Energy

ai-in-wyoming-may-soon-use-more-electricity-than-state’s-human-residents

AI in Wyoming may soon use more electricity than state’s human residents

Wyoming’s data center boom

Cheyenne is no stranger to data centers, having attracted facilities from Microsoft and Meta since 2012 due to its cool climate and energy access. However, the new project pushes the state into uncharted territory. While Wyoming is the nation’s third-biggest net energy supplier, producing 12 times more total energy than it consumes (dominated by fossil fuels), its electricity supply is finite.

While Tallgrass and Crusoe have announced the partnership, they haven’t revealed who will ultimately use all this computing power—leading to speculation about potential tenants.

A potential connection to OpenAI’s Stargate AI infrastructure project, announced in January, remains a subject of speculation. When asked by The Associated Press if the Cheyenne project was part of this effort, Crusoe spokesperson Andrew Schmitt was noncommittal. “We are not at a stage that we are ready to announce our tenant there,” Schmitt said. “I can’t confirm or deny that it’s going to be one of the Stargate.”

OpenAI recently activated the first phase of a Crusoe-built data center complex in Abilene, Texas, in partnership with Oracle. Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, told The Associated Press last week that the Texas facility generates “roughly and depending how you count, about a gigawatt of energy” and represents “the largest data center—we think of it as a campus—in the world.”

OpenAI has committed to developing an additional 4.5 gigawatts of data center capacity through an agreement with Oracle. “We’re now in a position where we have, in a really concrete way, identified over five gigawatts of energy that we’re going to be able to build around,” Lehane told the AP. The company has not disclosed locations for these expansions, and Wyoming was not among the 16 states where OpenAI said it was searching for data center sites earlier this year.

AI in Wyoming may soon use more electricity than state’s human residents Read More »

trump-promised-a-drilling-boom,-but-us-energy-industry-hasn’t-been-interested

Trump promised a drilling boom, but US energy industry hasn’t been interested


Exec: “Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry.”

“We will drill, baby, drill,” President Donald Trump declared at his inauguration on January 20. Echoing the slogan that exemplified his energy policies during the campaign, he made his message clear: more oil and gas, lower prices, greater exports.

Six months into Trump’s second term, his administration has little to show on that score. Output is ticking up, but slower than it did under the Biden administration. Pump prices for gasoline have bobbed around where they were in inauguration week. And exports of crude oil in the four months through April trailed those in the same period last year.

The White House is discovering, perhaps the hard way, that energy markets aren’t easily managed from the Oval Office—even as it moves to roll back regulations on the oil and gas sector, offers up more public lands for drilling at reduced royalty rates, and axes Biden-era incentives for wind and solar.

“The industry is going to do what the industry is going to do,” said Jenny Rowland-Shea, director for public lands at the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank.

That’s because the price of oil, the world’s most-traded commodity, is more responsive to global demand and supply dynamics than to domestic policy and posturing.

The market is flush with supplies at the moment, as the Saudi Arabia-led cartel of oil-producing nations known as OPEC+ allows more barrels to flow while China, the world’s top oil consumer, curbs its consumption. Within the US, a boom in energy demand driven by rapid electrification and AI-serving data centers is boosting power costs for homes and businesses, yet fossil fuel producers are not rushing to ramp up drilling.

There is one key indicator of drilling levels that the industry has watched closely for more than 80 years: a weekly census of active oil and gas rigs published by Baker Hughes. When Trump came into office January 20, the US rig count was 580. Last week, the most recent figure, it was down to 542—hovering just above a four-year low reached earlier in the month.

The most glaring factor behind this stagnant rig count is the current level of crude oil prices. Take the US benchmark grade: West Texas Intermediate crude. Its prices were near $66 a barrel on July 28, after hitting a four-year low of $62 in May. The break-even level for drilling new wells is somewhere close to $60 per barrel, according to oil and gas experts.

That’s before you account for the fallout of elevated tariffs on steel and other imports for the many companies that get their pipes and drilling equipment from overseas, said Robert Rapier, editor-in-chief of Shale Magazine, who has two decades of experience as a chemical engineer.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ quarterly survey of over 130 oil and gas producers based in Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico, conducted in June, suggests the industry’s outlook is pessimistic. Nearly half of the 38 firms that responded to this question saw their firms drilling fewer wells this year than they had earlier expected.

Survey participants could also submit comments. One executive from an exploration and production (E&P) company said, “It’s hard to imagine how much worse policies and DC rhetoric could have been for US E&P companies.” Another executive said, “The Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry. Drill, baby, drill will not happen with this level of volatility.”

Roughly one in three survey respondents chalked up the expectations for fewer wells to higher tariffs on steel imports. And three in four said tariffs raised the cost of drilling and completing new wells.

“They’re getting more places to drill and they’re getting some lower royalties, but they’re also getting these tariffs that they don’t want,” Rapier said. “And the bottom line is their profits are going to suffer.”

Earlier this month, ExxonMobil estimated that its profit in the April-June quarter will be roughly $1.5 billion lower than in the previous three months because of weaker oil and gas prices. And over in Europe, BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies issued similar warnings to investors about hits to their respective profits.

These warnings come even as Trump has installed friendly faces to regulate the oil and gas sector, including at the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior, the latter of which manages federal lands and is gearing up to auction more oil and gas leases on those lands.

“There’s a lot of enthusiasm for a window of opportunity to make investments. But there’s also a lot of caution about wanting to make sure that if there’s regulatory reforms, they’re going to stick,” said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, which produces analyses for energy companies and investors.

The recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains provisions requiring four onshore and two offshore lease sales every year, lowering the minimum royalty rate to 12.5 percent from 16.67 percent, and bringing back speculative leasing—when lands that don’t invite enough bids are leased for less money—that was stopped in 2022.

“Pro-energy policies play a critical role in strengthening domestic production,” said a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, the top US oil and gas industry group. “The new tax legislation unlocks opportunities for safe, responsible development in critical resource basins to deliver the affordable, reliable fuel Americans rely on.”

Because about half of the federal royalties end up with the states and localities where the drilling occurs, “budgets in these oil and gas communities are going to be hit hard,” Rowland-Shea of American Progress said. Meanwhile, she said, drilling on public lands can pollute the air, raise noise levels, cause spills or leaks, and restrict movement for both people and wildlife.

Earlier this year, Congress killed an EPA rule finalized in November that would have charged oil and gas companies for flaring excess methane from their operations.

“Folks in the Trump camp have long said that the Biden administration was killing drilling by enforcing these regulations on speculative leasing and reining in methane pollution,” said Rowland-Shea. “And yet under Biden, we saw the highest production of oil and gas in history.”

In fact, the top three fossil fuel producers collectively earned less during Trump’s first term than they did in either of President Barack Obama’s terms or under President Joe Biden. “It’s an irony that when Democrats are in there and they’re putting in policies to shift away from oil and gas, which causes the price to go up, that is more profitable for the oil and gas industry,” said Rapier.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that the Trump administration’s actions won’t have long-lasting climate implications. Even though six months may be a significant amount of time in political accounting, investment decisions in the energy sector are made over longer horizons, ClearView’s Book said. As long as the planned lease sales take place, oil companies can snap up and sit on public lands until they see more favorable conditions for drilling.

It’s an irony that when Democrats are in there and they’re putting in policies to shift away from oil and gas, which causes the price to go up, that is more profitable for the oil and gas industry.

What could pad the demand for oil and gas is how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will withdraw or dilute the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax incentives and subsidies for renewable energy sources. “With the kneecapping of wind and solar, that’s going to put a lot more pressure on fossil fuels to fill that gap,” Rowland-Shea said.

However, the economics of solar and wind are increasingly too attractive to ignore. With electricity demand exceeding expectations, Book said, “any president looking ahead at end-user prices and power supply might revisit or take a flexible position if they find themselves facing shortage.”

A recent United Nations report found that “solar and wind are now almost always the least expensive—and the fastest—option for new electricity generation.” That is why Texas, deemed the oil capital of the world, produces more wind power than any other state and also led the nation in new solar capacity in the last two years.

Renewables like wind and solar, said Rowland-Shea, are “a truly abundant and American source of energy.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Photo of Inside Climate News

Trump promised a drilling boom, but US energy industry hasn’t been interested Read More »

white-house-unveils-sweeping-plan-to-“win”-global-ai-race-through-deregulation

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation

Trump’s plan was not welcomed by everyone. J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen, in a statement provided to Ars, criticized Trump as giving “sweetheart deals” to tech companies that would cause “electricity bills to rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers.”

Infrastructure demands and energy requirements

Trump’s new AI plan tackles infrastructure head-on, stating that “AI is the first digital service in modern life that challenges America to build vastly greater energy generation than we have today.” To meet this demand, it proposes streamlining environmental permitting for data centers through new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemptions, making federal lands available for construction and modernizing the power grid—all while explicitly rejecting “radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.”

The document embraces what it calls a “Build, Baby, Build!” approach—echoing a Trump campaign slogan—and promises to restore semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Program Office, though stripped of “extraneous policy requirements.”

On the technology front, the plan directs Commerce to revise NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” Federal procurement would favor AI developers whose systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” The document strongly backs open source AI models and calls for exporting American AI technology to allies while blocking administration-labeled adversaries like China.

Security proposals include high-security military data centers and warnings that advanced AI systems “may pose novel national security risks” in cyberattacks and weapons development.

Critics respond with “People’s AI Action Plan”

Before the White House unveiled its plan, more than 90 organizations launched a competing “People’s AI Action Plan” on Tuesday, characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a massive handout to the tech industry” that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare. The coalition includes labor unions, environmental justice groups, and consumer protection nonprofits.

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation Read More »

spanish-blackout-report:-power-plants-meant-to-stabilize-voltage-didn’t

Spanish blackout report: Power plants meant to stabilize voltage didn’t

The blackout that took down the Iberian grid serving Spain and Portugal in April was the result of a number of smaller interacting problems, according to an investigation by the Spanish government. The report concludes that several steps meant to address a small instability made matters worse, eventually leading to a self-reinforcing cascade where high voltages caused power plants to drop off the grid, thereby increasing the voltage further. Critically, the report suggests that the Spanish grid operator had an unusually low number of plants on call to stabilize matters, and some of the ones it did have responded poorly.

The full report will be available later today; however, the government released a summary ahead of its release. The document includes a timeline of the events that triggered the blackout, as well as an analysis of why grid management failed to keep it in check. It also notes that a parallel investigation checked for indications of a cyberattack and found none.

Oscillations and a cascade

The document notes that for several days prior to the blackout, the Iberian grid had been experiencing voltage fluctuations—products of a mismatch between supply and demand—that had been managed without incident. These continued through the morning of April 28 until shortly after noon, when an unusual frequency oscillation occurred. This oscillation has been traced back to a single facility on the grid, but the report doesn’t identify it or even indicate its type, simply referring to it as an “instalación.”

The grid operators responded in a way that suppressed the oscillations but increased the voltages on the grid. About 15 minutes later, a weakened version of this oscillation occurred again, followed shortly thereafter by oscillations at a different frequency, this one with properties that are commonly seen on European grids. That prompted the grid operators to take corrective steps again, which increased the voltages on the grid.

The Iberian grid is capable of handling this sort of thing. But the grid operator only scheduled 10 power plants to handle voltage regulation on the 28th, which the report notes is the lowest total it had committed to in all of 2025 up to that point. The report found that a number of those plants failed to respond properly to the grid operators, and a few even responded in a way that contributed to the surging voltages.

Spanish blackout report: Power plants meant to stabilize voltage didn’t Read More »

could-floating-solar-panels-on-a-reservoir-help-the-colorado-river?

Could floating solar panels on a reservoir help the Colorado River?


Floating solar panels appear to conserve water while generating green electricity.

The Gila River Indian Community in Arizona has lined 3,000 feet of their canals with solar panels. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

GILA RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION, Ariz.—About 33 miles south of Phoenix, Interstate 10 bisects a line of solar panels traversing the desert like an iridescent snake. The solar farm’s shape follows the path of a canal, with panels serving as awnings to shade the gently flowing water from the unforgiving heat and wind of the Sonoran Desert.

The panels began generating power last November for the Akimel O’otham and Pee Posh tribes—known together as the Gila River Indian Community, or GRIC—on their reservation in south-central Arizona, and they are the first of their kind in the US. The community is studying the effects of these panels on the water in the canal, hopeful that they will protect a precious resource from the desert’s unflinching sun and wind.

In September, GRIC is planning to break ground on another experimental effort to conserve water while generating electricity: floating solar. Between its canal canopies and the new project that would float photovoltaic panels on a reservoir it is building, GRIC hopes to one day power all of its canal and irrigation operations with solar electricity, transforming itself into one of the most innovative and closely watched water users in the West in the process.

The community’s investments come at a critical time for the Colorado River, which supplies water to about 40 million people across seven Western states, Mexico and 30 tribes, including GRIC. Annual consumption from the river regularly exceeds its supply, and a decadeslong drought, fueled in part by climate change, continues to leave water levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead dangerously low.

Covering water with solar panels is not a new idea. But for some it represents an elegant mitigation of water shortages in the West. Doing so could reduce evaporation, generate more carbon-free electricity and require dams to run less frequently to produce power.

But, so far, the technology has not been included in the ongoing Colorado River negotiations between the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada, tribes and Mexico. All are expected to eventually agree on cuts to the system’s water allocations to maintain the river’s ability to provide water and electricity for residents and farms, and keep its ecosystem alive.

“People in the US don’t know about [floating solar] yet,” said Scott Young, a former policy analyst in the Nevada state legislature’s counsel bureau. “They’re not willing to look at it and try and factor it” into the negotiations.

Several Western water managers Inside Climate News contacted for this story said they were open to learning more about floating solar—Colorado has even studied the technology through pilot projects. But, outside of GRIC’s project, none knew of any plans to deploy floating solar anywhere in the basin. Some listed costly and unusual construction methods and potentially modest water savings as the primary obstacles to floating solar maturing in the US.

A tantalizing technology with tradeoffs

A winery in Napa County, California, deployed the first floating solar panels in the US on an irrigation pond in 2007. The country was still years away from passing federal legislation to combat the climate crisis, and the technology matured here haltingly. As recently as 2022, according to a Bloomberg analysis, most of the world’s 13 gigawatts of floating solar capacity had been built in Asia.

Unlike many Asian countries, the US has an abundance of undeveloped land where solar could be constructed, said Prateek Joshi, a research engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) who has studied floating solar, among other forms of energy. “Even though [floating solar] may play a smaller role, I think it’s a critical role in just diversifying our energy mix and also reducing the burden of land use,” he said.

Credit: Paul Horn/Inside Climate News

This February, NREL published a study that found floating solar on the reservoirs behind federally owned dams could provide enough electricity to power 100 million US homes annually, but only if all the developable space on each reservoir were used.

Lake Powell could host almost 15 gigawatts of floating solar using about 23 percent of its surface area, and Lake Mead could generate over 17 gigawatts of power on 28 percent of its surface. Such large-scale development is “probably not going to be the case,” Joshi said, but even if a project used only a fraction of the developable area, “there’s a lot of power you could get from a relatively small percentage of these Colorado Basin reservoirs.”

The study did not measure how much water evaporation floating solar would prevent, but previous NREL research has shown that photovoltaic panels—sometimes called “floatovoltaics” when they are deployed on reservoirs—could also save water by changing the way hydropower is deployed.

Some of a dam’s energy could come from solar panels floating on its reservoir to prevent water from being released solely to generate electricity. As late as December, when a typical Western dam would be running low, lakes with floating solar could still have enough water to produce hydropower, reducing reliance on more expensive backup energy from gas-fired power plants.

Joshi has spoken with developers and water managers about floating solar before, and said there is “an eagerness to get this [technology] going.” The technology, however, is not flawless.

Solar arrays can be around 20 percent more expensive to install on water than land, largely because of the added cost of buoys that keep the panels afloat, according to a 2021 NREL report. The water’s cooling effect can boost panel efficiency, but floating solar panels may produce slightly less energy than a similarly sized array on land because they can’t be tilted as directly toward the sun as land-based panels.

And while the panels likely reduce water loss from reservoirs, they may also increase a water body’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which in turn warm the climate and increase evaporation. This January, researchers at Cornell University found that floating solar covering more than 70 percent of a pond’s surface area increased the water’s CO2 and methane emissions. These kinds of impacts “should be considered not only for the waterbody in which [floating solar] is deployed but also in the broader context of trade-offs of shifting energy production from land to water,” the study’s authors wrote.

“Any energy technology has its tradeoffs,” Joshi said, and in the case of floating solar, some of its benefits—reduced evaporation and land use—may not be easy to express in dollars and cents.

Silver buckshot

There is perhaps no bigger champion for floating solar in the West than Scott Young. Before he retired in 2016, he spent much of his 18 years working for the Nevada Legislature researching the effects of proposed legislation, especially in the energy sector.

On an overcast, blustery May day in southwest Wyoming near his home, Young said that in the past two years he has promoted the technology to Colorado River negotiators, members of Congress, environmental groups and other water managers from the seven basin states, all of whom he has implored to consider the virtues of floating solar arrays on Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

Young grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, about 40 miles, he estimated, from the pioneering floating solar panels in Napa. He stressed that he does not have any ties to industry; he is just a concerned Westerner who wants to diversify the region’s energy mix and save as much water as possible.

But so far, when he has been able to get someone’s attention, Young said his pitch has been met with tepid interest. “Usually the response is: ‘Eh, that’s kind of interesting,’” said Young, dressed in a black jacket, a maroon button-down shirt and a matching ball cap that framed his round, open face. “But there’s no follow-up.”

The Bureau of Reclamation “has not received any formal proposals for floating solar on its reservoirs,” said an agency spokesperson, who added that the bureau has been monitoring the technology.

In a 2021 paper published with NREL, Reclamation estimated that floating solar on its reservoirs could generate approximately 1.5 terawatts of electricity, enough to power about 100 million homes. But, in addition to potentially interfering with recreation, aquatic life, and water safety, floating solar’s effect on evaporation proved difficult to model broadly.

So many environmental factors determine how water is lost or consumed in a reservoir—solar intensity, wind, humidity, lake circulation, water depth, and temperature—that the study’s authors concluded Reclamation “should be wary of contractors’ claims of evaporation savings” without site-specific studies. Those same factors affect the panels’ efficiency, and in turn, how much hydropower would need to be generated from the reservoir they cover.

The report also showed the Colorado River was ripe with floating solar potential—more than any other basin in the West. That’s particularly true in the Upper Basin, where Young has been heartened by Colorado’s approach to the technology.

In 2023, the state passed a law requiring several agencies to study the use of floating solar. Last December, the Colorado Water Conservation Board published its findings, and estimated that the state could save up to 407,000 acre feet of water by deploying floating solar on certain reservoirs. An acre foot covers one acre with a foot of water, or 325,851 gallons, just about three year’s worth of water for a family of four.

When Young saw the Colorado study quantifying savings from floating solar, he felt hopeful. “407,000 acre feet from one state,” he said. “I was hoping that would catch people’s attention.”

Saving that much water would require using over 100,000 acres of surface water, said Cole Bedford, the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s chief operating officer, in an email. “On some of these reservoirs a [floating solar] system would diminish the recreational value such that it would not be appropriate,” he said. “On others, recreation, power generation, and water savings could be balanced.”

Colorado is not planning to develop another project in the wake of this study, and Bedford said that the technology is not a silver bullet solution for Colorado River negotiations.

“While floating solar is one tool in the toolkit for water conservation, the only true solution to the challenges facing the Colorado River Basin is a shift to supply-driven, sustainable uses and operations,” he said.

Some of the West’s largest and driest cities, like Phoenix and Denver, ferry Colorado River water to residents hundreds of miles away from the basin using a web of infrastructure that must reliably operate in unforgiving terrain. Like their counterparts at the state level, water managers in these cities have heard floatovoltaics floated before, but they say the technology is currently too immature and costly to be deployed in the US.

Lake Pleasant

Lake Pleasant, which holds some of the Central Arizona Project’s Colorado River Water, is also a popular recreation space, complicating its floating solar potential.

Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

Lake Pleasant, which holds some of the Central Arizona Project’s Colorado River Water, is also a popular recreation space, complicating its floating solar potential. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

In Arizona, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) delivers much of the Colorado River water used by Phoenix, Tucson, tribes, and other southern Arizona communities with a 336-mile canal running through the desert, and Lake Pleasant, the company’s 811,784-acre-foot reservoir.

Though CAP is following GRIC’s deployment of solar over canals, it has no immediate plans to build solar over its canal, or Lake Pleasant, according to Darrin Francom, CAP’s assistant general manager for operations, power, engineering, and maintenance, in part because the city of Peoria technically owns the surface water.

Covering the whole canal with solar to save the 4,000 acre feet that evaporates from it could be prohibitively expensive for CAP. “The dollar cost per that acre foot [saved] is going to be in the tens of, you know, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Francom said, mainly due to working with novel equipment and construction methods. “Ultimately,” he continued, “those costs are going to be borne by our ratepayers,” which gives CAP reason to pursue other lower-cost ways to save water, like conservation programs, or to seek new sources.

An intake tower moves water into and out of the dam at Lake Pleasant.

Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

An intake tower moves water into and out of the dam at Lake Pleasant. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

The increased costs associated with building solar panels on water instead of on land has made such projects unpalatable to Denver Water, Colorado’s largest water utility, which moves water out of the Colorado River Basin and through the Rocky Mountains to customers on the Front Range. “Floating solar doesn’t pencil out for us for many reasons,” said Todd Hartman, a company spokesperson. “Were we to add more solar resources—which we are considering—we have abundant land-based options.”

GRIC spent about $5.6 million, financed with Inflation Reduction Act grants, to construct 3,000 feet of solar over a canal, according to David DeJong, project director for the community’s irrigation district.

Young is aware there is no single solution to the problems plaguing the Colorado River Basin, and he knows floating solar is not a perfect technology. Instead, he thinks of it as a “silver buckshot,” he said, borrowing a term from John Entsminger, general manager for the Southern Nevada Water Authority—a technology that can be deployed alongside a constellation of behavioral changes to help keep the Colorado River alive.

Given the duration and intensity of the drought in the West and the growing demand for water and clean energy, Young believes the US needs to act now to embed this technology into the fabric of Western water management going forward.

As drought in the West intensifies, “I think more lawmakers are going to look at this,” he said. “If you can save water in two ways—why not?”

“We’re not going to know until we try”

If all goes according to plan, GRIC’s West Side Reservoir will be finished and ready to store Colorado River water by the end of July. The community wants to cover just under 60 percent of the lake’s surface area with floating solar.

“Do we know for a fact that this is going to be 100 percent effective and foolproof? No,” said DeJong, GRIC’s project director for its irrigation district. “But we’re not going to know until we try.”

Solar panels over the canal

The Gila River Indian Community spent about $5.6 million, with the help of Inflation Reduction Act grants, to cover a canal with solar.

Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

The Gila River Indian Community spent about $5.6 million, with the help of Inflation Reduction Act grants, to cover a canal with solar. Credit: Jake Bolster/Inside Climate News

GRIC’s panels will have a few things going for them that projects on lakes Mead or Powell probably wouldn’t. West Side Reservoir will not be open to recreation, limiting the panels’ impacts on people. And the community already has the funds—Inflation Reduction Act grants and some of its own money—to pay for the project.

But GRIC’s solar ambitions may be threatened by the hostile posture toward solar and wind energy from the White House and congressional Republicans, and the project is vulnerable to an increasingly volatile economy. Since retaking office, President Donald Trump, aided by billionaire Elon Musk, has made deep cuts in renewable energy grants at the Environmental Protection Agency. It is unclear whether or to what extent the Bureau of Reclamation has slashed its grant programs.

“Under President Donald J. Trump’s leadership, the Department is working to cut bureaucratic waste and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently,” said a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior, which oversees Reclamation. “This includes ensuring Bureau of Reclamation projects that use funds from the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act align with administration priorities. Projects are being individually assessed by period of performance, criticality, and other criteria. Projects have been approved for obligation under this process so that critical work can continue.”

And Trump’s tariffs could cause costs to balloon beyond the community’s budget, which could either reduce the size of the array or cause delays in soliciting proposals, DeJong said.

While the community will study the panels over canals to understand the water’s effects on solar panel efficiency, it won’t do similar research on the panels on West Side Reservoir, though DeJong said they have been in touch with NREL about studying them. The enterprise will be part of the system that may one day offset all the electrical demand and carbon footprint of GRIC’s irrigation system.

“The community, they love these types of innovative projects. I love these innovative projects,” said GRIC Governor Stephen Roe Lewis, standing in front of the canals in April. Lewis had his dark hair pulled back in a long ponytail and wore a blue button down that matched the color of the sky.

“I know for a fact this is inspiring a whole new generation of water protectors—those that want to come back and they want to go into this cutting-edge technology,” he said. “I couldn’t be more proud of our team for getting this done.”

DeJong feels plenty of other water managers across the West could learn from what is happening at GRIC. In fact, the West Side Reservoir was intentionally constructed near Interstate 10 so that people driving by on the highway could one day see the floating solar the community intends to build there, DeJong said.

“It could be a paradigm shift in the Western United States,” he said. “We recognize all of the projects we’re doing are pilot projects. None of them are large scale. But it’s the beginning.”

This story originally appeared on Photo of Inside Climate News

Could floating solar panels on a reservoir help the Colorado River? Read More »

us-solar-keeps-surging,-generating-more-power-than-hydro-in-2025

US solar keeps surging, generating more power than hydro in 2025

Under those circumstances, the rest of the difference will be made up for with fossil fuels. Running counter to recent trends, the use of natural gas dropped during the first three months of 2025. This means that the use of coal rose nearly as quickly as demand, up by 23 percent compared to the same time period in 2024.

Despite the rise in coal use, the fraction of carbon-free electricity held steady year-over-year, with wind/solar/hydro/nuclear accounting for 43 percent of all power put on the US grid. That occurred despite small drops in nuclear and hydro production.

Solar power also passed a key milestone in 2025, although it requires digging through the statistics to realize it. In terms of power on the grid, there was less solar than hydro. But the Energy Information Agency also estimates the production from small-scale solar, like the kind you’d find on people’s roofs. Some of this never enters the grid and instead simply offsets demand locally (in that it gets used by the house that sits beneath the panels). If you combine the TW-hr produced by small- and grid-scale solar, however, they surpass the production from hydropower by a significant margin.

This surge in solar comes on top of a 30 percent increase in production the year prior. The growth curve is clearly not slowing down.

That dynamic is also not likely to change immediately in response to cuts to tax breaks for renewable power that were part of the budget package passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday, and not only because it’s possible that some Republican Senators might object to budget changes that will harm their states. Solar power in most areas is now cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies, and any power plant (renewable or otherwise) will likely see its costs rise due to the tariff environment. Finally, the tax breaks don’t expire immediately, and most power plant construction requires significant advanced planning.

All of those factors should continue the solar boom for at least a couple more years before all of the expected changes apply the brakes.

US solar keeps surging, generating more power than hydro in 2025 Read More »

trump-admin-lifts-hold-on-offshore-wind-farm,-doesn’t-explain-why

Trump admin lifts hold on offshore wind farm, doesn’t explain why

On Monday, however, the company announced that the hold had been lifted and construction would resume. But as with the hold itself, the reasons for its end remain mysterious. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management page for the project was only updated with a new letter on Tuesday. That letter indicates a review of its approval is ongoing, but construction can resume during the review.

The Department of the Interior has not addressed the change and has not responded to a request for comment. A post by Interior Secretary Burgum doesn’t mention Empire Wind but does suggest the governor of New York will approve a pipeline: “I am encouraged by Governor Hochul’s comments about her willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.”

That suggests there was a deal that allowed Empire Wind to resume construction in return for a pipeline for fossil fuels. The New York Times suggests that this is a reference to the proposed Constitution Pipeline, which was planned to move natural gas from Pennsylvania to eastern New York but was cancelled in 2020 due to state opposition.

But Governor Kathy Hochul has not made any comments about a willingness to move forward on any pipelines. Instead, Hochul’s statement on Empire Wind is very vague, saying that she “reaffirmed that New York will work with the Administration and private entities on new energy projects that meet the legal requirements under New York law.”

So while it’s good news that construction on Empire Wind has restarted, the whole process has been problematic, driven by apparently arbitrary decisions that the government has refused to justify.

Trump admin lifts hold on offshore wind farm, doesn’t explain why Read More »

renewable-power-reversing-china’s-emissions-growth

Renewable power reversing China’s emissions growth

China has been installing renewable energy at a spectacular rate, and now has more renewable capacity than the next 13 countries combined, and four times that of its closest competitor, the US. Yet, so far at least, that hasn’t been enough to offset the rise of fossil fuel use in that country. But a new analysis by the NGO Carbon Brief suggests things may be changing, as China’s emissions have now dropped over the past year, showing a one percent decline compared to the previous March. The decline is largely being led by the power sector, where growth in renewables has surged above rising demand.

This isn’t the first time that China’s emissions have gone down over the course of a year, but in all previous cases the cause was primarily economic—driven by things like the COVID pandemic or the 2008 housing crisis. The latest shift, however, was driven largely by the country’s energy sector, which saw a two percent decline in emissions over the past year.

Image of a graph, showing a general rise with small periods of decline. A slight decline has occurred over the last year.

China’s emissions have shown a slight decline over the last year, despite economic growth and rising demand for electricity. Credit: Carbon Brief

Carbon Brief put the report together using data from several official government sources, including the National Bureau of Statistics of China, National Energy Administration of China, and the China Electricity Council. Projections for future growth come from the China Wind Energy Association and the China Photovoltaic Industry Association.

The data indicate that the most recent monthly peak in emissions was March of 2024. Since then, total emissions have gone down by one percent—a change the report notes is small enough that it could easily reverse should conditions change. The report highlights, however, that the impact of renewables appears to be accelerating. The growth of clean power in the first quarter of 2025 was enough to drive a 1.6 percent drop compared to the same quarter a year before, outpacing the overall average of a one percent decline.

Renewable power reversing China’s emissions growth Read More »

trump-throws-coal-a-lifeline,-but-the-energy-industry-has-moved-on

Trump throws coal a lifeline, but the energy industry has moved on

As President Donald Trump signed a slew of executive orders Tuesday aimed at keeping coal power alive in the United States, he repeatedly blamed his predecessor, Democrats, and environmental regulations for the industry’s dramatic contraction over the past two decades.

But across the country, state and local officials and electric grid operators have been confronting a factor in coal’s demise that is not easily addressed with the stroke of a pen: its cost.

For example, Maryland’s only remaining coal generating station, Talen Energy’s 1.3-gigawatt Brandon Shores plant, will be staying open beyond its previously planned June 1 shutdown, under a deal that regional grid operator PJM brokered earlier this year with the company, state officials, and the Sierra Club.

Talen had decided to close the plant two years ago because it determined that running the plant was uneconomical. But PJM said the plant was necessary to maintain the reliability of the grid. To keep Brandon Shores open while extra transmission is built to bolster the grid, Maryland ratepayers will be forced to pay close to $1 billion.

“There’s some people who say that Brandon Shores was retiring because of Maryland’s climate policy,” says David Lapp, who leads the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, which fought the deal on behalf of ratepayers. “But it was purely a decision made by a generation company that’s operating in a free market.”

Cheaper power from natural gas and renewable energy has been driving down use of coal across the United States for roughly 20 years. Coal plants now provide about 15 percent of the nation’s electricity, down from more than 50 percent in 2000.

In some cases, state and local officials have raised concerns over whether the loss of coal plants will make the grid more vulnerable to blackouts. In Utah, for example, the Intermountain Power Agency’s 1,800-megawatt coal power facility in Utah’s West Desert is the largest US coal plant that was scheduled to shut down this year, according to the US Energy Information Administration. IPA is going forward with its plan to switch to natural gas plants that can be made cleaner-operating by using hydrogen fuel. But under a new law, IPA will shut down the coal plants in a state where it can be easily restarted, said IPA spokesman John Ward. The Utah legislature voted last month in favor of a new process in which the state of Utah will look for new customers and possibly a new operator to keep the coal plant running.

Trump throws coal a lifeline, but the energy industry has moved on Read More »

the-uk-got-rid-of-coal—where’s-it-going-next?

The UK got rid of coal—where’s it going next?


Clean, but not fully green

The UK has transitioned to a lower-emission grid. Now comes the hard part.

With the closure of its last coal-fired power plant, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, on September 30, 2024, the United Kingdom has taken a significant step toward its net-zero goals. It’s no small feat to end the 142-year era of coal-powered electricity in the country that pioneered the Industrial Revolution. Yet the UK’s journey away from coal has been remarkably swift, with coal generation plummeting from 40 percent of the electricity mix in 2012 to just two percent in 2019, and finally to zero in 2024.

As of 2023, approximately half of UK electricity generation comes from zero-carbon sources, with natural gas serving as a transitional fuel. The UK aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 42 percent to 48 percent by 2027 and achieve net-zero by 2050. The government set a firm target to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040, emphasizing offshore wind and solar energy as the keys.

What will things look like in the intervening years, which will lead us from today to net-zero? Everyone’s scenario, even when based in serious science, boils down to a guessing game. Yet some things are more certain than others, the most important of these factors being the ones that are on solid footing beneath all of the guesswork.

Long-term goals

The closure of all UK coal-fired power stations in 2024 marked a crucial milestone in the nation’s decarbonization efforts. Coal was once the dominant source of electricity generation, but its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions made it a primary target for phase-out. The closure of these facilities has significantly reduced the UK’s carbon footprint and paved the way for cleaner energy sources.

With transition from coal, natural gas is set to play a crucial role as a “transition fuel.” The government’s “British Energy Security Strategy” argued that gas must continue to be an important part of the energy mix. It positioned gas as the “glue” that holds the electricity system together during the transition. Even the new Starmer government recognizes that, as the country progresses towards net-zero by 2050, the country may still use about a quarter of the gas it currently consumes.

Natural gas emits approximately half as much carbon dioxide as coal when combusted, making it a cleaner alternative during the shift to renewable energy sources. In 2022, natural gas accounted for around 40 percent of the UK’s electricity generation, while coal contributed less than two percent. This transition phase is deemed by the government to be essential as the country ramps up the capacity of renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar power, to fill gaps left by the reduction of fossil fuels. The government aims to phase out natural gas that’s not coupled with carbon capture by 2035, but in the interim, it serves as a crucial bridge, ensuring energy security while reducing overall emissions.

But its role is definitely intended to be temporary; the UK’s long-term energy goal is to reduce reliance on all fossil fuels (starting with imported supplies), pushing for a rapid transition to cleaner, domestic sources of energy.

The government’s program has five primary targets:

  • Fully decarbonizing the power system (2035)
  • Ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars (2035)
  • Achieving “Jet Zero” – net-zero UK aviation emissions (2050)
  • Creating 30,000 hectares of new woodland per year (2025)
  • Generating 50 percent of its total electricity from renewable sources by 2030

Offshore wind energy has emerged as this strategy’s key component, with significant investments being made in new wind farms. Favorable North Sea wind conditions have immense potential. In recent years, a surge in offshore wind investment has translated into several large-scale developments in advanced planning stages or now under construction.

The government has set a target to increase offshore wind capacity to 50 GW by 2030, up from around 10 GW currently. This initiative is supported by substantial financial commitments from both the public and private sectors. Recent investment announcements underscore the UK’s commitment to this goal and the North Sea’s central role in it. In 2023, the government announced plans to invest $25 billion (20 billion British pounds) in carbon capture and offshore wind projects in the North Sea over the next two decades. This investment is expected to create up to 50,000 jobs and help position the UK as a leader in clean energy technologies.

This was part of investments totaling over $166 million (133 million pounds) to support the development of new offshore wind farms, which are expected to create thousands of jobs and stimulate local economies.

In 2024, further investments were announced to support the expansion of offshore wind capacity. The government committed to holding annual auctions for new offshore wind projects to meet its goal of quadrupling offshore wind capacity by 2030. These investments are part of a broader strategy to leverage the UK’s expertise in offshore industries and transition the North Sea from an oil and gas hub to a clean-energy powerhouse.

Offshore wind

As the UK progresses toward its net-zero target, it faces both challenges and opportunities. While significant progress has been made in decarbonizing the power sector, the national government’s Climate Change Committee has noted that emissions reductions need to accelerate in other sectors, particularly agriculture, land use, and waste. However, with continued investment in renewable energy and supportive policies, the UK is positioning itself to become a leader in the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

Looking ahead, 2025 promises to be a landmark year for the UK’s green energy sector, with further investment announcements and projects in the pipeline.

The Crown Estate, which manages the seabed around England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, has made significant strides in facilitating new leases for offshore wind development. In 2023, the Crown Estate Scotland announced the successful auction of seabed leases for new offshore wind projects, totaling a capacity of 5 gigawatts. And in 2024, the government plans to hold its next major leasing round, which could see the deployment of an additional 7 GW of offshore wind capacity.

The UK government also approved plans for the Dogger Bank Wind Farm, which will be the world’s largest offshore wind farm when completed. Located off the coast of Yorkshire, this massive project will ultimately generate enough electricity to power millions of homes. Dogger is a joint venture linking SSE Renewables, Equinor, and Vattenfall.

This is in line with the government’s broader strategy to enhance energy independence and resilience, particularly in light of the geopolitical uncertainties affecting global energy markets. The UK’s commitment to renewable energy is not merely an environmental imperative; it is also an economic opportunity. By harnessing the vast potential of the North Sea, the UK aims not only to meet its net-zero targets but also to drive economic growth and job creation in the green energy sector, ensuring a sustainable future for generations to come.

Recognizing wind’s importance, the UK government launched a 2024 consultation on plans to develop a new floating wind energy sector.

The transition to a greener economy is projected to create up to 400,000 jobs by 2030 across various sectors, including manufacturing, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy technologies.

Its growing offshore wind industry is expected to attract billions in investment, solidifying the UK’s position as a leader in the global green energy market. The government’s commitment to offshore wind development, underscored by substantial investments in 2023 and anticipated announcements for 2024, signals a robust path forward.

Moving away from gas

Still, the path ahead remains challenging, requiring a multifaceted approach that balances economic growth, energy security, and environmental sustainability.

With the transition from coal, natural gas is now poised to play the central role as a bridge fuel. While natural gas emits fewer greenhouse gases than coal, it is still a fossil fuel and contributes to carbon emissions. However, in the short term, natural gas can help maintain energy security and provide a reliable source of electricity during periods of low renewable energy output. Additionally, natural gas can be used to produce hydrogen, potentially coupled with carbon capture, enabling a clean energy carrier that can be integrated into the existing energy infrastructure.

To support the country’s core clean energy goals, the government is implementing specific initiatives, although the pace has been quite uneven. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is being strengthened to incentivize industrial decarbonization. The government has also committed to investing in key green industries alongside offshore wind: carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), and nuclear energy.

Combined, these should allow the UK to limit its use of natural gas and capture the emissions associated with any remaining fossil fuel use.

While both countries are relying heavily on wind power, the UK’s energy-generation transformations are different from Germany’s. While both governments push to make some progress on the path to net-zero carbon emissions, their approaches and timelines differ markedly.

Energiewende, Germany’s energy transition, is characterized by what some critics consider to be overly ambitious goals for achieving net greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045. Those critics think that the words don’t come close to matching the required levels of either government or private sector financial commitment. Together with the Bundestag, the chancellor has set interim targets to reduce emissions by 65 percent by 2030 and 88 percent by 2040 (both compared to 1990 levels). Germany’s energy mix is heavily reliant on renewables, with a goal of sourcing 80 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2030—and achieving 100 percent by 2035.

However, Germany has faced challenges due to continued reliance on coal and natural gas, which made it difficult to reach its emissions goals.

The UK, however, appears to be ahead in terms of immediate reductions in coal use and the integration of renewables into its energy mix. Germany’s path is more complex, as it balances its energy transition with energy security concerns, particularly in light of how Russia’s war affects gas supplies.

The UK got rid of coal—where’s it going next? Read More »

us‘s-wind-and-solar-will-generate-more-power-than-coal-in-2024

US‘s wind and solar will generate more power than coal in 2024

We can expect next year’s numbers to also show a large growth in solar production, as the EIA says that the US saw record levels of new solar installations in 2024, with 37 gigawatts of new capacity. Since some of that came online later in the year, it’ll produce considerably more power next year. And, in its latest short-term energy analysis, the EIA expects to see over 20 GW of solar capacity added in each of the next two years. New wind capacity will push that above 30 GW of renewable capacity each of these years.

A bar chart, with the single largest bar belonging to solar energy.

The past few years of solar installations have led to remarkable growth in its power output. Credit: John Timer

That growth will, it’s expected, more than offset continued growth in demand, although that growth is expected to be somewhat slower than we saw in 2024. It also predicts about 15 GW of coal will be removed from the grid during those two years. So, even without any changes in policy, we’re likely to see a very dynamic grid landscape over the next few years.

But changes in policy are almost certainly on the way. The flurry of executive orders issued by the Trump administration includes a number of energy-related changes. These include defining “energy” in a way that excludes wind and solar, an end to offshore wind leasing and the threat to terminate existing leases, and a re-evaluation of the allocation of funds from some of the Biden administration’s energy-focused laws.

In essence, this sets up a clash among economics, state policies, and federal policy. Even without any subsidies, wind and solar are the cheapest ways to produce electricity in much of the US. In addition, a number of states have mandates that will require the use of more renewable energy. At the same time, the permitting process for the plants and their grid connections will often require approvals at the federal level, and it appears to be official policy to inhibit renewables when possible. And a number of states are also making attempts to block new renewable power installations.

It’s going to be a challenging period for everyone involved in renewable energy.

US‘s wind and solar will generate more power than coal in 2024 Read More »

coal-likely-to-go-away-even-without-epa’s-power-plant-regulations

Coal likely to go away even without EPA’s power plant regulations


Set to be killed by Trump, the rules mostly lock in existing trends.

In April last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released its latest attempt to regulate the carbon emissions of power plants under the Clean Air Act. It’s something the EPA has been required to do since a 2007 Supreme Court decision that settled a case that started during the Clinton administration. The latest effort seemed like the most aggressive yet, forcing coal plants to retire or install carbon capture equipment and making it difficult for some natural gas plants to operate without capturing carbon or burning green hydrogen.

Yet, according to a new analysis published in Thursday’s edition of Science, they wouldn’t likely have a dramatic effect on the US’s future emissions even if they were to survive a court challenge. Instead, the analysis suggests the rules serve more like a backstop to prevent other policy changes and increased demand from countering the progress that would otherwise be made. This is just as well, given that the rules are inevitably going to be eliminated by the incoming Trump administration.

A long time coming

The net result of a number of Supreme Court decisions is that greenhouse gasses are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA needed to determine whether they posed a threat to people. George W. Bush’s EPA dutifully performed that analysis but sat on the results until its second term ended, leaving it to the Obama administration to reach the same conclusion. The EPA went on to formulate rules for limiting carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, but these were rapidly made irrelevant because renewable power and natural gas began displacing coal even without the EPA’s encouragement.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration replaced those rules with ones designed to accomplish even less, which were thrown out by a court just before Biden’s inauguration. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stepped in to rule on the now-even-more-irrelevant Obama rules, determining that the EPA could only regulate carbon emissions at the level of individual power plants rather than at the level of the grid.

All of that set the stage for the latest EPA rules, which were formulated by the Biden administration’s EPA. Forced by the court to regulate individual power plants, the EPA allowed coal plants that were set to retire within the decade to continue to operate as they have. Anything that would remain operational longer would need to either switch fuels or install carbon capture equipment. Similarly, natural gas plants were regulated based on how frequently they were operational; those that ran less than 40 percent of the time could face significant new regulations. More than that, and they’d have to capture carbon or burn a fuel mixture that is primarily hydrogen produced without carbon emissions.

While the Biden EPA’s rules are currently making their way through the courts, they’re sure to be pulled in short order by the incoming Trump administration, making the court case moot. Nevertheless, people had started to analyze their potential impact before it was clear there would be an incoming Trump administration. And the analysis is valuable in the sense that it will highlight what will be lost when the rules are eliminated.

By some measures, the answer is not all that much. But the answer is also very dependent upon whether the Trump administration engages in an all-out assault on renewable energy.

Regulatory impact

The work relies on the fact that various researchers and organizations have developed models to explore how the US electric grid can economically meet demand under different conditions, including different regulatory environments. The researchers obtained nine of them and ran them with and without the EPA’s proposed rules to determine their impact.

On its own, eliminating the rules has a relatively minor impact. Without the rules, the US grid’s 2040 carbon dioxide emissions would end up between 60 and 85 percent lower than they were in 2005. With the rules, the range shifts to between 75 and 85 percent—in essence, the rules reduce the uncertainty about the outcomes that involve the least change.

That’s primarily because of how they’re structured. Mostly, they target coal plants, as these account for nearly half of the US grid’s emissions despite supplying only about 15 percent of its power. They’ve already been closing at a rapid clip, and would likely continue to do so even without the EPA’s encouragement.

Natural gas plants, the other major source of carbon emissions, would primarily respond to the new rules by operating less than 40 percent of the time, thus avoiding stringent regulation while still allowing them to handle periods where renewable power underproduces. And we now have a sufficiently large fleet of natural gas plants that demand can be met without a major increase in construction, even with most plants operating at just 40 percent of their rated capacity. The continued growth of renewables and storage also contributes to making this possible.

One irony of the response seen in the models is that it suggests that two key pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are largely irrelevant. The IRA provides benefits for the deployment of carbon capture and the production of green hydrogen (meaning hydrogen produced without carbon emissions). But it’s likely that, even with these credits, the economics wouldn’t favor the use of these technologies when alternatives like renewables plus storage are available. The IRA also provides tax credits for deploying renewables and storage, pushing the economics even further in their favor.

Since not a lot changes, the rules don’t really affect the cost of electricity significantly. Their presence boosts costs by an estimated 0.5 to 3.7 percent in 2050 compared to a scenario where the rules aren’t implemented. As a result, the wholesale price of electricity changes by only two percent.

A backstop

That said, the team behind the analysis argues that, depending on other factors, the rules could play a significant role. Trump has suggested he will target all of Biden’s energy policies, and that would include the IRA itself. Its repeal could significantly slow the growth of renewable energy in the US, as could continued problems with expanding the grid to incorporate new renewable capacity.

In addition, the US is seeing demand for electricity rise at a faster pace in 2023 than in the decade leading up to it. While it’s still unclear whether that’s a result of new demand or simply weather conditions boosting the use of electricity in heating and cooling, there are several factors that could easily boost the use of electricity in coming years: the electrification of transport, rising data center use, and the electrification of appliances and home heating.

Should these raise demand sufficiently, then it could make continued coal use economical in the absence of the EPA rules. “The rules … can be viewed as backstops against higher emissions outcomes under futures with improved coal plant economics,” the paper suggests, “which could occur with higher demand, slower renewables deployment from interconnection and permitting delays, or higher natural gas prices.”

And it may be the only backstop we have. The report also notes that a number of states have already set aggressive emissions reduction targets, including some for net zero by 2050. But these don’t serve as a substitute for federal climate policy, given that the states that are taking these steps use very little coal in the first place.

Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.adt5665  (About DOIs).

Photo of John Timmer

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Coal likely to go away even without EPA’s power plant regulations Read More »