60.5 F
Chicago
Sunday, October 4, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 54

BRICS Urges ‘Maximum Restraint’ As US-Iran War Tests Unity At New Delhi Summit

survivalnomics
-
0
BRICS Urges ‘Maximum Restraint’ As US-Iran War Tests Unity At New Delhi Summit

Authored by News Desk via The Cradle,

The BRICS group of nations adopted a joint declaration on 12 September, expressing “deep concern” over the ongoing conflict between the US and Iran and urging “maximum restraint” as part of a “multilateral approach” that respects national viewpoints.

(Photo credit: BRICS)

The declaration was adopted on the first day of the BRICS leaders’ annual summit in New Delhi.

“We express deep concern over the continued escalation of tensions in Middle East/West Asia and, recalling our respective national positions, call for exercising maximum restraint, as well as avoiding actions that could further aggravate the situation,” the declaration said.

BRICS leaders gathered at the summit to develop the bloc’s common positions on international conflicts, sanctions and trade, reform of global institutions, finance, energy, technology, health and development.

BRICS leaders failed to reach a consensus condemning the US aggression against Iran, as the bloc includes both Iran and the UAE, which are on opposing sides of the conflict.

The UAE joined the war against the Islamic Republic on the side of its allies, the US and Israel.

Summit host India is also a close ally of Israel and one of its main weapons suppliers.

Other BRICS members include Brazil, Russia, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia.

In response to the unprovoked US-Israeli attack in February, Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which Gulf energy exports to Asia flow.

The closure caused a surge in energy prices that has harmed the economies of BRICS nations, in particular in Asia.

The declaration affirmed the commitment of BRICS member states to a peaceful resolution of international disputes “through dialogue, consultation, and diplomacy.”

It also expressed concern over “unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures” that distort trade, disrupt supply chains, and harm global economic development.

Since returning to office, US President Trump has used the threat of tariffs against China and India and imposed additional economic sanctions on Iran and Russia.

Trump has also issued secondary sanctions against nations and entities trading with Iran.

The joint statement expressed “serious concern” about deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, saying such attacks violate international law and relevant IAEA resolutions.

Though the US and Israel have carried out attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and civilian infrastructure, the statement did not name either country specifically regarding such attacks.

Regarding Israeli actions in Gaza, the statement calls for maintaining the ceasefire and facilitating unhindered humanitarian assistance; opposes the forced displacement of Palestinians and territorial/demographic changes to Gaza; and supports Palestinian self-determination and the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Regarding Lebanon, the statement calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory and adhere to the Lebanon ceasefire and UNSC Resolution 1701.

On Syria, it calls for respect for Syria’s sovereignty and an inclusive Syrian-led political process, warns of the risk posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” to Syria’s and regional stability and security,and calls for the withdrawal of foreign occupying forces, an apparent reference to Israel.

It also encourages continued work on interoperable cross-border payment systems and greater use of BRICS members’ local currencies rather than US dollars for trade and investment settlements.

The BRICS statement also stresses the importance of reliable energy supplies and stable markets and explicitly says fossil fuels will continue to play an important role, especially for emerging and developing economies.

It simultaneously backs a “just, orderly, equitable and inclusive” transition to renewable energy and emissions reductions according to countries’ different circumstances, as outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7) framework.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 21:45

Texas Still Dominates America’s Natural Gas Production

survivalnomics
-
0
Texas Still Dominates America’s Natural Gas Production

U.S. gross natural gas withdrawals reached 47.7 trillion cubic feet in 2025, with a small group of states accounting for most of the total. Much of this output comes from prolific shale formations such as the Permian, Marcellus, Haynesville, and Eagle Ford.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows 2025 gross natural gas withdrawals by state and producing area using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, with the latest available 2024 figures used for five states.

Gross withdrawals measure total well-stream production before processing, making them different from marketed or dry natural gas output.

Texas Produced Over a Quarter of U.S. Natural Gas

Texas led the country with 13,603 Bcf of gross withdrawals in 2025, equal to 28.5% of the national total. Pennsylvania followed at 7,676 Bcf, or 16.1%, meaning the two states together accounted for nearly 45% of U.S. withdrawals.

Their output is driven by some of North America’s most productive shale formations, including the Permian Basin in Texas and the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.

The table below ranks every state and producing area with at least 10 Bcf of gross withdrawals. States below that threshold, which together account for roughly 0.1% of the national total, are not shown:

Rank State or Producing Area Gross Natural Gas Withdrawals
(Billion Cubic Feet)		 Share U.S. Total
(%)
1 Texas 13603.5 28.5
2 Pennsylvania 7675.8 16.1
3 New Mexico 4150.5 8.7
4 Louisiana 3817.3 8.0
5 West Virginia 3600.0 7.5
6 Alaska 3546.1 7.4
7 Oklahoma 2877.7 6.0
8 Ohio 2100.7 4.4
9 Colorado 1869.8 3.9
10 North Dakota 1266.3 2.7
11 Wyoming 1197.5 2.5
12 Offshore Gulf of Mexico 721.5 1.5
13 Utah 338.7 0.7
14 Arkansas 323.3 0.7
15 Kansas 122.3 0.3
16 California 113.2 0.2
17 Virginia 80.9 0.2
18 Alabama 75.8 0.2
19 Michigan 64.1 0.1
20 Kentucky 58.8 0.1
21 Montana 50.5 0.1
22 Mississippi 25.8 0.1

New Mexico and Louisiana ranked third and fourth, producing 4,151 Bcf and 3,817 Bcf, respectively. Combined with Texas and Pennsylvania, the four states generated 61.3% of U.S. gross natural gas withdrawals in 2025.

Appalachia Forms America’s Second Major Gas Hub

Beyond Texas, the Appalachian Basin has become the country’s other major gas-producing hub.

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio together produced 13,377 Bcf in 2025, equal to 28% of the U.S. total, largely from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

Alaska ranked just behind West Virginia despite having no pipeline connection to the Lower 48, underscoring the scale of its resource base.

This production base helps explain the country’s leading position in global gas markets. See how U.S. dry natural gas production ranks against other major producing countries.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Natural Gas Withdrawals Across U.S. States (2023) on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 21:20

Air Force Secretary Admits US Has Weapons Deployed In Space

survivalnomics
-
0
Air Force Secretary Admits US Has Weapons Deployed In Space

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

The Secretary of the Air Force said on Sept. 14 that the United States has weapons deployed in space.

“Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats wherever they exist,” Secretary Troy Meink said at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual conference in National Harbor, Maryland. “This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary actions.”

Meink’s comment came during his keynote address, titled “Advancing Combat Power in Air and Space.” However, no further details on the state or nature of those weapons were discussed at that time.

This is the first time the United States Armed Forces have confirmed the presence of weapons in space, a global point of debate and concern since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik into orbit in 1957.

Meink declined to elaborate further during a question-and-answer session immediately following his speech, stating “that phrase was very well thought out.”

However, he did elaborate on what he saw as a necessity to maintain U.S. space capabilities and deter any threats to them from growing adversaries, who remained nameless.

“Our maintaining and being able to count on those space capabilities is important, and as everybody knows, there have been many who have developed capabilities to take those away from us, to threaten those things,” he said. “So it is critically important that we maintain our dominance not only in the air but in space.”

“So, we’ve had to take steps to make sure that when we’re threatened, we can take care of that,” he added.

The United States Space Force released a space warfighting framework in 2025. It defines “Space Control” as a core function to gain space superiority.

“Space control comprises the activities required to contest and control the space domain,” the framework stated.

Those activities would include “counterspace operations,” like offensive orbital strikes, terrestrial strikes, and Space Link Interdiction, which is defined as “actions taken to disrupt, deny, or degrade an enemy’s critical space links,” through non-kinetic action such as an electromagnetic attack or cyberattack.

Those operations would also include active and passive defensive actions like threat warning and counterattack.

Meink highlighted separately the Space-Based Interceptor Program, which is currently in development as part of President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense system.

He said in his keynote address that he continued to stand by what he called the fundamental mission, which is to “Defend the homeland, deter all adversaries, and, if necessary, win in combat.”

However, he also acknowledged the rapidly changing warfighting environment, from one-way attack drones to the deployment of artificial intelligence.

“Today we face a mix of rapidly changing technologies and adversaries moving aggressively to employ them,” he said.

“If we expect to deter our adversaries, we must increase our combat power, innovate faster than anyone else, affordably. We need cost-effective combat power,” he added.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 20:55

Supreme Court Block President Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Order

survivalnomics
-
0
Supreme Court Block President Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Order

The nationwide injunction stands; the suspended rule would have required unique barcodes and scanner-ready envelopes…

The Supreme Court late on Sept. 14 declined to lift a nationwide injunction blocking a United States Postal Service (USPS) rule on federal ballot mail, leaving it on hold for the 2026 midterms.

The ruling in USPS v. California took the form of an unsigned order.

“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the order said.

“And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion with fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority” but that applying the proposed rules would be “arbitrary and capricious” for the midterm elections as state and local officials “do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule.”

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The decision is likely the final say on the rule during this election cycle, with even Talwani saying from the bench earlier this month that it was unclear how the government would implement the plans with November just around the corner.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 20:35

Indian Refineries Run At Up To 108% Capacity On Soaring Diesel Demand

survivalnomics
-
0
Indian Refineries Run At Up To 108% Capacity On Soaring Diesel Demand

India’s refineries have been running at an unprecedented 105% to 108% capacity utilization in the past six months as demand for diesel soars and international fuel markets tighten amid the ongoing Middle East crisis, OilPrice reports citing Reuters.

Refinery capacity utilization in the world’s third-largest crude oil importer has been between 105% and 108% since the war began, a senior executive at Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) said at the APPEC petroleum conference in Singapore on Wednesday.  

“Most of our refiners are complex, ‌can take a wide ‌variety of crude from an API range of something like 16 to 45 or 48,” Nandakumar Pillai, a company director at MRPL, said at the event, as carried by Reuters.

MRPL operates a refinery with the capacity to process 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) on the coast of India’s southern state of Karnataka. The refinery has a versatile design with complex secondary processing units and high flexibility to process crudes of various API, delivering a variety of quality products, the refiner says.

MRPL will continue to run its refinery at above 100% until March 2027, Pillai told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.

All Indian refiners are currently prioritizing diesel production at the expense of jet fuel amid soaring domestic diesel demand and a crunch in global middle distillate supply.

Diesel prices globally are soaring, and diesel cracks have hit all-time highs as supply remains constrained in the Middle East and Russia, while maximized refinery runs elsewhere cannot offset the supply lost to the U.S.-Iran war and Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russian refineries.

The re-escalation in the Middle East and the Russian ban on diesel exports pushed middle distillate cracks to record highs last week.

Analysts have been warning for weeks that diesel and other fuels are the real stress test in the oil markets, not crude oil.  

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 20:30

US Data Centers To Burn More Natural Gas Than Most Nations

survivalnomics
-
0
US Data Centers To Burn More Natural Gas Than Most Nations

Several weeks ago, we explained why most data center developers favor on-site gas power: it boiled down to two main reasons – availability (especially since modular nuclear power for commercial ‘behind the meter’ use is still in the distant future) and price. Furthermore, a recent BloombergNEF analysis shows the marginal cost of operating an on-site gas plant may be below industrial electricity tariffs, making continued generation from on-site assets the cheaper option in many cases. 

As we discussed in late August, marginal generation costs depend on fuel prices and variable operating expenses. BloombergNEF modeled the marginal cost of operating engines, turbines and fuel cells at a mid-scenario gas price of $3.97 per million British thermal units. Gas engines, such as ones manufactured by Wartsila and INNIO, have the highest marginal cost, at $43.2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Fuel cells, most prominently procured from Bloom Energy, are the cheapest to continue running, at $21.5/MWh, benefiting from high thermal efficiencies and the lowest variable operational cost.  

It appears that none of this was lost on US data centers, and the result has been an explosion of nat gas use to power the domestic data center industry which in turn is critical to keep the AI bubble afloat. 

Which brings us to another key data point: according to a new outlook from BloombergNEF, data centers in the United States will consume more natural gas than most countries within a decade.

Gas consumption to produce electricity for data centers is expected to grow by 15 billion cubic feet per day in the ten years to 2035, even accounting for many currently planned projects never being built, BloombergNEF said. That’s more gas than is currently consumed by all nations except China, Russia, Iran and the US itself, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration. It’s also more than double BloombergNEF’s previous forecast in December of 6.9 billion cubic feet per day.

The report is the latest illustration of how the future of AI is intertwined with the burning of vast amounts of fossil fuels, tying Big Tech’s ambitions to those of the legacy oil and gas industry, and why – as we discussed over the weekend – a Democratic win in the midterm elections will make life for data center developers a socialist hell. 

The abundance and low cost of producing natural gas in the US, combined with gas power plants’ ability to quickly ramp up and down as needed by 24/7 data centers, are a key part of why the fuel is expected to supply 69% of the power needed by new grid-connected data centers in BloombergNEF’s forecast.

The wave of new projects powering the AI boom makes the power sector the second-largest driver of US gas demand in the decade through 2035, just behind the demand growth of new liquefied natural gas export terminals entering service on the US Gulf Coast, according to the outlook. Power-sector gas consumption is expected to increase to 54 billion cubic feet per day by 2035, up by 18 billion cubic feet per day in 2025, while gas demand from LNG exports rises by 21 billion cubic feet per day.

Of course, given the uncertainty of how the AI boom will play out over the next decade, the “error bars” undergirding BloombergNEF’s forecast for data center gas consumption are “fairly large — both to the upside and the downside, frankly,” said Henry Eaton, a gas market analyst at BloombergNEF and the lead author of the report. “Our power demand estimates are definitely not low, but they’re not the highest on the Street.”

That said, the soaring, simultaneous gas needs of AI data centers and LNG export plants pose “a complex challenge for domestic gas producers,” which are currently projected to raise gas output by 35 billion cubic feet per day between 2025 and 2035 but will need to produce an additional 11 billion cubic feet per day to meet forecasted demand, according to the outlook. Failing that, nat gas prices will be the next to surge.

BloombergNEF’s report adds to the growing bullish chorus around US natural gas because of the data center and LNG build-out, alongside fears that some of the highest-quality acreage in major US gas fields could become depleted as operators drill it more aggressively.

Citing those same factors, Wood Mackenzie in July declared “the decade of cheap Henry Hub gas is coming to an end,” referring to the pipeline trading hub in Louisiana that sets the US benchmark for natural gas. The analyst firm projected power-sector gas demand to rise by 17 billion cubic feet per day “by the mid-2030s,” nearly identical to BloombergNEF’s forecast of 18 billion cubic feet per day.

Wood Mackenzie’s outlook was followed by a viral interview with Chronometer Holdings LLC Founder Matthew Smith, who predicted that by the end of the decade, “you’re going to start to see a knife fight to secure natural gas.”

“The biggest losers of this will be US consumer,” Smith said in the video interview which was seen over 1.6 million times on X and was hotly contested by some in the industry.

“I couldn’t disagree more with Matt’s view,” Ben Dell, managing partner of co-founder of investment firm Kimmeridge Energy Management Co., wrote in response to Smith’s dire outlook. While the US gas market will see “considerable demand growth” from LNG and data centers, ample undeveloped acreage within US gas fields help to explain how the gas industry “has consistently met the demand while lowering costs on an inflation adjusted basis.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 18:50

Paramount Threatens California Exit That Could Cost State Billions

survivalnomics
-
0
Paramount Threatens California Exit That Could Cost State Billions

Paramount could pull nearly 58,000 jobs and $21 billion in annual economic activity out of California if the company follows through on a threat to relocate its headquarters and operations amid an antitrust fight over its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a preliminary economic analysis from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.’s (LAEDC) Institute for Applied Economics, which was obtained by Politico.

If no resolution is achieved, Paramount has threatened to begin moving its headquarters and thousands of jobs out of the state starting Oct. 1, 2026, with Georgia, Tennessee and Texas floated as possible destinations.

The threat traces back to a lawsuit that California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and eleven other Democratic state attorneys general filed on July 13 to permanently block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger under the Clayton Act. Their complaint argued the combined company would reduce competition in wide-release theatrical films, in the market for anticipated top-grossing pictures, and in the licensing of basic cable channels.

The lawsuit came after the Justice Department had reached the opposite conclusion in June, closing its own investigation without filing suit and finding the deal unlikely to harm competition in streaming, linear television, or theatrical film production and distribution.

The LAEDC report makes it clear that California’s economy would suffer huge losses if Paramount decided to move out of state. Apart from the 28,990 and 57,980 potential full-time jobs that would disappear, California would also see annual economic output decline somewhere between $10.6 billion and $21.2 billion. Annual state and local tax revenue would also drop by about $585 million.

This is, however, a worst-case scenario based on LAEDC assumptions, not a definite forecast, since Paramount does not publicly break down its operating expenses or employment by state.

Even the more conservative scenario still involves a heavy loss. Even a slower, partial retreat tied to merger-related ticking fees and financing costs totaling roughly $1.88 billion, spread over five years, could still result in the state losing 550 to 1,110 job-years each year and between $202.7 million and $405.4 million in annual economic output.

The merger agreement requires Paramount to pay additional amounts to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders, called ticking fees, if the transaction is not completed by September 30. From October 1 onwards, the LAEDC sets the fees at about $7 million per day, so each week of legal proceedings becomes a separate charge. As a partial gesture to resolve the issue, Paramount has promised to make 30 theatrical releases each year from the combined company. This pledge the LAEDC believes could result in between 1,020 and 2,760 job-years and between $377.7 million and $1.01 billion in economic output throughout the state over a five-year period.

It’s unclear whether this proposal will persuade Bonta’s office.

For now, Bonta isn’t backing down on his public messaging. “California is the fourth largest economy in the world and the best place to do business,” his office said, adding, “Strong antitrust enforcement is essential so everyone can benefit from a vibrant economy.”

“When companies create a monopoly and illegally use that power to get out of negotiating, that hurts our economy, it hurts Californians, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” Bonta’s office said.

Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor, has made this dispute a campaign talking point, calling the lawsuit “totally politically motivated” last month and saying he would “use whatever power I have to discourage any litigation that would be destructive to California, including this one.”

Hilton has also framed Paramount as one data point in a broader exodus. “There’s always something, because the people in charge of California are just running this state into the ground,” he said on Real America’s News last month, adding that business owners tell him on the trail they’re “hanging on till November” and will leave if the state’s political direction doesn’t change. “I think that we are heading for economic collapse in California,” he said. He also predicted the recent trickle of departures “is going to turn into a stampede” without a course correction.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 18:00

Court Rejects DOE Order To Delay Michigan Coal Plant Retirement

survivalnomics
-
0
Court Rejects DOE Order To Delay Michigan Coal Plant Retirement

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

A federal appeals court on Friday vacated the Department of Energy’s emergency order requiring the owners of a coal-fired power plant in Michigan to delay its planned retirement, saying the move usurped state authority over generating resources.

“The federal government has, until now, issued stopgap generation orders in response only to transitory emergencies caused by war, extreme weather events, market manipulation, or unplanned, short-term unavailability of specific generation units,” the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling. 

Consumers Energy’s 1,420-MW, coal-fired J.H. Campbell power plant in West Olive, Mich. The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Sept, 11, 2026, that the U.S. Department of Energy overstepped its authority when it ordered Consumers to delay retiring the power plant

“It is the states — informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities’ assessments of available supply and reliability needs — that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis,” the court added, noting that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator had approved the plant’s retirement after extensive reviews.

The suit was brought by Earthjustice, which represented the Sierra Club and Urban Core Collective. Also, the Michigan attorney general argued the case for Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota. Other petitioners included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Vote Solar, the Ecology Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The court found that the DOE lacked the authority under the Federal Power Act’s section 202(c) to order Consumers Energy to run its majority-owned, 1,420-MW J.H. Campbell power plant past its May 31, 2025, retirement date.

Under section 202(c), an “emergency” means a grid reliability risk that calls for immediate action by DOE — a condition that wasn’t met in the case of the Campbell power plant, the court said.

The court said it was unpersuaded by DOE’s “sweeping conception” of its emergency authority under the FPA’s section 202(c). 

“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” the court said.

Section 202(c) gives the DOE a “limited backstop mechanism” to address certain electricity supply emergencies, the court said.

“Contrary to DOE’s position, … the complexity and advance planning that go into states’ assurances of resource adequacy do not imply that DOE must have vast, top-down emergency power to pick its favorite generators to run at all costs,” the court said. “The Department’s reading of ‘emergency’ invites frequent federal interventions that are unsupported by the statute and threaten the stability of the energy market.”

The DOE justified its order keeping the Campbell plant online by citing “fragments” of two documents and a MISO presentation it said showed that the region faced an emergency, the court noted. 

The decision is among the first amid various legal challenges to DOE orders keeping fossil-fueled power plants from retiring to reach a court decision. Generally, the department has argued the plants needed to keep running due to the medium- to long-term potential for electric supply shortfalls.

Since the DOE issued its first 90-day order keeping the Campbell power plant from retiring, it has issued similar orders affecting six other power plants — all but one of which is coal-fired. DOE has reissued all the orders before they were set to expire.

Through June 30, the net cost of complying with the DOE emergency orders was $259 million, after applying MISO revenues of $239 million, Consumers said in a July 28 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“The court rebuked the Trump administration’s abuse of emergency powers,” Michael Lenoff, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a press release.

“The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies. Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.”

The DOE could appeal the court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Energy Department’s emergency orders, including at Campbell, prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives during peak capacity events this past year,” a DOE spokesperson said in an email.

The DOE’s emergency orders were “essential” for keeping the lights on during Winter Storm Fern in January, according to the spokesperson. At the peak of the bitter cold, coal-fired generation in affected regions increased 25% compared to the same time last year, and the Campbell plant operated at over 650 MW every day between Jan. 21 and Feb. 1, they said.

“The Department of Energy will continue to protect and defend energy security for all Americans,” the spokesperson said.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 17:40

Bitcoin Jumps As CLARITY Act Odds Surge In Prediction Markets

survivalnomics
-
0
Bitcoin Jumps As CLARITY Act Odds Surge In Prediction Markets

Bitcoin is sharply higher, ignoring the meltdown in gold and other dollar-sensitive assets, on a surge in prediction market optimism that Washington may finally pass a crypto market structure bill, with odds rising to multi-week highs on Monday and Polymarket.

Polymarket bettors put the chance that the Clarity Act will be signed into law this year at nearly 30% Monday morning, up from just 12% earlier in September. That’s the highest level since early August, according to the event contract’s dashboard.

As a reminder the Senate is scheduled to hold a crucial procedural cloture vote on the crypto-focused Clarity Act on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The bill requires 60 votes to advance.

Overnight, Senate Republicans released the “final” draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which they said incorporates “substantive changes” requested by Democrats, the Block reported. President Trump was also reported to have agreed to ethics restrictions in the bill that would limit crypto-related dealings by officials and their spouses.

Stablecoin rewards, previously a key sticking point in negotiations, also appear to have been addressed.

Under the latest draft, the Treasury secretary would have authority to impose a circuit-breaker on stablecoin rewards for up to 18 months after enactment, if stablecoins were deemed to be driving substantial deposit outflows from community banks.

Following the draft’s release, market-implied odds of the bill passing this year rose from 22% to 30% on Polymarket.

Additionally, traders put the odds of passage before July 1 at 53%, versus 30% Thursday, after the contract briefly surged to 69%. The chance of legislation becoming law before April most recently stood at at 45%, roughly double Thursday’s 23%.

Bessent helped with a post on X:

“I’ve said many times that the CLARITY Act is essential to ensuring America wins the global race for new technology.

That’s the reason Congress passed the GENIUS Act: to ensure that stablecoin infrastructure, a revolutionary financial technology, will be built in America…”

While markets clearly show traders see a clearer path for crypto legislation ahead of Tuesday’s key procedural vote in the Senate, there’s still plenty of road between a favorable vote and a presidential signature.

According to CoinDesk, Tuesday’s Senate cloture vote requires 60 senators, forcing the measure to draw bipartisan support. Clearing that threshold would be an important political milestone, but it would not amount to final Senate passage. 

Lawmakers could still face a lengthy amendment process of the bill. Any changes would also have to be reconciled with the House before legislation could head to the president, while the congressional calendar adds another source of uncertainty.

The next move belongs to the Democrats, because this wasn’t a negotiated package, one analyst said.

Jaret Sieberg, a financial policy analyst for TD Cowen, said the Democratic lawmakers may not see enough here to justify getting on board, so he maintained a 25% chance of Clarity Act passage on Monday.

“We are not convinced the updated ethics language Senate Republicans released last night is substantive enough for moderate Democrats,” he wrote in a note to clients.

The problems for Democrats: President Trump would still be able to maintain his crypto investments, even if they’re structured in a blind trust, so it doesn’t sever him from the industry he has such an influence on. And the powers for state attorneys general to sue remain very narrow, with no direct actions possible against the president. Also, Trump would tout a yes vote as a major personal victory, Sieberg said, potentially carrying a political cost for the November elections.

On the positive side, Sieberg noted, the changes could give Democrats a little more political cover if they wanted to support the bill, and bankers may feel more comfortable with it because of the extra protections it gives their deposit accounts from customers running to stablecoins.

He said that because the administration hasn’t yet offered Democrat nominations to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, those could be offered up to sweeten the deal in a final negotiation.

And while the odds of Clarity act passage have failed to rise above 50%, even the modest move observed was enough to push bitcoin up nearly $2000 to just shy of $80K, the highest since Friday’s post-CPI “band aid” response.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 17:20

EPA Poised To Scrap Power Plant Carbon Standards

survivalnomics
-
0
EPA Poised To Scrap Power Plant Carbon Standards

By Robin Lawrence, of UtilityDive

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally rescind carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants today, according to multiple media reports.

The repeal would complete the Trump administration’s elimination of climate policies enacted under the Obama and Biden administrations and could prevent future administrations from regulating greenhouse gases emissions from power plants, according to The New York Times.

Climate Mayors and C40 Cities are among the municipal and environmental groups that have opposed the repeal, which the EPA first proposed in June 2025. “GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to costly and detrimental fiscal and public health impacts for cities across the United States,” the groups, along with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, stated in an Aug. 7, 2025, letter to the EPA. 

The Mount Storm Power Station, a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, on July 13, 2026

The EPA has initiated rollbacks of greenhouse gas emissions standards since President Donald Trump took office. Environmental groups and local governments have filed multiple lawsuits attempting to halt the actions.

In September 2025, EPA proposed a rule to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires over 8,000 facilities and suppliers in the U.S. to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Twelve cities and counties joined a coalition of 24 states in a March lawsuit challenging the EPA’s repeal of its 2009 endangerment finding, the underpinning for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Also in March, a coalition of 21 states and local governments filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. That lawsuit also challenges EPA’s rollback of real-time continuous emissions monitoring at power plants, alleging it violates the Clean Air Act.

In their August 2025 comments opposing the EPA’s repeal of power plant greenhouse gas emissions standards, Climate Mayors, C40 and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School said that cities nationwide “rely on the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards to help protect them from costly and dangerous impacts to infrastructure and public health, and to augment their work to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

The most acute effects of greenhouse gas emissions are often felt in cities, the letter states. “Moreover, federal regulation of power sector GHG emissions not only reduces emissions from regulated power plants, but also has the indirect effect of reducing emissions from other sectors that use electricity, including the building and transportation sectors, which are the top two sources of GHG emissions in U.S. cities,” the groups state. 

EPA estimated last year that repealing emission guidelines and carbon capture requirements would save the power sector about $1.2 billion a year, and repealing 2024 amendments to mercury emissions standards would save power plants about $120 million a year.  

When it issued the standards in May 2024, EPA found that the regulations would deliver $370 billion in net benefits over two decades, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that EPA has an obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act,” Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said in an emailed statement Monday. “The power sector is the second-largest U.S. greenhouse gas emitter. Leaving this pollution unchecked ignores the Supreme Court, puts the public at risk, and flagrantly violates EPA’s legal responsibilities.”

The EPA has not responded to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/14/2026 – 17:10

1...535455...4,495Page 54 of 4,495

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks