Forbes Covers LPPC at USEA Press Briefing
By Ken Silverstein
Donald Trump is sounding more aggressive than ever, promising to take a closer look at the “endangerment finding,” which is the scientific and legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases that are causing climate change. In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency started overseeing those emissions under the Clean Air Act.
This is part of the administration’s strategy to increase domestic fossil fuel production and downplay the threat of climate change. The approach is shortsighted. Fossil fuels are significantly more expensive than renewable sources when considering health and environmental costs
Trump should, therefore, pass on scrubbing established law. Moreover, the globe’s most prominent companies have net-zero goals by 2050: 45% of the Fortune 500 now, compared to 8% in 2020, according to Climate Impact Partners. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are among the most proactive.
That may not matter to him. “You’ll see movement quickly relative to a revocation,” referring to endangerment finding, says Brad Molotsky, partner in the law firm of Duane Morris, with both oil and gas and renewable energy clients. He spoke at the United States Energy Association’s press briefing, where I was also a panelist.
The Trump Administration can’t simply overturn a law based on the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA. The president has requested a review. However, dismissing it would require scientists to prove that greenhouse gases no longer pose a danger—which is impossible, given that 99% of climate scientists affirm they contribute to global warming. Trump and Congress could roll back regulations on power plants and cars, which would entangle the White House in endless court battles.
Trump issued an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” which promotes increased domestic fossil fuel production to satisfy the nation’s growing energy demands driven by artificial intelligence and data centers. Let’s set aside the fact that we’re already the world’s largest oil and gas producer. But can we build wind and solar farms for cheaper and with less pollution than those powered by coal and natural gas?
Yes, but the fossil fuel industry has deep pockets and big head start. Burning coal and natural gas releases heat-trapping CO2 and emits particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide, contributing to respiratory illnesses and heart disease. However, we are reducing these emissions thanks to the Clean Air Act.
This doesn’t include the cost of repairing the abandoned coal mine sites, which the U.S. Government Accountability Office pegs at more than $11 billion. The U.S. also has more than 3 million orphaned oil and gas wells, and the cleanup costs could exceed $30 billion. Taxpayers get the bill if companies go bankrupt.
“You have to look at the environmental consequences of every energy source and weigh them against each other. Fossil fuels are not perfect, and neither are wind and solar,” says former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler from 2019 to 2021. He emphasizes that rare earth elements are mined and essential to the growth of renewable energy.
Who Pays for Pollution Cleanups?
Fossil fuels, though, leave a lasting mark, and rare earths can be recycled.
A 2021 study in Environmental Research found that air pollution from fossil fuels causes more than 8 million premature deaths worldwide yearly. Additionally, a 2021 Harvard study estimated that fossil fuel-related air pollution costs the economy $820 billion annually due to healthcare expenses and lost productivity.
“It’s an extreme decision by the administration to go after the endangerment finding. Most people think the science is settled,” says Derek Murrow, senior director for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But, it is an easier thing to do if you gut the EPA by 65%. Industry knows this is a super high-risk play," noting that the backlash from lawsuits, investors, and consumers will deter any backtracking.
Importantly, not all fossil fuels are created equal. Natural gas, which is plentiful here, releases about half the emissions as coal. That’s why it’s replaced coal as the top electricity source in the country, comprising 43%. Renewables account for 20% of the nation’s electricity, while coal makes up 16%.
The primary argument against wind and solar energy is that they are unreliable sources, available only when the weather allows. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, with the Heritage Foundation, said it is cheaper to continuously operate a combined-cycle natural gas plant than to stabilize an intermittent solar farm. She maintains that wind and solar energy cannot compete without tax incentives and credits, and she is especially critical of states with renewable energy requirements, called renewable portfolio standards.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, federal subsidies for renewable energy totaled $15.6 billion in 2022. Meanwhile, Open Secrets said renewable energy interests donated $2.5 million to federal candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
“It's time for these technologies to stand on their own without the tax incentives,” the Heritage scholar notes. “Americans can see renewables, and they see their electricity bills going up. They just want low prices. That’s common sense.”
The Heritage Foundation maintains the “science is unsettled” and opposes our participation in the Paris Agreement. It’s less vocal about its money: The Koch Foundation, which is mainly funded by fossil fuels, has given it millions of dollars over the years. Statista reports that the oil, gas, and coal industries spent $60 million lobbying the Republican Party in 2024.
“The money in politics has driven people to these extremes. And it's tearing the country apart. It's terrible,” says the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Murrow.
Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Increase Costs?
Remember that fossil fuels have dominated for a century and have long-standing infrastructures. This is not so for renewables, which are now making these investments. That’s why states with renewable portfolio standards may have slightly higher electricity prices than those without. However, over time, these standards will reduce prices as renewable sources become more rooted; utilities added wind, solar, and battery storage at record rates in 2024, accounting for 94% of all such capacity additions.
Backup generation and battery storage for renewables incur additional costs; however, battery prices are rapidly falling. In fact, those prices have dropped by 85% over the last decade. Meanwhile, the cost of solar panels has decreased by 90% and wind turbines by 70%, all within the last 10 years.
Consider this: Fossil fuels benefit from substantial direct and indirect subsidies, causing them to seem artificially inexpensive. A 2023 International Monetary Fund estimate of global fossil fuel subsidies is $7 trillion annually. Oil Change International calculates that the United States spends about $20.5 billion annually on fossil fuel subsidies.
Moreover, a 2023 Lazard report shows that new solar and wind projects are cheaper than running many existing coal and gas plants. Ranking them in terms of cost, it says that unsubsidized onshore power is the least expensive, followed by utility-scale solar, natural gas combined cycle plants, gas peaking plants, and nuclear power.
“There’s usually a mix of resources that makes the most sense,” says Tom Falcone, the Large Public Power Council president. “It is difficult to deal with ping-ponging between environmental rules because you're investing for 50 or 75 years. It's a tricky conversation relative to pulling back and stopping those investments midterm because somebody has decided to shift policy.”
If we circumvent important rules like the endangerment finding, it will hurt us all—environmentally and economically. If we include the health and ecological costs of burning fossil fuels, their prices would skyrocket, making decarbonization of the electricity sector more vital than ever.
Read the full article here
