U.S. EPA Updates Finalized Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde That Was Issued Before Trump Assumed Office: Now, Allowable Workplace Levels are Not Likely to Be Lowered

    The Biden administration finalized a risk evaluation for formaldehyde just before Trump took office. Now, the Trump EPA has updated that risk evaluation. The result is that allowable workplace levels are not likely to be lowered.

     Formaldehyde is released naturally from the breakdown of organic materials like wood chips and leaves. It is also used in the manufacture of plastics, resins, textiles, cosmetics, foam bedding/seating, semiconductors, glues, composite wood products, paints, coatings, rubber, construction materials (including roofing), furniture, toys, and various adhesives and sealants. It is also present in car exhaust and other combustion sources. Formaldehyde exposure has been linked to increased cancer risk, miscarriages, and respiratory issues. Exposure pathways include inhalation, skin absorption, and eating and drinking, since some fruits contain it.

     The risk evaluation concerns formaldehyde’s use in manufacturing and related workplace exposure. The chemical industry opposed the Biden administration’s plans to reduce workplace exposure, but the Trump administration is likely to ignore those recommendations.

     The Environmental Defense Fund’s chemicals policy director, Maria Doa, complained that the Trump administration cherry-picked data to arrive at conclusions not supported by the data and that chemical industry lobbyists were now leading the EPA. Some have worked for the American Chemistry Council, which opposes many regulations, and some worked directly on opposing new proposed allowable levels for formaldehyde. At issue are things like requiring respirators to be worn where exposure risk is high.

     The Biden EPA risk evaluation was conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and determined that:

“…formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers, under its conditions of use (COUs).”

    Formaldehyde does break down in the environment. Thus, it is not considered an environmental threat. Chronic and acute workplace exposures are probably the highest risk factors. According to the Biden EPA’s risk evaluation:

“Workers who are in workplaces where formaldehyde is used are at the most risk from formaldehyde exposure, particularly if workers are not wearing personal protective equipment. Workers may be exposed to formaldehyde in air during manufacturing, processing, or use of formaldehyde and products and articles containing formaldehyde. Workers can also be exposed to formaldehyde by making skin contact with formaldehyde-containing materials. Most of the risk to workers is because of acute inhalation and dermal exposures. Cancer risk to workers under many conditions of use also supports the risk determination.”

     The Obama administration signed the bipartisan Lautenberg Act in 2016 to update the TSCA, but now it appears some of it could be rolled back.

     According to the updated Trump EPA risk evaluation, the draft version, published in December 2025, it:

“…provides risk estimates from acute inhalation exposures based on feedback from independent peer reviewers, enhancing the scientific rigor of the underlying information used to support the risk determination while maintaining EPA’s January 2025 determination that formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers, under its conditions of use. The Agency will simultaneously continue working on a proposed risk management rule for formaldehyde as required by TSCA. EPA plans to expeditiously convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to get input on a proposed rule. The agency will rely on gold standard science and take the Updated Draft Risk Calculations and Revised Draft Risk Evaluation into account when drafting a proposed risk management rule to meet statutory deadlines and ensure health protections.”  

“Consistent with statutory obligations and Executive Order (EO) 14303, Restoring Gold Standard Science, EPA is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and reliance on the best available scientific information. As such, OCSPP has re-evaluated the use of the IRIS cancer IUR in the formaldehyde risk evaluation. EPA has considered the peer-review record, including comments from the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB), and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Following their recommendations and focusing on the science, EPA is issuing this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum which was used as the basis for the Revised Draft Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde.” 

“Consistent with the recommendations from the SACC, EPA is supplementing the endpoints used in the TSCA risk evaluation to determine human health effects from formaldehyde. In its review of the draft formaldehyde risk evaluation, the SACC was generally critical of the agency’s reliance on cancer and non-cancer hazard values for formaldehyde inhalation presented in the draft IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde – Inhalation.”

“In this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum and the documents that rely on the information presented in the Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum, EPA is proposing that the best available science supports using sensory irritation as the most sensitive endpoint for determining human health effects from inhalation exposures. Managing risks from acute sensory irritation will be protective against other health effects, including cancer. This approach is supported by the recommendations of the SACC and other federal advisory committees. Because this Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum implements recommendations from the multiple peer review bodies, additional peer review is not necessary.”

     I am not quite sure what they mean when they say, “using sensory irritation as the most sensitive endpoint for determining human health effects from inhalation exposures.” It sounds like they are focused more on acute exposures and perhaps ignoring chronic exposures. Evaluating the risks from chronic exposures is no doubt more difficult, but that does not mean those risks should be ignored. The focus on acute exposure is supported in the December 2025 EPA memorandum on the subject, although they do acknowledge that there are risks associated with long-term exposure.

“Short-term inhalation exposure to high levels of formaldehyde can cause sensory irritation and respiratory effects. Short-term skin contact can cause sensitization. Exposure over longer periods can also cause respiratory effects and cancer. The complex toxicology and exposure profiles for formaldehyde make its evaluation challenging. The formaldehyde sources that EPA evaluated in the TSCA risk evaluation, and this Draft Memorandum, involve, in general, the production and use of products that are subject to TSCA (as opposed to products that are specifically excluded from TSCA under 15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B), such as pesticides).”

     Both the Biden and Trump risk evaluations focus on inhalation as the main exposure pathway. However, the Trump EPA evaluation does not consider cumulative exposure in its evaluation. The Biden EPA identified 58 scenarios in which formaldehyde can present an “unreasonable risk” to human health, and the Trump administration is reversing five of those.

     The bottom line is that workplace exposure levels that the Biden EPA determined are a cancer risk will not be considered a cancer risk under the Trump EPA.

  

 

References:

 

EPA Finalizes TSCA Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde. U.S. EPA. Released January 2, 2025. EPA Finalizes TSCA Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde | US EPA

Officials spark backlash with plan that could expose Americans to toxic threat: 'Horrendous'. Susan Elizabeth Turek. The Cool Down. February 11, 2026. Officials spark backlash with plan that could expose Americans to toxic threat: 'Horrendous'

EPA Releases Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde under TSCA for Public Comment. U.S. EPA. Released December 3, 2025. EPA Releases Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum for Formaldehyde under TSCA for Public Comment | US EPA

Trump’s EPA wants to weaken formaldehyde protections – this is what it could mean. Tom Perkins. The Guardian. December 19, 2025. Trump’s EPA wants to weaken formaldehyde protections – this is what it could mean | Trump administration | The Guardian

Our toxic chemicals safety law is under attack. Environmental Defense Fund. September 8, 2025. Our toxic chemicals safety law is under attack | Environmental Defense Fund

Formaldehyde; Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment. Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency on 12/03/2025. Federal Register. Federal Register :: Formaldehyde; Updated Draft Risk Calculation Memorandum; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment

How our bedrock chemical safety law, the Lautenberg Act, protects us. Environmental Defense Council. November 25, 2025. How our bedrock chemical safety law, the Lautenberg Act, protects us | EDF

Is There a Detectable Acceleration of Global Warming? Some Data Suggests That There Is

       Some climate scientists are saying there is clearly a detectable acceleration of global warming in the data. It seems to be the case regarding land surface temperature data. Sea surface temperature data also seems to indicate an acceleration, though significantly smaller than the land surface temperature data.  However, I do not believe the satellite-derived tropospheric temperature data show an acceleration.

“There is greater acceptance now that there is a detectable acceleration of warming,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the research lead at the payments company Stripe.

    John Muyskens and Shannon Osaka of the Washington Post examined NASA’s climate data and confirmed what they see as a global warming acceleration. According to their analysis, from 1970 to 2010, the land and ocean surface temperatures warmed by 0.19 deg Celsius per decade, but during the past decade they warmed at a rate of 0.27 degrees Celsius per decade. They also think that a 40% global reduction in sulfate aerosol emissions has led to lower global warming since atmospheric sulfate aerosol emissions dropped by 40% since the mid-2000s, The graph below from Carbon Brief shows that since 1880 aerosols have cooled the atmosphere by as much as 0.7 deg Celsius by around 2008, but since then the drop in those aerosols has warmed it back up by about 0.2 degrees. Thus, the total cooling since 1880 is now at about 0.5 degrees Celsius. Sulfate aerosols mask global warming by cooling the atmosphere, and when their level drops, the atmosphere heats up. The phasing out of high-sulfur fuels for shipping in 2020 has accelerated the drop in atmospheric sulfate aerosols.

     Decreases in low-level cloud cover are also thought to be contributing to global warming. However, they also note the uncertainty of the effects of low-level cloud cover. Thus, some warming is attributable to drops in aerosols and some to drops in low-level cloud cover. Untangling or attributing how much warming comes from each effect is difficult and uncertain.

     Below are graphs of some of NASA’s land and ocean surface temperature data. As can be seen, there is a likely acceleration seen in land surface temperature data and a possible acceleration in ocean surface temperature data. Others argue that land surface temperature data may be biased by such things as heat island effects. They say that the lack of equivalent warming in tropospheric temperature data supports that position.

     While some climate scientists think it is too soon to declare an acceleration of global warming, others say the signal is clearly there. A 2025 paper in Earth System Science Data attempts to attribute global warming to each source, concluding that the bulk is due to human activities, namely energy, industrial processes, agriculture, and waste.

References:

 

Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened. John Muyskens and Shannon Osaka. Washington Post. February 11, 2026. Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened.

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence. Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai. Earth System Science Data. Volume 17, issue 6. ESSD, 17, 2641–2680, 2025. ESSD - Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4). NASA. Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4): Analysis Graphs and Plots

Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming. Zeke Hausfather. Carbon Brief. October 6, 2025. Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming - Carbon Brief

Ghost Fleet Tankers Carrying Russian, Iranian, and Venezuelan Oil are A Multi-Pronged Threat: New Developments Suggest the Problem is Beginning to Be Addressed

     Since the U.S. has been controlling Venezuelan oil sales, there is less Venezuelan oil in tankers at sea, and not likely to be more of it. Thus, it is Iranian and Russian crude that is being transported on sanctions-busting ghost tankers. It is believed that there are as many as 1,400 of these ghost tankers in operation, although their ability to offtake oil has been eroded. It should be eroded further if a recent agreement between the Trump administration and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi holds. If India stops buying Russian crude, that leaves China as the main buyer. China is also a major customer for sanctioned Iranian oil.  

     Bloomberg has long been tracking weekly global Russian oil exports. The latest figure from the first week of February shows oil still being shipped at similar amounts as before, although the amount has dropped by over 500,000 barrels per day since before Christmas. However, it also appears that more and more oil is becoming stranded at sea.  The amount of seaborne Russian crude remains above 3 million barrels per day. Modi and Trump reportedly reached a deal that called for India to stop buying sanctioned Russian crude.

“Shipments to India have fallen to less than half their peak level and could fall further even if New Delhi doesn’t fully halt the trade. Deliveries to Indian ports have averaged about 1 million barrels a day in the first six weeks of the year and stood at just 900,000 barrels a day in the first full week of February. That compares with a peak of more than 2 million barrels a day in June and July 2023.

     It is estimated that exports to India will drop by half from January levels by April. China has apparently taken up the slack, increasing its imports of Russian crude and reducing the amount at sea. The amount of Russian crude at sea has been increasing steadily since the fall of 2025 and is currently just below its peak of 140 million barrels.

     The graph below shows that the value of Russian exports has continued to drop overall, but the most recent rise is due to Middle East tensions, which is putting a floor on those prices. Russian gross oil sales still remain above $1 billion per week.

“Vessels are also spending longer at sea, with several tankers diverting from initial destinations on the west coast of India or in Turkey. They are also getting held up waiting to discharge at Chinese and Indian ports.”

     Below, it is noted that exports to Asia, both India and China, are dropping fast. However, that trend could be reversed a bit for China if it buys more Russian crude that is out to sea. Flows to Turkey have also dropped. Turkey is the region’s highest importer of Russian crude at just under 200,000 barrels a day on average, although that is half of what it imported in mid-2025.

     An article in The Telegraph by Tom Sharpe notes that these ghost fleet tankers are generally poorly maintained, unsafely operated, and seldom insured. They damage undersea infrastructure such as communications cables, which the Russians certainly are doing on purpose. They also pollute more than other tankers and risk a major uninsured environmental disaster. They often switch off their transponders so they can’t be tracked, make clandestine ship-to-ship oil transfers, and switch flags often, making ownership uncertain. The article suggests that as many as 100 are basically adrift at sea, without crews, but loaded with product.

“In 2025 some 6,000 seafarers on 410 vessels were left without pay or provisions. Trading companies believe there to be at least 100 vessels now at sea without even a crew, drifting with whatever cargo they had when they were abandoned – typically crude oil but possibly something even nastier like ammonia – and waiting for a current to wash them up on a beach or coral reef.”

     He notes that international law makes policing the sea complicated. International law does provide for a warship to board a stateless vessel, which was apparently the case with the boarding and seizure of the vessel Bella 1 off the coast of Iceland recently. He notes that the U.S. has conducted eight other seizures since then, six involving Venezuelan crude. France, Finland, Germany, and Estonia have also conducted enforcement actions, including detention or seizure.

     The newest EU sanctions package:

“…includes a full ban on maritime services for Russian crude oil exports. So far, it has just been ships, entities and individuals that have been sanctioned: this package is looking at sanctioning entire ports as well. It’s a belated acknowledgement that the original sanctions plan is no longer working and that tougher measures are now required.”

“The measures may never happen, however, with Greece and Malta stalling progress during an EU ambassadors’ meeting on 9 February. Other countries’ positions vary: Cyprus cites generic maritime worries, whilst Baltic states like Estonia push for tougher enforcement. As ever, the political alignment required to bring all these moving parts together both legally and operationally is proving elusive.”

“Even the relatively aggressive US campaign of seizures has been very limited, and all in all the problem of the dark fleet and the flow of oil money to Moscow and Tehran has barely been acknowledged, let alone tackled. Putin and the mullahs are gaming the system, and innocent people in Ukraine and Iran are suffering as a result. The oceans are full of unsafe, unregulated ships, often enough adrift without crews.”

“We must do better.”

     I certainly agree with that.

     Meanwhile, as of a few days ago, it appears that India has entered the enforcement fray, seizing three tankers carrying sanctioned Iranian crude. The Indian Coast Guard led the operation that intercepted three tankers in the Arabian Sea.

     According to Morning Overview:

“Investigators say sustained inspections, electronic data checks and crew questioning exposed a sophisticated network that used deceptive shipping practices to hide cargo origin and destination, with links pointing back to Iran. By physically seizing the ships rather than issuing warnings, India signals that its coastline will not be a permissive corridor for sanctioned flows, a stance that could reshape routing decisions for dozens of similar tankers now weighing the risk of entering the Arabian Sea.”

     While it is great that India is enforcing international law with regard to Iranian ghost tankers, it is hoped that it will do the same with Russian tankers. The enforcement action does suggest that India is aligning more with Western calls to enforce the sanctions.

     The U.S. noted yesterday that it interdicted a vessel in the Indian Ocean that defied Trump’s quarantine.

"Overnight, U.S. forces conducted a right-of-visit, maritime interdiction and boarding of the Veronica III without incident in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility," it said in a post on X.

     The ship was tracked from the Caribbean. Thus, I would assume it to be loaded with Venezuelan crude.

 

 

References:

 

Putin’s war chest drained by big discounts that keep oil flowing. Julian Lee. Bloomberg. February 10, 2026. Putin’s war chest drained by big discounts that keep oil flowing

There are more than a thousand rogue tankers at sea. Many don’t even have crews. Tom Sharpe. The Telegraph. February 11, 2026. There are more than a thousand rogue tankers at sea. Many don’t even have crews

India seizes 3 oil tankers in first strike on dark fleet. Rowan Calder. Morning Overview. February 11, 2026. India seizes 3 oil tankers in first strike on dark fleet

US says it interdicted and boarded vessel defying Trump's quarantine. Department of War via X. Reuters. February 15, 2026. US says it interdicted and boarded vessel defying Trump's quarantine

California’s Refinery Closures and Regulatory Requirements Lead to Higher Gasoline Prices

     California has long been known for its high gasoline prices. Now those prices may rise significantly higher than they already are. A news story from December predicted $8 per gallon of gas, and another from this month suggested $12 per gallon. Other predictions show a more modest gas price increase of a dollar or two, but all show increases. Shut-downs of two California refineries, Phillips 66's Los Angeles-area facility, which ceased operations in the fourth quarter of 2025, and Valero's Benicia refinery, which has just shut down, are the cause of concern. These two refineries represent 17-20% of in-state refinery capacity. According to that December story in the Santa Monica Observer:

“Refiners cite a mix of factors for the exits: declining demand, high operating costs, and California's stringent regulations, including emissions standards and recent laws empowering regulators to manage maintenance and stockpiles. Phillips 66 framed its decision as a business choice amid market dynamics, while Valero highlighted regulatory pressures and fines.”

     California is one of the biggest gasoline markets in the U.S. It is second only to Texas in fuel consumption. The loss of the two refineries is expected to result in about 284,000 barrels per day of oil not being refined at full capacity. Up to 1300 jobs will be lost due to the shutdown of the refineries. Apparently, state officials have pleaded with Valero not to shut down, but the refinery ended up shutting down ahead of schedule by a few months, possibly exacerbating the problem.

     An article in the New York Post notes:

“Refineries are fleeing the Golden State as regulations drive operating costs 26 to 37% higher than the national average. Chevron moved its operations from the Bay Area to Texas, while Phillips 66 powered down its 140,000-barrel-per-day Los Angeles refinery in October.”

     Now the state must rely on imported fuel that must meet its unique regulatory standards.

     According to an article in Fox Business:

“Critics argue that years of regulations and penalties have discouraged long-term investment in refining infrastructure, accelerating closures and amplifying price swings for consumers. Supporters of the policies counter that refinery shutdowns align with the state's broader environmental and climate goals.”

     To me, it sounds like the supporters are supporting shooting themselves in the foot.

     An article in Money Wise quotes state Republican Rep Vince Fong:

“We have an energy crisis in our state, and it looks like it is only going to intensify,” he said, adding that reduced refining capacity could drive up fuel prices while also affecting California’s military supply chain. What appears to be a consumer issue, he said, could quickly become a national one.

     The West Coast is isolated from other major refining hubs, such as the Gulf Coast, making it harder to replace lost supply when refineries shut down. More from the Money Wise article explains Valero’s predicament and why they are leaving. They have no plans at this time to try to sell the refinery.

“During the company’s most recent earnings call, CEO Lane Riggs described California’s regulatory and enforcement environment as “the most stringent and difficult of anywhere else in North America."

“One example is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which requires fuel producers to steadily reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel based on emissions across a fuel’s full life cycle. While the policy is designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, it also adds compliance costs for refiners operating in an already constrained market.”

“In October 2024, regulators imposed nearly $82 million in fines on Valero for toxic chemical releases and other violations at the site. It was the largest penalty ever issued by the Bay Area Air District, ABC7 reported.”

     It basically sounds like they were pushed out and economically injured to the point where it became no longer economically viable to operate the refinery.

     According to an article in The Center Square, Valero will continue to operate its other California refinery and also use the other refinery to import refined oil, essentially using it as a tank farm for imported refined products such as gasoline. University of Houston Energy Fellow Ed Hirs told the Center Square:

“In California, it is expensive to produce the oil. It’s difficult to transport the oil, and it's increasingly more expensive to refine it,” said Hirs. “The refineries must operate under environmental restrictions that it doesn't compensate anyone to rebuild, refurbish them, because in some cases because they are as much as a hundred years old and it would be expensive."

“Hirs said higher prices paid by California’s drivers will be borne disproportionately by the working poor, who need their vehicles to get to work and farm their lands. The costs of gasoline make up a large percentage of the expenditures of those with low incomes, and their personal finances are sensitive to higher gasoline prices, he said.

     The article goes on to point out potential plans to pipe in more California-grade gas through a reversed segment of a pipeline.

“Phillips 66 and midstream oil and gas company Kinder Morgan are considering a joint venture, called the Western Gateway Pipeline Project, that would pair a 1,300-mile-long pipeline running from Borger, Texas, to Phoenix with a reversed segment of the existing Santa Fe Pacific West system, which could deliver refined fuels to Southern California, according to Industrial Information Resources, an industry publication.

“Brian Mandell, head of marketing and commercial operations at Phillips 66, said in a recent quarterly earnings call that his company will continue to import barrels into California by sea. But he added the Western Gateway project could serve the California market. “All our Mid-Continent refineries can make Arizona-grade gasoline and California-grade gasoline. So we see the pipeline as a great opportunity for California, for Arizona, for Nevada and for all the potential shippers."

“California may not reduce pollution overall by adopting policies that lead refiners to process oil outside the state and then import by pipeline, said Hirs. “Through the state’s policies, California isn’t reducing pollution much, they're just outsourcing it to someplace else."

“California’s drivers pay the nation’s highest taxes and fees on gasoline, which amount to approximately $1.30 of each gallon purchased. This compares with 20 to 30 cents per gallon in most states in the South and Midwest.

     This is another example of environmental goals not leading to fewer emissions. However, there is one area where it may be an improvement. California has unique air quality challenges, and refineries are major air polluters. Thus, outsourcing those emissions means improvements in local air quality. While that may degrade air quality in the outsourced areas, they are not likely to suffer from the weather inversion susceptibility of California, which degrades local air quality even more.

     This is also one of several climate issues that can potentially sink Newsom's presidential bid.

 

     

References:

 

California gas prices expected to jump even higher as Valero closes refinery. Anna Young. New York Post. February 4, 2026.  California gas prices expected to jump even higher as Valero closes refinery

California 'truly at a breaking point,' state senator says as refineries close and gas prices surge. Arabella Bennett. Fox Business. February 11, 2026. California 'truly at a breaking point,' state senator says as refineries close and gas prices surge

Valero Refinery Closure Sparks California's Unprecedented Energy Crisis. Business Honor. February 5, 2026. Valero Refinery Closure Triggers California Energy Crisis

California Refineries to Shut Down by 2026, Impacting Capacity. Here Los Angeles. August 25, 2025. California Refinery Closures Impacting Oil Capacity

NY Times, Others Say California Refinery Closures Will Lead to $8 a Gallon Gasoline by the Summer of 2026. David Ganezer. Santa Monica Observer. December 23, 2025. NY Times, Others Say California Refinery Closures Will Lead to $8 a Gallon Gasoline by the Summer of 2026 - Santa Monica Observer

Lawmaker warns California’s oil and gas crisis is a major US security threat as Valero set to flee in 2026. Can residents handle $12/gallon next year? Victoria Vesovski. Money Wise. February 11, 2026. Lawmaker warns California’s oil and gas crisis is a major US security threat as Valero set to flee in 2026. Can residents handle $12/gallon next year?

Valero begins shuttering Bay Area refinery, will import fuels. Alton Wallace. The Center Square. February 11, 2026. Valero begins shuttering Bay Area refinery, will import fuels

Yacht-Zee$: The Billionaires Behind the Energy Class War: Summary and Review of Robert Bryce’s New Mini-Documentary

       Robert Bryce is an energy realist. He might piss us off at times, but he usually has a very good point even when he does. Here, he points out the hypocrisy and the well-off perpetrators of what he calls an energy class war. In his email about the mini doc, he notes that it calls out the hypocrisy of billionaires, those who support green radical climate activism, in particular. He notes that it is those with private jets and yachts who are leading the work, for instance, to ban gas stoves.

     There was also a copyright issue that caused his mini doc to be taken down, but he was able to re-release it, at least via email. Thus, I assume the issue was minor or cut out.

He begins by noting that super yachts produce about 7000 tons of CO2, equal to the CO2 emissions of about 1400 U.S. residents. Bezos’ superyacht also has a support yacht. Then he notes Bezos’ initiative to decrease methane emissions from cows, i.e., cow farts. He refers to:

“The billionaires who have turned climate activism into a personal brand while living like Saudi princes.”

     He notes that yachts are the biggest emitters, bigger than the large mansions and private jets.

     He starts with Mark Zuckerberg, contrasting his immense yacht fuel use, equivalent over a nine-month period to 44,000 Honda Civic fill-ups, with Facebook’s statement on being committed to helping to solve the climate crisis.

     Next is Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs. In 2021, she pledged to spend $3.5 billion to fight climate change. She is a major donor to climate activist-oriented environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Rocky Mountain Institute. He notes that those groups are involved in the push to ban gas stoves. She also has a $120 million yacht. The hypocrisy is painfully obvious.

     Next is Michael Bloomberg, who has pushed climate change as an issue and remains a huge donor to those who promote climate activism. He is the major donor to the Beyond Carbon campaign that seeks to close all coal plants in the U.S., block all new natural gas plants, and force the grid to run solely on weather-dependent resources. Bloomberg, he notes, owns 12 houses and three jets but no yachts.

     He moves on to Jeff Bezos, the guy with the biggest and most expensive yacht and support yacht. The emissions from those yachts are equivalent to those of 2800 residents. The Bezos Earth Fund has bankrolled a $100 million effort to monitor oil & gas methane emissions from satellites in space. Thus, he points out the hypocrisy that a guy with a huge carbon footprint is leading the charge to monitor the greenhouse gas footprint of others.

Why should we care? He points out that these big-emitting billionaires are heavily funding mainstream environmental groups to push climate activism through their foundations. Those contributions allow them to write them off their taxes so that it reduces their tax liability, meaning that in a sense, they are being subsidized by other taxpayers.

     He quotes from Oxfam:

“Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity.”

     That two-thirds of humanity is made up of 5 billion of the world’s poorest people! Finally, he calls the whole situation an energy class war, though he does not elaborate.

     Again, he does have a point, a pretty damn good one.

 

Yacht-Zee$ Uncensored - Robert Bryce

    

References:

 

Yacht-Zee$ Uncensored. Yacht-Zee$ Uncensored - Robert Bryce

U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Actually Performed Well During Winter Storm Fern and Atlantic Ocean Winter Wind Capacity Remains Predictably Strong

     While average capacity factors for wind energy, including offshore wind energy, are typically much lower than thermal plants on average (low 30s % for wind and high 50s % for combined cycle natural gas), they may be high during certain time periods. That was the case during the recent Winter Storm Fern cold snap. This means that offshore wind performed exceptionally well during this period. Offshore wind speeds are typically stronger than those onshore. Of course, there is significant variability in wind generation through the day and through the seasons. Just because it performed well during this cold spell doesn’t necessarily mean that it will perform well during the next one. Even so, there is still enough predictability in wind generation to say that it likely would perform adequately. In fact, the U.S. Northeast region is known to have excellent winter wind energy capacity, which will lead to generally predictable high capacity factors during the winter. These facts should be taken into account by the Trump administration in evaluating support for all the Atlantic Ocean wind projects, several of which they have sought to stop cold.

     While it is true that the Northeast region needs more natural gas pipelines, it can also benefit from these offshore wind farms, although the costs to build gas pipelines and power plants would provide much better-performing energy systems overall, at a lower cost, and without subsidization. The reality is that the region would benefit from both energy sources. Offshore wind would put the most pressure on government subsidies and consumer prices. Thus, that is a good reason to want to limit it to some extent.

     Data from Orsted’s 135MW South Fork Wind Project offshore New York calculated an average annual net capacity factor of 46.4 %. That is very good for wind energy. The data below is from July 2024, when the project came online, to July 2025. It shows very high capacity factors during late fall, winter, and early spring, often well over 50% and approaching 60%. That is indeed comparable to natural gas combined cycle capacity factors. However, the low capacity factors during the summer, particularly in August and September, mean that it won’t be very helpful during high power demand during extremely hot weather. 

     According to Mikkel Mæhlisen, Head of Operations, Ørsted:

“South Fork Wind’s exceptional first-year performance puts it on par with our top-performing facilities globally, confirming that the Northeast United States has some of the most exceptional offshore wind resources in the world.”

     An interesting analysis in Canary Media shows that a new power line just activated to bring more than 1GW of power from Quebec ended up keeping it for themselves and even reversing a transmission line to send power to Canada. They will likely be fined for inadequacy according to contracts. This certainly shows that importing Canadian hydropower may not be an effective solution for the region. One inadequate solution that has been used for years is burning diesel fuel oil when natural gas becomes unavailable. Another solution that can have small impacts is expanding demand response. Though often touted as a solution, it is not likely to result in that much drawdown of power demand. It is useful but probably over-hyped.

     Wind did perform well. During one overnight period, more than 1.5 gigawatts of wind power, ISO-New England reported that roughly 10% of New England’s total load was feeding into the grid. The Vineyard Wind project offshore Massachusetts, not yet complete but currently generating power into the grid, helped in that regard. ISO-New England does not differentiate between offshore and onshore wind, so it is unknown how much offshore wind was generated. According to Liz Burdock, president and CEO of Oceantic Network, during Winter Storm Fern, Vineyard Wind had a 75% capacity factor. That’s pretty amazing and certainly rivals most baseload power.

     Another commentator noted that the high wind capacity factors can keep power prices from spiking and reduce oil burning. Of course, allowing more natural gas into the region can do the same thing, and I believe both should be done. More offshore wind projects coming online according to their timelines would be very helpful for winter power reliability in the region. The Trump administration has imperiled that by stopping the projects, although judicial decisions have resulted in many of those projects being reinstated. They plan to appeal those decisions. A few other projects are likely to be scrapped.

     I think it is good news for the region that the wind energy capacity is very strong, especially in the winter, and I think it bodes well for East Coast wind projects in general. I think that, ideally, and likely after the Trump administration is history, subsidization at smaller levels and other project support should return, especially if these high winter utilization rates hold up, which is expected.

 

 

 

References:

 

Offshore wind showed up big during the East Coast’s brutal cold. Maria Gallucci. Grist. February 14, 2026. Offshore wind showed up big during the East Coast’s brutal cold

Energy That Works. South Fork Wind. Orsted. September 2025. sfwreport_web_vf.pdf

What is Generation Capacity? U.S. DOE. March 30, 2025. What is Generation Capacity? | Department of Energy

What is the capacity factor of a wind turbine? Opoura. June 27, 2025. What is the capacity factor of a wind turbine? - Opoura

The 4 lessons New England’s grid can learn from Winter Storm Fern. Sarah Shemkus. Canary Media. January 3, 2026. The 4 lessons New England’s grid can learn from Winter… | Canary Media

Plugging Orphan Wells Can Reduce Methane Emissions, Oil Spills, and Brine Spills: Incentives Can Increase Plugging Rates

     I have attended several webinars over the last several years involving the plugging of abandoned, orphan, and idle oil & gas wells. Some emphasized prioritizing wells, others involved carbon market incentives or government incentives. Having some experience in the geological aspects of well plugging, I attempted to get hired by the state of Ohio’s Mineral Resources Division as a geologist specializing in well plugging, but I was not selected.

     Recent analysis by RBN Energy’s Jason Lindquist covers the benefits of plugging orphaned wells. First, he notes that there are about 120,000 documented orphaned and unplugged wells across 27 states, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). There are likely many more undocumented orphan wells. Ohio and Pennsylvania have the most documented orphan wells at about 16,000 each, followed by Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Illinois. The number of undocumented wells is somewhere between 310,000 and 800,000 according to the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). Below, he provides an update about recent well-plugging efforts.

“The Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which was signed into law in 2021, provided $4.7 billion for states, tribes and landowners to plug, remediate and reclaim orphaned oil and gas wells. The Department of the Interior’s online dashboard shows that more than 10,500 orphaned wells were plugged through the program, the vast majority of them oil and gas wells (8,771), with a much smaller number of injection wells and disposal wells also plugged. While that is not an insignificant reduction, it’s just a fraction of the overall total of orphaned wells. Most oil- and gas-producing states also have their own programs to plug orphaned wells; 26 states applied for funding under the IIJA’s well-plugging program.”

     The cost to plug wells can vary considerably depending on the shape of the well components and what may be leaking from the well. Methane leaks are common, as are leaks of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), groundwater contamination, and soil contamination.

     Plugging wells often involves prioritizing the plugging of the most dangerous, most leaking wells first, and those wells are more likely to be more expensive to plug. Prioritizing also involves measuring methane leakage with infrared cameras, satellites, and other methane measurement tools. Wells with the greatest leakage would receive increased funding due to their substantial generation of carbon credits. Some characteristics are shown below.

     Below, Lindquist notes that states have different plugging rule specifications:

“…24 state agencies have well-plugging rules that require cement to be placed above the producing zones (yellow bar in Figure 2 below) and 23 specify where plugs should be located (dark-red bar), while only eight specify how strong cement plugs should be (brown bar) and just five mandate that the wellbore must be essentially static after plugging (green bar). There is no one-size-fits-all approach to well plugging.”

     Plugging wells for carbon credits also requires a more robust verification process to ensure that the wells do not leak in the future. It is sometimes the case that plugged wells can leak again in the future, especially if the plugging was substandard. Important factors for successful plugging include adequate cement recipes and plugs that extend further above and below gas, oil, and water-producing zones. Wells plugged for carbon credits also require third-party post-plugging verification. These carbon credits are often part of voluntary carbon markets, but may be part of compliance (regulation-based) carbon markets as well.

     Another aspect of well plugging is land reclamation and restoration. This can be especially important for wells that have leaked into soil or groundwater and may require. Environmental cleanup may be a part of the process. This may include soil vapor and groundwater sampling, and digging up contaminated soils. Or pumping out contaminated groundwater.  

     Ongoing monitoring, mainly of methane levels, is important in verifying that the wells are still in compliance. This is important since voluntary carbon markets have been criticized for inadequately verifying post-action retention of stored carbon or methane.

“Orphaned wells may be a legacy problem, but they are also an opportunity for methane abatement coupled with nature-based co-benefits, including regenerative agriculture. By zeroing in on the leakiest, highest‑risk wells and using a process backed up by rigorous measurement and verification, long‑ignored liabilities can be turned into marketable carbon credits. That won’t solve every issue tied to aging well inventories, but it’s one with potential that the oil and gas industry is well poised to address.”    

   

 

References:

 

Two Birds, One Stone – Efforts to Plug Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells Can Help Cut Methane Emissions Too. Jason Lindquist. RBN Energy. February 12, 2026. Two Birds, One Stone – Efforts to Plug Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells Can Help Cut Methane Emissions Too | RBN Energy