
How the Energy secretary picked a fight with climate science
The most striking result to date is a DOE report issued last month that questions the traditional underpinnings of climate science. The report, inked by a tag team of climate contrarians handpicked by the secretary, came out on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would overturn the Obama-era legal doctrine that undergirds most federal climate rules.
Wright, a former fracking services executive who also serves as second-in-command of the White House's National Energy Dominance Council, personally gathered the researchers for his climate-questioning squad just weeks into the job, writes my colleague Benjamin Storrow.
They included Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist; Judith Curry, a climatologist and retired professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology; John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP who also served as an undersecretary at the Energy Department during the Obama administration; and Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick.
Each researcher has publicly questioned some of the broader findings accepted by the world's climate scientists, including numerous previously published federal reports. And several have worked to downplay the risks of fossil-fuel-driven climate change.
Those proved strong credentials for Wright, who has long preached that fossil fuels can solve global energy poverty. He's accused mainstream scientists, and the media, of overhyping the risks of a planet rapidly heating up.
Carbon dioxide is a 'life-giving plant food,' Wright said in a podcast earlier this month with Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel.
'It does absorb infrared radiation so we can have a real dialogue about too much of it or too little of it … but calling it a pollutant is just nuts,' he said. (Note: Other kinds of 'plant food' — for example, nitrogen and phosphorus — are also pollutants when found in excessive quantities.)
By May, Wright's team had compiled a 141-page report questioning the veracity of climate models, the threat of sea-level rise and the connection between burning fossil fuels and extreme weather, Ben writes.
It withheld the report's release until last month to coincide with EPA's proposal to reverse the 'endangerment finding,' its 2009 legal conclusion that greenhouse gases are a harmful pollutant that the agency must regulate.
The administration hasn't yet spelled out how widely it will deploy the DOE report in its coming legal and regulatory battles over Trump's efforts to smooth the path for fossil fuels — although the EPA proposal cited the report 16 times, Ben notes.
But if the study was meant to disrupt mainstream science — or spawn what Strassel has hailed as a 'healthy, vigorous debate' over the research — it doesn't seem to have done that. Instead, other academics and scientists in the field have accused the team of cherry-picking or misrepresenting past research to support its favored conclusion.
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, panned the study on the social media site X as 'a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide.'
It's Monday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Heather Richards. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to hrichards@eenews.net.
Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Kelsey Tamborrino and Alex Guillén break down the Trump administration's latest attacks on wind and solar power.
Power Centers
Interior gets 'hostile' on windTrump's escalating moves against wind energy have alarmed advocates of renewable energy and free markets, Ian M. Stevenson writes.
Since mid-July, the Interior Department has halted spending on projects and required high-level signoff for any action on renewables. Administration officials have said renewable power is an unreliable source of electricity, and Trump has often targeted 'windmills' during attacks on former President Joe Biden's energy policy.
'It's a hostile way to kill and bottleneck these projects,' Ashna Aggarwal, director of analysis at the research firm Greenline Insights, told Ian. 'Targeting wind specifically seems to be an agenda of this administration.'
Trump 2.0's first FERC chair exitsMark Christie came in as chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in lockstep with Trump's vision of energy dominance, even if he was at odds with the White House on executive power in his tenure that ended Friday, Francisco 'A.J.' Camacho writes.
He stepped in, for example, to write letters on behalf of FERC staff when the Trump administration asked federal workers to justify their jobs. 'He's no shrinking violet,' Albert Pollard, a former state lawmaker in Virginia, said of Christie.
The exit of Republican Christie leaves FERC with a 2-1 Democratic majority. POLITICO on Friday reported that Trump plans to elevate Democratic Commissioner David Rosner to chair. If Rosner gets the nod, he could be temporary. The White House is waiting for Senate confirmation of two Republican commissioners. Either one could be named chair by Trump.
The AI race gets politicalThe push by companies like OpenAI and Google to win the artificial intelligence race has led to a proliferation of energy-hungry data centers across the country.
The rise of these server farms has sparked fierce battles from Virginia to Arizona and beyond. City and county governments are grappling with how to balance new jobs and new revenue streams against the strain data centers put on water and energy resources, Jordan Wolman and Lisa Kashinsky report.
The surge is proving polarizing, particularly in northern Virginia — considered the tip of the spear on this issue with the world's largest and fastest-growing data center market. And across the U.S., the debate is inching up the ballot as state lawmakers race to regulate and governors rush to embrace a new economic boon.
In Other News
Cleaner power: A microgrid run on lithium-ion batteries and liquid hydrogen has replaced diesel backup generators in a California town that frequently lost power because of wildfires.
Reuse: Aluminum recycling is a faster and less energy-intensive way for U.S. companies to get around a 50 percent tariff on imports, metals executives and analysts say.
Subscriber Zone
A showcase of some of our best subscriber content.
Artificial intelligence could need electricity equal to half of the nation's nuclear power fleet by 2030, according to a new analysis.
The majority owner of the coal-fired Four Corners power plant in New Mexico plans to extend its use rather than retire it in 2031 to help avert an electricity reliability crunch in the West.
Republicans in Congress are again looking to place a federal fee on electric vehicles to boost the Highway Trust Fund.
One person is dead, another is unaccounted for and at least 10 are injured following an explosion at a U.S. Steel plant near Pittsburgh.
That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indianapolis Star
14 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
The EPA wants to rollback climate regulations. Here's how Hoosiers can have a say.
Hoosiers have limited time to voice their opinions as the U.S. EPA prepares to roll back rules meant to curb the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. The announcement in Indianapolis last month to rescind a major climate rule was one of the Trump administration's many pushes to deregulate major greenhouse gas polluters — in this case, the transportation industry. And with a rich history of auto manufacturing, Indiana stands to benefit, according to a statement made by U.S. Rep. Jim Baird during the announcement. Meanwhile, Americans will become more vulnerable, said Shannon Anderson, the director of advocacy at Earth Charter Indiana. While greenhouse gas emissions are not directly toxic to human health, they are the driver behind human-caused climate change, which is exacerbating the frequency and intensity of natural disasters across the globe. 'People sometimes feel like climate change is a problem that's coming later, but we're starting to experience it now,' Anderson said. She pointed to extreme heat events and increased flooding across the continent. Sam Carpenter, the executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, warned denial of climate science is bad for individual Hoosiers, communities, and the economy. The EPA has regulated greenhouse gases for over 15 years, but now the agency wants to quash a 2009 ruling that anchors its ability to fight climate change. The agency will no longer regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants or oil and gas operations. And all greenhouse gas standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will be repealed, according to the EPA. Before the ruling is finalized, the public has until Sept. 15, 2025, to submit comments on the proposal. Indiana's greenhouse gas emissions — which come from compounds like carbon and methane — are hefty compared to similar states. Indiana releases the most energy-related greenhouse gases per capita in the Midwest and eighth in the nation, according to the HEC. About 21 percent of Indiana's total emissions come from the state's transportation sector. But as a desire to mitigate climate change impacted consumer choice and federal policy, like the Inflation Reduction Act, Indiana became a leader in electric vehicle manufacturing. Related industries now employ over 240,000 Hoosiers. The repeal of greenhouse gas emission standards could reduce the incentives helping Indiana pursue electric vehicles and battery manufacturing. 'We were starting to get a foothold in the U.S. under the Inflation Reduction Act, and Indiana has benefited mightily from those investments,' said Carpenter of HEC, nodding to the state's push toward clean energy. 'That's all being kind of pushed away through the current stance of denial on climate change. And so, it really has impacts on our health, on our communities, and in our economy.' Despite the agency's new stance on regulating greenhouse gases, 74 percent of Americans think that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Anderson thinks the EPA will soon have to face the masses during the required public comment period, where the agency must consider input before the ruling is finalized. 'We know there are so many Americans who stand with us on this issue, and it won't even take all of them to speak out on this, but as many as possible that are willing to just take a minute to write a public comment, to send a message to their legislators, that can be tremendously powerful,' Anderson said. The EPA is "going to have to acknowledge that they are flying in the face of overwhelming public consensus.' The public can submit written comments to the EPA through an online portal, email or by mail. Earth Charter Indiana also created a toolkit to help Hoosiers find out how to comment and contact their elected officials. Comments are due Sept. 15, 2025. IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust.


Axios
42 minutes ago
- Axios
How gas and power prices have become political experiments
Average costs to power homes have been trending upward while gasoline costs have moved largely the other way, Labor Department data shows. Why it matters: Steadily rising demand from AI, heat, an increasingly electrifying economy and more are all pushing up power bills. The intrigue: It all makes the politics of energy prices heading into next year's midterms worth watching. Democrats and green groups hope to impose a political cost for rising electricity bills. The killing of renewables subsidies in the budget law will send prices higher, they argue in speeches and ads. Trump officials, meanwhile, say they're unshackling policy constraints on fossil fuels to keep prices in check. What we're watching: DOE's independent stats arm sees residential power costs up 4% in 2025 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. The Energy Information Administration outlook released Tuesday sees another rise to 18 cents per kWh next year. Yes, but: Gasoline prices are going the other way amid ample oil supplies and rather tepid global oil demand growth. EIA projects that the nationwide average retail price will be $2.90 per gallon next year, around 6% less than 2025. What's next: The diverging costs set up a political experiment. If these trends hold, what matters more politically for the GOP as it seeks to keep control of Congress — higher bills to keep the lights on, or lower costs to fill up? One thing to keep in mind: gasoline costs are very visible and typically incurred more often than electricity payments. Lots of homes are heated with natural gas, too, and EIA sees a slight rise in residential prices this year and slight dip next year.


UPI
44 minutes ago
- UPI
Another baked Alaska -- Trump and Putin
Ukrainian rescuers and policemen work at the site of the Russian strike on a bus station in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on Monday. At least 19 people were injured after a Russian guided aerial bombs attack, according to the Zaporizhzhia Regional Military Administration. Photo by Oleg Movchaniuk/EPA Aug. 13 (UPI) -- Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will hold an Alaskan summit over Ukraine on Friday. The last U.S. summit held in Anchorage was between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in March 2021. It turned into a public spectacle, with both sides firing off angry charges and counter-charges. Will this summit be more productive? One way to anticipate the possible outcomes is through considering a series of binary choices. Either one or both sides will leave the conference having achieved nothing, much like Trump being unable to persuade North Korea's Kim Jung Un to denuclearize in June 2018 in Singapore. Or there will be an agreement of sorts or an agreement to agree in the future. Regarding any agreement, Munich 1938 and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" will not easily be forgotten should Trump yield to Putin's demands. Far more relevant was Trump's 2020 Doha Agreement with the Taliban that excluded the presence of the Afghan government and indeed led to the fall of the Ashraf Ghani administration in August 2021. In fact, it can be argued that Trump has carefully laid the framework for abandoning Ukraine and its feisty president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's first meeting with Zelensky in the White House was an ambush. Zelensky was accused by Vice President JD Vance of not expressing sufficient gratitude for U.S. aid and support. Trump's views softened. But currently, he has given every indication that Zelensky must cede territory to Russia in any cease-fire or peace agreement. More importantly, Trump has shifted the entire burden to NATO and the European Union of keeping Ukraine supplied with weaponry and money to sustain the war. The United States will happily sell its defense equipment to Europeans, who in turn will provide it to Ukraine. To America Firsters, this is brilliant. To many in Congress and in the public, it is an abandonment of an ally and a deeply flawed concession to Putin that the West will come to regret. But the crucial questions are what do both presidents see as outcomes from this meeting? What is each prepared to concede? And what does this mean for the ending of the war and the killings Trump says he hates so much? Surprisingly, Putin's aims are clearer and are keeping with Lenin's strategy of "other means." In simple terms, "other means" means that Putin is prepared to accept less than a full measure of his demands. That suggests he will retain Crimea while accepting certain "land swaps" of Ukrainian for Russian territory. Keeping Ukraine from joining NATO will be part of his terms although, Putin could accept the prospect of EU membership, as that will not be relevant given his likely next steps. Obviously, the United States and West must provide security guarantees to maintain Ukraine as a sovereign independent state. Here the record is bleak. Neither the 1996 Budapest or the 2014/15 Minsk Agreements that provided for Ukraine's security worked -- all having failed miserably. Putin understands this. In the event of an agreement, Russia will pursue "other means" to gain greater control of Ukraine politically and even territorially. And Putin also could wait while his military is restored before launching a future reattack. From Trump's perspective, walking away from Ukraine could make perfect sense. Trump has gone, in his mind, above and beyond trying to end the war. He has patiently negotiated with both sides. And despite his election promise to end the war in 24 hours, he will claim that was a purposeful exaggeration. Finally, having convinced Europe to become the ultimate supporter of Ukraine, Trump can argue he has done all he can. Now it is up to the warring factions to end the war. Game, set and match -- or not. Still, Trump could take a harder line believing that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, Western Europe is next. However, it would be in Trump's interest if he recognizes that Putin lacks the reasons and the forces for an attack to the west and will not risk war with a far superior NATO military. If Trump reaches this conclusion, it reinforces why the United States need not be engaged any more in the Ukraine fight. Left unsaid are sanctions. Would Trump accept pressure from Congress and 85 senators to impose sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions on China? Probably not. But we shall find out later this week when or if the Ukraine war ends. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.