View this email in your browser ([link removed])
DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 08/15/2025
Subscribe Now ([link removed])


** You load sixteen tons of number nine coal and the tech bros said well a bless my soul...
------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Zoom ([link removed]) (8/10/25) op-ed: "The highly anticipated Artificial Intelligence revolution in the US is not going to work without coal. And the continuing closure of coal power plants will haunt the United States for decades to come. The US has closed well over 100 GW of coal plants since 2015 and the planned closure of at least 70 more GW by 2030 is resulting in a void in baseload capacity that cannot be met by alternative sources. Only 22 GW of new dispatchable power is expected over that period as more than 90% of planned capacity is solar or wind. This shortfall in baseload comes at a time when the US faces unprecedented demand for power over the next two decades and other sources of electricity are unlikely to even hold their own let alone replace coal. Indeed, given the emerging problems of natural gas (NG), nuclear and renewables, it is much more likely that coal will be needed to partially replace them. In short, the US will only be
able to meet projected electricity demand by maintaining current coal plants, expanding their production and unretiring some of the numerous coal units which were prematurely closed by shortsighted energy policies. In fact, given the increasing competition for NG, we are likely to see proposals for the construction of new advanced coal plants as utilities face overwhelming demand for power."

[link removed]

[link removed]


** "Under President Trump’s leadership, America is taking back its place as the world’s energy powerhouse—and now nations will turn to us instead of countries like Russia."
------------------------------------------------------------


– Daniel Turner, Power The Future ([link removed])

============================================================

Why is ending the ITC/PTC such a big deal? It's a story decades in the making.

** Institute for Energy Research ([link removed])
(8/15/25) blog: "What is the Investment Tax Credit (ITC)? The ITC is a one-time federal tax credit equal to a percentage of a project’s “qualified investment” when it’s placed in service. Today it’s a 6% base or 30% if you meet prevailing-wage & apprenticeship (PWA) rules (or qualify for the small-project exception), with potential +10 pts bonuses for domestic content and energy-community siting. Standalone storage also qualifies. Simple example: If you build a $1 million solar project, you get $300,000 off your federal taxes. What is the Production Tax Credit (PTC)? A per-kWh credit for electricity produced and sold from a qualified facility during its first 10 years of operation. It’s 0.3¢/kWh base, multiplied by 5× (to ~1.5¢/kWh) if prevailing-wage & apprenticeship rules apply, inflation-adjusted, with additional 10% boosts for domestic content and energy-community status. You generally elect either ITC or PTC for a given facility. Simple example: If your wind facility generates 100,000
MWh per year, you get about $275,000 in tax credits annually for 10 years. (With MW onshore wind turbines and a 35% capacity factor, 100,000 MWh per year is generated by about 11 turbines.)"

There are still people with sense in California, they are just excluded from the decision making process.

** LA Times ([link removed])
(8/15/25) letter: "With regard to your article, why are Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic members of the state Legislature surprised? The Legislature passes bills that primarily are intended to score points and do more to harass oil companies than they do to reduce air pollution. Newsom applauds these political bills and urges them to pass more. Many years ago, Democrats in the Legislature pretended to be petroleum engineers and designed a funky political kind of gasoline not used by the other 49 states. This political gasoline is the only kind allowed to be sold in California. It is more costly to make and can only be made by oil refineries modified at great expense. When oil companies charge more for this extra-cost gasoline, Newsom accuses them of price gouging. If California cannot find oil refiners outside the U.S. who are willing to modify their refineries to make 'California-only' gasoline, and who are willing to put up with the state government’s false acquisitions and harassment,
some owners of gasoline-powered cars will have to relearn their childhood skills at riding bicycles."

Energy policy has real impacts for families and small businesses. AEA's Kenny Stein explores the topic on the ** latest episode ([link removed])
of the WealthAbility Show.

** ([link removed])

Regulators should have known better, but they clearly did not want to know better.

** Banks Policy Institute ([link removed])
(8/14/25) article: "In early November 2024, the Network for the Greening of the Financial System (NGFS), a consortium of central banks and other regulatory supervisors across the globe (notably excluding the Fed and other U.S. regulators, who exited early this year), announced that a new climate damage function had been incorporated into its climate scenario toolkit. Based on an academic article in Nature, the new climate damage function implies dramatically higher economic losses from worsening climate conditions: a 19% loss of global real income by 2050 and a 60% loss by 2100...What is surprising is the reaction of the NGFS. The regulators in the NGFS could have, and should have, known about the data error before putting the new model into their climate scenario toolkit. They also could have investigated and acted when the academic paper the climate damage function was based on was called into question by the academic journal that published it. But they took no action and still take no
action. The revised climate damage model is even more flawed than the original, since the statistical problems remain and it now appears that the model update was cherry-picked to reach a pre-determined conclusion. The NGFS should immediately retract the damage model from its climate scenario toolkit. The NGFS must also review and correct its procedures for putting its climate models into production to prevent a model with a serious data error from again being adopted, especially when the error should have been caught. A general review and update of NGFS model control procedures is necessary to restore faith in their climate toolkit and data. The more troubling questions remain unanswered: did any central bank or other regulator follow up with Nature or Kotz et al. when it was publicly revealed that there was a problem with the model they use to regulate banks? If they did not, why not? Are regulators putting their thumb on the scale, targeting a pre-determined conclusion rather than using
the best scientific evidence?"

Energy Markets


WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $63.22
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.96
Gasoline: ↓ $3.15

Diesel: ↓ $3.71
Heating Oil: ↓ $223.33
Brent Crude Oil: ↓ $66.16
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↓ 559



** Donate ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Connect on Facebook ([link removed])
** Connect on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on X ([link removed])
** Follow on X ([link removed])
** Subscribe on YouTube ([link removed])
** Subscribe on YouTube ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])

** Suite 525 ([link removed])

** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])