Energy
Bipartisan groups in Congress introduce bill to protect strategic petroleum reserve

From The Center Square
By
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill to limit, not prohibit, the sale of crude oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
The Banning SPR Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act was filed in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, John Fetterman, D-Penn., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. U.S. Reps. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn, Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, and Jay Obernolte, R-Calif. filed the bill in the U.S. House.
Instead of repealing provisions of a 10-year-old law to ban the sale or export of SPR oil, the bill seeks to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the sale or export of SPR oil to certain countries and entities. It would ban SPR oil from being sold or exported to the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Russian Federation, Islamic Republic of Iran, any entity owned or controlled by these countries or the Chinese Communist Party.
The SPR is the largest publicly stored emergency supply of petroleum in the world – solely supplied by the U.S. oil industry, led by Texas. The SPR was created after a U.S. energy crisis erupted from a 1973 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo and Carter administration inflationary policies.
Underground tanks in Texas and Louisiana have the capacity to hold more than 700 million barrels of petroleum. Instead of passing balanced budgets, in 2015, Congress mandated that the U.S. Department of Energy sell SPR oil to fund its deficit spending.
Since then, the DOE has sold SPR reserves to the highest bidder through competitive public auctions to anyone in the world. During the Biden and Trump administrations, foreign companies with direct ties to American adversaries purchased SPR oil for anti-democratic regimes.
In 2022, in response to energy policies he implemented that directly contributed to high energy costs and inflation, President Joe Biden instructed the DOE to release 1 million barrels of SPR oil a day for 180 days. Chinese companies benefited from the sale, purchasing large quantities. The 2022 release was the largest SPR sale in U.S. history, according to US Energy Information Administration data.
Biden left the SPR with less than 395 million barrels of crude oil. Under the first Trump administration, the SPR exceeded 695 million barrels. Under the Obama administration, it exceeded 726 million barrels.
“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is meant to protect the U.S. during crises, not supply our adversaries,” Cruz said. “Under President Biden, part of this reserve was sold, benefiting China’s strategic interests. There is strong bipartisan consensus around preventing such a sale from being repeated.”
“The Strategic Petroleum Reserve protects America’s energy, economic, and national security,” Fetterman said. “We must prioritize the safety of America and our allies – we cannot allow our adversaries to purchase oil from our critical energy reserves. This is a commonsense bill with strong bipartisan support.”
Their efforts follow a bipartisan initiative to protect the SPR that was incorporated in the Fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Cruz and Houlahan introduced amendments to their respective chamber’s version of the NDAA, which included similar provisions to this bill. Cruz’s amendment received bipartisan support in the Senate. Houlahan’s amendment unanimously passed in the House.
Energy
Activists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy

2016 image provided by Misti Leon, left, sits with her mom, Juliana Leon. Misti Leon is suing several oil and gas companies in one of the first wrongful-death claims in the U.S. seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the changing climate.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Isaac
They twist yesterday’s weather into tomorrow’s crisis, peddle apocalyptic forecasts that fizzle, and swap “global warming” for “climate change” whenever the narrative demands. They sound the alarm on a so-called climate emergency — again and again.
Now, the Left has plunged to a new low: weaponizing the courts with a lawsuit in Washington State that marks a brazen, desperate escalation. This isn’t just legal maneuvering—it’s the exploitation of personal tragedy in service of an unpopular anti-energy climate crusade.
Consider the case at the center of a new legal circus: Juliana Leon, 65, tragically died of hyperthermia during a 100-mile drive in a car with broken air conditioning, as a brutal heat wave pushed temperatures to 108 degrees Fahrenheit.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
The lawsuit leaps from this heartbreaking event to a sweeping claim: that a single hot day is the direct result of global warming.
The lawsuit preposterously links a very specific hot weather event to theorized global warming. Buckle up—their logic is about to take a wild ride.
Some activist scientists have further speculated that what may be a gradual long-term trend of slight warming thought to be both cyclical and natural, might be possibly exacerbated by the release of greenhouse gases. Some of these releases are the result of volcanic activity while some comes from human activities, including the burning of oil, natural gas and coal.
Grabbing onto that last, unproven thread, the plaintiffs have zeroed in on a handful of energy giants—BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell, and the Olympic Pipe Company—accusing them of causing Leon’s death. Apparently, these few companies are to blame for the entire planet’s climate, while other oil giants, coal companies, and the billions of consumers who actually use these fuels get a free pass.
Meanwhile, “climate journalists” in the legacy media have ignored key details that will surely surface in court. Leon made her journey in a car with no air conditioning, despite forecasts warning of dangerous heat. She was returning from a doctor’s visit, having just been cleared to eat solid food after recent bariatric surgery.
But let’s be clear: this lawsuit isn’t about truth, justice, or even common sense. It’s lawfare, plain and simple.
Environmental extremists are using the courts to hijack national energy policy, aiming to force through a radical agenda they could never pass in Congress. A courtroom win would mean higher energy prices for everyone, the potential bankruptcy of energy companies, or their takeover by the so-called green industrial complex. For the trial lawyers, these cases are gold mines, with contingency fees that could reach hundreds of millions.
This particular lawsuit was reportedly pitched to Leon’s daughter by the left-leaning Center for Climate Integrity, a group bankrolled by billionaire British national Christopher Hohn through his Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and by the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s yet another meritless claim in the endless list of climate lawsuits that are increasingly being tossed out of courts across the country.
Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge threw out a climate nuisance suit against oil producers brought by Bucks County, citing lack of jurisdiction. In New York, Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed a massive climate lawsuit by New York City, pointing out the city couldn’t claim both public awareness and deception by oil companies in the same breath.
But the Washington State case goes even further, threatening to set a dangerous precedent: if it moves forward, energy companies could face limitless liability for any weather-related injury. Worse, it would give unwarranted credibility to the idea — floated by a leftwing activist before the U.S. Senate — that energy executives could be prosecuted for homicide, a notion that Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rightly called “moonbeam, wacky theory.”
The courts must keep rejecting these absurd lawfare stunts. More importantly, America’s energy policy should be set by Congress—elected and accountable—not by a single judge in a municipal courtroom.
Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
Alberta
Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona
‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’
Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.
Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.
That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.
“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.
Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.
In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.
According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.
The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.
For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.
“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.
“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”
As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.
“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.
Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.
“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.
“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Opinion1 day ago
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Alberta1 day ago
Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says
-
Daily Caller21 hours ago
‘Strange Confluence Of Variables’: Mike Benz Wants Transparency Task Force To Investigate What Happened in Butler, PA
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day ago
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
-
Business1 day ago
Carney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts