gas, so there was no power heating the pipelines or the switches and the plants were using gas at an enormous rate, and those pipelines and switches froze.”

“That would not have happened with a coal plant because coal typically has six months of capacity sitting around in a stockpile,” says Burnett. “They’re not going to run out if the switching stations freeze, but those coal plants had closed, so there were multiple errors.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal