USDA’s Rural Energy for America Faces Severe Cuts and Limitations on Solar Energy Deployments: I Agree with Cuts but Not with the Vindictive Implementation

       I have argued in the past that the USDA’s Rural Energy for America (REAP) program offered too much of a subsidy, at one time allowing up to 62% of a system to be paid by the federal government. The cost of solar energy is typically an upfront cost with slow payout times, although in recent years, with more efficient solar panels, the upfront costs have become more manageable, even with declining percentages of the standard rooftop solar credit, which went from 30% to 26% to 22% to zero. Of course, the drop to zero priced many out of the possibility. My complaint was mainly about in-town businesses benefiting from the program, particularly a restaurant business I occasionally went to that was clearly anti-fossil fuel, with bulletin boards full of anti-fracking literature and rhetoric by its owners. I would occasionally go there with my laptop and work on oil & gas “fracking” projects; little did they know. This was back in the 2010s. In any case, I think they were subsidized too highly at the time.

     On July 7, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14315, Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources. This included cuts to REAP, including a suspension of loan guarantees and cuts to grants. One complaint by the new administration’s USDA was that it also subsidized buying mainly Chinese solar panels and equipment, which dominate the market due it low price and big industry subsidization by the Chinese government, the CCP. The Trump USDA threw many USDA programs into chaos when it implemented a spending freeze that lasted months. Farmers that had already invested in projects that the government had already pledged to partner with had to wait and wonder whether they would be abandoned. They did eventually release funding, but it was a huge inconvenience. Many of those projects had to do with soil and water conservation that were demonstrably beneficial for farmers, the environment, and smart resource management.

     According to Grist:

“…in March 2026, the USDA effectively paused REAP as a whole, announcing it would suspend further grant awards until the program rules were rewritten to comply with Trump’s executive order from the year before.”

“This month, on October 1, the department published its final rule changes. They state that solar or wind projects on cropland involving “any component made in a country named as a foreign adversary” are no longer eligible for funding through REAP. Because so many parts of solar power systems are manufactured in China, this effectively means an end to any new solar development on farms through the once-popular USDA program.”

“Another change drags out the timeline for receiving funding; applicants must now have energy systems up and running for one year in order to be considered eligible for reimbursement.”   

     According to Utility Dive’s Ethan Howland:

“REAP was created in the 2002 Farm Bill to support energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. In August 2025, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said the USDA would “no longer fund taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland” or allow solar panels “manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in USDA projects.”

     A lawsuit filed by Earthjustice, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Wolf River Electric, a solar installer, argues that the rules would affect farmers and rural small businesses with projects that had already been approved and had been encouraged to start construction. I disagree with the rule on this account. If those projects had previously been approved and started construction, they should be compensated as they thought they would be according to the agreements they signed.

“The USDA’s REAP announcement justified the policy changes saying that subsidized solar farms had made it “more difficult for farmers to access farmland by making it more expensive and less available.”

     This likely has to do with larger solar farms taking advantage of the program. I don’t think it is a real issue. There is plenty of farmland, and farmers can also practice agrivoltaics: farming or grazing under and around solar farms, which has proven to be effective in many cases and for certain crops and grazing animals such as sheep. While solar farms do “consume” some farmland, this argument by the USDA is mostly bogus and overblown. The cuts effectively change a program that was funding too much to one that is funding too little, a common example of the Trump administration’s vindictive approach.

“In 2022, through the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress appropriated $820.3 million for REAP for fiscal year 2022, and another $180.3 million a year through 2027, with unspent funds to be available until Sept. 30, 2031, according to the lawsuit.”

     Data shows that about 70% of REAP went to solar projects.

“Farmers and rural small business owners who invested time and money into the completion of grant applications under criteria announced by USDA, and who spent tens of thousands of dollars on the construction of solar projects based on assurances from USDA that they were eligible for REAP funding, now face steep monetary losses,” the plaintiffs said in their complaint.

     It sounds to me like they have a valid case. Why pull funding from projects already approved and under construction? That is vindictive for sure. The plaintiffs argue that the USDA’s anti-solar policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act, effectively countering Congress’ intent and adopting a retroactive application policy.

       

 

References:

 

Trump just effectively killed a popular solar energy program for rural America: Solar panels can be an economic lifeline for farmers. Now they're going to be a lot harder to build. Frida Garza. Grist. October 16, 2026. Trump just effectively killed a popular solar energy program for rural America | Grist

Ensuring Strong Stewardship and Customer Service in RBCS Guaranteed Lending & Other Programs. USDA. August 22, 2025. Ensuring Strong Stewardship and Customer Service in RBCS Guaranteed Lending

Lawsuit alleges USDA illegally slashed rural solar development program: Internal emails show a department administrator stating “let’s let the comms shop find . . . the rationale behind their statistics” when asked to substantiate anti-solar claims underpinning changes. Ethan Howland. Utility Dive. September 29, 2026. Lawsuit alleges USDA illegally slashed rural solar development program | Utility Dive

 

Rift Helium Plans Seismic and Drilling on Its Updip Helium Position in Tanzania’s Rukwa Basin

 

     Tanzania’s Rukwa Basin is a verified source of economical helium. Helium One has drilled wells encountering 5% helium. Noble Helium has also been exploring and drilling. As the geology becomes better understood, a third player, Rift Helium, has entered the picture and hopes to verify its updip position as a more ideal structural trap.

     Mariël Reitsma for GeoExPro recently talked to Rift Helium’s CEO, Charles FitzRoy, about the project. The company recently received an environmental impact certificate from Tanzanian government regulators. The initial plan is for a 3D seismic survey and to drill its exploration wells.

“Rift Helium’s Upepo project comprises three license blocks on the south-eastern shore of Lake Rukwa. The most promising part of the acreage is adjacent to where Helium One drilled the Itumbula West-1 well. The Itumbula discovery found around 5 % helium dissolved in water and trapped within fault zones that extent into the basement. “Our seismic analysis shows that we are updip from Itumbula-West,” Charles explains, “Helium One is looking at the migration path, while we think the helium is accumulating in structural traps on our acreage.” Rift Helium’s data interpretation shows multiple three-way dip closures in the rift sediments that cover the faulted basement. The expectation is that helium is migrating from deeper levels and pooling as free gas at about 600 m depth.”

     Structural closure, preferably the four-way closure of domes, makes up the best helium accumulation traps. 

     The company plans to immediately reprocess some existing seismic data and begin drilling in the first half of 2027. The company is emphasizing its “third mover advantage” to target the best structural closure prospects in a proven helium system.

References:

 

Updip advantage in the Rukwa Basin. Mariël Reitsma. GeoExPro. October 8, 2026. Updip advantage in the Rukwa Basin - GeoExpro

Rift Helium. Corporate Presentation. June 2026. Rift Helium | Presentations

Rift Helium. Website. Rift Helium | Smart Access to Primary Helium

Anti-Zionist Activism is an Example of a Successful Propaganda Campaign: Six Possible Types of Anti-Zionists

     The Islamist-Anti-Zionist-Marxist axis (of resistance?) has forged a successful propaganda campaign to paint Israel as a vile propagator of apartheid and genocide and has fueled a large increase in antisemitic incidents and attacks around the world. There seem to be multiple types of anti-Zionists: 1) Those who are Islamic and see the conflict from an “us and them” standpoint, which has some momentum in human psychology. Seeing someone from a different religion hurting one’s own religious brethren makes it easier to project blame on them. We should not forget the so-called Islamofascism and human rights abuses of institutions in even our allied countries like Saudi Arabia, where a Sri Lankan man sits on death row for the crime of insulting the prophet in a social media post. Israel’s enemies are on this list, and most are openly anti-Semitic as well as anti-American. The Houthis have as their motto "Allah is the Greatest; Death to America; Death to Israel; A Curse upon the Jews; Victory to Islam." Iran has a deeper and longer hatred of Israel and America. Hamas and Hezbollah have similar mandates for hating and killing Jews. The so-called moderate Palestinian Authority rewards those who do kill Jews. Many in those places and the wider Muslim world felt that those who committed the terrorist acts on 9/11 and October 7 were heroic.   2) Close allies who run the protests in cities and campuses around the world. In the U.S. and Europe, these are often Marxists or far-leftists who value and utilize Soviet-style propaganda. Marxist professors, anti-colonialists, campus protest leaders, the Democratic Socialists of America, and other organized anti-Zionist groups lead the activism. 3) People and institutions in positions of power and influence who have advanced the anti-Zionist cause around the world. This includes a vast list, including the UN, the recent Nobel Prize winner who organized the bogus genocide case against Israel, groups including Medical Associations, soccer stadiums, the UK government (for sanctions against West Bank settlers, which have instigated some vile attacks, but are singled out instead of many far worse attacks around the world), the publishing industry, which has blacklisted Israeli and pro-Zionist authors, an international education organization that demanded condemnation of Israel, and on and on. Every day I seem to read about more of these types, and it shocks me every time. 4) Antisemitic right-wingers and those who influence them, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and failed GOP Congressional candidate Dan Bilzerian. The three mentioned are three of the ten most influential antisemites, according to the Israeli government. They are U.S. Republicans. This type may also include more traditional right-wing hate groups like the KKK.  5) Influential left-wingers and celebrities who embrace anti-Zionism. There are too many to mention, but those I have heard about who are also on the Israeli government’s top ten influential antisemites list are Nick Fuentes, children’s educator Ms. Rachel, who recently said those who don’t speak out against Israeli genocide are complicit, and Greta Thunberg, the climate change darling who often dons Palestinian clothing and travels on Hamas-funded flotillas. 6) Those on the political left who fall for the propaganda and join in it. I see these types on my Facebook feed a lot. They often parrot the Progressive and far-left narratives, including genocide, anti-capitalism, and anti-colonialism. They need to be educated better and stop relying on leftist propaganda without verifying it.

     An anti-Zionist group in Toronto, Canada is having a ‘Free Palestine Wiki Edit-a-Thon’ for the purpose of doing a propaganda re-edit of Wikipedia and to “populate Wikipedia entries honoring martyred Palestinian artists and exposing the Canadian Zionist backers of genocide.” According to the Times of Israel:

“Against attempts to erase Palestinian martyrs and conceal the Imperialist perpetrators of Israel’s genocide, this Wiki Edit-a-Thon remedies the narrative, towards Palestinian liberation,” organizers say.

“The event appears to violate Wikipedia regulations against “showcasing,” propaganda and promotional articles, and its rule that all content must be written from a neutral point of view.”

“Anti-Zionist activists have previously coordinated editing online, according to prior reports, and there was at least one anti-Israel Wikipedia “edit-a-thon” held in London in 2024.”

     Hopefully, Wikipedia will not allow them to rewrite history.

 

References:

 

Anti-Zionist group in Toronto announces Wikipedia editing event and training. Luke Tress. Times of Israel. October 13, 2026. Anti-Zionist group in Toronto announces Wikipedia editing event and training

Israeli Government Report Ranks World’s 10 Most Influential Antisemites. Shiryn Ghermezian. The Algemeiner. April 16, 2026. Israeli Government Report Ranks World’s 10 Most Influential Antisemites | Algemeiner.com

 

 

Trump and Musk Costing Lives in Ukraine and Cowering to the Kremlin: We Need Better Leaders

 

      Did Trump turn off intelligence sharing? He threatened to do so, and Ukraine has complained of a lack of it in the last few days. It helps get people to shelters and safety when missiles are detected. Musk, who is again the U.S.’s biggest political donor (tax him more), reportedly turned off Starlink, which allows Ukraine to guide its long-distance drones, so they can’t attack Russia’s oil refineries, which power the invasion against it. Trump first suggested that Ukraine stop hitting refineries, then demanded it. Ukraine stopped, but Trump said both sides violated the energy ceasefire he declared, apparently without consulting Ukraine. Then Russia blatantly violated it by acknowledging that it targeted several power plants. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not targeted Russian power plants, preferring military targets, including refineries, which may be economic targets, but not civilian targets. In any case, it has refrained and now can’t. Russia also bombed apartment buildings as it usually does.  Russia is the number one world menace, and it needs to be stopped.

     According to The Telegraph:

“On Saturday, Mr Musk said Zelensky had “gone too far” in his strikes on Russian oil infrastructure.”

     One Ukrainian politician quipped that once Trump said Ukraine had no cards, but now that it does (long-range strikes), they are forced to not play them by both Trump’s demand and Musk’s backing him up. Did Trump order Musk to throttle Starlink, as the Ukrainians believe? Or is Elon Musk making his own military decisions? Ukrainian forces were given no prior notice of the stoppage, and missions had to be aborted. It affects both offensive and defensive capabilities.

     The U.S. claims it has not stopped intelligence sharing but apparently suggested it was a weather issue.

“[The Americans] told Ukrainians no warning happened because of bad weather conditions, which is seen as not an adequate reason in Kyiv,” a Ukrainian official told Politico. “Thus many are getting worried this might not have been the case.”

     Below is the nine-story residential apartment building hit by a missile last night.

“Mr Zelensky described the bombardment as “entirely deliberate and demonstrative in its scale”.

“Russia has never before shown such ostentatious disrespect toward the United States,” he added, with 26 power facilities and four oil and gas facilities said to be damaged.”

     Basically, Russia defied Trump on a grand scale while Ukraine is still trying to hold to the announced agreement and is now hampered by the lack of Starlink. Whose side are these fucks on? Trump wants Zelensky to make a deal with Russia, which has never abided by a deal in the past, or step aside as ruler, but no other potential Ukrainian leader is going to cede territory to Russia. They will just take the territory and continue the invasion. I am not a violent man, but the world would be way better off, and many lives would be saved if Putin and the top brass at the Kremlin were simply murdered. Putin has already stated that if Russia doesn’t win the war, whatever that means, it may cease to exist, whatever that means.

     Meanwhile, Trump’s envoys, Kushner and Witkoff, have been meeting their Russian counterparts, talking about post-war deals that would benefit Russia. The diesel deal apparently delayed their planned trip to Moscow. They always seem to be happy with the Russians after they go there and don’t seem to really be doing anything to stop the war. If the war ends while Trump is still in office, it is likely that he will push to end sanctions and try to get Europeans to start buying Russian oil and gas. Of course, the Europeans won’t agree to that, except a few Russian-friendly countries possibly, and they shouldn’t agree to it. Russia is also obviously probing NATO all over the place and targeting European arms manufacturers and reportedly planning actions against their CEOs. Meanwhile, they continue to use their ethnic citizens and foreign mercenaries in meat grinder assaults and commit obvious war crimes, execute and torture prisoners, execute deserters and those who refuse orders, and treat their own army poorly. Russia’s actions are a disgrace to the human race. They are without dignity, and they devalue human life. They do not deserve any deals, and they should compensate Ukraine for the destruction and loss of life they forced upon them. They also owe the Russian people and all the Russian lives they destroyed. All these dead people on both sides have families that mourn them. All for Putin’s and his Kremlin buddies’ twisted egos.

     So, for me, I am thoroughly disgusted with Putin and truly disappointed in Trump, his useless envoys, and the arrogant trillionaire Musk.   

  

    

References:

 

Musk turns on Ukraine by limiting Starlink. Antonia Langford. The Telegraph. October 14, 2026. Musk turns on Ukraine by limiting Starlink

 

Sage Geosystems Generates Power at Its First EGS Pressure Geothermal Plant: 3 MW Pilot Plant Performs Reliably and as Expected After Four Months Online

      In mid-August, Sage Geosystems announced that its first enhanced geothermal system (EGS) plant had been reliably generating power since April at its 3MW pilot plant near San Antonio, Texas. South Texas has sufficient subsurface heat for potentially economical geothermal power production. It is only the third EGS plant to come online in the U.S.

     After 120 days of grid connections, the plant produced reliably, and as expected, the company noted in an exclusive story for Canary Media in August:

“Cindy Taff, Sage’s CEO, said the results will ​“directly inform and de-risk” an upcoming collaboration in Nevada with Ormat Technologies, a conventional geothermal leader that is increasingly dipping its toes into next-generation technology. The Nevada project is a necessary precursor to Sage’s deal with Meta to develop 150 MW of geothermal power.”

“Sage’s enhanced geothermal system is a type of nascent tech that involves drilling deep into hot rocks and fracturing them to create water pockets, then using the heat to generate power. It’s distinct from the decades-old traditional geothermal plants that rely on what Taff called ​“very unicorn geology” — the few places in the world where a combination of water, heat, and permeable rocks are easily accessible.”

     It is the third EGS project online at a small scale. However, Fervo Energy is expected to turn a part of its overall 500 MW project online later this year.

     One measure of technical success for the hydraulically fractured or engineered reservoir is the low water loss. Thus, it appears the induced fracture system is contained, which bodes well for similar geology and for the industry in general. The company noted less than 10% water loss when it cycled water through the system on multiple occasions. This is expected to help the economics of EGS projects.

“The net power output that you can produce from these technologies is going to go up, she said, noting that curbing water loss will enable enhanced systems to scale commercially at a competitive cost.

     Apparently, Sage changed its plans from long-duration geothermal energy storage of heat to an approach that would produce power directly. They shifted due to Texas’s already abundant and still growing lithium-ion energy storage industry.

     Its next project in Nevada is a collaboration with Ormat at one of its conventional geothermal plants. Sage expects to drill a well and provide hot water directly for Ormat’s existing plant. That allows it to focus solely on its technology and apply it to an existing plant. Future plans in 2028 or later include a 150 MW plant in collaboration with Meta, somewhere east of the Rocky Mountains.

     Sage calls its hot dry rock geothermal process ‘pressure geothermal.’  Below are both its two-well power production model and its one-well energy storage model.

References:

 

Sage Geosystems brings its first next-gen geothermal plant online: It’s only the third such project to hook up to the U.S. grid. It comes as surging electricity demand drives interest in the source of around-the-clock clean power. Maria Gallucci. Canary Media. August 19, 2026. Sage Geosystems brings its first next-gen geothermal… | Canary Media

Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Power Generation Estimates for the USA (L48) Using Reduced Order Physical Models. Parker Anderson, Mike Eros, Samuel Klarin, Lev Ring, Douglas Simpkins. PROCEEDINGS, 50th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 10-12, 2025. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Power Generation Estimates for the USA (L48) Using Reduced Physical Models

Sage Geosystems. Website. Technology - Sage Geosystems

Appraisal of Inferred Mineral Resources in Canada: Need for Clear Communication, Securities Law Risks, and Influence on Capital Markets

 

    

      Canada is a minerals and mining powerhouse, with many different kinds of mineral deposits throughout the vast country. It has developed an effective way to assess and quantify mineral resources on the basis of the provability of their presence. The designations are perhaps similar to oil & gas industry designations like probable reserves and proved reserves.

 

Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources Classifications

     Canada has a designation of mineral resources known as National Instrument 43-101, or NI 43-101, which differentiates three classifications of mineral resources: measured, indicated, and inferred. The three classes are differentiated on the basis of geological confidence, which is based on the density of assay drilling spacing. Just like in oil & gas, drilling provides the best and most direct information. The figures below come from Junior Mining Intelligence.

     One important difference between oil & gas and mineral accumulations is that an oil or gas accumulation generally has uniform value. There may be different products in different parts or locations of the reservoir, such as heavy oil, light oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, or dry gas. These are all valuable products, and the value does vary, but not drastically. On the other hand, mineral resources differ in concentration, which more strongly affects their value. Typically, the outer parts of an ore body have lower concentrations. Thus, those outer parts are typically assessed as inferred resources. They may still be economical to produce since the infrastructure to do so is already in place. Infill drilling is important, and as noted, the density of drilling informs the classification. Since drilling is costly, some parts of ore bodies may be drilled at a looser grid spacing and not eligible to be booked as indicated resources but only inferred resources. Subsequent drilling can either turn inferred resources into indicated resources or measured resources (if the drilling density is high enough), or it can render them non-resources. They suggest that as much as 20-40% of inferred resources can be lost through further drilling. Like oil & gas reserves, mineral reserves can also grow and shrink based on product prices. One thing investors look for is the change in reserves based on new drilling, which, as noted, can grow or shrink based on drilling results.

     The different types of assessments and feasibility studies are given below. Preliminary Economic Assessments (PEAs) allow reserves to be booked as inferred. The Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) is the beginning of quantifying and declaring the reserves. The Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) is a definitive assessment of measured and indicated reserves. Inferred resources can only be booked via PEAs and are not included in PFSs and DFSs.

     Below, Junior Mining Intelligence shows how to read a category-mixed resource table.

     JNA Resource Advisory notes in an article about appraising inferred mineral resources:

“Inferred mineral resources rarely appear in discounted cash flow models — yet they routinely drive 20–40% of a junior explorer's market capitalisation. This disconnect between financial modelling convention and market pricing creates both opportunity and disclosure risk. Understanding how to bridge that gap is one of the most practically valuable skills a QP can offer a capital-markets-facing client.”

“All three major codes — NI 43-101/CIM, JORC 2012, and SK-1300 — define an Inferred Mineral Resource as a quantity and grade estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling, sufficient to imply continuity but not to verify it. The CIM Definition Standards (2014) are explicit: the level of confidence is insufficient to apply any modifying factors and must not be converted to a mineral reserve.”

     They note that Inferred inventory is the most tangible proxy for saying that there is a “credible pathway to upgrading the inventory with additional work.” They note that the value of inferred resources on the market is typically 25–50% of measured and indicated resources.

“…it is a market convention that prices the probability of upgrade. The magnitude of the discount reflects the geological complexity, the quality of the historical data, and the amount of work required to achieve Indicated classification.”

     The market is not pricing real resources but the probability that those resources will become resources through further assessment. Thus, there is certainly an element of speculation with inferred resources. The following three factors inform how inferred resources are valued and communicated to investors: 1) geological continuity narrative, 2) upgrade pathway and work programme, and 3) classification sensitivity. They are explained in detail below.

     Below, they explain how companies can run afoul of securities laws. These include implicit economic statements, aggregating classifications without distinction, and converting to metal equivalents without code compliance. Thus, they must be careful to stay within the bounds of the resource classification rules.

     They stipulate that responsible communication is key to proper appraisal of inferred resources and give the following framework of recommendations.

 

 

 

References:

 

Appraising Inferred Resources: Bridging Geological Confidence and Market Reality. James Adu, CPG, RM. JNA Resource Advisory. December 2025. Appraising Inferred Resources: Bridging Geological Confidence and Market Reality — JNA Resource Advisory Blog

Inferred vs Indicated vs Measured Resources: The three NI 43-101 resource categories explained. What drill spacing produces each, why the conversion ladder matters, and how to read a category-mixed resource table. Junior Mining Intelligence. Updated: May 28, 2026. Inferred vs Indicated vs Measured Resources: What's the Difference? | Junior Mining Intelligence

 

 

BAAJA, the Bipartisan Permitting Reform Bill: A Long Time Coming: Way More Pros Than Cons

    

     The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) is a broad bill designed to reform permitting of many infrastructure projects, from data centers to pipelines to interconnection queues for grid approval. It includes improving approval times and lessening conditions for renewable energy projects, fossil fuel projects, and more.

     Seaver Wang, in an article for the Ecomodernist, notes that BAAJA unlocks more clean energy than the Trump administration has blocked, notably the cancellation of offshore wind projects. He also suggests that the Democrats, rather than focusing on what the administration will do in its last two years, should take a longer view and pass the legislation without focusing too much on countering Trump moves. The bill is expected to be voted on after the midterms.

     He points out, as can be seen in the graph below, that projects both stalled and slow-walked by the administration amount to only about ten percent of grid decarbonization capacity needed, according to aggressive decarbonization pathways.

     Wang focuses mostly on the potential clean energy benefits of the bill, which are significant, but there are benefits for fossil fuel projects as well. Faster permitting timelines help everyone, and I don’t think they compromise the environment like environmentalists claim. Their goal is often to deny permitting projects, and for them, the next best thing to getting a project denied is getting it delayed. Long permitting times help them in that regard. Shorter permitting times reduce the period of project uncertainty and risk, which helps companies plan and execute better.

     There may be provisions in the bill to make it harder to stop projects from being scrapped by the executive branch once they are permitted. Wang states that nearly 93% of new generation capacity and energy storage is clean energy. This will result in clean energy making up about 80% of new generation being clean energy. Apparently, he is including natural gas as clean energy. The second graph below shows an estimate of the actual generation expected from these new sources, which is the only graph of the two that really matters since capacity must be divided by the average capacity factor, or average utilization rate of each resource. I get annoyed when energy sources are compared by capacity alone, so it is good he provides both. I added the third graph, which shows how natural gas utilization rates have dropped due to being bumped out by renewables, and with some gas turbine resources used specifically for demand response, especially to follow and back up renewables. I also added the fourth graph, which compares the average capacity factors for 2024 and 2025 for each energy source.

     The bill contains provisions to speed up interconnection times, and one way to do that is to speed up permitting for new high-voltage transmission lines. The graphs below show the interconnection queue by region and the solar interconnection queue by region on the map, respectively. The map also shows proposed transmission lines.

     Wang notes that the bill is quite favorable to geothermal energy development, which is fine, but geothermal has geographical limitations, high costs, and operational issues that limit its ability to add much to the overall U.S. energy picture in the near and medium terms.

     Long NEPA reviews tend to hamper and slow all forms of energy and should be shortened considerably. Nuclear permitting really needs to be streamlined as well. NEPA can also hamper wind and solar projects. Wang writes:

“At present, a new solar or wind project in the United States must regularly wait three to four years after submitting an interconnection request before being able to execute an interconnection agreement. If sued under NEPA, an energy project might spend a median of three years before obtaining a court decision that, based on historical data, tends to uphold the reviewing agency’s original environmental analysis in around 3 out of every 4 cases. Individually, such timespans are already increasingly exceeding anything the Trump administration could inflict upon the same project over its remaining tenure.”

     He also notes that the Trump administration push to develop more fossil fuel resources is limited:

“Long lead times for pipelines, offshore oil and gas exploration, or new coal mines make it increasingly unlikely that the administration can plan and permit new major ventures before leaving office…”

     Of course, BAAJA helps needed fossil fuel projects as well, and streamlined permitting is really needed for them.

“Conventional natural gas plants remain key to balancing and supporting rising renewable energy deployments, with their emissions falling as they operate less over time—helping manage variable generation until clean, firm alternatives or carbon capture become sufficiently cheap. In regions like New England, increased pipeline capacity can still displace dirtier marine-shipped gas and oil. And it would remain both geopolitically and environmentally favorable for Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and India to consume American LNG instead of coal or Russian gas. Indeed, Europe and East Asia account for over one-half and one-quarter of U.S. LNG exports, while currently buying 46% and 48% of all Russian LNG exports.”

     Environmentalists argue that BAAJA will increase emissions by benefiting oil & gas projects, but Wang says that is unlikely. The fact is that we need those projects. Wang ends by again emphasizing the potential clean energy deployment benefits of BAAJA:

“The remaining immediate energy project anxieties standing between lawmakers and a successful permitting and transmission package are small potatoes. Now is the time for Congress to seed a future clean energy harvest that future generations will thank them for.”

 

What Do Traditional Environmentalists Say about BAAJA?

     Some Democrats are hoping to reform the bill in their favor after the midterms, assuming they will win and have more clout after that. That remains to be seen, and in any case majorities for either party are likely to remain small.

     An article in Grist by Jake Bittle and Austin Corona sums up environmentalists’ approaches:

“On this question, the coalition known as the climate movement has fractured into two broad groups. On one side, there are activists, lawyers, and environmentalists, who tend to focus on blocking and reducing fossil fuel use. On the other, there are renewable energy companies and policy wonks, who tend to focus on building more clean energy.”

     They suggest that a kind of civil war is erupting between these two factions, one that wants to destroy the enemy, fossil fuels, and the other that just wants to be able to build more clean energy. The first faction has clearly benefitted immensely from the current slow, belabored, and costly nature of current permitting. The second faction has been significantly hampered by it. The first faction likens it to a Faustian bargain. That faction has enjoyed way too much power and support in the past, in my opinion. It would be fitting to see that power cut down a notch. They call the factions the blockers and the builders.

“It is definitely exposing a potential fault line between the environmental community and clean energy interests,” said Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents Northern California, in an interview with Grist.

     Permitting reform has been a long time coming, and that first faction, which has benefitted immensely from delaying it, is likely to finally get their comeuppance.

“It’s a lot easier to prevent things from being built than to build things, and that applies both to fossil fuels and to renewables,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate expert at the science nonprofit Berkeley Earth.

     In terms of energy affordability, the blockers have done more to make energy more expensive by blocking needed pipelines and other fossil fuel projects. However, the builders also make energy more expensive simply because the full cost of renewables, which includes fossil fuel back-up and significant transmission and grid integration costs, is much higher than fossil fuels. Either way, we will likely pay a lot. However, the best solution is to enable and speed up both kinds of projects in an “all of the above” kind of strategy, especially in light of growing power demand and growing costs.

     Massive renewable buildout requires lots of land, and there is often fierce opposition among landowners. The huge land footprint of renewables makes them more likely to trigger NEPA reviews.

“A 2025 study found that 64 percent of solar projects, 38 percent of wind projects, and 31 percent of transmission line projects face NEPA lawsuits.” 

     BAAJA would make it harder for these lawsuits to be filed, some of which are frivolous.

“This is a great bill, and it’s a huge step in the right direction,” said Ray Long, the president of ACORE, a trade group representing the solar and wind industry. “We need to really put this in reality. We need to build a ton of stuff over the next four years, or else we’re gonna have higher [electricity] prices.”

     They also note that the bill makes it harder for the executive branch of the government to block projects, citing Biden’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline and his LNG pause and Trump’s scrapping of offshore wind projects.

     It is a simple fact that many of the best sites for U.S. solar and especially wind are not near power consumption centers. Thus, there is a need for transmission lines, and those are very hard to permit and get built. Making it easier certainly helps the clean energy industries and gives our power grid more options.

“Historically, it didn’t matter too much where power plants were located, so we built them close to where the power was needed,” said Chirag Lala, vice president of research and chief economist at the Center for Public Enterprise, a think tank. “But we don’t have that same luxury with clean energy, which can be very location-specific. If you’re going to rely on those resources, you have to ship the power over long distances.”

“BAAJA would force utilities and regional grid operators to plan for interregional transmission lines, and would let private developers (like the one behind SunZia) come in and build lines themselves if utilities don’t build enough. The bill would also clear away a number of procedural roadblocks that have allowed utilities to block interregional transmission.”

     The hardcore environmentalists cite tribal sacred sites (sometimes taking up huge swaths of American land) and endangered species concerns that would be compromised.

     The article notes that the larger environmental groups like Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council support the bill, while the smaller and often more radical ones do not support it. They are the ones who are firmly in the blocker camp. I am quite firmly in the builder camp. Clearly, building needed infrastructure is more beneficial than blocking it. Building will aid affordability much more than blocking. The environmental impacts are overblown in many cases, and energy projects of all types continue to get better at protecting the environment, in general.

 

 

References:

 

The bipartisan energy bill tearing the climate movement apart: A long-awaited permitting reform proposal would make renewables easier to build, but at a potential cost to communities and the environment. Jake Bittle and Austin Corona. Grist. October 8, 2026. The bipartisan energy bill tearing the climate movement apart | Grist

The permitting reform omnibus just dropped. Heatmap AM. October 1, 2026.

Permitting Reform Unlocks More Clean Energy Than Trump Blocks: The Long View on BAAJA. Seaver Wang. The Ecomodernist. October 8, 2026.  Permitting Reform Unlocks More Clean Energy Than Trump Blocks

Electric Power Monthly: Table 6.07.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels. EIA. September 26, 2026. Electric Power Monthly - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Supreme Court Should Put a Stop to Unfair, Vague, Vindictive, and Stupid Climate Lawsuits

     A Supreme Court case currently being considered involves climate change litigation. I have always been opposed to these efforts, seeing them as vague, unfair, and vindictive. The Supreme Court heard arguments this past Monday in Suncor v. Boulder, a dispute over whether federal law prevents cities and states from suing oil companies under state law for alleged climate damage linked to emissions that cross state borders. For me, the ruling should clearly not allow such cases to go forward. They are vindictive in that they are propagated by anti-fossil fuel activists wishing to harm fossil fuel companies, which will also harm those who use their products, meaning everyone. Anybody want to see higher oil, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline prices? The answer is clearly no, but a ruling in favor of the plaintiff would likely result in just that. 

     According to Fox News:

 "You would see mass exodus and that would create more scarcity with fuel, more so than we're seeing already today, higher prices," Jason Isaac, CEO of American Energy Institute, told Fox News Digital. "And that's really what this is about. It's about controlling these companies and stopping the use of hydrocarbons."

     One of the plaintiffs was asked if similar lawsuits could be filed against others, including large retailers, and he answered that it could happen. Justice Brett Kavanaugh opined that widespread litigation of the sort could bankrupt defendants.

“The city and county of Boulder, Colo., sued oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in 2018, accusing the companies of knowingly contributing to climate change while misleading the public about the alleged dangers of fossil fuels. The municipalities are seeking damages to help cover the mounting costs of climate-related harms. There are roughly 30 similar lawsuits pending in jurisdictions across the country, including cases in Portland and Baltimore.”

“Boulder's lawsuit alleged ExxonMobil and Suncor knew for decades about the climate risks associated with fossil fuels but misled the public about those risks. The complaint pointed to a 1977 internal memo from ExxonMobil that circulated among the company's highest-level managers. The memo reported that "current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors" that fossil fuels contribute to the rise in CO2 emissions.”

     I have always thought that such claims are patently ridiculous since no one really knew the possible implications of climate change until much later, and even now there are significant uncertainties. The other objection I have is simply that we need inexpensive, abundant, and reliable energy, which can best be provided mostly by fossil fuels. Boulder, also known as the People’s Republic of Boulder for its reputation regarding renewable energy and Marxist socialism, is perhaps where such lawsuits are likely to originate. I have always noted that so-called climate change attribution science holds many uncertainties and is basically unreliable, not unlike the energy promoted by its advocates.

“David Bookbinder, who previously served as counsel of record for Boulder but is no longer involved in the case, described the lawsuit as a way to implement an "indirect carbon tax" during a Federalist Society forum last year.”

“But Boulder has maintained that the case is not an attempt to regulate national climate policy, arguing instead that Colorado has the authority to hold companies accountable under state law for alleged harms suffered within its borders.”

"Since the founding, states have had the power to provide tort remedies for injuries occurring within their borders even when the conduct causing those injuries occurred elsewhere," Russell told the justices.

“O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, argued that the lawsuits are an attempt to accomplish through the courts what climate advocates have been unable to achieve through Congress.”

"When you really boil it down, and you separate it from all the legal arguments, the advocates who push these cases are very clear," Skinner told Fox News Digital. "That it's an effort to get a backdoor carbon tax, because carbon taxes have never passed in Congress, or to bankrupt the energy industry."

     A victory for the plaintiff could lead to a flurry of similar cases which would have a chilling effect on some of the country’s most important companies. Even the costs to defend the cases would be astronomical.

"From Boulder's perspective, anybody who's contributed to climate change would be liable, any sort of company, big or small, and the problem here is that to the left, climate change is everything and everything is climate change," Skinner told Fox News Digital. "So it's very hard to find a line for who isn't contributing to climate change."

     Some other states, including Utah, have banned these kinds of state tort law cases.

"If the energy companies were to lose and Colorado were to win, this would in effect drive up the prices of gas all across the country," Utah Attorney General Derek Brown told Fox News Digital. "And so those kind of decisions ultimately, it's the province of Congress."

     For me, this is a huge no-brainer. I would like to see this case decided in favor of the defendants, and I would also like to see it decided with significant support of the liberal justices as well as the conservative ones. Apparently, Samuel Alito recused himself from the case, so there is a chance of a 4-4 tie. However, I am fairly confident that a majority will rule in favor of the defendants, hopefully an 8-0 unanimous decision that will pour cold water on future cases like this, which basically waste the courts’ time and energy. The cases are just plain stupid.

 

References:

 

Supreme Court climate case could bankrupt oil companies, send gas prices soaring, experts warn. Elaine Mallon. Fox News. October 10, 2026. Supreme Court climate case could bankrupt oil companies, send gas prices soaring, experts warn