A look back at fracking, from a leading reporter on the beat; environmental questions remain as industry shifts

Mike Soraghan started out with Energy and Environment News, which was bought by Politico, so now he writes for both. His latest opus is a look back at the history of horizontal hydraulic fracturing of deep shale, better known as "fracking," which has had a big impact on parts of rural America. Soragahn has covered it for more than a decade.

Mike Soraghan (Politico photo)

"Shale promised riches, and in some instances, it delivered, saving farms," he writes for Politico Magazine. "Fracking birthed tales of instant 'shale-ionnaires' and oilfield strippers tucking four-figure handfuls of cash in their garter belts for a night’s work. And it also fundamentally changed the United States’ position in the global energy economy, in ways that have been on prominent display over the first half of 2026.

"But a lot of the people you’d expect to profit from fracking . . . were instead crushed by it. And drilling wells could wreak environmental havoc, triggering earthquakes, ruining farmland, polluting airways and contaminating household water to the point it could catch fire. In short: Fracking rewrote the book on American energy, globally and domestically. . . . Today, even if you walk everywhere or drive an electric vehicle, fracking is responsible for keeping your grocery and electric bills down."

But now, "That tumultuous chapter is coming to an end, just as a war-driven energy crisis offers — or threatens — to rewrite the script once again. The irony is that the U.S. is outdoing the petro-kingdoms of the Middle East — just as the world is accelerating its turn toward renewable energy. The easy oil is getting harder to find. Even as production continues to climb, the rate of growth is slowing. Automation is replacing oil workers the way it did coal miners. Environmental protests have moved on to data centers. America’s wildcatters are again starting to scan the horizon for new discoveries abroad. Even Michael Steele, the former Republican Party chair who coined the term, 'Drill, Baby, Drill,' thinks the phrase has outlived its usefulness."

Environmental questions remain, especially "the long-term impact of pumping chemicals from the nearly 2 million fracked wells — questions that may not be answered for years or decades," Soraghan writes. Environmentalists are mostly against fracking shale, but Christopher Knittel, the associate dean for Climate and Stability at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Soraghan that greenhouse-gas emissions have been cut mainly by power plants’ switch from coal to natural gas. More broadly, Knittel worries that the U.S. backoff from electric vehicles means the American industry could be “islanded off” from the rest of the world. "Perhaps the model for the United States’ energy future isn’t Saudi Arabia, but an actual island," Soragahn concludes.

Trump may see high gas prices as 'peanuts,' but they are squeezing lower-income Americans the most

Photo by Yassine Khalfalli, Unsplash

In a frustrated remark, President Donald Trump referred to surging gas prices across the U.S. as "peanuts" compared to the threat of Iran producing a nuclear warhead.

And while many Americans might agree that wallet-draining gas prices are preferable to horrific global outcomes, the war is costing poorer Americans a higher percentage of their income than it is wealthier Americans.

"For households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution — those earning roughly $40,000 a year or less — commuting fuel costs now consume an average of about 4% of their income," report Julie Z. Weil and Federica Cocco of The Washington Post. "For households in the top quarter, earning $100,000 or more, the same costs amount to less than 1%."

Lower-income workers get squeezed from all sides when gas prices increase. "They tend to live farther from their jobs, in areas with little or no public transit, and are more likely to drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles," the Post reports. For most, working from home is not an option, leaving them unable to escape the need to buy gas — no matter the price. The only other option is to skip work, doctor's appointments or social outings that require a car fueled by gas.

The more than 40% increase in gas prices from May 2025 to the present has left some lower-income Americans facing tough choices. Debbie Zambrana, who lives on a fixed disability income, used to help her son out by driving his children to school events. Weil and Cocco write, "For the first time, she recently told him that she could only drive them if he covered the fuel."

With gas prices recently reaching $4.50 a gallon, there is little low-income workers can do to help themselves — even when they budget carefully. "Personal finance experts commonly advise that people shouldn’t spend more than 10% of their after-tax income on commuting expenses," Weil and Cocco add. "Spending 4% of income on gas alone can quickly throw everything out of whack."

Very rural New Mexico reaps millions in oil revenue

In the U.S., only Texas produces more oil than New Mexico.
(Photo by Laura Mann, Unsplash)

New Mexico's state treasury began reaping millions in oil revenue after global crude supplies were strangled in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Despite the predominantly rural state's dependence on fossil-fuel-generated revenue, the windfall has sparked mixed feelings for "Democrats who oppose the war and would rather reduce their reliance on fossil fuels," reports Morgan Lee of The Associated Press.

The Democratic-led "Land of Enchantment" is second only to Texas for oil production, and the "state’s revenue from taxes, royalties and lease sales helps cover the cost of college tuition, all school meals, health insurance and a new initiative for free universal child care," Lee explains.

Even seemingly small increases in crude oil prices can mean big money for the state. Lee reports, "For every $1 fluctuation in the average annual price of oil, New Mexico sees a roughly $59 million swing in state government income."

The state's treasury automatically channels increases in oil revenue "into a series of trust accounts designed to gradually reduce the state’s reliance on fossil fuels," Lee writes. Through investments, those trusts "underwrite Medicaid, early childhood education, infrastructure projects and an expansion of mental healthcare" in a very rural state that is "entrenched [with] swaths of extreme poverty and the nation’s highest enrollment rate in Medicaid."

New Mexico isn't the only rural state to see surges in state income because of the war with Iran. Lee adds, "In Alaska, the state forecast an additional $1.05 billion for the current fiscal year and the one beginning July 1."

Reporter tips: Spiking gas prices unify many Americans; the general misery offers a multitude of story possibilities

Gas prices in Holden, Maine, after Russia invaded 
Ukraine in early 2022. (Photo by GG, Unsplash) 

Dismayed by soaring gasoline prices, many Americans are coping by sharing their frustration and misery. For journalists, the increase in gas prices combined with eventual transportation-cost price hikes on consumer and grocery goods is an opportunity to explore energy resources, shared financial stresses and the effects of the war in Iran.

"Whatever you think of the war in the Middle East, people’s patriotism is being eclipsed by anxiety over fuel prices," reports Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Environmental Journalists. "That means the whole crisis is an opportunity to report on the environmental implications of burning petroleum. . . . It makes a big difference in people’s lives.”

For the most part, lamenting over eye-popping fuel prices -- and what some Americans are doing to cope -- isn't a partisan conversation. Community reporting can bring those stories to light. Davis writes, "People who live in rural and western areas may have to drive long distances daily. Many commercial truck drivers are independent entrepreneurs who pay for fuel out of their own pockets." 

Local reporting can remind readers about more recent gasoline price spikes and share some history on how older generations weathered previous gas crunches and steep inflation. In the spring of 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused gas prices to spike to levels similar to today's prices. Davis adds, "In July 2008, crude prices peaked at over $150/barrel, higher than even today, due to several factors, including Mideast tensions. They had previously peaked in late 1973 in response to a Mideast war and the Arab oil embargo."

At some point, there will likely be an opportunity to report on energy resources and the future of energy in your community, region or the nation. 

Davis' story ideas and reporting resources are shared below.

• If you are in a rural area, visit feed and fertilizer stores, and ask farmers how fuel prices affect them. Ask about fertilizer prices, too.
• Go to local car dealers (ideally ones that sell both gas vehicles and EVs). Talk to customers, salespeople and managers about whether interest in EVs is going up.
• If you live in a region, such as the Northeast or Alaska, where people still use fuel oil for heating, talk to customers and suppliers about how people are responding to higher fuel prices.
• Most states use fuel taxes to fund transportation infrastructure. Talk to your state legislators about any proposals to reduce fuel taxes.
• Beyond the steep prices at the pump, many Americans are facing historically high utility bills. Is there anything your community can learn from surrounding communities to help lower bills?  

Reporting resources:

• Price trackers: AAA, GasBuddy and the Energy Information Administration
• Consumer Energy Alliance: A nonprofit that advocates for lower energy prices for consumers
• U.S. Oil & Gas Association: An industry trade group that lobbies for oil and natural gas producers
• National Consumers League: A nonprofit that educates consumers about vehicle mileage standards, among other things

If natural gas is relatively cheap, why are so many Americans facing higher utility bills?

Graph by Alyson Hurt and Jeff Brady, NPR from U.S. Energy Information Administration data

Across the country, utility companies are replacing leaky pipes and upgrading natural gas infrastructure, which is expensive. "Because it's a monopoly utility, regulators will pass those costs on to ratepayers," reports Jeff Brady of NPR. "Gas utilities have increased construction spending dramatically in recent years — up 50% from 2022 to 2023, to $49.1 billion."

Since gas companies don't make money selling gas, they aim to profit from reconstruction costs. "Utilities make their money by building new infrastructure, such as pipelines, and replacing outdated infrastructure," Brady explains. "Regulators then allow companies to recover those costs, plus profits, in customer bills."

Even as the cost of natural gas has dipped, consumers haven't benefited. "In 1984, about two-thirds of gas utility bills paid for the gas, and one-third covered infrastructure, utility costs and taxes," Brady reports. "Now that has flipped. In 2024, less than a third of customer bills went to gas, and about two-thirds went to the other costs."

One solution to reduce utility costs is for state regulators to encourage utilities to repair rather than replace faulty pipes. Regulators in Massachusetts asked gas companies to do three things to hold down costs: Fix pipes, shut down segments of leaky pipes and install electric heat pumps. Brady adds, "State officials say gas utility customers could see up to a 17% decrease in a pipeline replacement surcharge on their monthly bills."

As the Trump administration pushes coal energy, now is a good time to report on coal ash

View of the 2008 Kingston, Tennessee, spill that prompted coal ash 
regulations. (Photo by  Brian Stansberry, Wikimedia CC)

Almost every state in the union has coal ash stored in ponds, landfills and mines that is likely leaching toxic heavy metals into groundwater and wells. Especially now that the Trump administration is busy promoting coal energy production, it's an opportune time for local reporting on the possible presence and handling of coal ash in readers' neighborhoods.

The unfortunate truth is that coal ash can be found in a lot of places. "There are some 700 to 1,425 massive dumps of coal ash," reports Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Environmental Journalists. "States and utilities are doing little or nothing to remedy the threat that it presents." 

What is coal ash? "When coal is burned, it produces several waste byproducts," Davis writes. "The fancy name for all of it is 'coal combustion residuals.' The common name is coal ash."

Where is it found? Any plant that produces electricity from coal would leave behind coal ash as a byproduct. Coal operators put coal ash in surface impoundments, also known as ponds, in on-site landfills, or some recycle it into usable materials.

Why is it a problem? Coal ash contains many toxic substances, especially heavy metals such as arsenic, chromium, lead, and lithium. "It also contains radium, which is radioactive," Davis explains. Many coal operators have left piles of coal ash to fester and poison land and water sources.

What can be done about it? Cleaning up coal ash ponds can involve draining the surface water and capping the pond or entirely removing the ash from the pond to a lined landfill or for beneficial reuse (clean closure). Earthjustice provides a good resource document here.

Story ideas:

• How many coal ash disposal areas are there in your area? Are there coal ash sites not on an official list? Why not? Are utilities acknowledging clear responsibility for existing sites?
• Have any of the coal ash sites in your area been cleaned up to a nominal safety standard? Have they been moved to a landfill? Is it lined and capped? Safe from water? Is the new disposal site safer than the old one?
• What waters are near your area’s coal ash sites? Are the sites near a river, lake or estuary? Are they above an aquifer? Is that aquifer a drinking water source? Has anyone tested for water pollution and, if so, what were the findings?
• Historically, have there been pollution incidents in your area related to coal ash sites?
• What level of responsibility are states and utilities taking for stabilization, cleanup or maintenance of coal ash sites in your area?
• What do people in your state think about using coal ash in the concrete on local roads? Is it being done? Do people know about it?

Resources:

• Environmental Protection Agency: The EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating and overseeing coal ash dumps to make them safer and less polluting.
• State environmental agencies: In some cases, the EPA has already devolved coal-ash cleanup responsibilities to state environmental agencies. See a list here.
• Earthjustice: This environmental advocacy and litigation group has for years specialized in coal ash, among other issues. The best source is Lisa Evans.
• American Coal Ash Association: An industry lobby group aimed mainly at lightening the coal ash regulatory burden on utilities and promoting the reuse of coal ash — and the idea that doing so is safe.

Trump Administration wants to revive the coal industry, including mining on federal land and reducing regulations

Photo by Dominik Vanyi on Unsplash

The Trump Administration’s plans to revive the coal industry include leasing 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal mining and reducing the royalty rate for coal, Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman of The New York Times reported.

Additionally, regulations that “curb carbon dioxide, mercury and other pollutants from coal plants” will be repealed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Plumer and Friedman wrote.

This has led to concerns from environmental groups, activists and politicians about the harmful impacts of coal mining on the environment and its contribution to climate change.

Yet a surge in American electricity needs was already threatening climate goals, due to the inability for renewable and other sources of energy to keep up to demands.

The rise in usage of artificial intelligence has led to the construction of data centers that consume enormous amounts of electricity. More than 50 coal plants that were set to close have remained open to meet this demand.

Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, cited China’s expansion of coal plants and the threat of losing the “AI arms race” as reasons that the United States needed to invest in coal.

However, unlike the U.S. which is boosting coal while rolling back renewable energy efforts, China is also investing renewable energy and as a result has managed to sink carbon emissions by around 1% despite its usage of coal.

Trump declared a national 'energy emergency,' but what does that mean?

In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump declared a national "energy emergency." But the order and its implementation is "a presidential first, and it's unclear what exactly it would entail," reports Camila Domonoske of NPR. Below is a brief synopsis of what Domonoske knows about the "unprecedented action."

A national emergency gives the president "additional powers," Domonoske explains. "A Trump administration official speaking on condition of anonymity said the 'national energy emergency will unlock a variety of different authorities that will enable our nation to quickly build again, to produce coal and natural resources, to create jobs, to create prosperity, and to strengthen our nation's national security.'"

According to the Brennan Center, "which has researched emergency powers, statutes grant the president the authority to suspend some environmental regulations or impose restrictions on crude oil exports," Domonoske writes. "No president has ever declared a national energy emergency.'"

The U.S. has plenty of fossil fuels available and a glut of global supply could depress energy prices. Domonoske reports, "The U.S. is a net exporter of fossil fuels, producing more oil and gas than any other country in the world. . . . Many analysts currently project that the world as a whole is facing a near-term oversupply of oil and natural gas."

However, the pressure on the U.S. electrical grid is a worry. "Trump dd not specifically focus on this concern in his speech, but he could use emergency authorities to try to keep open power plants that are slated to close for economic or environmental reasons," Domonoske adds. "He has historically expressed support for coal plants in particular."

During his inaugural speech, Trump said, "'We will bring prices down," Domonoske reports. "On the campaign trail he repeatedly promised to lower energy prices by 50%. . . . That's an improbable target, analysts say. . . . Policy changes can influence prices at the pump and electricity prices, and a smaller decrease in costs is certainly in the realm of possibility. But it's not simple."

A historic first in Alaska may mean drilling in an untouched national refuge; Native Alaskans want a 'seat at the table.'

Map by Sarah Melotte, The Daily Yonder, from Bureau of Land
Management data. Click on map to enlarge.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is big, beautiful, and rich in natural resources and biodiversity. It has also been the "focal point of more than six decades of drilling controversy," which will come to a tentative resolution when tracts within the region's 19-million-acre expanse open for oil and gas leases this month, reports Sarah Melotte of The Daily Yonder. Native Alaskan communities want to be among the decision-makers for the coastal land that "is estimated to contain 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil."

Drilling in ANWR has never been done before. The region is home to "charismatic species like polar bears, wolves, and the caribou that are sacred to the Gwich’in, a Northwestern Alaska tribe," Melotte writes. "Oil and gas operations elicit mixed responses from Alaskan Natives. . . Some worry that drilling activity will hurt vulnerable wildlife and subsistence living, others say the oil and gas industry funds important infrastructure for their communities."

The coastal region, also known as the North Slope Borough, receives 95% of its total budget from oil and gas development taxation. Reservation members also depend on shareholder income regional corporations generate and pay out to Alaskan Natives. The Artic Slope Regional Corporation serves as an example. The company "has over 13,000 shareholders who receive dividends," Melotte notes. "Since its establishment in 1972, the ASRC has distributed more than $1 billion in dividends."

"Many leaders of the Iñupiat, an indigenous people native to Alaska’s North Slope Borough, say that oil and gas operations can be good for native communities if conducted responsibly," Melotte reports. Nagruk Harcharek, president of the Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, a nonprofit organization that advocates for Alaska’s Iñupiat people, told Melotte, "Before oil and gas, you couldn't graduate high school and stay in the North Slope. Now there are K-12 schools in every North Slope village."

Harcharek used a past North Slope drilling project to help explain how Native Alaskans want to be included in drilling activity and practices. Melotte writes, "He said they were consulted 'early and often' in the decision-making process. . . . He said they want to be included before decisions are announced publicly."

Despite Alaska's rich natural resources, many Alaskan Natives live in poverty and still hunt for food, and drilling activities could interfere with their reliance on wild game. "Hunting is more than just a hobby in many native villages with high poverty rates," Melotte writes. "Hunting is a method of survival, said Dr. A.L. Lovecraft, professor of Political Science and director of the Center for Arctic Policy Studies at the University of Alaska. '[Drilling] also comes with all of this other baggage... Problems related to health, indoor health, indoor air quality, outdoor air quality.'"

Working on behalf of an unknown data company, an electric utility plans to build a natural gas plant in rural Louisiana

The gas-fired power plant would increase greenhouse
gas emissions. (LED photo via Floodlight)

Electric utility Entergy wants to build a $3.2 billion natural gas plant in rural northeast Louisiana to provide energy for an unnamed company's data center. Some people are "calling the development a 'godsend' for the region, where one in five people live in poverty," reports Pam Radtke of Floodlight. However, environmental and economic concerns have left some officials and residents questioning the viability of a project that creates more fossil fuel emissions and could result in electricity rate hikes.

Whit Cox, regulatory director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, told Radtke, "Entergy is proposing to add huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions." Radtke adds, "And a Louisiana utility consumer group questions whether the cost of the new plants will be passed onto residential customers."

If Entergy's construction is green-lighted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, "Louisiana would join a cohort of states building natural gas power plants to meet the pressing demand for electricity to run data centers being built by Amazon, Meta, Google and others," Radtke reports. "Data centers are forecast to account for up to 12% of all U.S. electricity demand by 2030."

Like other plants intended to feed energy-guzzling AI owned by data behemoths, Entergy's project targets land in small-town rural America where good-paying jobs can be hard to come by and land is cheap. "In its filings, Entergy says the data center will employ 300 to 500 people with an average salary of $82,000," Radtke adds. "The utility calls the development a 'game changer' that will bring a 'historic investment' to the region."

Even if environmental concerns are put to rest, Louisiana residents are worried the plant could drive up their utility bills. "Costs not paid by the data center, either through electricity rates or separate agreements, would be spread across Entergy’s 1.1 million Louisiana customers, although the utility says the proposed deal 'largely insulates [Entergy’s] other customers from paying for the upgrades required' for the data center," Radtke reports. "The PSC will take up the project for the first time [this month] as it considers hiring outside consultants to help evaluate the proposal."

Simply adding ground limestone to rivers and oceans could decrease global warming, but the challenges are many

Rivers

naturally

deliver

carbon

to

the

ocean,

preventing

it

from

entering 

the

atmosphere.
(CarbonRun graphic)

Scientists aim to fight global warming by adding ground limestone to oceans and rivers, report Brad Plumer and Raymond Zhong of The New York Times. The Earth's water sources "contain carbon dioxide that is constantly escaping into the air, where it traps heat and warms the planet. Adding limestone converts some of that carbon dioxide into a stable molecule that instead stays underwater and washes into the sea, where it should remain trapped for thousands of years."

Oceans already play a big part in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. "By speeding up that process, scientists believe even more carbon could be packed into those watery depths," the Times reports. "One idea is known as alkalinity enhancement, which involves adding limestone, magnesium oxide or another alkaline substance to rivers and oceans, changing their chemistry in a way that makes them soak up more carbon dioxide."

The company, CarbonRun, is putting the new science to the test, with its first limestone silo under construction in Nova Scotia. Later this year, "the machine will grind up limestone inside a tall green silo and release the powder into the nearby West River Pictou, creating a chalky plume that should dissolve within minutes," Plumer and Zhong explain. With the addition of powdered limestone, the water will do the rest. "Scientists estimate that similar methods deployed in oceans could remove billions of tons per year."

Despite its promise, the technology faces challenges from nature and unanswered questions. While dumping ground limestone in a river may be successful, full-scale drops into oceans would be more complex and require massive amounts of ground limestone. The Times reports, "toying with ocean chemistry also carries unknown risks. Some environmental groups worry that even early experiments with these techniques could threaten fish and other aquatic life."

To mitigate environmental pushback, CarbonRun’s founders are "proving that adding limestone to rivers doesn’t just take carbon out of the air — it can also safely benefit local ecosystems," Plumer and Zhong add. "It’s relatively straightforward for CarbonRun to show that adding limestone to rivers converts some carbon dioxide into a stable bicarbonate. . . .The harder part is mining and moving the limestone cheaply."

Vermont is the first state to pass legislation requiring 'Big Oil' to pay for its share in the cost of climate change

A flooded road in Coventry, Vermont, pop. 1,100, on July 23, 2023.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Vermont has passed legislation to make oil producers pay a share of the costs associated with damages attributed to climate change, reports Lisa Rathke of The Associated Press. The state's popular Republican Gov. Phil Scott voiced concerns over the costs of the small state "taking on 'Big Oil' alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight," but he recognized the pressing need to address the "toll of climate change."

In what some would call the state's worst disaster since 1927, last July's torrential rains "inundated Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city Barre, some southern Vermont communities and ripped through homes and washed away roads around the rural state," Rathke writes. "Scores of homeowners were left with flood-ravaged homes heading into the cold season."

Vermont's approach is a polluter-pays model based on the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are on the defensive. "The American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, has said it's extremely concerned about the legislation," Rathke reports. "Vermont lawmakers know the state will face legal challenges, but the governor worries about the costs and what it means for other states if Vermont fails. . . . Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures."

To gauge the cost of fossil fuels, the state treasurer, along with the Agency of Natural Resources, would "provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026, on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024," Rathke explains. The assessment will consider impacts on "public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing. . . and would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company."

Many charging stations for electric vehicles are being built at gas stations and truck stops; rural areas might not benefit

EV charging gas stations may not be a win for rural
areas. (Photo by Oxana Melis, Unsplash)

A developing trend shows that one of the best ways to encourage cleaner energy use is to piggyback it with fossil fuel convenience. Despite this shift becoming a lifeline for fossil fuel-based gas stations, it may not help rural economies. "When Americans steer their electric vehicles off the highway and into shiny new charging stations — many paid for with federal tax dollars — they're likely to find them in a curiously familiar place: the gas station," reports David Ferris of E & E News. "More than half of the charging stations being built so far from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law are rising at truck stops and gasoline stations."

While the infrastructure development may be a positive for EV vehicle owners and gas stations, program restrictions and complex application processes can limit rural participation. "Because the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program rules require proximity to the highway and sites that operate 24/7, they could lead to EV drivers not stopping and spending money in rural downtowns, which are sleepy at night and distant from turnoffs," Ferris explains. "The extensive application processes that states have put in place to win the money may also create barriers to small-business owners, including mom-and-pop gas stations and convenience stores."

When EV charging stations first entered the energy market, fueling station owners pushed against the change, but the hybrid of both is gaining traction. "After initially resisting EVs and their charging needs, fueling centers are now using their lobbying strength and financial might to win federal dollars," Ferris writes. "Service stations have the upper hand in this first wave of subsidies because they occupy the very real estate where the federal government wants to build a charging backbone: at 50-mile intervals along the interstates and no more than a mile from highway exits."

Considering the cost and complexity of gaining NEVI funds, it's not surprising that "two of the nation's biggest truck stop chains, Love's and Pilot Flying J, are slated to host 39 charging plazas," Ferris reports. "As bidders, truck stops and gas station chains won $92.1 million, out of a total of $265 million awarded by the infrastructure law to date, according to the EVAdoption data. Gas stations and trucks stops together are hosts for almost 54 percent of NEVI-funded charging stalls."

Coal markets remain robust as Asia increases reliance on coal to fill supply gaps; output set a record in 2023

Coal will remain an energy source for many decades
to come. (Photo by Dominik Vanyi, Unsplash)

Despite coal's reputation as the "dirtiest fossil fuel," it is still considered a reliable form of energy, and its removal from global energy systems looks to be a slow ride. "Thanks to a combination of China’s energy insecurity. . . and rising Indian demand, the continued fallout from the war in Ukraine and faltering international programs to wean developing economies off fossil fuels, coal is proving remarkably resilient," reports Bloomberg News. "Output hit a record last year."

Coal prices remain steady as the Asian market returns to coal as a more reliable energy source. "By 2026, China and India will comprise more than 70% of global coal use," Bloomberg reports. Those two countries, along with Indonesia, which opened new coal power plants last year, use about 93% of the world’s coal power, according to Global Energy Monitor.

Rob Bishop, chief executive officer of Australian miner New Hope Corp., told Bloomberg, "You look at Asia, the demand and the build-out of coal-fired power plants, particularly in India — coal’s not going anywhere anytime soon." Bloomberg reports, "In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and blackouts during heatwaves in India further bolstered coal demand. By last year, output had risen to a record 8.7 billion tons, according to the International Energy Agency."

As nations work to transition from coal to renewables, coal will play a vital role. Global change to cleaner sources depends on multiple variables, particularly in countries such as China and Indonesia. Bloomberg reports, "Coal phaseouts, however, have proved far more challenging than anticipated. . . .The transition tests years-long expectations of rapid peaks and subsequent steep declines." Bishop told Bloomberg, "We see that the world needs more operators to mine coal and support the transition over many decades to come."

The U.S. is about to set a record for the most oil and gas extraction in its history

Guardian graph, from EIA data

Despite climate goals and lots of talk about the U.S. ending its dependence on fossil fuels, "The United States is poised to extract more oil and gas than ever before in 2023, a year that is certain to be the hottest ever recorded, reports Oliver Milman of The Guardian. "The U.S.’s status as the world’s leading oil and gas behemoth has only strengthened this year, even amid warnings from Joe Biden himself over the unfolding climate crisis, with the latest federal government forecast showing a record 12.9m barrels of crude oil per day, more than double what was produced a decade ago, will be extracted in 2023."

Part of what Americans want is cheaper gas, but that has come at a cost. Milman writes, "The increased fossil fuel production, which Biden championed last year as a way to tamp down gasoline prices for U.S. drivers and to support overseas allies in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, also risks burdening disadvantaged communities living next to polluting infrastructure and threatens to alienate younger, climate-conscious voters ahead of next year’s presidential election, an adviser to the White House has cautioned."

The transition to renewables is hard for Americans to imagine. Nate Hultman, an expert in climate policy at the University of Maryland, told Milman, "We have a dynamic that feels awkward, of how to reconcile the world we are living in, that’s heavily fossil fuel-driven, with the vision of a clean, non-emitting world. That’s the tension.”

Despite the Biden administration's "boost to renewable energy in the U.S., Biden has been handing out oil and gas drilling leases on public lands at a rate comparable to Donald Trump, with the emissions from 17 large projects permitted by his administration," Milman reports. 

At last, the first electric vehicle charging station built with federal infrastructure funds opens in Ohio

The charging equipment at the Pilot Travel Center in Ohio.
(Photo by Dan Gearino, Inside Climate News)

The promise of federal funding for electric vehicle charging stations has finally come to fruition. "On the western outskirts of Columbus, Ohio, two doors down from a Waffle House, is a truck stop that, as of last Friday, has the first electric vehicle charging station in the country to be financed in part by the 2021 federal infrastructure law," reports Dan Gearino of Inside Climate News. "The Pilot Travel Center at I-70 and U.S. 42 has four charging ports. They are part of a partnership between General Motors and Pilot that the companies say will lead to chargers being installed at 500 Pilot and Flying J locations."

It's a first step with many more installations to go. "Ohio was one of the leaders in securing a share of this money and stands to receive $140 million over five years to construct charging stations along major travel routes," Gearino writes. The federal government is "showing progress in turning $5 billion worth of charger funding into completed projects." Charger expansion is critical to moving U.S. transportation away from gasoline dependence.

Building EV charging stations at a national truck stop chain offers travelers off-road conveniences for travelers and helps dispel "concerns from some EV drivers that the nation's charging network isn't nearly robust enough," Gearino reports. 

Pilot has other chargers at 18 locations in nine states, with ongoing expansions throughout the country. "The Ohio location is the first of those to benefit from the federal program," Gearino adds. "The country had 141,714 public charging ports as of the end of June, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. . . . Many more federally funded chargers will follow the one in Ohio." The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program lists projects in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine and Pennsylvania.

Climate talks include discussions about phasing out fossil fuels; coal supporters say that's dangerous

John Kerry, Department of State photo

A new draft published Monday of the core agreement at the COP28 climate talks removed a call to phase out fossil fuels, according to a CNN report. The changes come after significant discussions between nations about how to address climate changes and the use of fossil fuels. 

Representatives from more than 100 nations had endorsed a call to phase out fossil fuels. John Kerry, President Joe Biden’s special envoy for climate change, said last week that “the United States supported a phaseout of fossil fuels, his clearest statement yet on America’s position on one of the most intractable issues under debate at the United Nations climate talks in Dubai, United Arab Emirates,” according to a report by Lisa Friedman of the New York Times.

Friedman wrote: “Mr. Kerry said that 'largely' ending the burning of coal, gas and oil was required to limit average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, which many scientists say is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”

Tucker Davis, KCA photo

Kerry’s statements drew criticism from coal supporters. “Coal remains the most consistent, reliable energy source available across the globe, and yet politicians and climate activists continue to try to do away with it, pushing us to the brink of a power crisis that is entirely avoidable,” said Tucker Davis, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. “Proposals to end coal use are both dangerous and ignorant.”

“A rapid transition away from coal, with no viable alternative, is nonsense,” Davis said.

According to the Times report, Kerry did not indicate a timeline for ending the use of fossil fuels. But, “Given the heavy investment in wind, solar and other renewable energy by the United States and other countries, as well as the private sector, Mr. Kerry said it was inevitable that the global economy would move away from fossil fuels.”

Billions of federal dollars were marked for EV charging stations in 2021 legislation, but none have been built

(Photo by Andreas Rasmussen, Unsplash)

Billions of dollars were made available to states for building electric vehicle chargers, but none have been built, reports James Bikales of Politico. In 2021, Congress agreed to "spend $7.5 billion to build tens of thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the country, aiming to appease anxious drivers while tackling climate change. Two years later, the program has yet to install a single charger."

"States and the charger industry blame the delays mostly on the labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements they have to navigate to receive federal funds," Bikales writes. "While federal officials have authorized more than $2 billion of the funds to be sent to states, fewer than half of states have even started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers — let alone begin construction."

Despite the lack of chargers, electric vehicle sales have increased. "Consumer demand for electric vehicles is rising in the United States, necessitating six times as many chargers on its roads by the end of the decade, according to federal estimates," Bikales reports. But many Americans refuse to purchase electric cars because of the lack of charging stations.

President Joe Biden's EV-focused climate goals will not be met without charging stations and more EV acceptance. Bikales reports, "Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure package into law. . . with an eye toward achieving his goal of building 500,000 chargers in the United States by 2030. . . . But Aatish Patel, president of charger manufacturer XCharge North America, is worried the delays in installing chargers are imperiling efforts to drive up EV adoption." He told Bikales, "As an EV driver, a charger being installed in two years isn't really going to help me out now. We're in dire need of chargers here."

There are chargers available, just not enough. Bikales reports: "The United States has around 180,000 chargers today, according to the Energy Department. That includes 41,000 of the type of fast chargers that can alleviate the dreaded “range anxiety” of a long-distance road trip in an electric vehicle."

Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, "whose state broke ground on the nation's first charger funded by the NEVI (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) program in October, said in a statement that he is committed to 'truly positioning Ohioans for the electric future," Bikales reports. "Following Ohio, Pennsylvania also broke ground on its first NEVI-funded charger in November. Another six states have awarded contracts for their first round of charging sites, while 15 states plus Puerto Rico are in the process of soliciting bids from the private sector."

Money for clean-energy projects goes to former coal towns

Boston Metal will make clean-energy metals at the old Weirton
Steel location in W.Va. (Photo by Luke Sharrett, The New York Times)

From Weirton, West Virginia to Vernon, Texas, to Vandergrift, Pennsylvania, the Department of Energy is funding projects designed to help medium-sized manufacturers "bring clean-energy jobs to former coal communities," reports Hiroko Tabuchi of The New York Times. The infusion of cash is part of the Biden administration's effort to gain support for its climate agenda in regions that have long depended on the fossil fuel industry. The administration hopes that funding new jobs in energy can help coal workers and regional economies transition.

Hard work for decent pay and good benefits once defined U.S. coal mining jobs, but over the past decade, those jobs have disappeared. "These energy workers haven't been finding clean-energy jobs despite the rapid growth in industries like solar and wind," Tabuchi writes. "Coal workers, in particular, have struggled in the transition, a recent study found. "Less than a quarter of a percent of workers who left a fossil fuel job in West Virginia moved onto a job in renewable energy, said E. Mark Curtis, an economist at Wake Forest University who led the study. Education was another factor: Fossil fuel workers without a college degree were significantly less likely to find clean energy jobs."

Curtis told Tabuchi: "In places like Texas or in the middle of the country where there's a lot of solar and wind, fossil fuel communities are relatively well positioned to take advantage of renewables. Coal communities generally don't have that, especially when you think about Appalachia." Tabuchi reports, "He said it made sense for government funding to target former coal regions and to focus on manufacturing projects because data showed that former fossil fuel workers most frequently sought to switch to manufacturing jobs."

The DOE grant program aims to help the U.S. become more competitive in the clean-energy manufacturing sector while using the $275 million investment to revitalize former coal towns' economies. The companies building the new plants said "they are eager to tap local expertise," Tabuchi reports. Tadeu Carneiro, the chief executive of Boston Metal, told him: "The most valuable asset for the project is a legacy workforce that has played a significant role in the U.S. metals industry." Tabuchi adds, "Its new West Virginia plant expects to hire 200 to 250 people and will manufacture ultra pure chromium metal and high-temperature alloys that are critical materials needed for clean power, fuel cells, and steel. Currently, foreign manufacturers dominate those materials."

A first-of-its-kind energy storage system is coming to Wisconsin; it could serve as a model for others

This is a demonstration facility in Italy. Wisconsin's dome will
be a larger version. (Alliant Energy courtesy photo via WPR)

Storing carbon dioxide to use later as energy is environmentally responsible, but can it be done on a larger scale? It can. Columbia County, Wisconsin, will house a first-of-its-kind energy storage system that "could serve as a blueprint for wide-scale deployment across the country," reports Joe Schulz of Wisconsin Public Radio. "Alliant Energy announced it received a $30 million federal grant for a 200-megawatt-hour storage system. . . . According to the Department of Energy, the project would be the first to demonstrate the carbon dioxide-based energy storage system at a commercial scale."

Schultz explains, "The Columbia Energy Storage Project will offer 10 hours of energy storage capacity by compressing carbon dioxide, or CO2, gas into a liquid, Alliant said. When energy is needed, the system converts the liquid into gas to power a turbine that generates electricity. The gas will be stored in what utility officials call an 'energy dome.'"

Columbia County, Wisconsin
(Wikipedia map)

The energy dome does not rely on wind or sun to provide power. Mark Anderson, director of the Thermal-Hydraulics Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said, "Energy storage systems will continue to be needed as clean energy sources become more widely used," Schultz reports. 

The project is expected to be fully operational by 2026, when the current coal-fired Alliant Columbia Energy plant is scheduled for retirement. "Mike Bremel, director of engineering and customer solutions for Alliant, said the retirement of the coal facility is one of the reasons the utility chose Columbia County to host the storage facility." Bremel told Schultz: "[We are] optimizing the use of that location and the access to the transmission grid for storage of the renewable energy, so it's consistent with our transition from coal to renewable energy."