A major power provider in South Carolina started accepting bids from buyers on Wednesday to finish two nuclear reactors, hoping to take advantage of the recent interest in the energy source from technology companies. The utility, Santee Cooper, wants to sell the reactors that were mothballed in 2017 before they were half complete. Its decision comes as the tech industry, which is rapidly building power-hungry data centers, has begun looking to nuclear plants for their ability to provide lots of electricity around the clock without releasing emissions responsible for climate change. But delays and cost overruns have dogged nuclear power in recent decades in the United States. When Santee Cooper halted construction of the two reactors, at the V.C. Summer power plant, it left them less than 40 percent built and stalled a project once billed as a notable step forward for nuclear power generation in the United States. The company and a partner, South Carolina Electric & Gas, spent about $9 billion on the incomplete reactors. Santee Cooper said it was working with the investment firm Centerview Partners to field proposals from potential buyers until May 5. The company added that it did not intend to own or operate the reactors once they are complete. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “We are seeing renewed interest in nuclear energy, fueled by advanced manufacturing investments, AI-driven data center demand, and the tech industry’s zero-carbon targets,” Jimmy Staton, Santee Cooper’s chief executive, said in a statement. Initially proposed in 2007 — at a time when industry officials were predicting a resurgence in nuclear power — the South Carolina project grappled with a shifting energy landscape before it stalled a decade later. Improvements in energy efficiency caused demand for electricity to plateau nationwide during those years, while a hydraulic fracturing boom flooded the country with cheap natural gas, a lot of which is burned in power plants to generate electricity. V.C. Summer has one large operating nuclear reactor that was built in 1982 and is run by Dominion Energy, a utility company in Richmond, Va., that bought South Carolina Electric & Gas in 2019. That reactor is not part of the sale of the two incomplete reactors owned by Santee Cooper. The energy landscape has shifted again in recent years. Several tech giants, including Microsoft, Amazon and Alphabet, have said they would help fund nuclear reactor construction to support their artificial intelligence expansion. The federal government also stepped in to support the resurgence of interest in nuclear power. In September, the Energy Department said it had finalized a $1.52 billion loan guarantee to help a company restart a shuttered nuclear plant in Michigan. Congress and the Biden administration offered billions of dollars in subsidies to keep older nuclear plants running and to build new reactors. While President Trump has opposed and sought to repeal many of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s energy and climate policies, he has said he supports nuclear energy. Globally, demand for nuclear power has been growing in recent years alongside mounting concern about climate change. Nuclear reactors can generate electricity without emitting planet-warming greenhouse gases. But environmentalists and some other critics note that building reactors can be very expensive and that the United States still has not settled on a strategy for long-term storage of the radioactive waste produced by reactors. Some other countries have developed places for such storage.

President Trump launched a broad attack on the wind power industry in the United States, with a sweeping executive order that could block not just new offshore wind farms in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans but potentially many smaller wind farms on federal land and even on private property across the country. The order, which Mr. Trump signed in the Oval Office on Monday night, would halt all leasing of federal lands and waters for new wind farms pending a fresh government review of the industry. It also directs federal agencies to stop issuing permits for all wind farms anywhere in the country for the time being, a move that could disrupt projects on private land, which sometimes need federal wildlife or other environmental permits. While the order does not call for a freeze on wind projects that are already under construction, Mr. Trump directed the U.S. Attorney General and secretary of the interior to explore the possibility of “terminating or amending” any leases that have already been issued. That means projects that have already received federal approvals could face new hurdles. Taken together, the moves could prove crippling for the U.S. wind industry, which provides 10 percent of the nation’s electricity and is a major source of power in Republican-led states like Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas. The wind industry currently has nearly 40 gigawatts worth of projects — enough to power tens of millions of homes — under development in the Atlantic Ocean and in states like Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The Biden administration approved permits for 11 commercial-scale wind farms along the Atlantic Coast. Five of those are under construction and one has been completed. But Eastern states like New York and Massachusetts were hoping to build even more offshore wind projects to meet their renewable energy targets. Those goals are now in peril. The wind industry sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s order, saying that it ran counter to another declaration the president made on Monday that the nation was in an “energy emergency” and needed all the electricity it could get to power new data centers and factories. “Wind power is an essential element of our ability to serve soaring electricity demand for manufacturing and data centers that are key to national security,” said Jason Grumet, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, a renewable industry trade group. “The possibility that the federal government could seek to actively oppose energy production by American companies on private land is at odds with our nation’s character as well as our national interests.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Mr. Trump has been a fervent critic of wind power for years, ever since he unsuccessfully tried to stop an offshore wind farm from being built in view of one of his Scottish golf courses. In a speech shortly after his inauguration on Monday, the new president launched into a lengthy diatribe against wind turbines. “We’re not going to do the wind thing,” Mr. Trump told a crowd of supporters at the Capital One arena in Washington. “Big ugly windmills, they ruin your neighborhood.” His order for a broad crackdown on new wind farms adds to the mounting challenges for the industry. While wind power remains one of the fastest-growing sources of electricity in the United States, that growth has slowed in recent years in the face of soaring costs and high interest rates. Many wind companies are now facing delays in securing connections to the grid as well as opposition from rural communities worried about disruptions from new turbines the size of skyscrapers. More than 400 counties have imposed local restrictions or bans on wind turbines to date, including much of Tennessee and Kentucky. Developers of offshore wind projects — which are larger, more complicated and more expensive — have also struggled with increased expenses and supply-chain hurdles. On Monday, even before Mr. Trump signed his executive order, Orsted, the world’s largest offshore wind developer, said that it would write down roughly $1.7 billion on projects off the eastern coast of the United States. The company attributed the setback to higher interest rates in the United States, which have raised the costs of the company’s projects, as well as construction delays on Sunrise Wind, a large project off Montauk, N.Y. On a call with analysts on Tuesday, Mads Nipper, Orsted’s chief executive, blamed the write-down on “the immature and nascent industry” in the United States, which has not completed large offshore wind farms, compared with many such projects in Europe. Mr. Trump’s order will make it even harder, experts said. The possibility that Mr. Trump could try to undo leases and projects already approved by the Biden administration could also create a longer-lasting drag on the industry. The order “could have negative implications beyond Trump’s term because project developers may be wary of investing in a capital-intensive sector that faces demonstrable high election risk,” said Timothy Fox, a managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a consulting firm. Monday’s executive order told federal agencies to conduct a “comprehensive” review of federal wind permitting practices, including studying the ecological effects of wind turbines on birds and marine mammals. Mr. Trump has insisted that offshore wind farms are killing endangered whales in the Atlantic Ocean, although scientists have said they haven’t found evidence to support that. The order also adds fresh legal uncertainty for the industry. The Biden administration had been defending wind projects that are facing legal challenges from local opponents, including Revolution Wind and South Fork near Rhode Island, the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project and the Maryland Offshore Wind Project. But Monday’s executive order makes it unlikely the Trump administration would continue to defend those projects vigorously in court, Mr. Fox said. “Many offshore wind projects have been approved or are close to approval after undergoing years of reviews,” said Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, which represents oil, gas and wind companies working offshore. “In any emerging industry, even minor delays can lead to multiyear setbacks, resulting in bottlenecks and higher costs that ultimately impact energy consumers.”

At the height of the Los Angeles County wildfires, atmospheric concentrations of lead, a neurotoxin, reached 100 times average levels even miles from the flames, according to early detailed measurements obtained by The New York Times. Levels of chlorine, which is also toxic at low concentrations, reached 40 times the average. The spiking levels underscore the added danger from wildfires when cars, homes, and other structures burn, researchers said. Lead is often present in paint and pipes used in older homes, while chlorine and other chemicals are generated when plastic melts or combusts. These fires were “a wake-up call,” said Haroula Baliaka, a Ph.D. candidate in atmospheric chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, who is part of a new nationwide effort to monitor airborne chemicals in real time. They are “no longer just about burning trees and grass,” she said. “They are urban wildfires, fueled by the very materials that make up our homes and cities.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT As climate change, combined with new development, increases the chances that wildfires strike more densely populated parts of the world, concerns over toxic releases are likely to grow. For Los Angeles, the toxic smoke means that the eventual death toll from the fires, as well as longer-term health burdens, is likely to grow. Breathing in lead can damage the brain and nervous system, particularly in children. Levels of lead in the air during the fires briefly but dramatically exceeded the long-term safety levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Chlorine can damage the lungs and respiratory tract. Overall, high levels of particle pollution in wildfire smoke have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses and death. A study published last year found that wildfire smoke may have killed as many as 12,000 Californians prematurely in 2018, when the Camp fire burned the town of Paradise and other communities in Northern California. Wildfire smoke is starting to erode the world’s progress in cleaning up pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks, as climate change supercharges fires, scientists have said. The latest measurements come from a new federally funded, national monitoring network called ASCENT, begun last year to measure a wide range of air pollutants in real time. The readings from the Los Angeles area fires were captured at the network’s monitoring station in Pico Rivera, several miles from the active fires. Wildfires are becoming a bigger focus for scientists that study air pollution, said Nga Lee Ng, who also uses the given name Sally, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and network’s principal investigator. The urban nature of many of these fires means the smoke “is going to have very different components, a lot more toxic particles,” Professor Ng said.

The Federal Reserve said on Friday that it had withdrawn from a network of global financial regulators focused on climate change risks just days before President-elect Donald J. Trump returns to power. The central bank formally joined the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System in December 2020, shortly after President Biden was elected. Democrats praised that decision, arguing that regulators needed to make sure financial institutions were adequately managing the risk they faced from extreme weather events. Republican lawmakers, however, immediately blasted the Fed for joining the network, saying the central bank was overstepping its congressional mandate, which requires it to keep inflation stable and the job market strong. They expressed concern that the Fed, which oversees the nation’s biggest banks, might try to discourage financial institutions from lending to oil, gas and coal producers or other fossil fuel-intensive companies. The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, or N.G.F.S., was formed to help central banks and other regulators exchange ideas and research as they figure out how to account for climate-related risks in the financial sector. The network also aims to “mobilize mainstream finance to support the transition toward a sustainable economy.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT While the Fed initially supported the network’s goals, the central bank said in a statement on Friday, it decided to leave after the group’s work “increasingly broadened in scope, covering a wider range of issues that are outside of the board’s statutory mandate.” The decision was not unanimous. Five of the seven governors on the Fed’s board voted to withdraw from the network, including the Fed’s chair, Jerome H. Powell. Adriana Kugler and Michael S. Barr abstained. Mr. Barr recently announced that he would step down from his role as vice chair for supervision by Feb. 28. The network said it “regrets but respects” the Fed’s decision to depart its “coalition of the willing.” Yann Marin, the network’s secretary general, wrote in an email that it was true that the scope of the group’s work had broadened “as our understanding of the financial stability risks stemming from climate and nature events has improved.” He added that its work was driven only by financial risks and their consequences for financial and price stability. The network was created in December 2017, months after Mr. Trump announced, during his first term as president, that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord. “We are facing political headwinds again, and the work of those traditional international organizations is becoming more difficult,” Mr. Marin said. “The N.G.F.S. will lead the way fulfilling its mandate, despite the bumps in the road.” The Fed’s move to join the network was a seen as a sign of the central bank’s recognition that it had to begin taking into account the impact of extreme weather events as they occurred more frequently and posed a greater risk to the financial system. The Fed had been informally participating in the network for more than a year. Republicans have sharply critiqued the central bank’s increased attention to climate-related risks in recent years, accusing the Fed of “climate activism.” Days before the Fed formally joined the network, a group of Republican lawmakers expressed concerns about the Fed’s involvement with the group. Its recommendations “could significantly limit access to capital for crucial industries and place harmful restrictions on regulated entities,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Fed officials in December 2020. In contrast to the European Central Bank, which has embraced a role in the transition to a low-carbon economy, Mr. Powell himself has long maintained that dealing with climate is the responsibility of Congress, not the Fed. In November, the Fed refused to back a plan designed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a global financial standard-setter that includes the world’s largest central banks, that would have pushed lenders to disclose the climate risk in their portfolios. In 2021, Fed staff wrote that “a lack of transparency around climate-related risks can increase vulnerabilities related to asset valuations, financial and non-financial leverage, and contagion risk.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT News of the Fed’s decision to leave the network was met with dismay from experts on the relationship between climate change and the financial system. Lisa Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Center on Sustainable Investment, noted that membership did not compel the Fed to take actions outside its statutory mandate. “The Fed’s withdrawal reflects a growing trend of U.S. retreat from positions of leadership and cooperation in multilateral fora, sidelining the U.S. and ceding leadership to other nations that will take up the mantle,” Ms. Sachs wrote in an email. Sarah Bloom Raskin, a former Fed governor, called the move “both substantively and symbolically significant.” “Withdrawing Fed participation from the climate conversation among the world’s central bankers further undermines our country’s prospects for assessing and managing climate risk without having our ideological blinders on,” Ms. Raskin wrote in an email. “The symbolism of this move at the beginning of 2025 is ominous.”

Chris Wright, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for energy secretary, tried to reassure Democrats at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday that he believed climate change was a “global challenge that we need to solve” and that he would support the development of all forms of energy, including wind and solar power. The founder and chief executive of Liberty Energy, a fracking firm, Mr. Wright has been a longtime evangelist for fossil fuels like oil and gas. He has frequently shrugged off the risks of global warming, saying in 2023, “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition, either.” He has also criticized renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, calling them “unreliable and costly.” Appearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, however, Mr. Wright struck a more diplomatic tone. In his opening statement, he said his top priority was to “unleash” domestic energy production, including liquefied natural gas and nuclear power. Yet under questioning from Senate Democrats, he suggested that he agreed with many of their priorities as well. At one point, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrat of Nevada, told Mr. Wright that “the conversation around energy should be balanced and not just focused on fossil fuels.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “I agree entirely,” Mr. Wright replied, going on to talk about the importance of less-polluting sources of energy like nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, wind and solar power. The greenhouse gases from burning oil, gas and coal are the main driver of global warming, which made last year the hottest in recorded history. In one tense exchange, Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California, brought up this month’s catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles. He noted that Mr. Wright had once written in a social media post, “The hype over wildfires is just hype to justify more impoverishment from bad government policies.” “Do you still believe that wildfires are just hype?” Mr. Padilla asked angrily. Mr. Wright said that “climate change is a real and global phenomenon” but did not disavow his past writing. Later, however, he clarified that the Energy Department had an important role to play in tackling global warming. “Do I wish we could make faster progress? Absolutely,” he said. “Are there things we can do, investments together, through the Department of Energy, to accelerate development of new energy technologies that are really the only pathway to address climate change? Absolutely.” Yet Mr. Wright also promised to enthusiastically support Mr. Trumps’s energy plans, saying, “I will work tirelessly to pursue his bold agenda.” Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly called global warming a “hoax,” wants to dismantle existing U.S. policies to reduce emissions and has promised to “drill, baby, drill.” If confirmed, Mr. Wright would run the Energy Department, which plays a central role in developing new energy technologies. The agency oversees a network of 17 national laboratories that conduct cutting-edge research as well as a $400 billion lending program that under President Biden backed dozens of projects, including battery factories in Ohio and Tennessee and a novel rooftop solar expansion in Puerto Rico. Mr. Wright would also imanage approvals of liquefied gas export terminals, which the Biden administration has tried to slow, angering industry groups. Managing an agency so sprawling can be challenging. About 80 percent of the Energy Department’s $52 billion annual budget goes toward maintaining the nation’s nuclear arsenal, cleaning up environmental messes from the Cold War and conducting research in areas like high-energy physics. At his hearing, Mr. Wright declined to go into details about how he would run the department, seeming to signal to Republican and Democrats alike that he was on their side. Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest at the agency’s Loan Programs Office, the $400 billion lending program that has been an engine of Mr. Biden’s clean energy agenda. The senator asked Mr. Wright to freeze new loan activity on Day 1. Mr. Wright declined to promise that and merely said he would “immediately engage” with the concerns. Democrats asked Mr. Wright about proposals by conservative groups to dismantle the agency office that works to expand high-voltage power lines across the country. Those lines can greatly benefit wind and solar power, though experts say they are also critical for avoiding blackouts and keeping electricity prices low. Mr. Wright sidestepped the question but said that building new transmission lines was “very important.” When asked by Democrats if he would try to rescind spending for clean-energy programs funded by laws passed under the Biden administration — as many of Mr. Trump’s allies have urged — Mr. Wright said that he would follow the law, but he did not elaborate. On podcasts and in speeches, Mr. Wright frequently makes a moral case for fossil fuels, arguing that the world’s poorest people need oil and gas to realize the benefits of modern life. Researchers have accused him of downplaying the risks of a warming planet: He said on a podcast last year that climate change would have “a slow-moving, modest impact two or three generations from now.” Mr. Wright graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and did graduate work on solar energy at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1992, he founded Pinnacle Technologies, which created software to measure the motion of fluid beneath the Earth’s surface. The software, which Mr. Wright has called “super nerdy,” helped bring about a commercial shale-gas revolution. Mr. Wright started Liberty Energy in 2011, and the company has worked with others on geothermal energy and small, modular nuclear reactors. Mr. Wright holds 2.6 million shares in the company, which are worth more than $55 million based on the current stock price. He has said he intends to step down from Liberty Energy and divest his holdings if confirmed. While the hearing at several points was interrupted by protesters, who accused Mr. Wright of ignoring climate change while Los Angeles burned, the exchanges were mostly devoid of drama. Republicans, who have a 53-47 majority in the Senate and are confident they can confirm Mr. Wright, praised the nominee’s experience in the energy sector. But even many Democrats seemed to find him acceptable. At the start, Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, introduced Mr. Wright, saying the two men had been friendly for years despite often disagreeing on issues like global warming. “Some people would be surprised that I’m introducing him here,” said Mr. Hickenlooper. “He is indeed an unrestrained enthusiast for fossil fuels in almost every regard.” But, he added, Mr. Wright was “also a scientist who is open to discussion.”

For years, as oil and gas companies increased production, they hired lots of workers, enriching communities across the United States. That is no longer true. The country is pumping more oil than ever and near-record amounts of gas. But the companies that extract, transport and process these fossil fuels employ roughly 25 percent fewer workers than they did a decade earlier when they were churning out less fuel, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data. Now, with some worried about a looming oversupply of oil, producers are tightening their belt, with spending across North America expected to fall 3 percent this year, according to Barclays. That raises the specter of further job losses, even as President Trump urges companies to “drill, baby, drill.” The thinning out of American oil and gas jobs is reminiscent of the long decline of the U.S. coal industry, where employment crested decades before production fell as mining companies extracted more rocks with fewer people. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Two decades into the shale boom, companies are drilling wells that extend deeper into the earth, unlocking more oil and natural gas. New technology is letting them oversee drilling, fracking and production from afar, with fewer people on-site. And larger companies are snapping up smaller players, shedding accountants, engineers and other workers as they go. While the total number of jobs has increased from the bleakest days of the pandemic, far fewer people are working in the industry than before Covid. Among the cost-cutting techniques being pursued by Exxon Mobil and Chevron: hiring engineers and geologists in India, where labor is cheaper, to support activities in the United States and elsewhere. The decline in oil and gas work also reflects the continuing transition to cleaner forms of energy, even if that shift is happening more slowly than many analysts had anticipated a few years ago. “You won’t see a lot of job growth in just the basic act of producing oil and natural gas,” Chris Wright, chief executive of the oil field services company Liberty Energy, said in an interview before Mr. Trump tapped him to lead the Energy Department. The industry, Mr. Wright said, is “on a trend now of flat to maybe gradually declining employment.” Mr. Trump will “protect our energy jobs” while lowering costs for consumers, said Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman. During the first half of the American fracking boom, oil and gas companies added workers at a much faster clip than other industries. The industry nearly doubled in size over 10 years, turbocharging the economies of places like North Dakota, home to the Bakken shale formation. Then, in 2014, oil prices crashed. It took a couple of years, but U.S. production eventually bounced back, soaring to a record of nearly 13.5 million barrels a day last fall. Employment never fully recovered, though, entering an undulating decline punctuated by booms and busts, most recently during the pandemic, when oil prices briefly plunged below zero. Matthew Waguespack was fracking a well in early 2020 when a representative for the oil company that had hired his team to do fieldwork walked into the crew’s mobile office in eastern New Mexico. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “Pump all your sand, pump all your chemicals, pack up,” Mr. Waguespack recalled the man telling the team. “And get out of here.”

Harold G. Hamm, the billionaire oil and gas executive who helped bankroll Donald J. Trump’s campaign and stands to profit from his energy policies, is hosting an exclusive fossil fuel industry celebration on Inauguration Day. The daytime party on the roof of the historic Hay-Adams Hotel, a block from the White House, will be a moment of triumph for Mr. Hamm, who poured more than $4.3 million into political action committees supporting Mr. Trump. Mr. Hamm, the founder of Oklahoma-based Continental Resources, has been influential in Mr. Trump’s plans to gut environmental protections and allow unfettered access by energy companies to federal land and waters. He also helped raise money from others in the oil and gas industry, which spent more than $75 million on efforts to elect Mr. Trump. Among the invited guests to Mr. Hamm’s celebration is Doug Burgum, Mr. Trump’s pick to run the Interior Department. Mr. Burgum’s term as governor of North Dakota ended last month and if he is confirmed, he would help determine the use of public land and federal waters. He is also Mr. Trump’s choice to run a government-wide energy council. Mr. Burgum received an invitation to the celebration from Mr. Hamm’s executive assistant two weeks after Mr. Trump’s victory in the November election. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Rob Lockwood, an adviser to Mr. Burgum, said in a statement that Mr. Burgum would not attend Mr. Hamm’s party and would instead participate in “formal inauguration proceedings” on Jan. 20. Top sponsors of the Jan. 20 event listed on the invitation include the Domestic Producers Energy Alliance, a lobbying group that Mr. Hamm founded to aggressively fight climate change policies, and Unleash Energy, a conservative group that includes many advisers to Mr. Trump. “Enjoy a remarkable experience to commemorate this momentous occasion with panoramic views of the White House and a vibrant atmosphere of celebration,” read a typed note from Mr. Hamm to Mr. Burgum accompanying the invitation. “This will be a memorable gathering of friends, supporters, and special guests. We look forward to celebrating this pivotal moment with you!” The documents were obtained by Fieldnotes, a research group that focuses on the oil and gas industry, through a public records request and were reviewed by The New York Times. Campaign finance experts said the private event did not appear to violate ethics rules. Administration officials and nominees can join widely attended receptions so long as they only accept the same food and refreshments as offered to other guests. But many also noted that few others than big donors can get the chance to privately chat up the people who will be influencing America’s energy policy over the next four years. “This is an invite-only, high-dollar event for folks seeking access to the incoming Trump administration,” said Tyson Slocum, who directs the energy program at Public Citizen, a watchdog group. Even if Trump officials do not attend, “You are basically getting the ear of the president,” Mr. Slocum said. “You have access to Harold Hamm, who is at the back shoulder of Donald Trump, dictating the priorities of the American oil and gas industry.” Mr. Hamm and Continental Resources, the largest oil producer in North Dakota’s Bakken field, did not respond to requests for comment. Others sharing the cost of Mr. Hamm’s party include Liberty Energy, the gas services company founded by Chris Wright, who is Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Energy Department. Mr. Wright is expected to step down from the company when he is confirmed by the Senate. Summit Agriculture Group, the parent company of Summit Carbon Solutions LLC, is also an event sponsor. Mr. Hamm is an investor in Summit Carbon Solutions, based in Iowa, which plans to build a $9 billion project to collect carbon emissions from ethanol plants in five states and send it by pipeline to North Dakota, where it would be buried underground. As governor, Mr. Burgum was a strong supporter of the project, which has run into opposition from landowners and local officials in several states. Summit Agriculture Group is run by Bruce Rastetter, who has donated to Mr. Trump and the Republican Party for years. Other sponsors include Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil company with a long history of fighting climate regulation. Summit Agriculture Group and Devon Energy did not respond to requests for comment for this article. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main lobbying group, is also a sponsor. “API regularly sponsors events with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to educate on the critical role of American energy in powering our economy and strengthening national security,” Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement. During the 2024 campaign Mr. Trump asked oil and gas executives to raise $1 billion for his White House bid. At a dinner in April at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump promised about 20 oil and gas executives that they would save far more than that amount in avoided taxes and legal fees after he repealed environmental regulations, according to several people who were present and who requested anonymity to discuss a private event. The fossil fuel industry has reveled in Mr. Trump’s victory. Mr. Trump has promised a swift elimination of President Biden’s limits on pollution from automobile tailpipes, power plant smokestacks and oil and gas wells. He also pledged to boost American liquefied natural gas exports — which are already at record levels — and said he would allow drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and waive environmental regulations for companies that invest at least $1 billion in the United States. The United States is currently producing more oil than any nation in history, and is the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas. Still, the oil and gas industry is glad to see the Biden administration go, said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, which supports fossil fuel energy development. “They’ve been hostile to domestic oil and gas production from day one, right up to the very end, and President Trump has made it clear that he sees the important role that this industry plays,” Mr. Pyle said.

From above the raging flames, these planes can unleash immense tankfuls of bright pink fire retardant in just 20 seconds. They have long been considered vital in the battle against wildfires. But emerging research has shown that the millions of gallons of retardant sprayed on the landscape to tame wildfires each year come with a toxic burden, because they contain heavy metals and other chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment. The toxicity presents a stark dilemma. These tankers and their cargo are a powerful tool for taming deadly blazes. Yet as wildfires intensify and become more frequent in an era of climate change, firefighters are using them more often, and in the process releasing more harmful chemicals into the environment. Some environmental groups have questioned the retardants’ effectiveness and potential for harm. The efficiency of fire retardant has been hard to measure, because it’s one of a barrage of firefighting tactics deployed in a major fire. After the flames are doused, it’s difficult to assign credit. The frequency and severity of wildfires has grown in recent years, particularly in the western United States. Scientists have also found that fires across the region have become faster moving in recent decades. There are also the longer-term health effects of exposure to wildfire smoke, which can penetrate the lungs and heart, causing disease. A recent global survey of the health effects of air pollution caused by wildfires found that in the United States, exposure to wildfire smoke had increased by 77 percent since 2002. Globally, wildfire smoke has been estimated to be responsible for up to 675,000 premature deaths per year. Fire retardants add to those health and environmental burdens because they present “a really, really thorny trade-off,” said Daniel McCurry, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California, who led the recent research on their heavy-metal content.The United States Forest Service said on Thursday that nine large retardant-spraying planes, as well as 20 water-dropping helicopters, were being deployed to fight the Southern California fires, which have displaced tens of thousands of people. Several “water scooper” amphibious planes, capable of skimming the surface of the sea or other body of water to fill their tanks, are also being used. Two large DC-10 aircraft, dubbed “Very Large Airtankers” and capable of delivering up to 9,400 gallons of retardant, were also set to join the fleet imminently, said Stanton Florea, a spokesman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, which coordinates national wildland firefighting efforts across the West. Sprayed ahead of the fire, the retardants coat vegetation and prevent oxygen from allowing it to burn, Mr. Florea said. (Red dye is added so firefighters can see the retardant against the landscape.) And the retardant, typically made of salts like ammonium polyphosphate, “lasts longer. It doesn’t evaporate, like dropping water,” he said. The new research from Dr. McCurry and his colleagues found, however, that at least four different types of heavy metals, including chromium and cadmium, that were present in a common type of retardant used by firefighters exceeded California’s requirements for hazardous waste. Federal data shows that more than 440 million gallons of retardant were applied to federal, state, and private land between 2009 and 2021. Using that figure, the researchers estimated that between 2009 and 2021, more than 400 tons of heavy metals were released into the environment from fire suppression, a third of that in Southern California. Both the federal government and the retardant’s manufacturer, Perimeter Solutions, have disputed that analysis, saying the researchers had evaluated a different version of the retardant. Dan Green, a spokesman for Perimeter, said retardants used for aerial firefighting had passed “extensive testing to confirm they meet strict standards for aquatic and mammalian safety.” Still, the findings help explain why concentrations of heavy metals tend to surge in rivers and streams after wildfires, sometimes by hundreds of times. And as scrutiny of fire suppressants has grown, the Forest Service has set buffer zones surrounding lakes and rivers, though its own data shows retardant still inadvertently drifts into those waters. In 2022, the environmental nonprofit Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics sued the government in federal court in Montana, demanding that the Forest Service obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to cover accidental spraying into waterways. The judge ruled that the agency did indeed need to obtain a permit. But it allowed retardant use to continue to protect lives and property.

Constellation Energy, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, has agreed to buy another electricity producer, Calpine, for $16.4 billion, a deal that shows how fast-rising demand for power, partly a result of the data centers being built for artificial intelligence, is having far-reaching effects on the economy. The cash-and-stock deal, announced Friday, ranks among the power sector’s biggest, and indicates that natural gas is likely to play a larger role than many expected a few years ago in meeting the nation’s electricity needs. That could undermine efforts to address climate change unless companies quickly figure out how to capture and store emissions from gas power plants. The tie-up would broaden Constellation’s portfolio as companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are scrambling to secure energy for data centers used to run artificial intelligence and other services. Electricity demand is also increasing because of the building of new factories in the United States and greater use of electric vehicles and heat pumps. The growth is reshaping a traditionally sleepy industry that has not been accustomed to turbocharged growth. “Lots of people who were not paying any attention to electricity a year ago are now trying to figure out how to participate in meeting what seems to be inevitable growth in demand,” said Daniel Yergin, the vice chairman of S&P Global, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book “The Prize: The Epic Quest For Oil, Money and Power.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Calpine, which is based in Houston and privately held, operates a large fleet of natural gas power plants in several states as well as the Geysers geothermal energy complex in California. Constellation, which is based in Baltimore, said in a statement that it expected Calpine’s natural gas assets to help ensure the reliability of the electric grid. The combination also would broaden the company’s presence in Texas, where power demand is growing quickly, and add more renewable energy to its portfolio. “We believe that natural gas and geothermal, along with nuclear, will be critically important for the nation,” Joseph Dominguez, chief executive of Constellation, said on a call with investors and analysts on Friday morning. He added that it was important to ensure that energy resources were not only sustainable, but reliable as well. “We believe that natural gas and clean energy, blended together, will be very attractive to customers,” Mr. Dominguez said. Constellation’s stock price soared more than 20 percent in early trading on Friday and closed the day up 25 percent, an unusually large jump for an acquiring company. Its shares had already more than doubled over the past year as expectations for U.S. power demand growth rose. Constellation would pay $4.5 billion in cash and assume roughly $12.7 billion of Calpine’s debt as part of the deal. Nuclear power plants, which can operate around the clock without releasing planet-warming emissions, have been among the early beneficiaries of booming investment in artificial intelligence. Constellation agreed last year to spend $1.6 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pa. — a project for which Microsoft is effectively footing the bill. But there are only a few mothballed nuclear plants that can be restarted. Some companies are also betting on new, smaller reactors, but those are not expected to begin producing meaningful amounts of power for at least several years if all goes well. As a result of those challenges, many energy and tech companies are increasingly looking to natural gas, even though its use releases carbon dioxide and methane, two leading greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. “It’s going to be hard for the utilities to provide the power that these data centers need without gas,” said Andrew Gillick, an energy strategist for the analytics firm Enverus. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Power demand from data centers is poised to increase 15 percent a year on average through the end of the decade, Goldman Sachs estimated last year. Andrew Novotny, chief executive of Calpine, said the combined company would be able to invest in new power generation. “Together, we will be better positioned to bring accelerated investment in everything from zero-emission nuclear to battery storage that will power our economy in a way that puts people and our environment first,” he said in a statement. A diverse group of power plants could let the new company be more effective in how it manages its resources, depending on how electricity needs change. Adding more natural gas to its portfolio would, however, expose Constellation to more risk related to fluctuating commodity prices, Enverus said. The deal with Constellation is the culmination of a big turnaround for Calpine, which had come under pressure in recent years as California and other states sought to move away from fossil fuels. A group of investors including Energy Capital Partners took Calpine private several years ago in a deal valued at $5.6 billion, not including debt. The companies said they expected the transaction to close within a year, subject to regulatory approvals. Constellation would address any potential concerns raised by antitrust officials about its market power by selling assets, Mr. Dominguez said.

America’s efforts to cut its climate change pollution stalled in 2024, with greenhouse gas emissions dropping just a fraction, 0.2 percent, compared to the year before, according to estimates published Thursday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm. Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants. The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting President Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse gases 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels. Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade. That seems increasingly unlikely, experts say, especially since President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to dismantle Mr. Biden’s climate policies and promote the production of fossil fuels, the burning of which generates greenhouse gases. “On the one hand, it is notable that we’ve now seen two years in a row where the U.S. economy grew but emissions went down,” said Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group. “But it’s far from enough to achieve our climate targets.” The biggest reason that U.S. emissions have fallen in recent years is that electric utilities have been retiring their older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and replacing them with cheaper and less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power. That trend mostly continued last year, with a few unexpected ups and downs. The nation’s demand for electricity, which has stayed more or less flat for two decades, suddenly jumped by roughly 3 percent in 2024, in large part because scorching heat during the summer caused many Americans to crank up their air-conditioners. A smaller factor was that tech companies have been building more energy-hungry data centers in states like Virginia and Texas. While power companies installed large numbers of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries last year to meet rising demand, natural gas use also rose to record highs, while coal use declined only slightly. The net result was that emissions from the power sector increased an estimated 0.2 percent, according to the Rhodium Group. In the future, rising electricity demand could pose a major challenge to American efforts to cut emissions. As interest in artificial intelligence grows, tech companies like Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft are building massive data centers that require enormous amounts of power. Over the next few years, many utilities are planning to meet this demand, at least in part, by delaying retirements of existing coal plants or burning more natural gas. At the same time, transportation, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases, saw an 0.8 percent rise in emissions last year. Gasoline and jet fuel consumption both increased as Americans continued to drive and fly more after the pandemic. Nearly 10 percent of new car sales in 2024 were less-polluting electric vehicles, but those models still make up a small fraction of total cars on the road and have yet to put a major dent in transportation emissions. On the flip side, emissions from America’s industrial sector — which includes steel, cement and chemicals — fell by 1.8 percent in 2024. Some of that may have been the result of lost output, as two hurricanes and a strike at the nation’s ports disrupted some factory activity in the fall, Mr. King said. “It’s a reminder that there’s always some bumpiness in emissions,” Mr. King said. “It’s not just a question of how many electric vehicles are on the road or how much solar we’ve installed. A big portion of our economy still relies on fossil fuels.” One of the most striking findings in this year’s data was that emissions from oil and gas operations dropped roughly 3.7 percent in 2024. Even though the United States produced record amounts of oil and near-record amounts of natural gas last year, many companies appear to have curbed leaks of methane, which is the main ingredient in natural gas and which can seep into the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming. Over the past few years, the Biden administration and several states have adopted new regulations that require oil and gas producers to detect and fix methane leaks. Many companies also have financial incentives to capture methane to sell rather than vent it into the air. Between 2014 and 2024, U.S. companies appear to have reduced the amount of methane that escaped, per each cubic feet of gas they produced, by 40 percent, according to the Rhodium Group. Several experts have estimated that greenhouse gases generated in the United States could start dropping sharply in the years ahead if many clean energy policies stay in place, particularly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into low-carbon energy technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, green hydrogen and batteries. While Mr. Trump has pledged to scrap many of Mr. Biden’s subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles and low-carbon energy, it remains to be seen whether Congress will agree. That law has not yet had a major impact on the country’s emissions, said Mr. King, since it takes time for new factories to open and power plants to get built. But, he said, data shows that low-carbon energy and transportation now make up fully 5 percent of total U.S. private investment. “That’s a leading indicator that things are changing quickly,” he said.