MDN’s Energy Stories of Interest: Mon, Aug 11, 2025 [FREE ACCESS]

OTHER U.S. REGIONS: How Phil Murphy caused New Jersey electricity prices to soar; Judge shuts down Charleston climate case, warns of “boundless” liability; Gavin Newsom flinches as California’s war against oil produces a crisis; NATIONAL: U.S. natural gas futures settle under $3; As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame; EPA cancels $7 billion Biden-era grant program to boost solar energy; On the CO2 fertilization effect (real science for EPA); INTERNATIONAL: Oil holds steady as traders assess possible Ukraine war truce; China defends buying Russian oil; Environment groups are too white and middle class, says green boss.

OTHER U.S. REGIONS

How Phil Murphy caused New Jersey electricity prices to soar
Wall Street Journal/Paul H. Tice
New Jersey residents face some of the highest electricity prices in the U.S., despite low per capita energy use, with rates 15% above the national average as of April 2025, exacerbated by a recent 17-20% rate hike approved by the state’s Board of Public Utilities. A decade ago, the state achieved energy independence using low-cost Marcellus Shale gas, but since Gov. Phil Murphy’s 2017 election, New Jersey has shifted away from coal and natural gas toward intermittent wind and solar power, aiming for 100% “clean” electricity by 2035. This transition has reduced generating capacity by 12% since 2016, increased reliance on the PJM regional grid, and driven a 33% rise in residential power prices. PJM’s climate-driven policies and a 20% capacity drop have led to a ninefold price spike in its latest auction, contributing to New Jersey’s rate hikes. To lower costs, the state should prioritize natural gas and nuclear expansion for reliable, affordable energy self-sufficiency. [MDN: Phil Murphy has been a disaster as Governor of NJ. Sky-high electric prices are just one example of his gross incompetence.]

Judge shuts down Charleston climate case, warns of “boundless” liability
Energy in Depth – Climate & Environment/Kyle Kohli
A South Carolina judge, Roger Young, dismissed Charleston’s climate lawsuit with prejudice, preventing refiling and marking a significant defeat for the Sher Edling law firm and Rockefeller-backed climate litigation efforts. This decision aligns with similar dismissals in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, emphasizing that climate policy belongs to national and global arenas, not state courts. The judge ruled that the claims, though framed as deception, fundamentally seek redress for greenhouse gas emissions’ effects. He warned of “boundless” liability, potentially exposing industries like airlines, automakers, and agriculture to endless suits, and enabling litigation over every weather event. The Unfair Trade Practices Act claim was time-barred due to long-standing public awareness of climate risks tied to fossil fuels. Rejecting parallels to tobacco and opioid cases, Young noted the global, cumulative nature of harms versus direct local impacts. Ultimately, the ruling underscores that courts are unfit for setting climate policy, eroding the campaign’s credibility. [MDN: We sincerely hope the Trump DOJ investigates Sher Edling for its collusion with Big Green in attempting to take down fossil energy. The SC case is yet another victory against Big Green.]

Gavin Newsom flinches as California’s war against oil produces a crisis
National Review/Jack Fowler
California Governor Gavin Newsom, once a fervent advocate for aggressive anti-fossil fuel policies, is now facing a self-inflicted energy crisis as his stringent regulations have driven oil companies like Phillips 66 and Valero to announce refinery closures, threatening the state’s fuel supply. The National Review article highlights Newsom’s shift from vilifying the oil industry to pleading with it to maintain operations, as California’s high gas taxes, cap-and-trade programs, and restrictive laws have led to skyrocketing fuel prices and reduced refining capacity. With the state importing over 70% of its oil by 2020, up from 4.5% in 1988, Newsom’s policies have created a precarious dependency on foreign oil. The article portrays this as a reckoning for Newsom, whose environmental crusade has backfired, forcing him to confront the economic and practical fallout of his administration’s war on oil, leaving California vulnerable to fuel shortages. [MDN: People get the government they voted for and deserve. Newsom is a disaster and a menace. Yet CA voters keep returning him to office. They’re getting what they deserve: a crisis.]

NATIONAL

U.S. natural gas futures settle under $3
Wall Street Journal/Anthony Harrup
U.S. natural gas’s struggle around $3/mmBtu continues with concerns about ample storage and production countering the rise in LNG feedgas flows and a near-term pickup in weather-driven demand. “Currently weather patterns are plenty hot enough the next 15 days, although the risk is the weather data loses a few CDDs [cooling degree days] in time,” NatGasWeather.com says in a note. “Whether prices trade over or under $3 at the Sunday reopen is likely to be dependent on the direction of weekend weather trends.” Nymex natural gas settles down 2.5% at $2.99/mmBtu. [MDN: So the NYMEX settled at $2.99 on Friday. Bummer. Back below the all-important $3 level. Keep an eye on how today’s price goes. That will be the tip if it continues down or maybe (hopefully) goes back above $3 again.]

As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame
Associated Press/Marc Levy
Amid rising electric bills, states face mounting pressure to shield household and business ratepayers from the costs of powering Big Tech’s energy-intensive data centers, driven by the AI boom. While no state has a definitive solution and the precise impact on bills remains elusive, critics doubt regulators’ willingness to challenge giants like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta. Over a dozen states are responding by urging the nation’s largest grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to curb price hikes, studying data centers’ effects, and advocating for them to bear more transmission costs. Data centers consume electricity equivalent to entire cities like Pittsburgh or New Orleans, prompting a reevaluation of traditional cost-sharing models. Evidence from Wood Mackenzie indicates specialized rates in 16 states fall short of covering new power plant expenses, while Monitoring Analytics attributes 70% of last year’s $9.3 billion mid-Atlantic cost increase to data center demand. Actions include Oregon’s new rate legislation, New Jersey’s impact study, and proposals requiring data centers to self-procure power, amid concerns utilities may shift burdens to average consumers to attract these lucrative clients. [MDN: The AP is a Democrat shill operation, so you always have to factor that when you read an article published by them. Here’s the thing: Many data centers are proposing to build their own gas-fired power plants to power them. Dems don’t like that. But if data centers use electricity from the local grid, that means the grid has to add new gas-fired power plants, and Dems don’t like that either because it has the potential to raise everyone’s electric rates (more demand equals higher prices). It’s a catch-22 for data centers.]

EPA cancels $7 billion Biden-era grant program to boost solar energy
Associated Press/Alex St. John, Matthew Daly
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Trump administration, has terminated a $7 billion grant program from the Biden-era Solar for All initiative, which aimed to fund residential solar projects for over 900,000 low-income U.S. households through investments like rooftop solar and community gardens. This move is part of broader efforts to deregulate environmental protections and promote fossil fuels, including proposing to rescind the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin cited the elimination of statutory authority under a recent tax-and-spending law that axed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, claiming it saves taxpayers $7 billion. Critics, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, denounced the action as illegal and insane, arguing it undermines lower utility bills, job creation, and climate action amid rising energy costs and environmental crises. Only $53 million has been spent, with grant recipients in planning stages, prompting threats of legal challenges from groups like the Solar Energy Industries Association and Southern Environmental Law Center, who assert the funds were already appropriated and cannot be rescinded. [MDN: One of the best things EPA has done under Trump—canceling this boondoggle that doesn’t benefit “low-income” people, it benefits the grifting companies that sell this stuff! That’s who benefits. That’s $7 billion of OUR taxpayer money saved!]

On the CO2 fertilization effect (real science for EPA)
Master Resource/Robert Bradley Jr.
The author challenges the U.S. EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding by highlighting the benefits of atmospheric CO2 increases, drawing from a study by Richard Lindzen and William Happer. They argue that doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm could boost global crop yields by about 40% based on empirical data, countering climate alarmism with evidence of CO2’s “fertilization” effect on plants. Experiments by Dr. Sherwood Idso demonstrate enhanced growth in pine trees at higher CO2 levels, while Dr. Craig Idso reports agricultural production increases of 28% to 70% (averaging 46%) since the Industrial Revolution due to a 120-ppm rise, with some rice varieties surging 263%. The piece warns that pursuing Net Zero emissions would reduce food availability worldwide with minimal temperature impact, quoting Sylvan Wittwer on CO2 as a boundary-less resource boosting global food production for all nations. [MDN: What’s this? We need more CO2, not less! Bring it on. Burn those fossil fuels, baby!]

INTERNATIONAL

Oil holds steady as traders assess possible Ukraine war truce
Bloomberg/Mia Gindis and Catherine Cartier
Oil prices remained steady after a volatile session as investors evaluated the potential impact of a US-Russia deal to halt the Ukraine war, which could secure Russia’s control over seized territories but faces uncertain support from Ukraine and European allies. West Texas Intermediate closed unchanged at $63.88 per barrel, ending a six-session decline, while Brent rose slightly to $66.59. Despite US and EU sanctions targeting Russian oil revenues, including new US tariffs on Indian imports for accepting Russian crude, markets anticipate minimal disruption to Russian oil flows to major buyers like China and India. Analysts suggest a truce would have a limited bearish effect on oil prices unless sanctions are lifted. Meanwhile, a bearish outlook persists due to fading summer demand, OPEC+ easing output cuts, and economic slowdown concerns linked to US tariffs, with commodity traders increasingly betting against oil price rises. [MDN: The price of oil remains in “perfect” territory for us. No complaints.]

China defends buying Russian oil
Bloomberg/Rigzone
China defended its imports of Russian oil as legitimate and lawful, rejecting U.S. threats of new tariffs after Washington imposed secondary levies on India for similar purchases. The Chinese Foreign Ministry emphasized its right to conduct economic and energy cooperation with all countries, including Russia, in line with its national interests. This response came amid former U.S. President Donald Trump’s warnings of potential tariffs on China for buying Russian oil, as part of his strategy to pressure major Russian trade partners to facilitate a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While Trump signaled progress in talks, including a potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his adviser Peter Navarro downplayed the likelihood of new tariffs, citing potential harm to the U.S. economy. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in a call with Putin, described the Ukraine situation as complex, while U.S.-China trade tensions remain paused as both sides negotiate an expiring tariff truce. [MDN: One murdering thug dictator regime justifies its deals with another murdering thug dictator regime. Is anyone really surprised? No.]

Environment groups are too white and middle class, says green boss
London (UK) Daily Mail/Katherine Lawton
Asad Rehman, the new chief executive of Friends of the Earth and its first leader of colour, has pledged to make the group more diverse, addressing criticism that environmental organisations in the UK are overwhelmingly white and middle class. Citing Race Report findings that only 4.5% of staff in such groups are non-white—far below the 16% national workforce average—Rehman said the movement must reflect the country’s diversity in ethnicity, class, and geography to drive meaningful change. Formerly with anti-poverty group War on Want, he warned of a growing threat from the far right and a potential Reform UK government, contrasting a “divisive, racist, dystopian future” with a vision of unity and prosperity. Responding to Nigel Farage’s pro-fracking stance, Rehman predicted rural working-class backlash and reaffirmed Friends of the Earth’s support for renewable energy expansion and improved energy efficiency as key to cutting energy bills, aligning with the group’s long-standing climate and justice campaigns. [MDN: Sooner or later the left turns on itself with its quotas and checkboxes. Not that Rehman is wrong! He is right that the Big Green movement is largely a white middle-and-upper-class snobbish movement. People of color are too smart to believe the hoaxes these jerks do. We’ll most of them, anyway (Rehman being the exception).]