On a crisp, sun-drenched afternoon in the spring of 2023, I found myself walking down Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C., in front of the William Jefferson Clinton Building, headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Standing in its shadow, I wondered when, or if, sanity would ever return to the building. My mind drifted to the regulatory malfeasance that gave this agency power to treat carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant, the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
For years, this bureaucratic decree masqueraded as settled science. Climate zealots claimed CO2 and other greenhouse gases threatened public health as agents of planetary overheating, ignoring both a paucity of supporting data and contradictory evidence that inexorably accumulated.
Now, three years after my visit, EPA has rescinded the regulation as it applies to motor vehicles. The basis of its action is twofold: First, the agency has concluded that by attempting to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA exceeded its authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Second, the environmental effect of regulating tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases is negligible.
There is more to be done. Reason and good sense would have the EPA remove the Endangerment Finding’s hold over industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, like those coming from power plants, and would undertake to dismantle the rule’s flimsy scientific justifications.
Nevertheless, EPA’s action undermines an ideological foundation for the broad attacks on fossil fuels that have constrained American prosperity and choked the developing world’s aspirations for modern lifestyles.
The 2009 regulation was used to justify the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan – part of the so-called War on Coal – and tailpipe emissions standards that forced unwanted electric vehicles onto dealership lots. The rule has contributed to the closing of power plants, energy shortages, high electricity prices, and multiple billion-dollar losses for car manufacturers whose customers mostly prefer internal combustion engines. It has also fueled endless litigation against producers of hydrocarbon fuels.
Because CO2 is necessary for all life, beginning with its role in plant photosynthesis, regulation of the gas gave EPA jurisdiction over the entire U.S. economy. Climate crusaders abroad followed EPA’s lead.
Worldwide, the economic waste resulting from the rule is staggering. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates that between 2011 and 2020 that climate spending totaled $4.8 trillion. Estimates for “energy transition investment” – money dumped into the wind, solar and EV rat hole – was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone.
That is trillions diverted from healthcare, infrastructure, education and genuine alleviation of suffering and advancement of human flourishing. Imagine those resources being directed to improving carbon-intensive energy sectors that have produced the wealthiest and healthiest civilizations in all of history.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in global life expectancy. We have seen a drastic reduction in deaths from natural disasters – not because the weather is milder, but because people are better protected by modern infrastructure and technology made possible by fossil fuels. We have achieved historic highs in agricultural production, feeding a population of 8 billion.
CO2 has played a pivotal role in the greening of the Earth, acting as an atmospheric fertilizer that boosts crop yields and expands forests. Even methane, demonized alongside CO2, is merely a byproduct of a livestock industry essential for providing protein to a ballooning global population. Emissions of neither gas contribute significantly to global temperatures.
Once the EPA designated CO2 a legal hazard, U.S. diplomats, aid agencies and technical experts carried that framing into global climate negotiations, development programs and financing arrangements.
Over time, the EPA’s stance became a de facto reference point for regulators elsewhere. If the U.S. “gold standard” for environmental protection treated CO2 as an endangerment, ministries from Europe to Asia would use similar language in national climate laws.
With the EPA backing away from its regulation of greenhouse gases, developing countries should waste no time in severing whatever restrictions Western climate overseers have placed on their use of fossil fuels. For too long, climate policies have impeded economic growth and denied access to reliable supplies of electricity, to safer indoor fuels for cooking and heating, to refrigeration and to clean water. The result has been higher rates of morbidity and mortality among the world’s poor.
CO2 is not the enemy of humankind. Misguided attempts to criminalize its emissions are!
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundationand Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va.He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Property tax subsidies for wind and solar projects may be coming to an end in Arizona.
On Wednesday, an Arizona House committee approved HB 2918, legislation to hold renewable energy to the same taxation standards as other forms of energy production. The bill passed the Natural Resources, Energy and Water (NREW) Committee only with support from Republican lawmakers.
According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates, renewable energy companies benefit from about $180 million annually in tax exemptions in the state.
The millions in exemptions come from two “stacked” subsidies: a reduction in the taxable original cost, which reduces a project’s starting valuation base below the actual amount invested through the value of certain federal incentives, and a valuation of 20 percent of depreciated cost, which sets the full cash value of renewable energy and storage equipment at 20 percent of the cost determined following establishment of the taxable original cost.
Republican lawmakers argue this benefit has gone on far enough, given how well-established the renewable energy industry has become. Legislative leaders say these sorts of benefits should be exclusive to emerging industries, like data centers.
Wednesday’s lack of support from Democratic lawmakers indicated the desire to shift resources away from renewable energy is rooted in a partisan desire to shrink the state’s foregone revenues.
NREW Committee chair Gail Griffin (R-LD19) said this legislation would put the merits of renewable energies to the test on the free market while keeping power reliable and affordable. Griffin said the “preferential treatment” of renewable energy lacked justification for further continuance.
“The American public has known from day one that these projects could not stand on their own feet without massive state and federal tax breaks,” said Griffin. “If renewable energy projects like wind and solar are truly the lowest-cost resource, then they should have no problem repealing the massive property tax break for new projects going forward.”
Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs targeted the benefits given to data centers during her state of the state address.
House Majority Leader Michael Carbone (R-LD25) countered in a press release issued Wednesday that data centers have justification for their tax exemptions — renewable energies, not so much. Data center tax exemptions amount to about $38 million annually, less than one-fourth the amount received by renewable energy.
“The Governor said during her State of the State that, over a decade ago, ‘we made a strategic decision to grow data centers by creating a tax exemption for them,’ but then asked, ‘Should taxpayers continue subsidizing the data center industry?’” said Carbone. “I think the same question should be asked of large, utility-scale renewable energy projects like wind and solar. Years ago, this state gave renewable energy projects a massive tax break, substantially more than data centers, and now it’s appropriate to ask whether it’s fair to have Arizona taxpayers continue subsidizing the renewable energy industry.”
The legislation would impact large, out-of-state corporations. It would not apply to those facilities owned by or engaged in a power purchase agreement with the state’s public utilities — part of a grandfathering provision to ensure tax break eliminations don’t trigger a jump in customer rates.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona House of Natural Resources, Energy, and Water Committee held a special hearing on last week to examine the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) and advance legislation aimed at its continuation, improved administration, and the siting of utility-scale wind and solar energy projects near residential communities.
In a sweeping action, lawmakers advanced all 16 bills on the agenda, demonstrating strong, unified momentum to reform persistent operational and cultural problems within the department.
HB 2426, which mandates the development and adoption of a required five-year disposition plan for state trust lands, was adopted as an amendment to HB 2150, the primary continuation bill for the ASLD.
Sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD19), HB 2150 repeals the department’s prior sunset date and continues its operation until July 1, 2030, with the repeal of related statutes effective January 1, 2031. The measure requires a two-year hearing, quarterly updates to the Legislature, and compliance with existing statutes mandating a five-year disposition plan under ARS § 37-331.03.
“The State Land Department is not a constitutional agency. The Legislature created the Department, and the Legislature can set guardrails to ensure the highest and best use of land,” stated Chairman Gail Griffin in a press release addressing the issues at the ASLD. “For years, the Department has failed to keep land and housing development moving with consistent long-term disposition planning and predictable decisions. That means less trust revenue for classrooms and fewer lots available for homes.”
ASLD manages approximately 9.2 million acres of state trust land, with a statutory mandate to prioritize the highest and best use to generate maximum revenue for 13 trust beneficiaries, primarily K-12 public schools.
However, recent audits—including the 2025 performance audit and sunset review by the Auditor General—along with multiple legislative hearings and recommendations from the Joint Committee of Reference, have highlighted persistent problems.
These include a lack of consistent long-term planning, unresolved pending applications without final decisions, unwritten regulatory processes and procedures, lost revenue opportunities, due-process concerns, and unnecessary strain on Arizona’s housing supply amid land scarcity and rising costs.
Effective management of state trust lands directly impacts housing affordability and education funding. The Department could immediately alleviate pressures by accelerating sales and leases of suitable parcels, increasing available land for residential development, and generating sustained revenue for schools without new taxes.
Yet reports indicate practices such as withholding land from public auction and canceling leases without replacement tenants, while the Hobbs administration is actively devaluing urban-adjacent land to favor utility-scale solar development near residential areas.
“This is not complicated,” added Griffin. “Arizona’s high-tech economy requires new affordable rooftops for workers, and Arizona’s schools depend on trust returns from the sale of available trust parcels. The Department can improve housing supply and education funding today by selling more land and ending the internal practices that keep projects stalled.”
The sunset review process provides the Legislature with significant leverage to enforce accountability and measurable change. During the hearing, committee members questioned the Governor’s appointed Land Commissioner on fundamental Department functions, processes, and documentation. Responses were often inadequate or nonexistent—raising concerns about leadership after three years in that role.
Senate Natural Resources Committee Vice Chairman Tim Dunn (R-LD25) echoed the call for reform. “The current administration didn’t create these problems, but it certainly inherited them. Now the burden is on the current commissioner to change the culture and redirect the agency in the right direction. The agency needs oversight, but the Department has an opportunity to make a meaningful difference for the state. A positive change could bring in millions of dollars of additional revenue for the trust.”
“Arizona House and Senate Republicans are unified in our understanding of the issues and of the breadth of changes that are needed,” added Senator Dunn. “Based on the clear recommendation of the Joint Committee of Reference, I think it’s safe to say that the Department will not be receiving a clean continuation, and that any continuation the Department receives will be contingent on significant improvements codified in law.”
House and Senate Republicans are Unified on Addressing Longstanding Issues at the Arizona State Land Department
“For years, the Department has failed to keep land and housing development moving with consistent long-term disposition planning and predictable decisions. That means… pic.twitter.com/Tk6sKTFCvV
HB 2426 requires the State Land Commissioner, within two years of the act’s effective date, to complete the five-year disposition plan, adopt written policies for updating it every five years, establish procedures for using the plan to guide public auctions, and submit copies to legislative leadership.
The bill’s legislative findings highlight years of inaction, noting the department’s failure since 2016 to produce the required plans and the fact that all five positions on the advisory Urban Land Planning Oversight Committee have remained vacant since 2018.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) may be prioritizing the construction of solar panels over new home construction.
The agency maintains a unique map for “best” locations to put solar — but they don’t maintain similar maps for ideal locations for other industries, like housing, mining, and grazing for agriculture.
ASLD’s Land Parcel Viewer has a unique dataset for mapping existing and ideal spots for solar, complete with ratings: 0.0 to 0.9 for the best in green, all the way to 5.0 to 10.0 for the worst in red.
The map shows where parcels are for mineral and oil and gas, and whether those are unleased or permitted; the locations of rights of way and their perpetuity; and where grazing allotments exist. However, it does not offer any compatibility measure for the available land for each industry.
These industries would require knowledge to include resources, depth, size, and proximity to development for mining; animal unit month (the forage amount required for one animal per month), slope, and grass type and quality for grazing; soil conditions, water supply, and slope for agriculture; and path of development and slope for housing.
Spencer Kamps, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, said in a statement that the unique treatment of mapping land by ASLD may give the solar industry an unfair competitive edge in arguing for priority land use.
“In the absence of a similar map for other industries, some might say the solar map is serving functionally as a ‘presumptive highest and best use map,’ which gives solar a ‘rebuttable presumption’ of highest and best use in each parcel indicated in green,” said Kamps.
Last September, Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order directing ASLD to outline proposals to streamline and expedite energy infrastructure projects on state land, as well as accelerate those energy-related projects already underway.
ASLD should have delivered the requested report last October.
The governor’s order also established a task force to come up with a strategic plan to “cut red tape related to the lease, sale, or other use of state lands in a way that advances the streamlined deployment of necessary generation and transmission projects.
That plan is part of three reports due by March 1 of this year. That task force, announced last November, includes ASLD Commissioner Robyn Sahid.
The two other reports include a policy framework for large energy users — data centers — to balance state interests in expansion with ratepayer costs, and an energy strategy plan to capitalize on technologies such as geothermal and advanced nuclear power.
Hobbs also directed her Office of Resiliency to use State Energy Program funding to fund one full-time staffer for ASLD to complete work on energy infrastructure projects.
ASLD doesn’t just have criticisms coming from the industries that sustained the state economy long before solar came on the scene. The state legislature believes the agency is in need of serious reform.
The House and Senate Joint Legislative Committee convened earlier this week to discuss ASLD’s scheduled sunset later this year.
In a significant departure from the standard renewal period of eight years for a state agency, the committee instead opted for a four-year continuation with conditions attached.
Official recommendations from the committee attributed their decision to “deep, longstanding issues” within the agency, describing its operations as an opaque, “unaccountable ‘black box’” per a press release issued on Wednesday.
Several of the committee recommendations outlined in the press release concerned solar leases and sales.
The committee advised the agency open additional investigations into intentionally vacant land, commissioner-initiated sales with only one bidder, solar leases and sales with only one bidder, reclamation of lands after solar leases, vacant land located within municipalities, vacant land location within five miles of urban areas, and vacant land located within 10 miles of urban areas.
Rep. Gail Griffin, committee co-chair, said in that press release the agency’s longstanding issues have worsened under Gov. Hobbs’ administration.
“Licensing timeframes, five-year disposition plans, and written policies and procedures are essential to upholding the best interests of the trust. These were the top issues,” said Griffin. “The Commissioner acknowledged these issues during her confirmation hearing and committed to fixing them, but they haven’t been fixed. The captain isn’t steering the ship.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
As the end of 2025 nears, the question arises: What can Americans expect in the world of energy policy in 2026?
Predicting future events where energy is concerned is always a risky enterprise. After all, if anyone could accurately foresee where, say, the Brent price for crude oil would sit a week from today, that person would soon become fabulously wealthy and never have to work another day in his or her life. But no one can actually do that because too many widely disparate factors impact where prices will head on a daily basis. This overarching theme holds true in most areas of the widely diverse energy space.
Still, just as energy details like exact future oil prices or rig count levels are impossible to know with certainty, some overarching trends are entirely foreseeable. As an example, it was entirely predictable a year ago that 2025 would become a year in which an energy policy revolution would take place. Donald Trump had been elected to a second term and was in the process of naming cabinet nominees who would lead an effort to reverse the onerous regulations and economically ruinous subsidy spending of the Biden years.
A policy revolution was entirely predictable, even though, as I wrote at the time, it would take a somewhat different form than many were expecting. There would be no replay of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda of Trump’s first term mainly due to a series of intractable economic factors. Instead, we’d have a “Build, Baby, Build” revolution in which policy changes have focused on setting the conditions for a boom in energy infrastructure like pipelines, LNG export facilities, baseload power generation, major transmission projects, new and expanded mining operations, and more into place.
With business-oriented cabinet officials like Chris Wright at the Energy Department and Doug Burgum at Interior leading the way, it was easy to predict that the second Trumpian energy revolution would focus on measures that allow markets, not the dictates of central government planners, to lead the charge. The command-and-control schemes, crony capitalism, and green subsidies would be repealed or phased away. Banks and investment houses would be put on notice that their discriminatory, ESG-focused lending practices would be policed. Rather than focus their personal energy on finding ways to punish disfavored energy players, administration officials would spend their days finding ways to speed up permitting processes.
Those things and more all came about in Year One of this second Trump presidency. It has been a true policy-driven revolution.
Now, as the dawn of 2026 nears, the direction of the administration’s Year Two agenda becomes equally predictable: Consolidation of the gains made in 2025.
The ending/phasing out of the green subsidies must be maintained since they distort markets by encouraging irrational allocations of capital. The capital thrown at wind and solar will be more productively allocated to building new natural gas and nuclear baseload plants and ensuring existing coal plants stay up and running to keep America’s lights on. The capital misallocated by legacy carmakers – like Ford and GM – to their foundering EV dreams must be reallocated to making cars American consumers can afford and actually desire to own.
With global markets creating rapidly rising demand for U.S. LNG, it’s time to “Build, Baby, Build” those needed new export facilities and the pipelines needed to feed the gas into them. Those energy gains can’t be consolidated without driving into action the streamlined processes to issue the needed permits.
And then there are the mines. Regardless of how quickly their permits can be issued, America can’t have any of the pipelines, LNG facilities, power plants, AI datacenters, or transmission lines without the raw mineral materials that make them work. America can no longer afford to be held hostage to supply chains for these materials dominated by China. That means more mines, and lots of them.
The President and his people have worked overtime throughout 2025 to ensure the executive branch’s side of this policy revolution is in place. Now, Congress must act to enshrine it permanently in law. Getting that done, consolidating the gains made in 2025 into action and statutes, will dominate the energy policy agenda throughout 2026. It’s all very predictable.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
