Energy Affordability: An IQ Test For New Yorkers That They Will Very Likely Fail

  • Here in New York, our very-light-weight Governor Kathy Hochul is running for re-election. To her slight credit, she has noticed that New York is a high cost state, not the least for cost of energy, and that New Yorkers are upset about that.

  • New Yorkers are right to be upset about the cost of energy. According to this chart from the federal EIA containing most recent data for July 2026, the average price of electricity to the ultimate consumer in New York for that month was 29.9¢/kWh, compared to a national average of 18.31¢/kWh; and New York’s cost had increased more than 14% from 26.22¢/kWh in July 2025, versus a 4.9% increase in the national average over last year’s 17.45¢/kWh. New Yorkers are also right to be upset because the premium they pay for electricity is mostly to entirely the consequence of intentional government policies that drive up the cost.

  • What’s crazy is that Governor Hochul has decided to make “energy affordability” a theme of her campaign. The reason that is crazy is that at the same time that Hochul claims she favors more “affordability,” she also brags about maintaining and expanding the very policies that have caused the excess costs.

Read More

Rescission Of Carbon Emissions Standards For Power Plants: The Litigation Begins

  • In what may be a world record for turnaround time, the litigation has already begun over the recent rescission by EPA of its carbon emission standards for fossil-fuel fired power plants.

  • As reported here on September 17, on that date the EPA finalized its rescission of what were called its “Carbon Pollution Standards” for electric power plants. (EPA’s September 17 action did not rescind all of the Carbon Pollution Standards for power plants, but only those for existing power plants and major overhauls of existing plants; the standards for new plants remain in effect for now, although in its rescission action EPA gave strong hints that those will also soon be ended.). By the end of that very day, September 17, a Petition had been filed in the DC Circuit seeking review of the regulatory action. Here is a copy of the Petition. The Petitioners are the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

  • The Petition is a short two-page document that simply asks for “review” of EPA’s action, and does not say anything about the grounds for the request.

Read More

Another Big Step In The Removal Of Destructive "Climate" Regulations

  • I will never understand how large numbers of seemingly intelligent people got the idea that they were going to save the world by forcing the closure of all the functional parts of the energy system of the U.S. Nor will I ever understand how enough of those people got themselves into positions of sufficient political power to put their wacko energy ideas into effect.

  • And yet, by the time President Joe Biden and his minions had left office in early 2025, such people, operating deep in the administrative state (and with the apparent blessing of a demented President), had managed to impose regulations that, by some time in the 2030s would have, among other things, forced the end of the manufacture and sale of all vehicles except electric vehicles, and forced the closure of all power plants using fossil fuels.

  • Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump and his people have been actively working to rescind and eliminate this insanity. I have previously reported on many of these actions, for example here and here.

  • Today the EPA took another big step in removing these destructive regulations by finalizing a Rule titled “Partial Repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units.”

Read More

D.C. Circuit Endangerment Finding Litigation: The Nefarious EPA "Futility" Analysis

Readers of my previous (August 13) post on the Endangerment Finding (EF) litigation pending in the D.C. Circuit may have come away wondering about this issue: What is the basis on which this coalition of most blue states plus many major municipalities and big-time environmental NGOs seeks to put an indefinite stall on resolution of the litigation?

As reported in that post, after the Trump EPA had finalized its rescission of the EF in February 2026, a large number of blue states, municipalities and environmental NGOs promptly filed Petitions in the D.C. Circuit seeking to have the court block that action. But, once having commenced the case, the same group of major actors immediately started engaging in tactics to slow the litigation down and postpone the beginning of briefing on the merits. Most recently on July 29, a large group of most of the Petitioners in the litigation — including some 20 blue states (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc., etc.), large municipalities (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., etc.), and NGOs (Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, etc., etc.) — filed a motion to put the case into “abeyance” for 30 days to force EPA to re-do some of the analysis that supports the rescission. While the “abeyance” request itself is only for 30 days, a re-do of EPA’s analysis could re-start the running of multiple clocks, and thereby delay the litigation for months, if not a year or more.

Now, this litigation potentially affects some trillions of dollars of economic activity. Surely, if there is to be a significant delay, there must be some very important reason. But in fact the stated basis for the motion, backed by all these big-time entities, is beyond trivial.

Read More

D.C. Circuit Endangerment Finding Litigation: The Stall Is On

The Endangerment Finding (EF) is the completely absurd piece of regulatory overreach by which the Obama EPA in December 2009 purported to determine that the trace atmospheric gas carbon dioxide was a “danger to human health and welfare.” That action may have been absurd, but it was by no means benign. CO2 is a principal product of all combustion of fossil fuels. Following on the EF, EPA and other government agencies in the Obama and then Biden Administrations set out to use the EF as the basis to transform our entire energy economy — suppressing drilling, blocking pipelines, forcing closure of power plants, outlawing combustion cars and gas heat and stoves, and much, much more.

In Trump’s first term, EPA never chose to take on the EF; but in Trump’s second term the agency got right to work on the job of rescission, and issued the final rule rescinding the first part of the EF (as to motor vehicle emissions) on February 13, 2026. By February 18, progressive NGOs were already in court (D.C. Circuit) seeking to block the rescission. I covered the rescission of the EF in this post on February 15, and then the status of the litigation in this further post on July 21.

If you are interested in this subject, here is the key issue to watch: Do the progressive NGOs and their blue state co-petitioners, and for that matter the D.C. Circuit itself, want this case to proceed to a quick resolution? Or do they want to stall?

Read More

Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero -- 2026 Edition

Back in July 2024, I had a post titled “Big Tech On The Road To Net Zero.” Here was the introductory paragraph:

Among the adherents to the cult of climate change, nobody can claim a higher level of sanctimony than the Big Tech behemoths — the likes of Google, Microsoft and Meta. These new economic titans fancy themselves to be totally unlike the dirty and grubby industrial companies of the past, like the steel, automobile or oil producers with their belching smokestacks. Each of these new tech powerhouses loudly proclaims its sacred and unwavering commitment to “net zero” emissions by some early date, typically 2030.

At the time of that post, all three of those Big Tech behemoths, besides maintaining their own supposed paths to “net zero,” were also engaged to one degree or another in censoring and/or de-monetizing and/or downgrading anybody who dared to deviate from the so-called “climate consensus” — whatever that may be.

Read More