EPA Wants to End the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, but Oil & Gas Companies Simply Want Some Reforms and Subpart W Methane Compliance Delays: Environmentalists Want Full Compliance Now

   

       I should point out that the references used for this post are from an anti-oil & gas perspective and that I will write more from my own perspective. 

     The Trump administration announced plans last year to repeal the federal government’s greenhouse gas reporting system. The EPA is expected to discontinue the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) as well as the Biden-era methane reporting rule, known as Subpart W. The oil & gas industry, however, simply wants to delay implementation of Subpart W, while keeping the GHGRP intact. Environmental groups blasted that idea as insufficient, even though it is a rebuke of the Trump EPA’s plans.

“Multiple trade associations and companies including the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC), ExxonMobil, Shell, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all submitted public comments in favor of preserving the GHGRP. They called on the administration to “improve the program rather than suspend it.”

     The issue was brought to light by the National Security Archive via the Freedom of Information Act.

“Oil and gas CEOs will always support weak rules they already comply with rather than no rules at all,” Edward Maibach, a climate change communication expert at George Mason University, said by email to the National Security Archive and DeSmog. “Supporting no rules at all would prove to everyone how untrustworthy they are.”

     While the article in Esquire called the CEOs cynical, I find the above quote even more cynical. If that wasn’t cynical enough, how about this quote that demonizes fossil fuel executives as death-causing and indifferent to humanity?

“Oil and gas CEOs know their business model is the leading cause of preventable death and ill-health in the world today,” said Maibach. “Their callous indifference to humanity is shocking.”

      The article notes regarding the Biden-era rule that:

“Finalized in 2024, those regulatory changes crucially altered the ways companies were required to estimate methane pollution by incorporating sources not previously covered by the program, such as super emitter events and equipment regulating natural gas pressure and flow.”

“…emissions reported under the rule feed into a separate methane tax on companies discharging over a certain pollution threshold (although that regulation is currently delayed until 2034). This tax would affect many of the nation’s low-producing marginal, or “stripper wells,” which, recent studies show, generate around 6 percent of U.S. oil and gas output but roughly half of its methane emissions.”

     Right there above is the real reason why they want to delay implementation of the rule: it would be difficult for small operators with thin profit margins to comply with it. It is not cynicism to want to protect small companies from potentially folding, as well as decreasing U.S. oil & gas output and fast-tracking well-plugging liabilities. Those companies need time to plan for something that could severely affect their bottom line. I agree that implementation for them should be delayed.

“While most industry groups say they don’t want the program repealed, they did ask the EPA for more flexibility in estimating and measuring methane emissions.”

“If finalized, it would exempt more than two-thirds of the roughly 8,000 industrial facilities, including power plants, steel mills, and refineries, from mandatory emissions reporting.”

     Most companies want to know their carbon, methane, and total GHG footprints, and they want to address them as they are able.

     The National Security Archive stated that the rule and new methodology would cause companies to have to report previously unreported greenhouse gas emissions, making them rise by large amounts, but they also noted:

“…another consultant speaking to a gas group conference warned that updated disclosure requirements would increase reported methane emissions by roughly 16 percent. Last month, major gas producer EQT cited this revised rule as one reason its reported methane emissions rose in 2025.”

     16% is a pretty small increase by one of the largest U.S. natural gas producers. Of course, EQT has done quite a lot to decrease its GHG footprint and has led the U.S. in doing so. Smaller companies with smaller budgets cannot do so nearly as easily.  

     Below are two groups’ responses to the National Security Archive’s request for statements, one from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and one from the Independent Petroleum Producers of America (IPPA).

“API requested "that the EPA strike a balance between reducing the burdens of information collection and reporting requirements and advancing the benefits" of the GHGRP, such as its "high quality data" for stakeholders, wrote Dustin Meyer, API Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs. The program's cited benefits, ranging from "showcasing company and industry progress" on emissions to supporting claims for carbon capture, hydrogen, and biofuels tax credits, outweigh its costs, Meyer adds, particularly with API's suggested changes to the methane reporting rule.”

“[IPAA’s] opposition results from the adverse effects the definition creates for small business, low production well operators and its inconsistencies with the Clean Air Act,” an IPAA representative wrote. “The complexity of the 2024 Biden Administration Subpart W calculation process will also likely force thousands of independent producers to incur significant costs to just confirm they fall below reporting thresholds.” IPAA members include many smaller companies operating stripper wells that it says current methane rules threaten to make "unviable."      

     While some companies have stressed that they prefer voluntary requirements rather than forced compliance, many are fine with the rules, especially larger companies that produce from newer wells, who are already largely in compliance.

     Below is another reason the industry wants to keep the GHGRP in place.

“The loss of standardized, robust methane reporting requirements will put U.S. companies at a disadvantage with major trading partners,” Rachel Cleetus with the Union of Concerned Scientists said by email. She added that this could force companies toward expensive, uncertain workarounds, such as third-party verifiers.”

     Another reason they want to keep the GHGRP rule is simply that it tracks their progress in meeting the requirements and reducing their emissions. That makes sense to me.

“For years, EPA has compiled and published greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions data and analysis that AGA and its members rely on to demonstrate the incredible progress our industry has made in voluntarily reducing methane emissions,” Parr wrote. “AGA encourages EPA to maintain these information repositories.”

     It makes sense to Environmental Defense Fund too:

“For over 15 years, the GHGRP has delivered credible, comparable emissions data,” said Edwin LaMair, Senior Attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, via email. “Its clear enforceable rules help ensure consistent, reliable data, even as stakeholders debate the accuracy of individual reporting methods and emissions estimates.”

     Investors also want companies to show their emissions reduction progress:

“Having the [Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program] and the [Greenhouse Gas Inventory] available as centralized, commonly accepted sources of GHG data allows AGA to proudly and unequivocally demonstrate that U.S. natural gas distribution systems have reduced methane emissions,” Parr wrote in the AGA letter. “Natural gas companies depend on this data to provide information regularly sought by investors, customers, and stakeholders.”

“API's Sommers criticized the move {to drop the rule} at the October 2025 Drake Energy Security Summit. "Regulatory certainty is a huge issues for us," he said, adding that companies prefer more stringent regulations over a decade or more of uncertainty -- and he says that reflects their advocacy on this issue. "We want to continue to report. We know how important emissions reduction is for our social license to operate."

     Some outliers, including fracking billionaire Harold Hamm's company, Continental Resources, and his trade association, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, want to eliminate the program entirely, but they are very much a minority.

“Discontinuing the GHGRP would create blind spots in our collective understanding of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change,” Kimberly Barrett, a member of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, said by email.

     Eliminating GHGRP and the GHG Inventory would make it harder for Europe to purchase U.S. LNG, which they need, and could lead to other countries also abandoning any moves toward better compliance.

“The rigor and transparency of the Inventory has made it possible for the U.S. to pressure trade competitors such as China, India and Brazil to disclose their emissions and ensure valid comparisons of performance across countries,..”

   

 

References:

 

Oil and gas companies are supporting government emissions reporting—just not for the reason we’d hoped. Charles P. Pierce. Esquire. August 20, 2026. Oil and gas companies are supporting government emissions reporting—just not for the reason we’d hoped

Inside the Struggle to Dismantle America’s Greenhouse Gas Data. National Security Archive. August 18, 2026. Inside the Struggle to Dismantle America’s Greenhouse Gas Data | National Security Archive

Environmental Protection Agency Presentation Slide Deck, “Greenhouse Gas Data Overview,” Office of Air and Radiation Briefing, 4 February 2024, [Classification Unknown]. National Security Archive. Environmental Protection Agency Presentation Slide Deck, “Greenhouse Gas Data Overview,” Office of Air and Radiation Briefing, 4 February 2024, [Classification Unknown] | National Security Archive

New Graphic by Visual Capitalist and Shale Crescent USA Shows That the Appalachian Region by Itself is Second Only to Russia in Natural Gas Production

     A new graphic published by Visual Capitalist illustrates that the Appalachian region’s natural gas output is second only to Russia.

     The region is sometimes referred to as the Shale Crescent, and there is an organization with the same name that advocates for bringing in manufacturing to the region to take advantage of the low feedstock price for natural gas and its derivatives. Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and West Virginia make up the Shale Crescent.

“Its scale creates advantages beyond energy production. Businesses located near abundant natural gas can benefit from reliable supply, reduced transportation costs, and access to a critical industrial feedstock.”

“The data demonstrates that Shale Crescent USA is not simply a leading U.S. region—it is a globally significant energy producer.”

“Consequently, manufacturers evaluating new locations may find the region’s combination of scale, reliability, security, and resource availability particularly compelling for their long-term goals.”

References:

 

Ranked: U.S. Natural Gas vs. Countries. Ryan Bellefontaine. Design - Akhila Ayyalasomayajula, Athul Alexander, and Abha Patil. Visual Capitalist. September 15, 2026. Ranked: U.S. Natural Gas vs. Countries

Shale Crescent USA. Website. A World Class Manufacturing Advantage – Shale Crescent

SLB Buys Kelvion, Betting That Leveraging Its Heat Exchange Experience in Offshore Platform Environments Can Apply to Liquid Cooling for Data Centers: The Outlook for the Liquid Cooling Market

     Data center chips generate large amounts of waste heat that must be managed with cooling. Air cooling is inadequate and thermodynamically impossible to scale. Water conducts heat far better (25-30 times better) than air and has a vastly higher (by 3,400 times) volumetric heat capacity. Thus, liquid cooling is required for the NVIDIA Blackwell GPU chips that draw power to process data center computing. NVIDIA's next-generation Rubin platform is projected to push rack densities beyond what they are now.

     Ryan Cook of Tech Times gives a detailed analysis and explains the recent purchase by oilfield services giant SLB of German heat exchanger manufacturer Kevlion:

“SLB (NYSE: SLB), the century-old oilfield services company, bet $4.1 billion this morning on the argument that the people who know how to solve extreme heat problems are not software engineers or chip architects — they are the industrial engineers who have spent a century managing thermal extremes on offshore platforms, in arctic drilling sites, and in desert refinery fields. In a definitive agreement announced Monday, SLB agreed to acquire Kelvion — a German manufacturer of heat exchangers and cooling systems for data centers and industrial processes — from Apollo-managed funds for approximately $3.4 billion in cash, plus the assumption of roughly $0.7 billion in existing debt, per the SLB Kelvion acquisition terms. The deal, valued at approximately 11 times Kelvion's estimated 2026 adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, is expected to close in the first half of 2027, pending regulatory approvals.”

     Below, he touches on direct-to-chip cooling, which I posted about here, and heat exchangers and air-fin coolers that dump waste heat into the atmosphere, although, as I posted about here, in the future could be recovered and utilized at lower temperatures than previously.

“The cooling architecture that replaces air involves several layers. At the chip level, direct-to-chip cold plates — metal plates bonded directly to the GPU die — circulate water or a water-glycol mixture through the processor, achieving chip-level thermal capture efficiency of 80 to 95 percent at the source. A Coolant Distribution Unit manages flow, temperature, pressure, and heat exchange within the rack. The CDU connects to a facility-level loop that routes warm coolant to large outdoor heat rejection systems — the heat exchangers and air-fin coolers that ultimately dump waste heat into the atmosphere.”

     Kevlion makes GigaBay air-fin coolers, large modular heat rejection units with fans up to 22 feet (6.7 meters) in diameter. The company was recently contracted for deployments at 200 MW and 350MW U.S. data centers, respectively.  

"Data centers are becoming more sophisticated and energy-intensive, and customers are increasingly looking for partners that can optimize how critical systems work together across the facility and help bring new capacity online faster," said Gavin Rennick, president of SLB's New Energy and Industrial business, in a statement. "Thermal management is central to that challenge."

     SLB began manufacturing modular data center components at its plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2023, the largest dedicated data center manufacturing facility in North America. With the addition of Kevlion’s heat exchanger technology, SLB is now capable of full thermal management at data centers.  

"This is not an oil and gas business," SLB CEO Olivier Le Peuch said in an October 2025 interview, elaborating on his oilfield-to-AI pivot strategy. "It's driven by hyperscalers, partners that reach out to us to help them respond to the AI boom and data center growth that I think will last beyond this decade."

“In March 2026, SLB formalized its position in the hyperscaler supply chain by becoming the SLB NVIDIA DSX design partner for NVIDIA's DSX AI factories — a designation that puts SLB inside the NVIDIA reference architecture that hyperscalers use when deploying dense AI clusters. Kelvion adds the one major capability that stack has lacked: full thermal management integration from chip-level coolant loops to facility-level heat rejection.”

"This transaction accelerates our ambition to become an industrial technology partner to the data center industry," Le Peuch said in Monday's SLB Kelvion acquisition announcement, "and help customers address the growing infrastructure complexity required to scale AI."

     Cook writes that SLB’s projected data center revenue “would rank it among the largest dedicated data center infrastructure businesses in the world.” He also notes that data center liquid cooling deals have resulted in significant consolidation in the industry, as noted below.

“The consolidation pattern reflects a shared thesis: that the transition from air cooling to liquid cooling at scale is a multi-year structural shift with winner-take-most economics at the integration layer. A hyperscaler that can procure modular enclosures, power distribution, liquid cooling loops, and facility-level heat rejection from a single engineering-accountable vendor faces far less integration risk than one assembling the same stack from five separate suppliers.”

“SLB's acquisition of Kelvion completes a stack that includes modular manufacturing, offsite construction, engineering, and digital capabilities — with thermal management now integrated directly from the ground up, rather than bolted on by a separate vendor.”

     He also cites Goldman Sachs projections that liquid-cooled AI servers will represent 76% of deployments by the end of 2026, up from just 15% in 2024. The liquid cooling market is expected to grow by nearly seven times, from $4 billion in 2026 to $27 billion by 2033, a compound annual growth rate of more than 31%.

     Kevlion also makes heat pumps and components for renewables infrastructure, carbon capture, and broader industrial processing, all markets where thermal management is gaining strategic importance.

     There are, however, some significant engineering challenges remaining for liquid cooling, including coolant chemistry management and biofilm/biofouling, which causes system corrosion, and preventing and mitigating pump failures.

“Coolant chemistry management remains a documented operational risk. Glycol concentration below roughly 25 percent propylene glycol carries liquid cooling glycol biofilm risk of bacterial biofilm that does not reliably inhibit fouling — biological contamination that insulates heat transfer surfaces, generates particulates, and drives corrosion in CDU loops. Pump failures in liquid-cooled systems cause far more immediate GPU damage than air cooling failures, because GPUs have no thermal buffer when coolant stops flowing — damage can begin within seconds.”

     Another challenge is that due to tariff pressures, some of Kevlion’s manufacturing capabilities in France and China will likely have to be duplicated in SLB’s U.S.-based facilities.

     Finally, Cook notes that integration of heat management with modular component and power system manufacture gives consolidated companies full-stack data center approaches that synergize.

“For enterprise technology buyers and data center operators, the SLB-Kelvion deal signals that the market for integrated AI infrastructure — combining modular construction, power systems, and full-stack thermal management — is consolidating rapidly around a small number of industrial-scale vendors. The window for assembling best-of-breed cooling stacks from independent specialists is narrowing as those specialists are acquired.”

     Below is a data center liquid cooling market outlook from Enki AI:

 

References:

 

SLB acquires Kelvion for $4.1B: Air cooling fails AI math, oilfield engineers win. Ryan Cook. Tech Times. August 31, 2026. SLB acquires Kelvion for $4.1B: Air cooling fails AI math, oilfield engineers win

Data Center Liquid Cooling Deals, Top 10: $9.5 B Eaton Acquisition, $40 B Aligned Buyout (2024 to 2026). Enki AI. Eaton Liquid Cooling 2025, $9.5B Boyd Acquisition - ENKI

 

Incomplete Combustion from End-Use Appliances Responsible for the Majority of NYC’s Methane Emissions, Much Higher Than Distribution System Leaks, According to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

     A new study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by researchers at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Columbia Climate School, measured and analyzed atmospheric methane concentrations and emissions sources around New York City. They found that incomplete combustion in appliances like furnaces and natural gas heat pumps,

     According to Phys.org:

“The researchers estimate that methane emissions associated with natural gas were approximately 1.7% of all gas delivered through the system. These emissions represent a substantial amount of fuel NYC consumers are paying for but not fully using, equivalent to nearly $300 million of natural gas, based on 2023 and 2024 retail prices.”

     The researchers were able to distinguish between non-combustion emissions, either from leaks in underground utility pipes or from building appliances, and inefficiently burned gas from heating and cooling systems. The two-year study covering 2023 and 2024 involved hourly methane measurements from the Mineola Tower, a National Institute of Standards and Technology monitoring site on Long Island. They sampled air flowing out of Manhattan and western Long Island during westerly winds. They set out to capture seasonal patterns. Along with methane, they sampled ethane and carbon monoxide at similarly frequent rates.

     According to Phys.org:

“The measurements revealed a distinct seasonal cycle: Methane emissions peaked during the winter heating season, declined through spring and rose again during the summer cooling season before increasing further during the following heating season. Natural gas accounted for 99% of total methane emissions in February and 98% in May, and 85% to 88% during the summer cooling months.”

     Biogenic sources from wetlands, wastewater treatment plants, and landfills were not present in high concentrations in this region. The summer peaks were not expected, and some may be attributable to natural gas cooling systems. Ethane emissions are a signature of thermogenic subsurface natural gas sources. Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced during the incomplete combustion of any carbon-based fuel and is a signature of it in the data. Ratios and other correlations between the three gases can distinguish natural gas pre-meter leaks, post-combustion emissions, and microbial activities. 

     Incomplete combustion was found to be the main methane source in the heating and cooling seasons.

“Only 6% of the identified natural gas plumes in winter and 7% in summer showed no combustion signature, indicating that pipeline leaks were detected less frequently at the tower than methane associated with incomplete combustion.”

     Methane increases closely followed methane deliveries in the heating and cooling seasons, and lack of them in the shoulder seasons of spring and fall when demand is low, matching combustion source availability. The methane increases from end-use appliances show why methane inventory estimates were lower than these and other field measurements for the NYC area.  

“Despite efforts to fix pipeline leaks, methane emissions in cities have remained higher than expected, suggesting that important sources were being overlooked. The authors say inefficient use of natural gas, including incomplete combustion, accounts for much of the missing methane and should be incorporated into future calculations.”

     Higher combustion rates on end-use appliances should also be sought. Post-meter combustion is now known as a dominant rather than a negligible source of urban methane. This was unexpected and has implications. Comparisons with other cities are given in a section of the conclusion below. Note that some cities spent a lot of money digging up and replacing very old, often cast-iron, distribution lines only to find barely any change in urban methane levels.

“Source attribution analysis reveals that the incomplete combustion of natural gas (post-meter emissions from the inefficient burning of natural gas in any appliance or power unit) dominates methane emissions in the city, regardless of season. There is no natural gas methane loss rate currently included in national or global inventories (Crippa et al., 2024; Maasakkers et al., 2023), but the local NYCMA inventory (Pitt et al., 2024) has included a beyond-the-meter loss rate of 0.5 % (Fischer et al., 2018). However, we calculated a consumption-driven loss rate for the NYCMA that is a factor of three times greater than these previous studies of appliance emissions. These largely overlooked combustion-related post-meter methane emissions can help explain the persistent missing thermogenic methane sources reported by previous studies.”

“The observed loss rate of 1.7 ± 0.6 % is within the range observed for other cities. It is less than the 2.5 ± 0.5 % (Sargent et al., 2021) and 2.7 ± 0.6 % (McKain et al., 2015) reported for the Boston area, but greater than the lower limit of the 1.3 %–2.3 % reported for Los Angeles (He et al., 2019; Sargent et al., 2021) and the 1.3 % reported for the Baltimore/DC area (Huang et al., 2019).”

“Many cities, including Boston, have dedicated millions of dollars to upgrading street-level natural gas infrastructure, without seeing any substantial change in methane emissions (Sargent et al., 2021). At the monthly retail prices of natural gas for 2023 and 2024, a 1.7 % loss rate is close to 300×106 USD yr−1 of natural gas purchased, but unused, by consumers in NYCMA.”

“Our results highlight the three-dimensional nature of urban methane emissions: the largest methane emissions are observed from rooftops and not from the pipelines beneath the streets below. Our findings emphasize the urgent need to incorporate emissions from post-meter natural gas combustion into methane inventories and emphasize emissions reductions from natural gas end-use sectors as a means to reduce urban methane emissions.”

  

 

References:

 

Unused natural gas behind NYC's $300 million waste of a potent greenhouse gas. Rebecca Fowler. Phys.org. September 14, 2026. Unused natural gas behind NYC's $300 million waste of a potent greenhouse gas

Inefficient consumption of natural gas drives methane emissions from a megacity. Yuwei Zhao, Andrew Hallward-Driemeier, Luke D. Schiferl, Trey Maddaleno, Michael P. Vermeuel, Dylan B. Millet, Delphine Farmer, and Róisín Commane. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Volume 26, issue 17. ACP, 26, 12911–12924, 2026. ACP - Inefficient consumption of natural gas drives methane emissions from a megacity

Reactive Nitrogen Emissions into the Atmosphere and Ocean from Ammonia Shipping Fuel Are Significant, According to New Paper, but Can Be Mitigated by Requiring Emissions Control Systems, Argue Environmental Groups

      While ammonia, especially green ammonia made with renewable energy, remains a low-carbon shipping fuel, there are other impacts. Nitrogen emissions increase by up to 185% with ammonia as a shipping fuel compared to the shipping diesel fuel it replaces, unless sufficient mitigation and nitrogen emissions control systems are added.

     A new study published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science sets out to measure reactive nitrogen emissions along the ammonia-fueled shipping supply chain. This comes as the International Maritime Organization is touting ammonia as the key to its 2050 net-zero shipping strategy.

     Oscar Lazenby of Tech Times notes that 80% of world trade is via shipping and that some scenarios see ammonia fuel powering 35-60% of shipping by 2050. The paper, written by scientists employed by environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, notes that maritime shipping is responsible for 3% of global carbon emissions.

     The reactive nitrogen emissions come in two forms: 1) combustion of ammonia fuel produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), and unreacted ammonia (NH3) from incomplete combustion, and 2) ammonia (NH3) leaks from production, storage, bunkering, and shipboard use, along with episodic releases to water from spills and nitrogen-bearing effluent. These are summarized in the paper:

     Lazenby summarizes the results of the study:

“The critical finding is how much the outcome depends on what regulatory controls are in place. Under stringent controls — renewable-based ammonia production, low NOx and N2O emissions from engines, minimal ammonia slip, and full boil-off gas capture — total reactive nitrogen emissions from the ammonia fuel chain could be approximately 66 percent lower than current very-low-sulfur fuel oil for the same energy output. Without those controls, they could be up to 185 percent higher.”

     The ecological consequences of airborne nitrogen emissions depend on where the nitrogen ends up. The study shows that reactive nitrogen emissions affect four types of ocean regions that make up the bulk of shipping corridors: 1) oligotrophic gyres – “the vast, nutrient-starved subtropical ocean zones covering roughly 40 percent of the global ocean surface.” These could alter phytoplankton communities enough to cause harm; 2) coral reefs – reactive nitrogen can disrupt delicate plankton-coral community balances and make reefs less resilient to the other dangers they face; 3) Oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) – nitrifying these zones can cause severe issues such as large N2O emissions; N2O is a powerful greenhouse gas as well as a major contributor to ozone depletion.

“The study finds that under weak emissions controls, these indirect N2O formation pathways could offset 15 to 40 percent of ammonia fuel's projected climate benefit. High-density shipping corridors overlap directly with the major OMZs at highest risk: the Arabian Sea, the eastern tropical Pacific, the Bay of Bengal, and the southwestern African margin.”

and 4) Marginal and semi-enclosed seas - the Baltic, Mediterranean, Black, East China, Yellow, and South China Seas – these areas are already experiencing nitrification from agricultural and wastewater runoff as well as shipping. Additional shipping emissions could make these problems worse.

     Current ammonia shipping fuel systems emit more NOx and N2O than diesel or LNG, and incomplete combustion is more common with ammonia than with diesel or LNG. Loss of ammonia through incomplete combustion is known as ammonia slip. The higher NOx and N2O emissions occur due to the current dual-fuel engines that utilize hydrocarbons for pilot light ignition, which occurs at a higher temperature for ammonia than for diesel and LNG.

      Lazenby gives solutions below that could reduce the threat:

“Selective catalytic reduction systems that cut NOx to below IMO Tier III compliance levels (0.5 g NOx/MJ) can simultaneously increase ammonia slip unless a downstream ammonia-slip catalyst (ASC) is also deployed. An integrated SCR+ASC system addresses both pollutants simultaneously — but the study documents that no current regulatory framework mandates this integrated approach.”

     In addition to this, there are no current ways to regulate exhaust gas treatment effluent from emissions control systems, which is typically released into the ocean.

“Scrubber systems that capture nitrogen from engine exhaust transfer it into nitrogen-bearing wastewater streams that are then discharged into port waters. This shifts the pollution from the atmosphere to the sea, but maritime discharge rules do not currently treat nitrogen-bearing effluent as a regulated waste stream under any major international instrument.”

     The study compares reactive nitrogen emissions from ammonia-fueled shipping to those from agricultural runoff, which is being addressed by better mitigation technologies and agricultural practices.

"The pervasive inefficiencies identified in agricultural Nr use a generation ago have an analogue in the projected ammonia marine fuel value chain," the study notes, "where leakage and combustion losses vary by more than an order of magnitude depending on technology and operational practice."

   

     Lazenby notes that the paper stresses that now is the time to put reactive nitrogen emissions mitigation into the frameworks for ammonia-fueled shipping:

“The study identifies the 2026 to 2028 period as a decisive window to establish frameworks before large-scale ammonia fuel infrastructure becomes entrenched. Ships ordered and built in this period will operate for 25 to 30 years. If high-emission propulsion systems become the norm before regulations catch up, retrofitting the global fleet would be technically complex and economically prohibitive.”     

     They recommend lifecycle accounting for reactive nitrogen in certification and compliance frameworks. Mitigation strategies along the supply chain include using renewable energy for ammonia production, employing boil-off gas recapture systems, closed-loop transfer and bunkering containment, operational protocols, engine emission-control systems, and downstream emissions control systems.

 

References:

 

Ammonia shipping fuel could spike ocean nitrogen 185 percent; IMO framework doesn't cover it. Oscar Lazenby. Tech Times. September 9, 2026. Ammonia shipping fuel could spike ocean nitrogen 185 percent; IMO framework doesn't cover it

Beyond carbon: reactive nitrogen emissions from ammonia as a marine fuel and implications for ocean ecosystems. Lucy Gilliam, James Kershaw, Stavroula S. Sartzetakis, Marie Cabbia Hubatova, and Sofia Esquivel-Elizondo. Frontiers in Marine Science. Sec. Marine Ecosystem Ecology. Volume 13 – 2026. Frontiers | Beyond carbon: reactive nitrogen emissions from ammonia as a marine fuel and implications for ocean ecosystems

Hoover Institution’s John Cochrane’s Argument Against a 5% Billionaire Wealth Tax is Bunk: It’s Not Envy but Our Sense of Fairness That Supports a Wealth Tax

     While I often agree with the work and conclusions of the Hoover Institution’s fellows, that is not always the case. I find Economist John Cochrane’s argument against a 5% billionaire wealth tax to be weak and ineffective. The 5% tax was proposed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna, two far-left politicians with whom I often disagree. I may agree with taxing billionaires 5%, but I likely would not agree with these two politicians’ plans for using the proceeds.

     Cochrane argues that such a tax would shift capital from investment to consumption, since billionaires have the bulk of their money not in cash, but in investments. This is true, but it is also true that consumption also stimulates investment. Thus, his first argument is that it would disincentivize investment. According to Forbes, there are 989 billionaires in the U.S., or .00029% of Americans. Thus, it would be a tax, not on the 1% as Bernie likes to say, but on the .00029%. Billionaires’ money is mostly invested in their own companies. For Elon Musk, that is Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, the Boring Company, Twitter/X, PayPal, OpenAI, Neuralink, and many others.

     Cochrane is a bit audacious to say that “inflation adds another wealth tax.” This is true, but it is a truly minuscule percentage of billionaires’ income compared to the average person or the poor person who actually buys less, drives less, and goes without some things due to inflation.

     Cochrane argues that a wealth tax would take away billionaires’ ability to take risks and that such risk-taking has been a boon to our economy in the past.

“High-risk investments is what produced America’s prosperity. Low-risk, low-reward, small-scale European investments produced European stagnation.”

     There may be some truth to that, but Europe is certainly not a place where poverty is prevalent.

“Redirecting that wealth to social spending lowers national investment and raises national consumption dollar for dollar.”

     So does any government tax on anyone. Cochrane seems to be echoing Elon Musk’s boast that his own value is that he is an expert at allocating capital. His high purchase price of Twitter, or X, turns that argument on its head.

     Below, he argues that such a tax would result in growth of tax avoidance schemes. That is true, but we can work to close such loopholes. I would say to the billionaires: “Do your national duty and pay your taxes without trying to hide your money, like the rest of us do.”

“Avoidance. Elon Musk’s $42 billion proposed tax bill would pay for a lot of tax lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. What do they do? Take businesses private, argue with the IRS about what they’re really worth, hide individual ownership and value in complex cross-linkages, trusts, and LLCs.”

“In fact, structuring businesses to avoid taxes rather than generate profit might be the most insidious effect of high taxation.”

     He also rails against the estate tax, which he says is also a wealth tax. I am not competent to evaluate that, but it does seem a bit high as he states it.

     He finishes his rant with the following:

“The wealth tax is not about economics at all. It’s about envy. It’s about destroying the billionaires. And it’s about grabbing their supposed political power for the benefit of the government.”

“They want to get rid of the billionaires, even if we get rid of the companies and economy that they created.”

     I do not believe that is true. It is not about envy, but it is about fairness. Neuroscientists sometimes say we have a built-in “sense” of fairness. Billionaires really stress that sense, and we see it as unfair. While it may be true that leftists and socialists are indeed envious of billionaires and some want to hurt the rich more than to help the poor, most of us are not like that. Helping the poor is far more important than harming the rich. A little taxation, a tweak of our mixed economy, which is not unfettered capitalism, but capitalism with some regulation of its wealth effects through mechanisms like taxation, does not result from envy but fairness.

     The world’s total wealth is estimated to be about $600 trillion. When one human (Musk) among 8.3 billion people can have 0.167% of the total wealth of the world, the obscenity of the super-wealthy is on display. Defending such unfairness, as Cochrane seems to do, is an affront to our sense of fairness. Tax them!

    

 

References:

 

The Hidden Cost of a Federal Wealth Tax: How a 5% tax on billionaire wealth could weaken investment, encourage tax avoidance, and reduce future economic growth. John H. Cochrane. The Grumpy Economist Weekly Rant. Hoover Institution. September 9, 2026. The Hidden Cost of a Federal Wealth Tax

U.S. Grid-Scale Battery Storage Capacity at 52GW: Market Arbitrage Remains Biggest Application: Plus, Some Global BESS Market Forecasts

     Grid-scale batteries are helping to meet power demand in the U.S. They have helped Texas optimize its solar and wind output and prevent summer outages in peak demand periods. They are doing the same in California, helping to balance the “duck curve.” A report in Interesting Engineering notes that grid-scale batteries have grown by 70% in each of the past three years. Batteries are mostly used for arbitrage and are mostly paired with solar generation. Arbitrage is the practice of buying power when prices are low and selling it when prices are high. They can buy when solar generation peaks and prevent some of that power from being lost through curtailment. They can sell in the evening when solar drops off. This helps with the economics of deploying batteries, which remain very expensive.

“By the end of 2025, the national grid held 43.6 gigawatts (GW) of operational battery capacity. Energy operators expanded national capacity to nearly 52 GW by adding an extra 8.3 GW during the first half of 2026.”

     California and Texas have by far the most grid battery deployments, each state having more deployments than the rest of the other 48 states combined.

“The Bellefield Solar and Energy Storage Farm went online in December 2025, pairing 500 megawatts (MW) of solar capacity with 500 MW of power storage for California’s main grid. Now, developers plan to double both its solar and storage capacities by November 2026. If completed on schedule, Bellefield will become the single largest power storage facility in the United States.”

     Florida and Nevada also have projects pairing solar and grid batteries. They note that according to the EIA, grid operators plan to add another 54 GW of battery capacity over the next two and a half years, including 14 GW slated for the second half of 2026, 26 GW in 2027, and 14 GW in 2028. That means U.S. battery storage capacity will double again by 2030. Batteries also provide fast-frequency response, voltage control, and black-start capabilities. Possible hurdles to meeting these timelines include supply chain issues, permitting delays, and interconnection queues.

     The EIA data shows that U.S. grid-scale battery deployments have increased by more than ten times since 2022! 

   

     Mordor Intelligence provides some forecasts of global battery deployments. Globally, about 77% of battery deployments are grid-tied, and 56% are grid-scale deployments. The rest are mainly off-grid applications. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to make up about 50% of global deployments, dominated by China.

 

References:

 

US battery storage hits 52 GW as capacity reaches a record-high level in 2026. Mrigakshi Dixit. Interesting Engineering. August 17, 2026. US battery storage hits 52 GW as capacity reaches a record-high level in 2026

BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) MARKET SIZE & SHARE ANALYSIS - GROWTH TRENDS AND FORECAST (2026 - 2031). Mordor Intelligence. Battery Energy Storage System Market Size Report 2031

Battery storage capacity averaged 70% growth over the last three years. EIA. August 7, 2026. Battery storage capacity averaged 70% growth over the last three years - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)