Getting climate, energy & environment news right.

Subscribe

Conservatives have been vocal about our climate for years. Those voices won’t be ignored any longer.

[searchandfilter id="17558"]

Waste incineration plants in Europe will have to pay for their carbon dioxide emissions under European Union plans to add the industry to ​the bloc’s emissions trading system, EU officials said on Wednesday.

The plans, which ‌aim to incentivise reuse of material, limit waste, and push operators to invest in emission-capturing technology, have met strong opposition from the industry, which argues they will unfairly penalise incinerator owners rather ​than the companies producing non-recyclable plastics.

Read more in Reuters here.

EU plans to impose emissions costs on waste incineration plants

Source

The American steel industry is reaping the benefits of the AI data-center construction boom. But now, steelmakers are warning of a high-stakes competition with their data-center customers for a commodity they both require: electricity.

Data centers’ insatiable demand for electricity is driving up power costs for steel companies by tens of millions of dollars a year and threatening the companies’ operations, according to a new report from the Steel Manufacturers Association.

“We as an industry are very reliant on electricity to make steel,” said Rob Simon, chief executive of JSW Steel USA, which uses an electric furnace at its Mingo Junction, Ohio, plant. “We’ve had stable electricity prices for decades, and now we think that’s at stake.”

Read more in the Wall Street Journal here.

AI Data Centers Have Been Great for the Steel Industry. Now, a Power Crisis Looms.

Source

This piece was initially published in RealClearEnergy.

Across state capitals and in Washington, policymakers are scrambling to address voters’ alarm over electricity bills. The Trump administration is unwinding major climate regulations, Democrats are focusing more on affordability concerns than climate change, and governors are quietly paring back clean energy subsidies and emissions mandates they championed only a few years ago. Climate policies are starting to bite, and the political strategy that helped enact them, downplaying costs and obscuring tradeoffs, is becoming harder to sustain as ratepayers see the impact on their bills.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

One of the country’s most popular climate policies has largely escaped this scrutiny. More than half the states have a renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, requiring utilities to source a specified share of electricity from qualifying renewable sources such as wind and solar. Many standards are scheduled to climb sharply in the coming years. Rhode Island, for example, requires 100% renewable electricity by 2033. Fifteen states plus D.C. will require more than 50% by 2050.

States should take a hard look at these mandates. RPS programs distort electricity markets, favor politically preferred technologies over least-cost generation, and hide costs in ways that make honest debate nearly impossible.

When most states adopted RPS programs in the 2000s, the standards were appealing partly because they avoided putting an explicit price on emissions reductions. The costs are real, but they are buried in rate-base calculations and other utility expenses, making it harder for ratepayers to see the true price of climate policy.

Obscuring costs does not make them disappear. The most visible channel is direct compliance, as utilities pay for renewable generation or buy renewable energy credits to meet the mandate. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates these compliance costs averaged 4.3% of retail electricity bills in 2024. In some jurisdictions, the share was far higher. New Jersey’s compliance costs reached nearly 12% of bills, and the District of Columbia exceeded 15%.

RPS policies can also raise prices indirectly, through transmission expansion to reach remote wind and solar sites and the expense of backing up intermittent generation. Estimating the full effect is difficult, and some of the apparent connection between RPS and retail prices reflects pre-existing state characteristics rather than the policy itself. But studies of the long-run effects of RPS mandates have found retail prices in RPS states 11 to 17% higher than in comparable non-RPS states.

>>>READ: From Net-Zero to Net-Abundance

What is striking is that the evidence that RPS mandates caused large amounts of renewable deployment beyond what federal tax credits and falling technology costs would have driven is weak or inconsistent. More than 60% of new renewable capacity in 2024 was built outside RPS compliance frameworks. Much of the emissions reductions credited to the policies appear to come not from cleaner supply but from higher prices suppressing electricity demand.

 Even if those reductions are worth pursuing, RPS is a costlier path than the alternatives. Economists have long argued that pricing emissions directly, or crediting generators based on their actual emissions intensity, can achieve environmental gains at lower cost. Renewable mandates ignore cheaper options, such as switching from coal to natural gas, and instead force a binary distinction between “clean” and “dirty” technologies. The result is a policy that rewards favored resources rather than the cheapest path to lower emissions.

These costs are likely to become more visible. The One Big Beautiful Bill curtailed the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean-energy tax credits, shifting more of the cost of state renewable mandates from federal taxpayers onto state ratepayers, while state targets continue to climb just as electricity demand is projected to grow.

Now is the time to reconsider RPS. Over the past decade, West Virginia, Kansas, Montana, and Texas have variously repealed their standards, converted them to voluntary goals, or let them lapse. Most recently, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted to repeal the state’s RPS. The state attorney general is challenging the decision, but if it survives, it would be a step in the right direction.

Other states should follow. The best option is outright repeal. Short of that, mandates should be converted into voluntary goals that let governors signal climate commitments without forcing utilities to comply when renewables are not cost-competitive. At a minimum, states should freeze target increases and remove provisions that add further distortions, such as in-state sourcing requirements or technology-specific quotas.

Electricity affordability is now the defining concern in energy policy. The programs that deserve the most scrutiny are those that distort electricity markets, push prices up, and achieve their environmental goals less efficiently than the alternatives. RPS is an easy place to start, especially since rising targets will only push electricity bills higher. Now is the time to reform policies that ask voters to pay more than they should for climate ambition.

Why States Should Reconsider Renewable Portfolio Standards

Source

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) defended the economic and national security importance of the state’s booming data center industry this week, days after approving a budget that imposes Virginia’s first tax on the sector’s electricity consumption.

Spanberger said the new budget strikes a balance between ensuring data centers “pay their fair share” while preserving an industry she said is critical to Virginia’s economy and the nation’s technological leadership in an interview with Politico.

Read more in the Washington Examiner here.

Spanberger draws a hard line on data center bans: ‘Walking away from the table’

Source

Aalo Atomics’ Aalo-X Critical Test Reactor (CTR)—dubbed “Project First Light”—has reached criticality at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), marking the fourth Department of Energy (DOE)–authorized advanced reactor startup under the federal push to accelerate reactor testing and demonstration.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said July 6 that Aalo’s test reactor, which DOE referred to as Aalo-X, “successfully completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration” at INL under DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program. Aalo told POWER the Critical Test Reactor reached criticality at 12:20 a.m. MT on July 4, allowing DOE to exceed the target in Executive Order 14301, which directed the department to approve at least three reactors to reach criticality by July 4, 2026.

Read more in Power Magazine here.

Aalo Atomics’ Test Reactor Reaches Criticality at INL, Fourth DOE-Authorized Advanced Reactor by July 4

Source

This piece was initially published in The National Interest.

Defense-driven innovation has repeatedly reshaped the American economy. Advanced nuclear and other mission-critical technologies could become the next major breakthrough.

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) investments in mission-critical technologies have helped catalyze some of America’s largest technological breakthroughs, with significant positive spillovers for the economy. The internet, GPS, and the modern semiconductor industry all trace back to defense agencies developing tools to meet specific national security needs. The Navy’s nuclear propulsion program for submarines and surface ships transformed what military operations could achieve, and that success became the foundation for the commercial civilian nuclear industry.

The Pentagon could play a similar role across a wide range of innovative energy technologies, from next-generation nuclear and geothermal power to long-duration storage. The benefits won’t be limited to a more energy-secure, resilient national defense. It could meaningfully catalyze the deployment of affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy for American households and businesses. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Defense Energy Demand Can Accelerate Advanced Nuclear Deployment 

The Department of Defense can help accelerate energy innovation in several ways. One is through the department’s own energy use. DOD set a target of 99.9 percent power availability for critical missions by 2030, meaning just under nine hours of downtime per year. As the federal government’s largest energy consumer, accounting for roughly three-quarters of all federal energy use, DOD’s investments in resilience could help develop first-of-a-kind technologies. 

With the highest capacity factor of any energy source at 92.3 percent, nuclear energy could help achieve DOD’s target. A clear priority for the administration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May 2025 directing the DOD to deploy advanced nuclear reactor technology for national security. 

Out of that came the Army’s Janus Program, which identified nine candidate bases in late 2025 and aims to have an operating, Army-regulated reactor in the United States by September 2028. In April, the Air Force named potential sites (Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado and Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana) and selected three companies (Westinghouse, Radiant, and Antares Nuclear) to build and operate the reactors. One of those designs, Antares’ Mark-0, achieved its first fueled criticality at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in June 2026. This marks the first step in demonstrating that the reactor is safe and operational. 

Project Pele is another notable effort. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Defense Department has spent the past several years demonstrating that a small, factory-built reactor can be designed, licensed, transported, and operated safely outside a traditional nuclear power plant. The purpose of these initiatives has not been to promote one technology over another but about resilience: a reactor small enough to be trucked, shipped, or flown to forward and domestic bases, generating at least 1.5 megawatts of continuous power, fitting inside a standard 20-foot shipping container, and running for up to three years without refueling. 

The microreactor offers several advantages. It provides power that doesn’t depend on a vulnerable grid, reducing the need for fuel convoys and storage facilities for bases that rely on diesel. Microgrids can also give the military greater flexibility by enabling operations across a broader range of locations. The program has already delivered a full reactor core’s worth of TRi-structural ISOtropic particle (TRISO) fuel to Idaho National Laboratory and is targeting formal system testing in 2027 and electricity production in 2028.

A separate, equally important demonstration happened in February, when the Pentagon and DOE airlifted a 5-megawatt microreactor nearly 700 miles by C-17 from a base in California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Built by Valar Atomics, a private nuclear startup, under DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program, it was a real test of how quickly a reactor could be moved and stood up on a base. Valar aims to sell power on a test basis in 2027 and go fully commercial by 2028. 

>>>READ: Florida Is Leading the Next Nuclear Revolution

Defense Energy Investments Can Lower Costs and Strengthen US Energy Innovation 

Whether these programs translate into widescale deployment of advanced reactors in the United States remains to be seen. Building first-of-a-kind technologies can flatten cost curves, build out the specialized workforce, and leverage the same supply chains to achieve economies of scale. At the Vogtle power plants in Georgia, for instance, costs ballooned to $30 billion, $17 billion over budget, because of an incomplete design, fractured supply chains, and an inexperienced workforce. However, costs declined by 30 percent from the third unit to the fourth as the labor force and supply chains were built up. 

Another potential benefit is a more efficient regulatory and permitting process. A rule proposed by the NRC in April would allow the commission to rely on prior federal safety evaluations, test data, and operational experience from DOE or defense authorities, rather than requiring the NRC to conduct a full, independent technical review of design elements already vetted by another federal agency. Leveraging previously authorized DOE/DOD reviews can shorten design reviews by months or up to a year and reduce non-recurring engineering costs. This eliminates duplication, lowers capital costs, and accelerates time-to-market for validated designs.

Nuclear isn’t the only technology that can benefit from government spending on energy technologies. Alternative technologies offer advantages that enhance mission capabilities. Lighter, more efficient batteries extend a foot soldier’s mission duration and reduce the weight of a soldier’s backpack. Solar photovoltaics can also lighten a soldier’s load and extend a drone’s range. More fuel-efficient engines and battery-powered vehicles reduce the need for refueling. Whether it is conventional fuels, renewables, or nuclear power, energy spending should be mission-driven first.

>>>READ: 3 Proposals to Reduce the Time and Cost of Nuclear Deployment

In fact, many government projects that have become commercial successes, such as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS, were not initially intended to meet commercial demand but were developed to meet national security needs. Entrepreneurs recognized the commercial potential of these defense-funded technologies and turned them into the everyday products we rely on today. The government’s role should be to enable efficient pathways for the private sector to spin these programs into commercial ventures when opportunities arise. 

Critically, the DOD must weigh trade-offs when choosing among energy sources and technologies. Officials should decide whether to use more expensive energy if they believe the national security benefits justify the higher costs. Politicizing energy choices or imposing costly mandates leaves the DOD worse off by diverting defense dollars from more valuable uses. 

However, if investments are channeled correctly, the federal government’s energy programs can bolster national security and help usher in new technologies that benefit consumers, the economy, and the environment. 

Mission Critical Energy Investments Can Be a Boon for American Energy Dominance

Source
large data center

Gov. Greg Abbott called for blocking new data center development in rural parts of the state during a campaign stop in East Texas on Tuesday.

“We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods,” Abbott said at the Bullard event, which primarily discussed his plan to cut property taxes, adding that this issue “dovetails right into fighting for East Texas values.”

Read more in AP News here.

Gov. Greg Abbott calls for ban on data center development in rural Texas neighborhoods

Source

The U.S. Department of Energy on Thursday said it issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to “permanently end home appliance and equipment mandates,” continuing President Trump’s campaign against limits on how much energy is used by light bulbs, washing machines, furnaces and a host of other devices.

DOE’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program is mandated by Congress to set and update certain standards, and the notice of proposed rulemaking, or  NOPR, is framed as an “update” to the agency’s methodologies, so it is unclear if Trump’s aim is to permanently disband the program. But the proposed rule would “create hurdles” to updating standards, according to Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

Read more in Utility Dive here.

DOE wants to ‘permanently end’ appliance efficiency requirements

Source

The federal government is proposing to overhaul radiation safety regulations for nuclear power, including by eliminating a long-term principle for nuclear safety.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this week proposed to get rid of the requirement for nuclear plants to ensure that radiation exposure is “as low as is reasonably achievable.”

Read more in The Hill here.

US moves to eliminate longtime radiation safety principle for nuclear power

Source


Reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s [NRC] outdated radiation protection framework is essential to unlocking nuclear energy’s potential. Reconsidering the linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation standard could help streamline construction and lower costs, strengthening the President’s nuclear agenda without compromising safety.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The LNT model assumes that any amount of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some increased cancer risk, and that this risk rises in a straight line with dose. In practice, this assumption contributes to conservative engineering requirements and exposes projects to legal challenge. Analysts from the Idaho National Laboratory argue that revising it could meaningfully reduce capital costs and construction timelines while “correct[ing] misconceptions about the risks associated with nuclear technologies.” The NRC will soon consider this change.

The model was extrapolated from high-dose data, much of it drawn from survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then applied to the very low doses typical of normal plant operation. The problem is that it sets aside the dose rate, which is central to actual risk. In other words, it is like treating drinking 14 alcoholic drinks spread across a week as equivalent to drinking 14 drinks in an hour. The model greatly overestimates the risks of low doses. 

A growing body of low-dose research, including studies of nuclear workers, medical imagers,  and populations in areas with high natural background radiation, has found little to no detectable harm at these exposure levels. Some studies have even reported possible protective effects, though this hypothesis remains disputed. Research on nuclear workers, nuclear medical imagers, and radiology professionals show lower overall mortality, an actually beneficial effect.

President Trump’s May 2025 Executive Order on NRC reform explicitly directed the commission to reconsider LNT, but did not mandate a change. Because LNT is a regulatory assumption, not a statutory law, the NRC can revise it through its own rulemaking.

>>>READ: The Department of Energy Takes on ALARA

Moving toward a standard calibrated to low-dose evidence could enable simpler, cheaper designs, particularly small modular reactors and microreactors, lowering the construction and decommissioning costs that weigh on project economics. It would also reduce the regulatory uncertainty that drives up insurance premiums and financing costs, and trim the litigation that stretches out project timelines. Easier siting and narrower grounds for activist legal challenges are steps necessary to achieve the administration’s ambition of 300-plus gigawatts of new nuclear capacity.  

 None of this means declaring radiation harmless or loosening safety. A revised standard would still preserve substantial safety margins, calibrated to actual low-dose evidence rather than to a worst-case assumption. The goal is a regulatory threshold that takes risk seriously without overstating it, one that lets nuclear plants be built and run both efficiently and safely. There is precedent: the first US commercial nuclear plant was built under pre-LNT standards, constructed in roughly four years and operated for 25 years before its retirement in 1982.  

Combined with the supply-chain loans, plant restarts, NRC timeline reforms, and DOE pilot programs already underway, revisiting LNT could help turn today’s nuclear momentum into a durable expansion, making advanced nuclear a leading option for new firm, carbon-free power in the United States.

Cut Red Tape, Make Nuclear Great Again

Source

Subscribe to our exclusive email designed for conservatives who care about climate.

Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.

5 Incredible Ways Economic Freedom Helps the Planet.

Sign up for our newsletter now to get the full list right in your inbox.

Thank you for signing up

Help us promote sensible solutions for both planet and prosperity.

Make a donation

Download Now

Download