Nearly half of all US states have pledged to go totally carbon-free by at least 2050.

While many states and the federal government are pushing and subsidizing entrepreneurs to scale up carbon-free alternatives to fossil fuels such as nuclear energy, wind, and solar – other states are hoping to reach their goals by seemingly suing oil and gas companies into extinction.

Though American consumers have been the primary customers for fossil fuel companies, several Democratic state attorneys generals have staged elaborate lawsuits hoping to legally pin climate change on a handful of companies.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has been at the forefront, but he’s had plenty of support and funding along the way, including from key law firms across the country and the billionaire former New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Though our judicial system is supposed to be immune from political agendas, these third-parties target certain industries and corporations for litigation, hoping to tip the balance in prominent cases being heard across the country.

This trend is so troubling that the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held ahearing in September to evaluate this threat. But missing from that congressional discussion about deep-pocketed, heavily coordinated movements to influence legal action was the subject of climate litigation.

In September, the largest climate change lawsuit was filed by the state of California against five major oil companies and associates, alleging public deception about climate risks associated with fossil fuels.

With an economy twice that of Russia, California becomes not just the biggest U.S. state to sue energy companies, but the largest economy to do so. California has thrown its weight around before, suing auto manufacturers over greenhouse emissions and legally banning the sale of new combustion-powered vehicles by 2035.

California’s vendetta against oil and gas may seem impractical, but the fact that 17 states followed their lead on the eventual gas-powered car ban shows that “as California goes, so goes the nation” is more than just a saying.

Nonetheless, California faces the same uphill battle as its unsuccessful auto industry lawsuit. One environmental law professor at Yale University told the Wall Street Journal, “the entire modern economy relies on the oil industry, and it could be hard to pin liability solely on companies.”

The lawsuit itself, however, will do nothing to promote climate progress. In fact, it will only add to consumer burdens, should they be successful. Gas prices are already disproportionately high in California, at 55 percent higher than the national average. But worse yet is the protracted, multi-million-dollar campaign waged by third parties to pressure energy producers and persuade the public they’ve been deceived.

Deep-pocketed private donors have persuaded organizations and attorneys to take up climate litigation, pouring millions into institutions like the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) who aggressively encourage state and local governments to sue energy producers. Allies like the Rockefeller Family Fund not only help funnel money to CCI – about $10 million, in fact – but also host legal forums and initiate climate ligation support among elected officials.

Senator Ted Cruz and U.S. Representative James Comer raised these concerns, pointing out the chief law firm litigating climate lawsuits, Sher Edling, is essentially paid to target energy companies. Rather than implementing contingency fees, “the lawsuits are being funded, tax-free, by wealthy liberals via dark money pass-through funds.”

Beyond that, billionaire Michael Bloomberg has put legal muscle behind the movement, seeding the NYU School of Law’s Environment and Energy State Impact Center with $6 million to offer lawyers as “Special Assistant Attorneys General.” These attorneys, embedded at the state level, provide more legal horsepower to pursue climate suits.

Most recently, a congressional ethics probe was opened on Ann Carlson, unconfirmed acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for her extreme agenda and prior partnership with Sher Edling. The members allege she was involved in coordinating the law firm’s efforts to pursue climate litigation and worked to raise money through dark money funds to support that work.

This public campaign to vilify energy producers ignores the reality that we rely on fossil fuels and need them to lead America’s energy transition, as they have for years now.

Data from 2022 shows oil and gas represented nearly 70 percent of American energy consumption, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports global consumption of liquid fuels (gasoline and diesel) will remain high for the next decade.

Despite this, these lawsuits target energy producers in hopes of shrinking the role of American oil and gas development and starving consumers of affordable energy sources, even if there are no ready replacements.

The public relations and legal war against energy producers is the wrong path for real change –  a mistake only amplified by dark money and partisan networks to encourage more climate lawsuits. It’s time we pursue common sense solutions, rather than misleading the public with disingenuous lawsuits that won’t combat climate change, and won’t make our lives any better.

Originally published here

For decades, the fruits of the fracking revolution, plus our newly minted status as the world’s top net exporter of natural gas, demonstrated that American consumers were swimming in bountiful energy.

But as the pandemic effects of supply chain shortages, the war in Ukraine, and higher government spending gave way to inflation hikes, suddenly all eyes were on utility bills. In 2021, Americans spent as much as 25% more on energy than in the previous year.

Compounding that problem for energy consumers are political pledges aimed at the “electrification of everything,” including massive subsidies for electric vehicles, home heat pumps, and solar panels in pursuit of a carbon neutral future.

Now state policies are accelerating that, as at least 22 states — plus Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. — have committed to either 100% carbon-free electricity generation or “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.

But rather than subsidize our way toward political climate goals with foreign-made solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, what if we looked to the new generation of a safe technology that is already the densest and carbon-free source of electricity in the world? What if it’s time to once again champion nuclear energy?

Energy investors, customers, and even green politicians should have every reason to love the atom. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and reliable for decades. It produces no emissions and produces tens of thousands of good jobs for generations. There’s a reason nuclear plants have larger parking lots than wind turbines or solar farms.

At least three states — Illinois, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — currently generate over 50% of their electricity needs from nuclear power, making them effectively carbon neutral and an ideal hub for energy-intensive industry. 

Even green warrior California Gov. Gavin Newson was forced to rethink the closing of Diablo Canyon in the face of aggressive climate goals, giving the state’s only nuclear plant a lifeline. Other states are reconsidering nuclear energy as their licenses head toward their expiration date.

That said, traditional nuclear energy faces several obstacles. Environmental and radiation concerns are invoked, though new innovations like accident-tolerant fuels have lessened the risk. Regulatory restrictions and permitting can delay approvals and renewals for up to a decade. Most importantly, nuclear projects are significantly labor and capital intensive, testing the financial limits of private investors and utilities who dip into subsidies to stay afloat.

But the age of the brutalist concrete cooling towers and highly centralized state control as the only features of nuclear power may already be over.

Next-generation nuclear energy technology — such as small modular reactors — may share the splitting of the atom with its predecessor, but its modern form is anything but.

SMRs can be as small as an SUV but still produce plenty of megawatts of energy. They can more quickly and reliably deliver power to the electric grid or industry, and in some cases, the spent fuel can be reused. SMRs could become the main carbon-free power source for a large manufacturing facility that would employ thousands of people and keep the load off residential grids. 

For example, SMR developer X-energy is collaborating with chemical giant Dow to install  an advanced SMR nuclear plant at Dow’s manufacturing site in Seadrift, Texas. The Dow project is focused on providing its Seadrift site with safe, reliable, zero carbon emissions power and industrial steam as existing energy and steam assets near their end-of-life.

The project is contingent upon delivering on various reviews and approvals, as companies like Dow must follow strict timeframes to ensure continued operation of its site. X-energy first initiated NRC pre-application activities for their Xe-100 reactor in 2018.

Only one small modular reactor design, made by Oregon-based NuScale, has been certified by the National Regulatory Commission, which released its final rulemaking after a decade-long application process.

If we want to deliver energy at scale and at a low cost for millions of energy consumers, that pace will have to move to a warp speed timeline.

There are simple solutions that could save us time. Every state with an expiring nuclear license should consider supporting plant life extensions. States with anti-nuclear statutes should rethink their implications. Where possible, states should include nuclear and fusion technology within “clean energy” definitions, as North Carolina seems poised to do. The NRC should continue its steadfast efforts in reducing regulatory burdens to fast-track reviews and permits for new nuclear while still keeping a laser focus on safety.

Rather than closing coal plants without alternatives, states should quickly allow experienced project proponents to convert those facilities into nuclear stations. The US Department of Energy estimates that over 80% of the country’s existing coal plants could be cheaply converted into SMRs or advanced nuclear reactors, saving up to 35% in infrastructure costs while reducing emissions for decades. Roadmaps already exist to convert coal plant jobs to next-generation nuclear jobs.

This would represent billions in savings to energy customers, hundreds of thousands more good-paying jobs, and unlimited opportunities for innovators to unleash the next generation of nuclear power technology both domestically and as a global export.

Politicians and regulators have created the paradigm of a net zero world. Nuclear energy will enable that and provide prosperity, resilience, and sustainability that will keep us energy independent. 

It’s time we recognize nuclear energy’s vital role and champion it as a force for good in our world.

Originally published here