View this email in your browser ([link removed])
DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 01/07/2026
Subscribe Now ([link removed])
** Massachusetts put climate policy ahead of people; now they are paying for it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Herald ([link removed]) (1/7/26) op-ed: "Massachusetts has embraced some of the most aggressive climate and energy policies nationwide, and electricity prices in the Commonwealth remain among the highest in the United States. That is not a coincidence. Policy choices drive outcomes, and Massachusetts is no exception. High electricity prices are not an inevitability. Recent analysis from the Institute for Energy Research and Always On Energy Research finds that states with electricity prices above the national average are disproportionately Democratic-led states that rely on aggressive energy mandates. These policies reshape generation mixes, limit supply options, and impose compliance costs that ultimately show up in consumers’ electric bills. Massachusetts fits this pattern closely... Recent reporting by the CommonWealth Beacon underscores how far Massachusetts’ climate framework has drifted from
real-world enforcement. Court records indicate that a 2017 regulation requiring annual emissions reductions from state-owned vehicle fleets was never followed by any state agency. Regulators failed for years to collect required reports or take enforcement action, even through multiple administrations. The lapse is especially striking given that the regulation stemmed from a Supreme Judicial Court order meant to strengthen the state’s climate program. Consumers, meanwhile, are being asked to absorb the costs of aggressive climate mandates, including electric vehicle requirements and restrictive building codes, while state agencies have failed to comply with their own mandates. That inconsistency matters because energy costs are real. They reflect cumulative policy decisions — mandates, permitting delays, infrastructure constraints, and limits on supply. When policy overrides market signals, costs rise, and reliability suffers."
[link removed]
[link removed]
** "Noncompetitive energies need studies; competitive energies need markets."
------------------------------------------------------------
– R ([link removed]) obert Bradley Jr., MasterResource ([link removed])
============================================================
He gets it.
** ([link removed])
It's the gas prices, stupid.
** No Dowd About It ([link removed])
(1/5/26) Substack: "Irony plagues politics more than any other human endeavor. Take the prospect of Democrats winning control of Congress in the midterms. At present, it’s looking good for the donkeys. The chief executive’s approval rating is well under 50 percent, and he’s clueless on the cost-of-living worries — e.g., groceries, housing, healthcare, college tuition — that Team Blue plans to leverage in November. Here’s the irony: The undisputed frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s 2028 presidential nomination presides over the state with the priciest gasoline in the contiguous U.S.A. While California’s hysterical waging of World War Carbon predates Gavin Newsom’s 2019 inauguration, the governor is a close ally of the eco-extremists who wield nearly unchecked power in Sacramento. And policy has consequences. Last month, a paperby three academics from the Golden State’s university system explored just how ominous the fuel crisis is, and why a turnaround isn’t on the way. The issue is
sure to be an asset for GOPers laboring to keep Newsom out of the White House."
Carbon taxes hurt consumers.
** OilPrice.com ([link removed])
(1/4/26) op-ed: "In simple terms, the carbon border adjustment mechanism puts a price on the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the production of a good such as cement or steel. The price is based on calculations of the emissions from the respective industries in countries that export to the European Union. The mechanism puts a so-called default emission value for the production of a certain good, and also emission benchmarks, to be used in tandem in a way that is as of yet unclear, but some say it is, in fact, benefiting China... So, two of the world’s largest exporters of industrial goods, and major suppliers to the European Union specifically, are planning to respond to the CBAM by, at least in one case, curbing exports. This would sure clear up the market for European producers, but it will not be welcome news to consumers of those goods, who would be footing the bill for what is essentially market intervention on the part of the European Union, and a protectionist market
intervention, at that. The United States is not going to be happy about it, either, and it will soon make its unhappiness known."
Energy Markets
WTI Crude Oil: ↓ $56.69
Natural Gas: ↑ $3.52
Gasoline: ↑ $2.82
Diesel: ↑ $3.54
Heating Oil: ↑ $208.56
Brent Crude Oil: ↓ $60.50
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↑ 572
** Donate ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Connect on Facebook ([link removed])
** Connect on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on X ([link removed])
** Follow on X ([link removed])
** Subscribe on YouTube ([link removed])
** Subscribe on YouTube ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])
** Suite 525 ([link removed])
** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])
** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
