Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Global demand for oil could peak soon – NZ’s plan to revive offshore exploration doesn’t add up

News Feed
Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Getty ImagesThis week’s announcement of the government’s plans to reopen New Zealand’s territorial waters to oil drilling comes as no surprise. All three coalition parties campaigned on reversing the 2018 ban on offshore oil exploration. But it flies in the face of projections that demand for oil could peak as early as this decade. Minister for Resources Shane Jones has confirmed the government plans to reverse the ban later this year and seeks to incentivise oil investors by paying them a bond in case their drilling rights are cancelled by future governments. The government is also considering weakening a law that requires oil and gas permit holders to pay for the decommissioning and clean-up of wells. This law was passed in 2021 in response to taxpayers having to pick up a NZ$400 million bill for decommissioning the Tui oil field after the financial collapse of the oil company. The government’s decisions go against projections by many sources, including the International Energy Agency, that demand for oil will decline soon as we electrify the global transport fleet. Consequently, investment in oil exploration is projected to decline too. Peak oil demand The use of fossil fuels is due to decline this decade, according to several major oil companies. A 2023 report by Shell projects fossil fuel use dropping rapidly in coming decades, while BP thinks oil demand for combustion has already peaked. Many large organisations think peak oil demand will happen this decade or the 2030s. This includes the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has predicted demand for oil will peak before 2030. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Exxon Mobil are bullishly stating they see oil growth continuing, albeit at a slower rate, into the 2040s. But at the same time, Exxon Mobil is investing significantly in renewable energy, lithium mining and carbon capture technology. Even if oil demand peaks later than forecast, the progression from prospecting to exploration and mining can take decades. Projects prospected now may not yield fuel until demand is already in decline. We have enough oil to make the energy transition We’ve known for some time that remaining fossil fuels must stay in the ground to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the world below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. The last UN climate summit – COP28 held late last year – agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” and signalled the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. But further to this, the IEA has stated we don’t need any new fossil fuel exploration or development, with enough projects already in existence or planned to meet global energy demand forecasts to 2050. New research agrees, saying governments around the world should stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences. In line with decreasing oil demand, BP also projects declining investment in new oil and gas infrastructure globally in coming decades. The IEA’s World Energy Investment report notes an ongoing hesitancy about oil and gas investment comes partly from concerns about downward long-term demand projections. New Zealand does not import natural gas, but our gas fields have been yielding less than forecast for some years. Therefore, to remain independent, some more maintenance drilling or limited new expansion may be needed to see us through the energy transition. But using taxpayer dollars to pay international oil companies to come to New Zealand doesn’t make economic or environmental sense. The momentum for the energy transition is unstoppable The good news is that the world’s energy sector, which produces almost 75% of global emissions, is now transitioning at an ever increasing rate. Significant amounts of renewable electricity generation (which is now far cheaper than fossil fuel generation) are being built, with global renewable capacity set to double this decade. New Zealand’s electricity system is already 85% renewable. Significant investment in renewable generation is under way ($42 billion by 2030) to supply the approximate doubling of electricity needed for the expected mass electrification of transport and industrial heat by 2050. Renewables are also being built to replace retiring coal plant. Global coal consumption peaked in 2013 and has flatlined since. In 2021, the COP26 global climate meeting in Glasgow agreed to phase down coal, and 60 national (and 51 sub-national) governments have joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, committing them to phasing out all coal-fired power plants and not building new ones. Other uses of fossil fuels are in industrial heat and transport. Electric vehicle demand is skyrocketing globally, with the global fleet growing from 300,000 vehicles in 2013 to 41 million in 2023. With prices falling, electric vehicles are expected to reach price parity with internal combustion engine cars as early as 2025. Most large global vehicle manufacturers have pledged to produce only electric vehicles by 2030 or 2040. And 30 countries, including New Zealand, have signed the Zero Emissions Vehicle declaration to ban new petrol or diesel vehicle sales entirely by 2040. New Zealand should be enabling the energy transition The world is moving very rapidly away from coal and oil, and eventually all fossil fuels. A growing number of countries require adherence to Paris Agreement pledges by their trading partners. The recently signed free trade deal between New Zealand and the EU imposes trade sanctions if Paris pledges are not met. New Zealand’s current emissions reduction policies take us on a track that is much less than our per capita global fair share to limit warming. New Zealand should be moving away from oil drilling and instead invest in the energy transition, including decarbonisation of industrial heat, subsidising low-emitting vehicles and charging high emitters, better public transport and bike lanes, increased EV charging infrastructure, and “urban mining” (recycling) of batteries and other technology currently filling rubbish dumps. Jen Purdie has received funding from Deep South Science Challenge in the past, and currently has funding from MBIE's Smart Ideas fund.

Even the big oil companies are predicting global demand will decline within decades. With investment in oil exploration projected to decline too, New Zealand should be putting its energy elsewhere.

Getty Images

This week’s announcement of the government’s plans to reopen New Zealand’s territorial waters to oil drilling comes as no surprise. All three coalition parties campaigned on reversing the 2018 ban on offshore oil exploration.

But it flies in the face of projections that demand for oil could peak as early as this decade.

Minister for Resources Shane Jones has confirmed the government plans to reverse the ban later this year and seeks to incentivise oil investors by paying them a bond in case their drilling rights are cancelled by future governments.

The government is also considering weakening a law that requires oil and gas permit holders to pay for the decommissioning and clean-up of wells. This law was passed in 2021 in response to taxpayers having to pick up a NZ$400 million bill for decommissioning the Tui oil field after the financial collapse of the oil company.

The government’s decisions go against projections by many sources, including the International Energy Agency, that demand for oil will decline soon as we electrify the global transport fleet. Consequently, investment in oil exploration is projected to decline too.

Peak oil demand

The use of fossil fuels is due to decline this decade, according to several major oil companies. A 2023 report by Shell projects fossil fuel use dropping rapidly in coming decades, while BP thinks oil demand for combustion has already peaked.

Many large organisations think peak oil demand will happen this decade or the 2030s. This includes the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has predicted demand for oil will peak before 2030.

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Exxon Mobil are bullishly stating they see oil growth continuing, albeit at a slower rate, into the 2040s. But at the same time, Exxon Mobil is investing significantly in renewable energy, lithium mining and carbon capture technology.

Even if oil demand peaks later than forecast, the progression from prospecting to exploration and mining can take decades. Projects prospected now may not yield fuel until demand is already in decline.

We have enough oil to make the energy transition

We’ve known for some time that remaining fossil fuels must stay in the ground to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the world below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.

The last UN climate summit – COP28 held late last year – agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” and signalled the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era.

But further to this, the IEA has stated we don’t need any new fossil fuel exploration or development, with enough projects already in existence or planned to meet global energy demand forecasts to 2050. New research agrees, saying governments around the world should stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences.

In line with decreasing oil demand, BP also projects declining investment in new oil and gas infrastructure globally in coming decades. The IEA’s World Energy Investment report notes an ongoing hesitancy about oil and gas investment comes partly from concerns about downward long-term demand projections.



New Zealand does not import natural gas, but our gas fields have been yielding less than forecast for some years. Therefore, to remain independent, some more maintenance drilling or limited new expansion may be needed to see us through the energy transition. But using taxpayer dollars to pay international oil companies to come to New Zealand doesn’t make economic or environmental sense.

The momentum for the energy transition is unstoppable

The good news is that the world’s energy sector, which produces almost 75% of global emissions, is now transitioning at an ever increasing rate. Significant amounts of renewable electricity generation (which is now far cheaper than fossil fuel generation) are being built, with global renewable capacity set to double this decade.

New Zealand’s electricity system is already 85% renewable. Significant investment in renewable generation is under way ($42 billion by 2030) to supply the approximate doubling of electricity needed for the expected mass electrification of transport and industrial heat by 2050.

Renewables are also being built to replace retiring coal plant. Global coal consumption peaked in 2013 and has flatlined since. In 2021, the COP26 global climate meeting in Glasgow agreed to phase down coal, and 60 national (and 51 sub-national) governments have joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, committing them to phasing out all coal-fired power plants and not building new ones.

Other uses of fossil fuels are in industrial heat and transport. Electric vehicle demand is skyrocketing globally, with the global fleet growing from 300,000 vehicles in 2013 to 41 million in 2023. With prices falling, electric vehicles are expected to reach price parity with internal combustion engine cars as early as 2025.

Most large global vehicle manufacturers have pledged to produce only electric vehicles by 2030 or 2040. And 30 countries, including New Zealand, have signed the Zero Emissions Vehicle declaration to ban new petrol or diesel vehicle sales entirely by 2040.

New Zealand should be enabling the energy transition

The world is moving very rapidly away from coal and oil, and eventually all fossil fuels. A growing number of countries require adherence to Paris Agreement pledges by their trading partners. The recently signed free trade deal between New Zealand and the EU imposes trade sanctions if Paris pledges are not met.

New Zealand’s current emissions reduction policies take us on a track that is much less than our per capita global fair share to limit warming.

New Zealand should be moving away from oil drilling and instead invest in the energy transition, including decarbonisation of industrial heat, subsidising low-emitting vehicles and charging high emitters, better public transport and bike lanes, increased EV charging infrastructure, and “urban mining” (recycling) of batteries and other technology currently filling rubbish dumps.

The Conversation

Jen Purdie has received funding from Deep South Science Challenge in the past, and currently has funding from MBIE's Smart Ideas fund.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Renowned Astronomers Push to Protect Chile's Cherished Night Sky From an Industrial Project

Chile’s Atacama Desert is one of the darkest spots on earth, a crown jewel for astronomers who flock from around the world to study the origins of the universe in this inhospitable desert along the Pacific coast

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — Chile’s Atacama Desert is one of the darkest spots on earth, a crown jewel for astronomers who flock from around the world to study the origins of the universe in this inhospitable desert along the Pacific coast.“It's a perfect cocktail for astronomy,” said Daniela González, executive director of the Skies of Chile Foundation, a nonprofit that defends the quality of the country’s night skies. A private company is pressing ahead with plans to construct a giant renewable energy complex in sight of one of Earth’s most productive astronomical facilities — the Paranal Observatory, operated by an international consortium known as the European Southern Observatory, or ESO.In the letter, 30 renowned international astronomers, including Reinhard Genzel, a 2020 Nobel laureate in astrophysics who conducted much of his prize-winning research on black holes with the ESO-operated telescopes in the Atacama Desert, describe the project as “an imminent threat” to humanity's ability to study the cosmos, and unlock more of its unknowns.“The damage would extend beyond Chile’s borders, affecting a worldwide scientific community that relies on observations made at Paranal to study everything from the formation of planets to the early universe,” the letter reads. “We are convinced that economic development and scientific progress can and must coexist to the benefit of all people in Chile, but not at the irreversible expense of one of Earth’s unique and irreplaceable windows to the universe.”The scientists join a chorus of voices that have been urging the Chilean government to relocate the hydrogen-based fuel production plant since the plan was unveiled a year ago by AES Andes, an offshoot of the American-based multinational AES Corp. In response to a request for comment, AES Corp. said that its own technical studies showed the project would be “fully compatible” with astronomical observations and compliant with the Chilean government's strict regulations on light pollution. "We encourage trust in the country’s institutional strength, which for decades has guaranteed certainty and environmental protection for multiple productive sectors," the company said.The plan, which is still under environmental review, calls for 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) of wind and solar energy farms, a desalination plant and a new port. That means not only a major increase in light pollution but also new dust, ground vibrations and heightened atmospheric turbulence that blurs stars and makes them twinkle. All of that — just three kilometers (miles) from the Paranal Observatory’s high-powered telescopes — will mess the view of key astronomical targets and could obstruct scientific advances, experts say. “At the best sites in the world for astronomy, stars don't twinkle. They are very stable, and even the smallest artificial turbulence would destroy these characteristics,” said Andreas Kaufer, the director of operations at ESO, which assesses that the AES project would increase light pollution by 35%.“If the sky is becoming brighter from artificial light around us, we cannot do these observations anymore. They're lost. And, since we have the biggest and most sensitive telescopes at the best spot in the world, if they're lost for us, they're lost for everyone." “Major observatories have been chased out to remote locations, and essentially now they’re chased out to some of the last remaining dark sky locations on Earth, like the Atacama Desert, the mountain peaks of Hawaii, areas around Tucson, Arizona,” said Ruskin Hartley, the executive director of DarkSky International, a Tuscon-based nonprofit founded by astronomers. “All of them are now at risk from encroaching development and mining. It’s happening everywhere.”DeBre reported from Buenos Aires, Argentina Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

New control system teaches soft robots the art of staying safe

MIT CSAIL and LIDS researchers developed a mathematically grounded system that lets soft robots deform, adapt, and interact with people and objects, without violating safety limits.

Imagine having a continuum soft robotic arm bend around a bunch of grapes or broccoli, adjusting its grip in real time as it lifts the object. Unlike traditional rigid robots that generally aim to avoid contact with the environment as much as possible and stay far away from humans for safety reasons, this arm senses subtle forces, stretching and flexing in ways that mimic more of the compliance of a human hand. Its every motion is calculated to avoid excessive force while achieving the task efficiently. In MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and Laboratory for Information and Decisions Systems (LIDS) labs, these seemingly simple movements are the culmination of complex mathematics, careful engineering, and a vision for robots that can safely interact with humans and delicate objects.Soft robots, with their deformable bodies, promise a future where machines move more seamlessly alongside people, assist in caregiving, or handle delicate items in industrial settings. Yet that very flexibility makes them difficult to control. Small bends or twists can produce unpredictable forces, raising the risk of damage or injury. This motivates the need for safe control strategies for soft robots. “Inspired by advances in safe control and formal methods for rigid robots, we aim to adapt these ideas to soft robotics — modeling their complex behavior and embracing, rather than avoiding, contact — to enable higher-performance designs (e.g., greater payload and precision) without sacrificing safety or embodied intelligence,” says lead senior author and MIT Assistant Professor Gioele Zardini, who is a principal investigator in LIDS and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and an affiliate faculty with the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS). “This vision is shared by recent and parallel work from other groups.”Safety firstThe team developed a new framework that blends nonlinear control theory (controlling systems that involve highly complex dynamics) with advanced physical modeling techniques and efficient real-time optimization to produce what they call “contact-aware safety.” At the heart of the approach are high-order control barrier functions (HOCBFs) and high-order control Lyapunov functions (HOCLFs). HOCBFs define safe operating boundaries, ensuring the robot doesn’t exert unsafe forces. HOCLFs guide the robot efficiently toward its task objectives, balancing safety with performance.“Essentially, we’re teaching the robot to know its own limits when interacting with the environment while still achieving its goals,” says MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering PhD student Kiwan Wong, the lead author of a new paper describing the framework. “The approach involves some complex derivation of soft robot dynamics, contact models, and control constraints, but the specification of control objectives and safety barriers is rather straightforward for the practitioner, and the outcomes are very tangible, as you see the robot moving smoothly, reacting to contact, and never causing unsafe situations.”“Compared with traditional kinematic CBFs — where forward-invariant safe sets are hard to specify — the HOCBF framework simplifies barrier design, and its optimization formulation accounts for system dynamics (e.g., inertia), ensuring the soft robot stops early enough to avoid unsafe contact forces,” says Worcester Polytechnic Institute Assistant Professor and former CSAIL postdoc Wei Xiao.“Since soft robots emerged, the field has highlighted their embodied intelligence and greater inherent safety relative to rigid robots, thanks to passive material and structural compliance. Yet their “cognitive” intelligence — especially safety systems — has lagged behind that of rigid serial-link manipulators,” says co-lead author Maximilian Stölzle, a research intern at Disney Research and formerly a Delft University of Technology PhD student and visiting researcher at MIT LIDS and CSAIL. “This work helps close that gap by adapting proven algorithms to soft robots and tailoring them for safe contact and soft-continuum dynamics.”The LIDS and CSAIL team tested the system on a series of experiments designed to challenge the robot’s safety and adaptability. In one test, the arm pressed gently against a compliant surface, maintaining a precise force without overshooting. In another, it traced the contours of a curved object, adjusting its grip to avoid slippage. In yet another demonstration, the robot manipulated fragile items alongside a human operator, reacting in real time to unexpected nudges or shifts. “These experiments show that our framework is able to generalize to diverse tasks and objectives, and the robot can sense, adapt, and act in complex scenarios while always respecting clearly defined safety limits,” says Zardini.Soft robots with contact-aware safety could be a real value-add in high-stakes places, of course. In health care, they could assist in surgeries, providing precise manipulation while reducing risk to patients. In industry, they might handle fragile goods without constant supervision. In domestic settings, robots could help with chores or caregiving tasks, interacting safely with children or the elderly — a key step toward making soft robots reliable partners in real-world environments. “Soft robots have incredible potential,” says co-lead senior author Daniela Rus, director of CSAIL and a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “But ensuring safety and encoding motion tasks via relatively simple objectives has always been a central challenge. We wanted to create a system where the robot can remain flexible and responsive while mathematically guaranteeing it won’t exceed safe force limits.”Combining soft robot models, differentiable simulation, and control theoryUnderlying the control strategy is a differentiable implementation of something called the Piecewise Cosserat-Segment (PCS) dynamics model, which predicts how a soft robot deforms and where forces accumulate. This model allows the system to anticipate how the robot’s body will respond to actuation and complex interactions with the environment. “The aspect that I most like about this work is the blend of integration of new and old tools coming from different fields like advanced soft robot models, differentiable simulation, Lyapunov theory, convex optimization, and injury-severity–based safety constraints. All of this is nicely blended into a real-time controller fully grounded in first principles,” says co-author Cosimo Della Santina, who is an associate professor at Delft University of Technology. Complementing this is the Differentiable Conservative Separating Axis Theorem (DCSAT), which estimates distances between the soft robot and obstacles in the environment that can be approximated with a chain of convex polygons in a differentiable manner. “Earlier differentiable distance metrics for convex polygons either couldn’t compute penetration depth — essential for estimating contact forces — or yielded non-conservative estimates that could compromise safety,” says Wong. “Instead, the DCSAT metric returns strictly conservative, and therefore safe, estimates while simultaneously allowing for fast and differentiable computation.” Together, PCS and DCSAT give the robot a predictive sense of its environment for more proactive, safe interactions.Looking ahead, the team plans to extend their methods to three-dimensional soft robots and explore integration with learning-based strategies. By combining contact-aware safety with adaptive learning, soft robots could handle even more complex, unpredictable environments. “This is what makes our work exciting,” says Rus. “You can see the robot behaving in a human-like, careful manner, but behind that grace is a rigorous control framework ensuring it never oversteps its bounds.”“Soft robots are generally safer to interact with than rigid-bodied robots by design, due to the compliance and energy-absorbing properties of their bodies,” says University of Michigan Assistant Professor Daniel Bruder, who wasn’t involved in the research. “However, as soft robots become faster, stronger, and more capable, that may no longer be enough to ensure safety. This work takes a crucial step towards ensuring soft robots can operate safely by offering a method to limit contact forces across their entire bodies.”The team’s work was supported, in part, by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Scholarships, the European Union’s Horizon Europe Program, Cultuurfonds Wetenschapsbeurzen, and the Rudge (1948) and Nancy Allen Chair. Their work was published earlier this month in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Robotics and Automation Letters.

FirstEnergy seeks looser reliability rules as outages grow more common

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to…

Extreme weather is making the grid more prone to outages — and now FirstEnergy’s three Ohio utilities want more leeway on their reliability requirements. Put simply, FirstEnergy is asking the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to let Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison, and Toledo Edison take longer to restore power when the lights go out. The latter two utilities would also be allowed slightly more frequent outages per customer each year. Comments regarding the request are due to the utilities commission on Dec. 8, less than three weeks after regulators approved higher electricity rates for hundreds of thousands of northeast Ohio utility customers. An administrative trial, known as an evidentiary hearing, is currently set to start Jan. 21. Consumer and environmental advocates say it’s unfair to make customers shoulder the burden of lower-quality service, as they have already been paying for substantial grid-hardening upgrades. “Relaxing reliability standards can jeopardize the health and safety of Ohio consumers,” said Maureen Willis, head of the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which is the state’s legal representative for utility customers. ​“It also shifts the costs of more frequent and longer outages onto Ohioans who already paid millions of dollars to utilities to enhance and develop their distribution systems.” The United States has seen a rise in blackouts linked to severe weather, a 2024 analysis by Climate Central found, with about twice as many such events happening from 2014 through 2023 compared to the 10 years from 2000 through 2009. The duration of the longest blackouts has also grown. As of mid-2025, the average length of 12.8 hours represents a jump of almost 60% from 2022, J.D. Power reported in October. Ohio regulators have approved less stringent reliability standards before, notably for AES Ohio and Duke Energy Ohio, where obligations from those or other orders required investments and other actions to improve reliability. Some utilities elsewhere in the country have also sought leeway on reliability expectations. In April, for example, two New York utilities asked to exclude some outages related to tree disease and other factors from their performance metrics, which would in effect relax their standards. Other utilities haven’t necessarily pursued lower targets, but have nonetheless noted vulnerabilities to climate change or experienced more major events that don’t count toward requirements. FirstEnergy’s case is particularly notable because the company has slow-rolled clean energy and energy efficiency, two tools that advocates say can cost-effectively bolster grid reliability and guard against weather-related outages. There is also a certain irony to the request: FirstEnergy’s embrace of fossil fuels at the expense of clean energy and efficiency measures has let its subsidiaries’ operations and others continue to emit high levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide. Now, the company appears to nod toward climate-change-driven weather variability as justification for relaxed reliability standards. FirstEnergy filed its application to the Public Utilities Commission last December, while its recently decided rate case and other cases linked to its House Bill 6 corruption scandal were pending. FirstEnergy argues that specific reliability standards for each of its utilities should start with an average of the preceding five years’ performance. From there, FirstEnergy says the state should tack on extra allowances for longer or more frequent outages to ​“account for annual variability in factors outside the Companies’ control, in particular, weather impacts that can vary significantly on a year-to-year basis.” “Honestly, I don’t know of a viable hypothesis for this increasing variability outside of climate change,” said Victoria Petryshyn, an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Southern California, who grew up in Ohio. In summer, systems are burdened by constant air conditioning use during periods of extreme heat and humidity. In winter, frigid air masses resulting from disruptions to the jet stream can boost demand for heat and ​“cause extra strain on the grid if natural-gas lines freeze,” Petryshyn said.

Trump order to keep Michigan power plant open costs taxpayers $113m

Critics say JH Campbell coal-fired plant in western Michigan is expensive and emits high levels of toxic pollutionTrump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days. Continue reading...

Trump administration orders to keep an ageing, unneeded Michigan coal-fired power plant online has cost ratepayers from across the US midwest about $113m so far, according to estimates from the plant’s operator and regulators.Still, the US energy department last week ordered the plant to remain open for another 90 days.The Trump administration in May ordered utility giant Consumers Energy to keep the 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant in western Michigan, about 100 miles north-east of Chicago, online just as it was being retired.The order has drawn outrage from consumer advocates and environmental groups who say the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas.The costs will be spread among households across the northern and central regional Miso grid, which stretches from eastern Montana to Michigan, and includes nine other states“The costs of unnecessarily running this jalopy coal plant just continue to mount,” said Michael Lenoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, which is suing over the order.Gary Rochow, Consumers Energy’s CEO, told investors in a 30 October earnings call that the Trump administration in its order stated that ratepayers should shoulder the costs, and detailed how the company should pass on the costs.“That order from the energy department has laid out a clear path to cost recovery,” Rochow said.The utility has said in regulatory filings that the order is costing customers about $615,000 per day. The order has been in place for around six months.Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a motion for a stay in federal court, alleging the administration’s latest order is “arbitrary and illegal”.The coal plant is one of two in Michigan that the Trump administration has moved to keep open under the president’s controversial national energy emergency executive order, which is being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.The other plant is not scheduled to close for two years. The two factories emit about 45% of the state’s greenhouse gas pollution.Trump has also used his emergency energy order to keep gas plants near Baltimore and Philadelphia online.Consumers Energy said it did not ask for Campbell to remain open. The Trump administration did not consult local regulators, a spokesperson for the Michigan public service commission (MPSC), which regulates utilities and manages the state’s grid, told the Guardian in May.“The unnecessary recent order … will increase the cost of power for homes and businesses in Michigan and across the midwest,” the chair of the MPSC, Dan Scripps, said in a statement at the time.The latest figures proved Scripps correct.In May, an energy department spokesperson insisted in a statement that retiring the coal plants “would jeopardize the reliability of our grid systems”.But regulatory data from Miso and the MPSC over the last six months shows that statement was wrong.The Miso grid had excess power far above what Campbell provided during peak demand this summer. And the plant often was not operating at full capacity, likely because its power was not needed, advocates say. But the plant still costs ratepayers even when not operating at capacity.The energy department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the data showing it was not necessary to keep the plant open.Campbell and Michigan’s other coal plant that the Trump administration is aiming to keep online release high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter into the air. Meanwhile, their coal ash ponds leach arsenic, lead, lithium, radium and sulfate into local drinking water and the Great Lakes.Consumers Energy had since 2021 been planning for the Campbell’s closure as required by the state’s energy plan. The company said the plant’s closure would save ratepayers in the state about $600m by 2040.

Mark Carney reaches deal with Alberta for oil pipeline opposed by First Nations

Prime minister says deal ‘sets the state for an industrial transformation’, but project is likely to face wide oppositionMark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast, a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said. Continue reading...

Mark Carney has agreed an energy deal with Alberta centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline reaching from the province’s oil sands to the Pacific coast – a politically volatile project that is expected to face stiff opposition.“It’s a great day for Alberta and a great day for Canada,” the prime minister said on Thursday as he met the beaming Alberta premier, Danielle Smith. He said the agreement “sets the state for an industrial transformation” and involved not just a pipeline, but also nuclear power and datacentres. “This is Canada working,” he said.The agreement was praised by Smith for its potential to “unleash” investment in Alberta.Carney and Smith made the announcement after weeks of negotiations, which mark a dramatic shift in relations between the federal government and Alberta.. The two have sparred in recent years amid accusations from Alberta that Ottawa is harming its economic potential by restricting carbon emissions.The premise of the agreement is to increase oil and gas exports while attempting to meet the federal government’s climate targets. Carney’s government will exempt a possible pipeline project from the existing coastal oil tanker moratorium and emissions cap. In exchange, Alberta must raise its industrial carbon pricing and investing in a multi-billion-dollar carbon capture project.Critically, however, no company has expressed an interest in backing the project, which would probably face stiff opposition from the province of British Columbia and among First Nations communities on the Pacific coast.The move also reflects a political shift by Carney, who, before entering politics, developed credentials as an economist guiding capital markets towards a net zero future. Now, he must sell a plan that appears at odds with those values.The agreement has already prompted grumbles from lawmakers within Carney’s Liberal party. The cabinet minister Gregor Robertson, for example, argued against the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion when he was mayor of Vancouver, calling the project environmentally irresponsible. Carney must also convince the former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, a longtime environmental activist who now serves as minister of Canadian identity and culture.Talks between Alberta and the federal government notably excluded neighbouring British Columbia, whose leader has voiced strong opposition to a new pipeline passing through his province. The BC premier, David Eby, has said he opposes a pipeline and also the prospect of allowing tanker traffic through the narrow, tempestuous waters of the north coast. Instead, his government offered to expand the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.But Alberta’s government is adamant it wants a new pipeline, not just expanded capacity, and has repeatedly pledged to submit a proposal by spring.Before passing a bill in June that gave his government the power to override environmental regulations and fast-track projects in the national interest, Carney said any new pipeline would have to have the support of First Nations whose territory is unceded to provincial or federal governments.Even before Carney and Smith made their announcement, however, First Nations said any new pipeline was effectively dead on arrival.“We are here to remind the Alberta government, the federal government, and any potential private proponent that we will never allow oil tankers on our coast, and that this pipeline project will never happen,” said Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations (CFN), a group that represents eight First Nations along the coast.Slett, the elected chief of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, has previously warned about the risks of an oil spill in a sparsely populated region with little rapid-response infrastructure. She saw the effects first-hand in 2016, when 100,000 litres of diesel spilled near her community. Slett warned that no deal could “override our inherent and constitutional Rights and Title, or deter our deep interconnection of mutual respect for the ocean”.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.