Coal for California

View this email in your browser

DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 11/03/2025

Subscribe Now

Oakland is getting coal for Christmas, and it's a good thing.

Fox KTVU (10/29/25) reports: "Oakland might have to pay at least $230 million as a result of a federal judge's finding that the city directly prevented a company from developing a coal terminal, forcing it into bankruptcy. This ruling is the latest blow for Oakland in terms of its long-running coal dispute with Tagami, a well-known Oakland developer, whose projects include the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment, the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium in San Francisco, and the Fox Theater in Oakland. The 47-page ruling was issued Tuesday by Western District of Kentucky U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Joan Lloyd, in favor of a company called Insight Terminal Solutions, or ITS, vs. Oakland. Lloyd found that Oakland 'tortiously interfered' with ITS, which subleased from Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, whose main developer is Phil Tagami, when it stopped these companies from constructing a terminal that would have shipped coal overseas."

"Newsom is witnessing firsthand the negative impacts of his administration’s actions as two companies that refine gasoline in California are shuttering operations."

– Will O'Neill, Chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County

Come on Politico, you can do better than that.

WUWT (10/28/25) opinion: "Politico recently published an article by Benjamin Storrow, Chelsea Harvey, Scott Waldman, and Paula Friedrich titled 'How a major DOE report hides the whole truth on climate change.' The reporters’ objective is obvious and their strategy simple. They aim to discredit the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal the December 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding by discrediting a Department of Energy (DOE) draft report which is cited in the repeal proposal’s climate science discussion. From a statutory perspective, that strategy is not a winner. The EPA’s proposal to repeal the Endangerment Finding (plus motor vehicle emission standards adopted by the agency in April 2024) relies chiefly on legal arguments that do not presuppose specific climate change assessments. However, the Politico article could sway the court of public opinion, which in turn could influence future litigation. Such influence would be undeserved. The article ignores foundational biases compromising the scientific basis of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. Further, its criticisms of the DOE report repeatedly misfire or backfire, and none comes close to refuting any of the report’s conclusions."

Looks like even the IEA has realized that the world needs oil.

RealClear Energy (10/30/25) reports: "In its recent report “The Implications of Oil and Gas Field Decline Rates,” the International Energy Agency reminded us that hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent each year to keep global oil and gas output steady. This is the latest in a series of pivots by the IEA back to recognizing the importance of oil and gas in the long-term energy balance. All this spending on clean energy does not mean that we have seen much of an energy transition. In 2024, oil, coal and gas took nearly an 82% share of total global energy supply, down only slightly from the 85% level seen in 1974. The reality is that we are living in an “all of the above” energy world and we should be concerned by a fall in investment in upstream oil and gas at a time when demand is at record levels and climbing. With sentiment gradually shifting to recognizing the need for a bigger role for oil in the global energy balance, this report reminds us that a fast pick up in investment is needed to make up for ground lost in recent years."