Market Realities Are Throwing Wrench In Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

For two years now, I and others have been pointing out the reality that there is no real “energy transition” happening around the world. Two new items of information came to light this week that irrevocably prove the point.

It is true that governments across the western world appear to be working to bankrupt their countries by pouring trillions of debt-funded dollars, Euros and British pounds into central planning efforts to subsidize renewables and electric vehicles into existence. That reality cannot be denied. The trouble is that no amount of debt money can turn the markets and the markets aren’t cooperating.

Despite all the government largesse that has spurred major additions of wind and solar generation capacity, those weather-reliant energy sources can’t even keep up with the pace of rising demand for electricity. As a result, the markets dictated that the world consumed record levels of coal, natural gas, oil and even wood during 2023. Yes, we are still burning vast amounts of wood for electricity, despite an alleged “transition” from wood to coal which began 500 years ago.

That is reality, dictated by the markets.

Two new bits of data came to light this week that pound the final nails into the coffin of the narrative around the energy transition. A report in the Financial Times, citing data compiled by Grid Strategies, reveals that the buildout of new high-voltage transmission lines in the United States slowed to a trickle in 2023, with just 55.5 additional miles installed. That collapse comes despite the Biden government’s recognition that a massive expansion of this type of transmission lines must happen to accommodate the demands of any true “transition” to renewables.

The Financial Times quotes a 2023 assessment by the Department of Energy that found that “regional transmission must more than double and interregional transmission must grow more than fivefold by 2035 to meet decarbonization targets.” DOE admits such a pace would add more than 50,000 miles of new transmission in just 11 years, which is almost 1,000 times the pace of adds during 2023. Yikes.

A crucial aspect of that DOE study to understand is that it was conducted before we began to understand the true magnitude of additional power demands that will result from the explosive growth of AI technology just now starting to come to full bloom. It was just this past January, at the WEF Forum in Davos, where OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the audience he believes generation capacity on the grid will have to double over the next decade just to fill the AI demands alone. That is what is needed in addition to the rising demands for EV charging, industrial growth, population growth and economic growth.

The second piece of compelling data arising this week comes from a Bloomberg story headlined, “Data Centers Now Need a Reactor’s Worth of Power, Dominion Says.” The key thing to understand about this story is that the piece is only referencing the needs of planned new data centers being built in Northern Virginia to feed AI development in that tiny sliver of the United States.

This key excerpt from the story says it all: “Over the past five years, Dominion has connected 94 data centers that, together, consume about four gigawatts of electricity, Blue said. That means that just two or three of the data center campuses now being planned could require as much electricity as all the centers Dominion hooked up since about 2019.”

That is not just rapid growth, it is exponential growth in power demand from a single developing technology.

Demand growth needs such as this aren’t going to be filled by unpredictable, unreliable, weather-dependent generation like windmills and solar arrays. And let’s face it: The United States is not going to be able to continue expanding renewables without finding some way to create a massive expansion of transmission. Why build the generation if you can’t move the electricity?

What it all means is that all the grand Biden Green New Deal plans to shut down America’s remaining coal fleet and much of its natural gas generation fleet are going to have to wait, because the market will not allow them. That’s reality, and reality does not care about anyone’s green transition dreams.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Up Next

Federal government’s fiscal record—one for the history books

Don't Miss

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Business / 2 hours ago

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Courageous Discourse / 3 hours ago

Europe Had 127,350 Cases of Measles in 2024

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard photo

From The Center Square

By Casey Harper

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Casey Harper

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

Subscribe to The Audit

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.