Counterfactual Carbon and Fifty Million Motors

Non-hydro renewables went from 2.0% of global electricity in 2005 to 19.8% in 2025. The IEA expects them to reach 21.8% in 2026, just ahead of gas at 21.6%. Fossil generation has kept growing, though: it is about 50% higher than in 2005, coal set a record in 2024 and gas did the same in 2025. Critics such as Vaclav Smil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz say clean energy is being piled on top of fossil fuels rather than replacing them.

Hausfather argues that this compares today with 2005 when it should compare today with a world that never built the wind and solar. Demand rose 75% (13,600 TWh) over the period, mostly from industry, EVs, air conditioning and data centers in emerging economies. Wind and solar met 5,400 TWh of that growth and fossil fuels met 6,100 TWh. Since 2015, wind and solar have covered 57% of demand growth against 29% for fossil fuels. In 2025 they covered 99%, according to Ember.

Senate Democrats insisted that the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) limit a president's power to undo federal project approvals. The "project certainty" language they got applies to every technology equally. It would protect pipelines and mines as much as wind farms. Heatmap's Emily Pontecorvo tested it against past fights with two former Biden Interior Department lawyers, Travis Annatoyn and Ben Schiffman.

How the provisions work

First, agencies could not rescind or alter a permit, or block construction of a project that holds all its federal approvals. There are exceptions for court rulings, permit violations, fraud, new environmental harms and national security threats.

Second, applicants could sue over a "pattern of disparate treatment." The bill defines this as a "substantial increase" in delays or improper denials for one type of project compared with the previous five years. Applicants could also sue if a decision takes more than a year after their application is deemed complete.

Case by case

• Keystone XL: Biden could still have revoked it. Pipelines that cross an international border need a presidential permit, and the president is not an "agency" under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Arctic refuge leases: Unclear. The definition of a permit leaves out the word "lease," but a catch-all covers "any other approval" needed to build or operate a project. Annatoyn expects courts to decide the question.

Utilities and tech companies are racing to build new generation. Meanwhile a large block of demand that could be cut goes mostly untouched: electric motors. About 50 million motors drive the fans, pumps and compressors in US factories and buildings. Together they use electricity equal to nearly a third of total US demand, and many use far more than the job needs.

How the waste happens, and the fix

Most motors run at full speed all the time. When an office empties at night, its HVAC system cuts airflow with dampers and valves, but the motors behind them keep running flat out. Variable frequency drives (VFDs), also called adjustable speed drives, are electronic controllers. They read sensors and change motor speed continuously to match demand. Neal Elliott of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says they can cut a motor's energy use by about 40–60%.

Use is still low. A 2021 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report found VFDs on only 16% of industrial motor systems and 4% of commercial motors. One case shows the economics. In 2015 Toyota spent $1.25 million putting VFDs on more than 200 HVAC motors at its Georgetown, Kentucky plant. It now saves more than $700,000 a year on electricity, so the project paid for itself in under two years.

The drives have been around since the late 1960s. For decades, measuring flow and controlling motor speed precisely was expensive engineering work. Elliott says cheaper sensors and machine-learning controls have now cut that cost and complexity. The drives also use the same high-voltage power chips as EVs and solar inverters, which are now made in large volumes.

Utilities have filed for more than $18 billion in rate increases so far this year, according to the consumer advocacy group PowerLines. That puts 2026 on track to pass 2025 for the most rate requests on record. Oil prices are up about 60% since January because of disruptions tied to the war with Iran. Canary Media's Julian Spector argues that campaign talking points blaming the other party or data centers miss the root causes, so he sorts them out.

The structural drivers came first

Spector argues that bills were rising for years before Trump took office, for reasons unrelated to the White House:

• Grid upkeep. Delivery infrastructure needs major maintenance almost everywhere.
• Disasters. Fires, hurricanes and winter storms, many attributable to climate change, are damaging the grid more severely.
• Interest rates. Higher rates since the early 2020s have made new grid infrastructure more expensive to finance.
• Equipment scarcity. High-voltage transformers needed for large plants and transmission upgrades are harder to get, which stretches timelines and raises costs.

"This is an issue that's been impacting a significant chunk of the American population long before it entered the broader national media and political discourse," said PowerLines executive director Charles Hua.

How current policy adds to the bill

The Iran war has throttled oil and gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Average gasoline rose from about $3 a gallon at the start of the year to $4.36, and diesel hit a record $6.53 in late September. The mechanism that reaches power bills is the : utilities charge customers directly for fuel costs, with no profit or loss to themselves, Hua explained. That hits Hawaii hardest, since most of its electricity comes from burning oil. On the mainland, natural gas is the largest power source and its domestic supply has not spiked the way oil has. Still, the nearly 5 million households that heat with oil-derived fuel face a costly winter.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case brought by Boulder, Colorado against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. The outcome could decide whether more than two dozen similar lawsuits ever reach trial. The suits accuse oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and seek potentially billions of dollars to pay for damage from climate-related extreme weather.

The justices are not ruling on whether the companies misled anyone. They are ruling on whether the claims can proceed at all. Boulder filed in Colorado state court in 2018, and the case has survived several appeals in state and federal courts. The companies now want the Court to hold that federal law preempts state and local governments from bringing these claims.

The competing theories

Kannon Shanmugam, arguing for Exxon and Suncor, called the case "an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct." He warned that some 90,000 U.S. municipalities could end up making energy policy by asking juries for "catastrophic damages." The companies argue that the Clean Air Act preempts any claim tied to climate pollution. They also argue that the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive control over interstate pollution.

Kevin Russell, arguing for Boulder, said, "This case is not about emissions. It's about deception." Boulder asks for damages, not an injunction. Russell argued that nothing in federal law bars states from actions that reduce pollution only as a side effect, such as a gas tax or a damages award.

How the bench leaned

Justice Clarence Thomas opened with a jurisdictional question: can the Court take the case before any trial ruling has been issued? Several justices suggested it may be too early. Michael Gerrard of Columbia's Sabin Center said that is "Boulder's best shot." He added that several conservative justices seemed inclined to find that federal law preempts at least some of Boulder's claims.