NewzIntel.com

Category: Weather

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Shaping a Brighter Future for Asia and the Pacific: ADB President Asakawa’s Legacy

    Source: Asia Development Bank

    Transcript

    In January 2020, President Masatsugu Asakawa took the helm of the Asian Development Bank with a vision for sustainable growth and regional cooperation. Little did he know that two months later, the world would face an unprecedented crisis—the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic swept across countries, President Asakawa recognized the urgency and mobilized ADB’s resources to respond swiftly.

    Masatsugu Asakawa
    President
    Asian Development Bank
    2020-2025

    “In a crisis, every moment counts. I’m proud that ADB acted decisively when our members needed us most.”

    Under his leadership, ADB launched a $20 billion assistance package, including the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Option (CPRO) and a $9-billion Asia Pacific Access Facility (APVAX) to help countries procure and distribute drugs.

    Amidst the global health crisis, another pressing challenge demanded attention—climate change. At COP26 in Glasgow, President Asakawa reaffirmed ADB’s climate leadership.

    “We can’t afford to wait on climate action. That’s why we pledged at least $100 billion in climate financing by 2030 and pioneered innovative tools like the Energy Transition Mechanism and IF-CAP to drive real change.”

    Under his guidance, ADB became the region’s “climate bank,” promoting sustainable, inclusive growth while addressing environmental challenges. President Asakawa advocated action to help developing member countries become more resilient against climate change impacts, such as extreme heat and accelerated glacial melt.

    “Climate action has been a top priority for ADB, and for me personally. Throughout my presidency, ADB has intensified efforts to address the climate crisis— with initiatives focused on protecting vulnerable areas like the Hindu Kush-Himalaya region.”

    Alongside these initiatives, President Asakawa never lost sight of the people behind ADB’s success—its staff. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, he introduced flexible work arrangements and prioritized safety measures.

    “Our people are the heart of ADB. Their safety and well-being come above all else. By fostering a supportive and inclusive environment, we empower our staff to deliver their best for the communities we serve.”

    In a critical moment, President Asakawa orchestrated the evacuation of 120 ADB staff and their families from Afghanistan. His actions not only safeguarded lives but reinforced a culture of care within the ADB community.

    Looking beyond immediate crises, President Asakawa also focused on building stronger foundations for the future. He championed domestic resource mobilization, helping countries strengthen their financial resilience.

    “True progress is when countries stand on their own feet. Our role is to help them build that foundation, strengthening their ability to create sustainable growth and resilience for future generations.”

    Through initiatives like the creation of the Asia Pacific Tax Hub,  ADB has helped strengthen tax systems, improve governance, and secure social safety nets for people across the region.

    Understanding that the region’s prosperity depends on cooperation, President Asakawa reinforced the importance of robust partnerships to rejuvenate trade and improve supply chains.

    “Asia and the Pacific has benefited immensely from globalization. With the looming threat of protectionism, our region must continue to champion connectivity and collaboration.”

    To support his ambitious goals, President Asakawa also spearheaded significant transformation within ADB. A review of the Capital Adequacy Framework unlocked an additional $100 billion in lending capacity over the next decade.

    Meanwhile, the new operating model introduced strategic shifts to expand private sector operations, intensify climate action, drive innovation, and locate staff closer to clients to strengthen support and responsiveness.

    These initiatives align with the MDB evolution agenda, ensuring ADB remains a key player in global development.

    “To meet tomorrow’s challenges, we must evolve today. Innovation isn’t just an option. It’s an imperative.”

    As his tenure comes to a close, President Asakawa leaves a strengthened, future-focused ADB.

    His vision encourages ADB to stay invested in the region’s success and responsive to emerging challenges. And he reminds us that building trusted, long-term partnerships is key to driving meaningful change.

    “ADB’s strength lies in being a trusted development partner- a reliable friend and partner of choice for Asia and the Pacific. This close relationship is our legacy. And it’s vital we preserve it.”

    President Asakawa has guided ADB through challenging times with transformative leadership that has left an indelible mark on the organization and region. As we look to the future, his legacy sets the foundation for a prosperous, resilient, inclusive, and sustainable Asia and the Pacific.

    “I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to ADB’s staff, Board of Directors, member governments, and our many partners. Together, we have achieved milestones that will continue to shape a brighter future for Asia and the Pacific.”

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Сall for project proposals under Enabling Fund 2025-2026

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    World news story

    Сall for project proposals under Enabling Fund 2025-2026

    The British Embassy Kyiv invites proposals from non-profit organisations for project work under the Enabling Fund (EF) for the period from May 2025 to March 2026.

    The British Embassy Kyiv: call for project proposals under Enabling Fund 2025-2026

    The deadline for submitting proposals is 17.00 (Kyiv time) on 21 March 2025.

    The British Embassy Kyiv uses its Enabling Fund (EF) to complement work funded by the large-scale programmes in Ukraine via funding small-scale quick-win projects or aimed at leveraging bigger funding, at providing unique UK expertise in areas of top priority for Government of Ukraine or at obtaining insights into new areas of activity for future interventions. We will particularly welcome applications that show how they would contribute to the objectives of the 100 Year Partnership, which seeks to deepen the relationship between Ukraine and the UK across all areas.

    The programme will focus on the following areas:

    1. Supporting pillars of the 100 Years Partnership not funded by other programmes, thus strengthening Ukraine’s national and regional democratic institutions, helping Ukraine carry out reforms to meet EU, IMF and NATO standards, supporting Ukraine’s innovative tech capabilities; this can include support to local Ukrainian media, media watchdogs and consortia working to service critical information needs in frontline communities and occupied Crimea and affected by USAID freeze; support to development of innovative academic, science and research courses and modules in Ukraine in partnership with UK, harnessing best UK experience in education and education management, economics, banking sector; support to local hromadas in designing e-toolkit for harmonising hromadas’ recovery plans with regional and national ones (all projects to meet GESI-D requirements)

    2. Supporting vulnerable groups not covered by larger UK programmes, such as work on barrier-free Ukraine, protecting rights of persons with disabilities, LGBT people, work on protecting human rights in temporarily occupied territories including Crimea and on reintegration of de-occupied territories, including reintegration of children returned from Russia or temporarily occupied territories, ensuring cooperation between state institutions, civil society and international partners (all projects to meet GESI-D/E requirements)

    NOTES:

    Non-profit organisations are invited to bid. Successful projects should have sustainable outcomes and should clearly identify the change that will be brought about. All bids should make clear how they complement existing activities supported by other donors and international partners, and how work in the regions complements national level activity.

    The minimum indicative funding for projects is £75,000 and maximum £100,000. This may be in addition to co-funding and self-funding contributions; indeed this will be considered a merit. Our funding is for the UK financial year April 2025-March 2026 only (projects must be implemented and all payments made by 15 March 2026). Where appropriate, bidders are encouraged to describe how their project could be further scaled-up if additional funding became available.

    The British Embassy Kyiv will carry out due diligence of potential grantees, including seeking references, as part of the selection process.

    Bidding is competitive and only selected projects will receive funding. The Embassy reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids without incurring any obligation to inform the affected applicant(s) of the grounds of such acceptance or rejection. Due to the volume of bids expected we will not be able to provide feedback on unsuccessful bids. If bidders are not contacted by end April they have been unsuccessful in this bidding round.  

    Bidding process

    Bidders should fill in the standard Project Proposal Form and include a breakdown of project costs in the Activity Based Budget (ABB). We will not consider proposals submitted in other formats. Budgets must be Activity Based Budgets (ABB), all costs should be indicative, in GBP (not Ukrainian Hryvna).

    Successful bids must demonstrate Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) Category D or E (please see description of all GESI Categories in Annex below), i.e. have a gender equality objective explicit in the project documentation and an explanation of a positive impact of the project on advancing gender equality. If the project is designed with the principal intention of advancing gender equality, it must have outcomes on gender equality and outputs that contribute to these outcomes.

    All projects or activities must align with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and assess climate and environmental impact and risks, taking steps to ensure that no environmental harm is done and, where relevant, support adaptation.

    Successful implementers should be able to receive project funding in GBP (UK pound sterling) and open a GBP bank account for the project.

    Proposals should be sent to the British Embassy Kyiv at Kyiv.Projects@fcdo.gov.uk by 17.00 (Kyiv time) on 21 March 2025. In the subject line, please indicate the name of the bidder, the area (1 or 2), and the subtopic under which the project is submitted (e.g. [name of NGO]/area 1/Support to local hromadas). We aim to evaluate proposals by end-April. Approved projects will commence in May 2025.

    Evaluation criteria

    Proposals will be evaluated against the following criteria:

    • fit to programme objectives – the extent to which the proposal addresses the issues
    • quality of project – how well defined and relevant the outcome is and how outputs will deliver this change; ability to leverage bigger funding would be an advantage
    • value for money – the value of the expected project outcomes, the level of funding requested and institutional contribution
    • previous experience – evidence of the project team’s understanding the issue and of its regional activities, ability to manage and deliver a successful project, through work done to date in the area or in related fields
    • gender-sensitive approach and alignment with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change – as indicated above; the proposals will be assessed by a mixed gender panel.

    ISF_Project Proposal Template_Part A 30-09-2024

    ODT, 60.8 KB

    This file is in an OpenDocument format

    ISF_Project_Activity-Based_Budget_Template 28-01-2025 w upd guidance

    ODS, 1.2 MB

    This file is in an OpenDocument format

    GESI Priorities

    PNG, 505 KB

    Updates to this page

    Published 26 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New report skewers Coalition’s contentious nuclear plan – and reignites Australia’s energy debate

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

    Debate over the future of Australia’s energy system has erupted again after a federal parliamentary inquiry delivered a report into the deployment of nuclear power in Australia.

    The report casts doubt on the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear reactors on former coal sites across Australia should it win government. The reactors would be Commonwealth-owned and built.

    The report’s central conclusions – rejected by the Coalition – are relatively unsurprising. It found nuclear power would be far more expensive than the projected path of shifting to mostly renewable energy. And delivering nuclear generation before the mid-2040s will be extremely challenging.

    The report also reveals important weaknesses in the Coalition’s defence of its plan to deploy nuclear energy across Australia, if elected. In particular, the idea of cheap, factory-built nuclear reactors is very likely a mirage.

    A divisive inquiry

    In October last year, a House of Representatives select committee was formed to investigate the deployment of nuclear energy in Australia.

    Chaired by Labor MP Dan Repacholi, it has so far involved 19 public hearings and 858 written submissions from nuclear energy companies and experts, government agencies, scientists, Indigenous groups and others. Evidence I gave to a hearing was quoted in the interim report.

    The committee’s final report is due by April 30 this year. It tabled an interim report late on Tuesday, focused on the timeframes and costs involved. These issues dominated evidence presented to the inquiry.

    The findings of the interim report were endorsed by the committee’s Labor and independent members, but rejected by Coalition members.

    What did the report find on cost?

    The report said evidence presented so far showed the deployment of nuclear power generation in Australia “is currently not a viable investment of taxpayer money”.

    Nuclear energy was shown to be more expensive than the alternatives. These include a power grid consistent with current projections: one dominated by renewable energy and backed up by a combination of battery storage and a limited number of gas peaking plants.

    The Coalition has identified seven coal plant sites where it would build nuclear reactors. Some 11 gigawatts of coal capacity is produced on those sites. The committee heard replacing this capacity with nuclear power would meet around 15% of consumer needs in the National Electricity Market, and cost at least A$116 billion.

    In contrast, the Australian Energy Market Operator estimates the cost of meeting 100% of the National Electricity Market’s needs – that is, building all required transmission, generation, storage and firming capacity out to 2050 – is about $383 billion.

    What about the timing of nuclear?

    On the matter of when nuclear energy in Australia would be up and running, the committee found “significant challenges” in achieving this before the mid-2040s.

    This is consistent with findings from the CSIRO that nuclear power would take at least 15 years to deploy in Australia. But is it at odds with Coalition claims that the first two plants would be operating by 2035 and 2037 respectively.

    The mid-2040s is well beyond the lifetime of Australia’s existing coal-fired power stations. This raises questions about how the Coalition would ensure reliable electricity supplies after coal plants close. It also raises questions over how Australia would meet its global emissions-reduction obligations.

    Recent experience in other developed countries suggests the committee’s timeframe estimates are highly conservative.

    Take, for example, a 1.6GW reactor at Flamanville, France. The project, originally scheduled to be completed in 2012, was not connected to the grid until 2024. Costs blew out from an original estimate of A$5.5 billion to $22 billion.

    The builder, Électricité de France (EDF), was pushed to the edge of bankruptcy. The French government was forced to nationalise the company, reversing an earlier decision to privatise it.

    EDF is also building two reactors in the United Kingdom – a project known as Hinkley C. It has also suffered huge cost blowouts.

    Recent nuclear reactor projects in the United States have also fallen victim to cost overruns, sending the owner, Westinghouse, bankrupt.

    What does the Coalition say?

    The committee report included dissenting comments by Coalition members.

    As the Coalition rightly points out, global enthusiasm for nuclear power remains steady. The UK, France and the US all signed a declaration in 2023 at the global climate change conference, COP28, pledging to triple nuclear power by 2050.

    And in the UK and France, advanced plans are afoot to construct new nuclear reactors at existing sites.

    But even there, progress has been glacial. The UK’s Sizewell C project has been in the planning stage since at least 2012. The French projects were announced by President Emmanuel Macron in 2022. None of these projects have yet reached a final investment decision. Delays in Australia would certainly be much longer.

    The Coalition also draws a long bow in claiming Australia’s existing research reactor at Lucas Heights, in New South Wales, means we are “already a nuclear nation”.

    At least 50 countries, including most developed countries, have research reactors. But very few are contemplating starting a nuclear industry from scratch.

    At least one issue seems to have been resolved by the committee’s inquiry. Evidence it received almost unanimously dismissed the idea small modular reactors (SMRs) will arrive in time to be relevant to Australia’s energy transition – if they are ever developed.

    The Coalition’s dissenting comments did not attempt to rebut this evidence.

    Looking ahead

    Undoubtedly, existing nuclear power plants will play a continued role in the global energy transition.

    But starting a nuclear power industry from scratch in Australia is a nonsensical idea for many reasons – not least because it is too expensive and will take too long.

    In the context of the coming federal election, the nuclear policy is arguably a red herring – one designed to distract voters from a Coalition policy program that slows the transition to renewables and drags out the life of dirty and unreliable coal-fired power.

    The Conversation

    John Quiggin is a former member of the Climate Change Authority. His submission to the nuclear electricity generation inquiry was cited in the interim report

    – ref. New report skewers Coalition’s contentious nuclear plan – and reignites Australia’s energy debate – https://theconversation.com/new-report-skewers-coalitions-contentious-nuclear-plan-and-reignites-australias-energy-debate-250912

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK must make big changes to its diets, farming and land use to hit net zero – official climate advisers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Ward, Professor of Rural and Regional Development at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia

    William Edge / shutterstock

    If the UK is to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, over one-third of its sheep and cows will have to go, with their fields being replaced by huge new areas of woodland. That’s one conclusion of the latest report by the the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the UK government’s independent advisor on climate change.

    The CCC is tasked with outlining how much greenhouse gas the UK can emit if it is to achieve its climate targets – its “carbon budget”. The committee also recommends how the country might reduce its emissions to get within that budget. It sets future budgets every five years or so. This latest report, the seventh carbon budget, looks at emissions in the period 2038 to 2043. It updates the sixth carbon budget produced in 2020.

    The UK has almost halved its greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, but that was the easy half. Most dirty industries are long gone, for instance, and coal power plants have been replaced with gas and renewable energy.

    Next, the country will be grappling with the most challenging sectors including the focus of my academic research: agriculture and land use. This challenge will be worsened by the impacts of climate change and geopolitical uncertainties that raise doubts about the UK’s food security.

    Currently, agriculture makes up about 11% of UK emissions, but this proportion will rise considerably over the next 15 years as other sectors decarbonise further. Cattle and sheep contribute most of these emissions, and the latest carbon budget suggests their numbers will have to be reduced by 22% by 2035 and by over 38% by 2050.

    This is principally to release land to plant tens of thousands of hectares of new woodland each year (60,000 hectares a year by 2040) and to grow energy crops (38,000 hectares a year by 2040). It will also mean fewer emissions from the animals themselves and from growing animal feed.

    The UK needs a lot more of this.
    Callums Trees / shutterstock

    Less meat and dairy

    The latest carbon budget suggests that dietary change is key to this anticipated change in farming and land use. While British people won’t need to give up meat entirely, they will need to reduce consumption of meat and dairy products by around 35% by 2050 compared to 2019 levels.

    Meat and dairy consumption are already falling, however, and the trend has accelerated since 2020. To meet the budget, the decline would need to continue but more rapidly than the long-term trend.

    The CCC is in the business of advising on what government should do to address climate change, not in the business of telling people what to eat. It hopes that food labels with additional information about emissions will help people make better choices for themselves.

    Emphasising non-meat options and altering the layout of supermarkets may also help change the “choice environment” and so change consumption practices. Nevertheless, before long, the UK and devolved governments will have to grasp the nettle of diet change, land use and livestock. There have already been successful legal challenges for having inadequate plans in this area.

    It helps that diets good for the planet are also good for people’s health. In October 2024, the House of Lords food, diet and obesity committee estimated diet-related ill health and obesity cost £98 billion a year. This is a significant drag on productivity and places acute pressures on the NHS.

    Plant-based foods are better for food security

    Energy security is currently prompting much thought and action, but food security has not. Dietary change can also help improve the UK’s food security, however, since meat and dairy take up more land per calorie than healthier alternatives. A large-scale shift in diet and land use could render the UK more resilient to future wars, pandemics or anything else that causes shocks to food prices and supplies.

    For farmers and landowners there has been increasing interest in greener approaches to production, sometimes called regenerative farming. Some within, or clustered around, farming will protest about the scale of reduction in animal numbers implied by net zero.

    Faced with the basic maths, a marked reduction looks unavoidable. The sooner the conversation can shift from whether change is needed to how it might best be fairly and equitably pursued, the better.

    This carbon budget brings positive opportunities for nature restoration, diversifying rural economies and improving the appearance and ecology of the countryside. But for net emissions to come down enough, the amount of wooded land will need to increase from 13% to 19% by 2050 – that’s over a million extra hectares, or roughly equivalent to Cornwall, Devon and Dorset combined.

    These are very stretching targets, and tree planting over the past few years has fallen far short of the rates required. Because afforestation is such an important factor in the carbon budget, if the UK fails to meet its targets, the dietary changes may need to be even greater.

    Heightened international instability threatening UK food security could mean the same. Indeed, some food, health and environmental organisations will point to the seventh carbon budget and say the CCC has not gone far enough.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Neil Ward receives funding from UKRI in his role as Co-lead of the AFN (AgriFood4NetZero) Network+.. He is a member of the Labour Party and the National Trust.

    – ref. The UK must make big changes to its diets, farming and land use to hit net zero – official climate advisers – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-must-make-big-changes-to-its-diets-farming-and-land-use-to-hit-net-zero-official-climate-advisers-250158

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI China: China pledges global cooperation to address climate change

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    HANGZHOU, Feb. 25 — China is willing to work with all parties to jointly address the challenges of extreme weather and climate risks, said Chen Zhenlin, head of the China Meteorological Administration (CMA).

    Chen made the remarks at the 62nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an important international platform for the assessment of climate change, that opened on Monday in Hangzhou, capital of east China’s Zhejiang Province.

    In China, actively responding to climate change has become an essential requirement for achieving sustainable development and a responsibility for promoting the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.

    The CMA has done a lot of work in responding to climate change, including strengthening its integrated land-sea-air-space monitoring capabilities, researching and developing global and regional climate models, and assessing the impacts and risks of climate change, Chao Qingchen, head of the National Climate Center under the CMA, told Xinhua.

    These efforts have greatly contributed to climate change adaptation and mitigation, Chao added.

    In Zhejiang, the meteorological disaster early warning system has further improved its accuracy to the township level, with alerts for sudden strong convective weather now issued 50 minutes in advance.

    The IPCC is meeting in Hangzhou to reach agreement on the outlines of the three working group contributions to the “Seventh Assessment Report” and the “Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage.” Representatives from over 130 IPCC member countries, relevant observer organizations and international organizations are attending the meeting.

    The IPCC is now in its seventh climate change assessment cycle. Over the past six cycles, it has published a total of 43 assessment reports on climate change.

    Liu Zhenmin, China’s special envoy for climate change, said the IPCC reports reflect humanity’s deepening understanding of climate science, which has advanced global efforts to address climate change and provided an important scientific foundation for continuously strengthening and improving global climate governance.

    Over the years, hundreds of Chinese scientists have participated in writing and reviewing the assessment reports, making significant contributions to scientific, comprehensive and objective assessments of climate change.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: expert reaction to the Climate Change Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Scientists comment on the Seventh Carbon Budget, published by the Climate Change Committee. 

    Prof John Barrett, Professor in Energy and Climate Policy and Director of the Climate Evidence Unit at the University of Leeds, said:

    “This is a very welcome report with a robust analysis that lets the Government, industry and citizens know that the pathway to net zero is possible and very much needed. However, it does place enormous responsibility on some key technologies and their rapid roll out to achieve these goals. As the UK Government digests the findings, we would suggest greater consideration of the “social” transformation that examines how we travel and what we buy.”

    “While the report acknowledges some upfront costs, it confirms that acting now will reduce expenses in the long run, with cost savings emerging by the late 2030s and beyond.”

    “The key takeaway from today’s report is clear: the transition to net zero is not only possible but highly beneficial. Independent academic analyses consistently supports this conclusion, showing that it will strengthen the economy, deliver widespread co-benefits, and position the UK as a leader in global climate action.”

     

    Dr Sean Beevers, Reader in Atmospheric Modelling, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, said:

    “A National Institute for Health and Care Research project examined the effects of net zero policies on air quality, active travel, health, and associated economic benefits in the UK.

    “Our cost benefit analysis showed that net zero transport and building policies deliver substantial co-benefits, including improved indoor and outdoor air quality, better health, increase active travel, lessening inequalities and with long-term economic gains. We estimated an overall monetised air quality and active travel benefit of £46.4 billion by 2060 and £153 billion by 2154.

     “Net zero policy analyses should include benefits from the air pollution reductions and physical activity increases. These benefits apply to current and future generations and failure to act will lead to worse health outcomes and higher costs for attaining net zero.”

    Dr Edward Gryspeerdt, Research Fellow at the Department of Physics, Imperial College London, said:

    “The CCC’s advice highlights that aviation will become the highest emitting sector in the UK by 2040. Clean alternatives, such as low-carbon fuel and technology for low emission flights are currently limited and a range of measures will be needed to meet net-zero – there is no silver bullet.

    “The government has described ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ as a ‘game changer.’ However, to have a significant impact on the climate impact of flying, they will need to be produced at a huge scale. It is not yet clear how this will be achieved. To reach net zero, the CCC also note that a switch from flying to other modes of transport will be required, especially for flights with an easy rail alternative. 

    “These measures alone won’t solve the problem. The CCC’s report highlights that a significant amount of carbon capture will be needed, highlighting the simple fact that the technological solutions to eliminate the climate impact of flying don’t yet exist. Any expansion of the UK’s aviation infrastructure will have to be coupled with improved sustainable transport options.”

     

    Dr Caterina Brandmayr, Director of Policy and Translation at the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, said:

    “Today’s advice marks an important milestone in charting the UK’s path to net zero. Public opinion surveys continue to show that climate change remains a key issue of concern for a large majority of people in the UK.

     “To put us firmly on track to deliver the deep emission cuts needed from 2038 to 2042, the UK government needs to strengthen its action in the near term, giving confidence to businesses and households to invest in clean alternatives in sectors like housing, transport and energy. 

    “There is strong public support for the benefits that emission reduction interventions can bring, such as warmer homes, energy security and cleaner air. 

    “Effectively communicating these benefits, while ensuring fairness and choice in policy design, will be key to sustaining public support for the transition and driving change in harder to decarbonise sectors, such as aviation and land use.”

    Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy and co-lead of World Weather Attribution, Imperial College London, said

    “People shouldn’t forget why we need these targets – we’re already feeling the pain at 1.3°C of warming and things will keep getting worse until emissions are reduced to net zero. 

    “Here in the UK, we’ll experience even wetter winters that could wipe out crops, threaten our food security and turn sports pitches into miserable bogs. In summer, more frequent heatwaves will contribute to thousands of premature deaths, could put additional strain on the NHS, and reduce economic productivity. Overseas, extreme weather could disrupt supply chains we depend on and could contribute to worsening political instability and conflict. 

    “Arguments that climate action is too costly are dangerous, short-sighted and disproportionately harm poorer people. If governments don’t cut emissions, both now and in the future, our children will live in an increasingly hostile climate and even more inequal society. 

    “The UK needs to push ahead and lead the way in emission reductions for a safer, healthier future.”

    Prof Lorraine Whitmarsh, Director at the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) at the University of Bath, said:

    “The government’s climate advisors make clear that tackling climate change requires significant action from all sections of society in the coming years. A third of emission reductions will come from household behaviour change alone. Low-carbon choices include switching to electric vehicles and heat pumps, eating more plant-based foods, and shifting to cleaner forms of transport. Many of these changes offer wider benefits, like improved health and lower bills. The report also highlights the need for government to reduce the barriers for the public to make these changes and to engage the public more actively in the net zero transition. The citizens panel that fed into these recommendations highlight that measures need to be fair and reduce the cost of low-carbon options.”

    Dr Christina Demski, Deputy Director at the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) at the University of Bath, said:

    “The latest CCC progress report makes it clear that decisive action is needed now to ensure we meet the net zero target, and that action to reduce emissions also has other benefits like economic security, better health and reducing fuel poverty. While the UK is on track to reduce emissions substantially from energy supply, the report clearly shows that action is also needed in sectors like transport, buildings and agriculture, and that this requires widespread uptake of essential low-carbon technologies like EVs and heat pumps.

    “We have long called for a comprehensive engagement strategy, so it is great to see this included as one of the key recommendations, especially the recommendation to go beyond one-way communication strategies.”

    Dr Sam Hampton, Research Fellow at the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) at the University of Bath, said:

    “The Climate Change Committee’s 7th Carbon Budget provides a comprehensive account of the changes required across UK society to address the increasingly alarming impacts of climate change. As we have largely exhausted the low-hanging fruit of decarbonising our electricity supply, the focus in the 2030s and 2040s must shift towards demand-side changes. This includes changes in how we eat and travel, as well as the technologies we adopt. The report highlights key solutions including the adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps, as well as the need for innovation to rid fossil fuels from industry. Another important takeaway is that Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is not a viable solution to decarbonising air travel. This comes just weeks after government expressed its support for airport expansion, and highlights the need for more radical solutions to limit flying, especially amongst the rich.”

     

     

    The Climate Change Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget was published at 00:01 UK Time Wednesday 26 February 2025. 

    Declared interests

    Prof John Barrett: Deputy Director for Policy, Priestly Centre for Climate Futures, University of Leeds, Theme Leader for the UKRI Energy Research Demand Centre

    For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: New heights for Queensland’s sustainable aviation fuel industry

    Source: Australian Executive Government Ministers

    A Bundaberg biorefinery that will convert sugar mill waste into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and a second project to supply SAF at the Brisbane Airport, are taking off with new funding from the Albanese Labor Government.

    The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) is providing $8 million to Australian technology developer Licella to assess the viability of establishing a biorefinery facility in the rum city region.

    It would be co-located with the Isis Central Sugar Mill, which would provide the agricultural residue feedstock.

    If studies prove successful, the biorefinery would be a huge boost for the regional economy and create about 300 construction jobs and 100 ongoing operational roles.

    Meanwhile, Viva Energy will receive $2.4 million to demonstrate the storage and use of SAF within the Brisbane Airport.

    The funding will help recondition a fuel tank at the Pinkenba Terminal to enable blended SAF supply into the airport for commercial use.

    Viva Energy will share its insights with airports across the country, helping ensure airport infrastructure is ready when domestic SAF is available.

    Australia is in a unique position to capitalise on a local industry with readily available biomass feedstock, willing offtake interest and existing expertise with liquid fuels that could combine to address domestic jet fuel demand in the 2020s.

    This renewable fuel could reduce domestic aviation emissions by up to 80% compared to conventional fossil-based fuel, providing a practical and real pathway to net zero for aviation.

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen:

    “This ARENA funding is another demonstration of our government’s commitment for a Future Made in Australia – using our natural resources to build industry, cut emissions from planes, and create real jobs right now.

    “By making more fuel on Australian shores, from Australian renewable energy and feedstock, we can make our fuel supply stronger, cleaner and more secure.”

    Quotes attributable to Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King:

    “The size of our nation means that aviation is often the only option for Australians to get where they need to go.

    “The development of a local sustainable aviation fuel industry is a necessity, but also a huge opportunity for job creation in the regions.” 

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI: Par Pacific Reports Fourth Quarter and 2024 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HOUSTON, Feb. 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PARR) (“Par Pacific” or the “Company”) today reported its financial results for the fourth quarter and twelve months ended December 31, 2024.

    • Fourth quarter Net Loss of $(55.7) million, or $(1.01) per diluted share; Adjusted Net Loss of $(43.4) million, or $(0.79) per diluted share; Adjusted EBITDA of $10.9 million
    • Full year net loss of $(33.3) million, or $(0.59) per diluted share; Adjusted Net Income of $21.2 million, or $0.37 per diluted share; Adjusted EBITDA of $238.7 million
    • Record annual Retail and Logistics segment Adjusted EBITDA
    • Repurchased 5 million common shares during 2024, or 9% of year end shares outstanding

    Par Pacific reported a net loss of $(33.3) million, or $(0.59) per diluted share, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to net income of $728.6 million, or $11.94 per diluted share, for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Adjusted Net Income for 2024 was $21.2 million, compared to $501.2 million for 2023. 2024 Adjusted EBITDA was $238.7 million, compared to $696.2 million for 2023.

    Par Pacific reported a net loss of $(55.7) million, or $(1.01) per diluted share, for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to net income of $289.3 million, or $4.77 per diluted share, for the same quarter in 2023. Fourth quarter 2024 Adjusted Net Loss was $(43.4) million, compared to Adjusted Net Income of $65.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Fourth quarter 2024 Adjusted EBITDA was $10.9 million, compared to $122.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. A reconciliation of reported non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures can be found in the tables accompanying this news release.

    “Our 2024 results underscore our strategic diversification with strong contribution from Hawaii Refining and record profitability in our Retail and Logistics segments,” said Will Monteleone, President and Chief Executive Officer. “Completing the Montana turnaround prior to the summer driving season and starting up our capital efficient Hawaii Sustainable Aviation Fuel project position us for earnings growth.”

    Refining

    The Refining segment generated operating income of $17.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to $676.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Refining segment in the year ended December 31, 2024 was $618.3 million, compared to $995.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2023.

    Refining segment Adjusted EBITDA for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $139.2 million, compared to $621.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2023.

    The Refining segment reported an operating loss of $(65.4) million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to operating income of $174.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Refining segment was $92.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $227.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Refining segment Adjusted EBITDA was $(22.3) million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $106.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Hawaii
    The Hawaii Index averaged $5.52 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $12.48 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2023. Throughput in the fourth quarter of 2024 was 83 thousand barrels per day (Mbpd), compared to 81 Mbpd for the same quarter in 2023. Production costs were $4.42 per throughput barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $4.80 per throughput barrel in the same period of 2023.

    The Hawaii refinery’s Adjusted Gross Margin was $7.36 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2024, including a net price lag impact of approximately $(5.4) million, or $(0.71) per barrel, compared to $16.73 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Montana
    The Montana Index averaged $5.75 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $14.80 in the fourth quarter of 2023. The Montana refinery’s throughput in the fourth quarter of 2024 was 52 Mbpd, compared to 50 Mbpd for the same quarter in 2023. Production costs were $10.48 per throughput barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $12.03 per throughput barrel in the same period of 2023.

    The Montana refinery’s Adjusted Gross Margin was $3.70 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $11.55 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Washington
    The Washington Index averaged $(0.62) per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $5.23 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2023. The Washington refinery’s throughput was 39 Mbpd in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 38 Mbpd in the fourth quarter of 2023. Production costs were $4.34 per throughput barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $4.53 per throughput barrel in the same period of 2023.

    The Washington refinery’s Adjusted Gross Margin was $1.05 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $7.87 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Wyoming

    The Wyoming Index averaged $13.36 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $16.58 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2023. The Wyoming refinery’s throughput was 14 Mbpd in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 17 Mbpd in the fourth quarter of 2023. Production costs were $11.49 per throughput barrel in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $8.03 per throughput barrel in the same period of 2023.

    The Wyoming refinery’s Adjusted Gross Margin was $11.11 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2024, including a FIFO impact of approximately $(2.2) million, or $(1.75) per barrel, compared to $13.90 per barrel during the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Wyoming Refining Operational Update

    The Wyoming refinery experienced an operational incident on the evening of February 12, 2025, and has remained safely idled through the extreme winter weather conditions. We expect to restart the refinery in mid-April at reduced throughput and return to full operations by the end of May.

    Retail

    The Retail segment reported operating income of $64.8 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $56.6 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Retail segment was $164.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $155.3 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

    For the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, Retail Adjusted EBITDA was $76.0 million, compared to $68.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, the Retail segment reported fuel sales volumes of 121.5 million gallons, compared to 117.6 million gallons for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. 2024 same store fuel volumes and inside sales revenue increased by 2.2% and 4.6%, respectively, compared to 2023.

    The Retail segment reported operating income of $19.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $14.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Retail segment was $43.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $40.5 million in the same quarter of 2023.

    Retail segment Adjusted EBITDA was $22.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $17.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. The Retail segment reported sales volumes of 30.3 million gallons in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 29.8 million gallons in the same quarter of 2023. Fourth quarter 2024 same store fuel volumes and inside sales revenue increased by 2.1% and 6.2%, respectively, compared to fourth quarter of 2023.

    Logistics

    The Logistics segment generated operating income of $89.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $69.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Logistics segment was $135.8 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $121.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

    Adjusted EBITDA for the Logistics segment was $120.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, compared to $96.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

    The Logistics segment reported operating income of $24.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $15.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Adjusted Gross Margin for the Logistics segment was $36.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $35.3 million in the same quarter of 2023.

    Logistics segment Adjusted EBITDA was $33.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $24.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Liquidity

    Net cash provided by operations totaled $83.8 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, including working capital outflows of $(18.1) million and deferred turnaround expenditures of $(73.5) million. Excluding these items, net cash provided by operations totaled $175.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024. Net cash provided by operations totaled $579.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

    Net cash used in operations totaled $(15.5) million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, including working capital inflows of $19.9 million and deferred turnaround expenditures of $(15.7) million. Excluding these items, net cash used in operations totaled $(19.6) million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. Net cash used in operations totaled $(2.3) million for the three months ended December 31, 2023.

    Net cash used in investing activities totaled $(47.7) million and $(134.0) million for the three months and twelve months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, compared to $(27.3) million and $(659.0) million for the three months and twelve months ended December 31, 2023, respectively. Net cash used in investing activities for the three months and twelve months ended December 31, 2024, includes $(47.7) million and $(135.5) million in capital expenditures, respectively.

    Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities totaled $72.1 million and $(37.0) million for the three months and twelve months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, compared to net cash used in financing activities of $(56.6) million and $(135.6) million for the three months and twelve months ended December 31, 2023, respectively.

    At December 31, 2024, Par Pacific’s cash balance totaled $191.9 million, gross term debt was $644.2 million, and total liquidity was $613.7 million. Net term debt was $452.3 million at December 31, 2024. In February 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized management to repurchase up to $250 million of common stock, with no specified end date. This replaces the prior authorization to repurchase up to $250 million of common stock.

    Laramie Energy

    In conjunction with Laramie Energy LLC’s (“Laramie’s”) refinancing and subsequent cash distribution to Par Pacific during the first quarter of 2023, we resumed the application of equity method accounting for our investment in Laramie effective February 21, 2023.

    During the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2024, we recorded $(3.2) million and $(0.3) million of equity losses. Laramie’s total net loss was $(11.3) million in the fourth quarter of 2024, including unrealized losses on derivatives of $(5.2) million, compared to net income of $42.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. Laramie’s total net loss was $(15.5) million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, including unrealized losses on derivatives of $(3.6) million, compared to net income of $96.6 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

    Laramie’s total Adjusted EBITDAX was $11.0 million and $45.8 million for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, compared to $19.6 million and $89.7 million for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2023, respectively.

    Laramie’s balance sheet position is strong with $68.6 million of cash and $160.0 million of debt at December 31, 2024. Laramie’s 2024 production was 96.6 million cubic feet of gas equivalent per day (MMcfe/d) and its management team plans to run a one-rig program throughout 2025. Approximately 79% of Laramie’s 2025 production is hedged at $3.20 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu).

    Conference Call Information

    A conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Central Time (10:00 a.m. Eastern Time). To access the call, please dial 1-833-974-2377 inside the U.S. or 1-412-317-5782 outside of the U.S. and ask for the Par Pacific call. Please dial in at least 10 minutes early to register. The webcast may be accessed online through the Company’s website at http://www.parpacific.com on the Investors page. A telephone replay will be available until March 12, 2025, and may be accessed by calling 1-877-344-7529 inside the U.S. or 1-412-317-0088 outside the U.S. and using the conference ID 2219355.

    About Par Pacific

    Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PARR), headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a growing energy company providing both renewable and conventional fuels to the western United States. Par Pacific owns and operates 219,000 bpd of combined refining capacity across four locations in Hawaii, the Pacific Northwest and the Rockies, and an extensive energy infrastructure network, including 13 million barrels of storage, and marine, rail, rack, and pipeline assets. In addition, Par Pacific operates the Hele retail brand in Hawaii and the “nomnom” convenience store chain in the Pacific Northwest. Par Pacific also owns 46% of Laramie Energy, LLC, a natural gas production company with operations and assets concentrated in Western Colorado. More information is available at www.parpacific.com. 

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release (and oral statements regarding the subject matter of this news release, including those made on the conference call and webcast announced herein) includes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which are intended to qualify for the “safe harbor” from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements about: expected market conditions; anticipated free cash flows; anticipated refinery throughput; anticipated cost savings; anticipated capital expenditures, including major maintenance costs, and their effect on our financial and operating results, including earnings per share and free cash flow; anticipated retail sales volumes and on-island sales; the anticipated financial and operational results of Laramie Energy, LLC; the amount of our discounted net cash flows and the impact of our NOL carryforwards thereon; our ability to identify, acquire, and develop energy, related retailing, and infrastructure businesses; the timing and expected results of certain development projects, as well as the impact of such investments on our product mix and sales; the anticipated synergies and other benefits of the Billings refinery and associated marketing and logistics assets (“Billings Acquisition”), including renewable growth opportunities, the anticipated financial and operating results of the Billings Acquisition and the effect on Par Pacific’s cash flows and profitability (including Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Net Income and Free Cash Flow per share); and other risks and uncertainties detailed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and any other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks, trends, and uncertainties, such as changes to our financial condition and liquidity; the volatility of crude oil and refined product prices; the Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Palestine conflict, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, Iranian activities in the Strait of Hormuz and their potential impacts on global crude oil markets and our business; operating disruptions at our refineries resulting from unplanned maintenance events or natural disasters; environmental risks; changes in the labor market; and risks of political or regulatory changes. We cannot provide assurances that the assumptions upon which these forward-looking statements are based will prove to have been correct. Should any of these risks materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements, and investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are current only as of this date. We do not intend to update or revise any forward-looking statements made herein or any other forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. We further expressly disclaim any written or oral statements made by a third party regarding the subject matter of this news release.

    Contact:
    Ashimi Patel
    VP, Investor Relations & Sustainability
    (832) 916-3355
    apatel@parpacific.com

    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (Unaudited)
    (in thousands, except per share data)

      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Revenues $ 1,832,221     $ 2,183,511     $ 7,974,457     $ 8,231,955  
    Operating expenses              
    Cost of revenues (excluding depreciation)   1,678,273       1,799,898       7,101,148       6,838,109  
    Operating expense (excluding depreciation)   139,893       155,441       584,282       485,587  
    Depreciation and amortization   34,911       31,943       131,590       119,830  
    General and administrative expense (excluding depreciation)   21,522       25,299       108,844       91,447  
    Equity losses (earnings) from refining and logistics investments   941       (7,485 )     (11,905 )     (11,844 )
    Acquisition and integration costs   32       269       100       17,482  
    Par West redevelopment and other costs   3,500       2,907       12,548       11,397  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   108       (59 )     222       (59 )
    Total operating expenses   1,879,180       2,008,213       7,926,829       7,551,949  
    Operating income (loss)   (46,959 )     175,298       47,628       680,006  
    Other income (expense)              
    Interest expense and financing costs, net   (21,073 )     (20,476 )     (82,793 )     (72,450 )
    Debt extinguishment and commitment costs   (270 )     (1,500 )     (1,688 )     (19,182 )
    Other loss, net   (422 )     (354 )     (1,869 )     (53 )
    Equity earnings (losses) from Laramie Energy, LLC   (3,163 )     14,279       (296 )     24,985  
    Total other expense, net   (24,928 )     (8,051 )     (86,646 )     (66,700 )
    Income (loss) before income taxes   (71,887 )     167,247       (39,018 )     613,306  
    Income tax benefit (expense)   16,192       122,077       5,696       115,336  
    Net income (loss) $ (55,695 )   $ 289,324     $ (33,322 )   $ 728,642  
    Weighted-average shares outstanding              
    Basic   55,252       59,403       56,775       60,035  
    Diluted   55,252       60,609       56,775       61,014  
                   
    Income (loss) per share              
    Basic $ (1.01 )   $ 4.87     $ (0.59 )   $ 12.14  
    Diluted $ (1.01 )   $ 4.77     $ (0.59 )   $ 11.94  
                                   

    Balance Sheet Data
    (Unaudited)
    (in thousands)

      December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Balance Sheet Data      
    Cash and cash equivalents $         191,921           $         279,107        
    Working capital (1)           488,940                     190,042        
    ABL Credit Facility           483,000                     115,000        
    Term debt (2)           644,233                     550,621        
    Total debt, including current portion           1,112,967                     650,858        
    Total stockholders’ equity           1,191,302                     1,335,424        
               

    _______________________________________

    (1) Working capital is calculated as (i) total current assets excluding cash and cash equivalents less (ii) total current liabilities excluding current portion of long-term debt. Total current assets include inventories stated at the lower of cost or net realizable value.
    (2) Term debt includes the Term Loan Credit Agreement and other long-term debt.
       

    Operating Statistics

    The following table summarizes key operational data:

      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Total Refining Segment              
    Feedstocks throughput (Mbpd) (1)   187.8       186.0       186.7       170.3  
    Refined product sales volume (Mbpd) (1)   199.4       194.4       199.9       183.1  
                   
    Hawaii Refinery              
    Feedstocks throughput (Mbpd)   83.3       80.6       81.1       80.8  
                   
    Yield (% of total throughput)              
    Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks   27.0 %     25.2 %     26.2 %     26.3 %
    Distillates   41.1 %     39.3 %     38.9 %     40.4 %
    Fuel oils   29.2 %     31.8 %     31.3 %     28.9 %
    Other products (0.2)%   (0.2)%     0.2 %     1.1 %
    Total yield   97.1 %     96.1 %     96.6 %     96.7 %
                   
    Refined product sales volume (Mbpd)   93.7       89.0       89.3       89.1  
                   
    Adjusted Gross Margin per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (2) $ 7.36     $ 16.73     $ 9.34     $ 15.25  
    Production costs per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (3)   4.42       4.80       4.58       4.57  
    D&A per bbl ($/throughput bbl)   0.32       0.54       0.43       0.65  
                   
    Montana Refinery              
    Feedstocks Throughput (Mbpd) (1)   51.9       49.8       49.9       54.4  
                   
    Yield (% of total throughput)              
    Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks   43.9 %     45.1 %     48.0 %     48.1 %
    Distillates   32.7 %     38.8 %     31.9 %     32.0 %
    Asphalt   15.2 %     8.7 %     10.9 %     12.1 %
    Other products   2.7 %     2.5 %     3.9 %     3.2 %
    Total yield   94.5 %     95.1 %     94.7 %     95.4 %
                   
    Refined product sales volume (Mbpd) (1)   52.9       51.5       53.2       58.6  
                   
    Adjusted Gross Margin per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (2) $ 3.70     $ 11.55     $ 11.37     $ 21.14  
    Production costs per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (3)   10.48       12.03       12.42       10.78  
    D&A per bbl ($/throughput bbl)   2.26       1.10       1.83       1.45  
                   
      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Washington Refinery              
    Feedstocks throughput (Mbpd)   39.0       38.4       38.2       40.0  
                   
    Yield (% of total throughput)              
    Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks   23.6 %     23.8 %     23.9 %     23.5 %
    Distillate   34.6 %     34.1 %     34.5 %     34.5 %
    Asphalt   19.4 %     20.6 %     18.8 %     19.7 %
    Other products   19.3 %     18.6 %     19.3 %     18.7 %
    Total yield   96.9 %     97.1 %     96.5 %     96.4 %
                   
    Refined product sales volume (Mbpd)   37.9       37.0       39.2       41.7  
                   
    Adjusted Gross Margin per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (2) $ 1.05     $ 7.87     $ 3.25     $ 9.41  
    Production costs per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (3)   4.34       4.53       4.28       4.12  
    D&A per bbl ($/throughput bbl)   1.91       2.22       1.97       1.91  
                   
    Wyoming Refinery              
    Feedstocks throughput (Mbpd)   13.6       17.2       17.5       17.6  
                   
    Yield (% of total throughput)              
    Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks   51.5 %     50.3 %     46.9 %     47.1 %
    Distillate   43.1 %     45.0 %     47.1 %     46.7 %
    Fuel oils   1.7 %     2.3 %     2.4 %     2.5 %
    Other products   1.7 %     1.0 %     2.1 %     1.5 %
    Total yield   98.0 %     98.6 %     98.5 %     97.8 %
                   
    Refined product sales volume (Mbpd)   14.9       16.9       18.2       17.9  
                   
    Adjusted Gross Margin per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (2) $ 11.11     $ 13.90     $ 13.73     $ 25.15  
    Production costs per bbl ($/throughput bbl) (3)   11.49       8.03       8.10       7.50  
    D&A per bbl ($/throughput bbl)   3.55       2.71       2.71       2.69  
                   
                   
    Par Pacific Indices ($ per barrel)              
    Hawaii Index (4) $ 5.52     $ 12.48     $ 7.21     $ 13.06  
    Montana Index (5)   5.75       14.80       14.39       23.71  
    Washington Index (6)   (0.62 )     5.23       4.13       9.81  
    Wyoming Index (7)   13.36       16.58       16.47       24.48  
                   
    Market Cracks ($ per barrel)              
    Singapore 3.1.2 Product Crack (4) $ 11.69     $ 19.44     $ 13.36     $ 19.50  
    Montana 6.3.2.1 Product Crack (5)   15.31       23.56       21.59       30.15  
    Washington 3.1.1.1 Product Crack (6)   8.29       10.83       12.11       17.91  
    Wyoming 2.1.1 Product Crack (7)   16.00       18.70       18.48       27.52  
                   
    Crude Oil Prices ($ per barrel) (8)              
    Brent $ 74.01     $ 82.85     $ 79.86     $ 82.17  
    WTI   70.32       78.53       75.76       77.60  
    ANS (-) Brent   1.00       2.21       1.55       0.95  
    Bakken Guernsey (-) WTI   (1.22 )     (2.20 )     (1.26 )     (0.65 )
    Bakken Williston (-) WTI   (2.54 )     (2.50 )     (2.45 )     (0.09 )
    WCS Hardisty (-) WTI   (12.27 )     (22.78 )     (13.90 )     (17.92 )
    MSW (-) WTI   (3.68 )     (7.34 )     (4.03 )     (3.70 )
    Syncrude (-) WTI   (0.42 )     (4.12 )     0.18       1.32  
    Brent M1-M3   0.74       1.01       1.10       0.81  
                   
    Retail Segment              
    Retail sales volumes (thousands of gallons)   30,287       29,840       121,473       117,550  

    _______________________________________

    (1) Feedstocks throughput and sales volumes per day for the Montana refinery for the three months and year ended December 31, 2023 are calculated based on the 92 and 214-day periods for which we owned the Montana refinery during the three months and year ended December 31, 2023, respectively. As such, the amounts for the total refining segment represent the sum of the Hawaii, Washington, and Wyoming refineries’ throughput or sales volumes averaged over the three months and year ended December 31, 2023 plus the Montana refinery’s throughput or sales volumes averaged over the periods from October 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023 and June 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023, respectively. The 2024 amounts for the total refining segment represent the sum of the Hawaii, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming refineries’ throughput or sales volumes averaged over the three months and year ended December 31, 2024.
    (2) We calculate Adjusted Gross Margin per barrel by dividing Adjusted Gross Margin by total refining throughput. Adjusted Gross Margin for our Washington refinery is determined under the last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) inventory costing method. Adjusted Gross Margin for our other refineries is determined under the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) inventory costing method.
    (3) Management uses production costs per barrel to evaluate performance and compare efficiency to other companies in the industry. There are a variety of ways to calculate production costs per barrel; different companies within the industry calculate it in different ways. We calculate production costs per barrel by dividing all direct production costs, which include the costs to run the refineries, including personnel costs, repair and maintenance costs, insurance, utilities, and other miscellaneous costs, by total refining throughput. Our production costs are included in Operating expense (excluding depreciation) on our condensed consolidated statements of operations, which also includes costs related to our bulk marketing operations and severance costs.
    (4) Beginning in 2025, we established the Hawaii Index as a new benchmark for our Hawaii operations. We believe the Hawaii Index, which incorporates market cracks and landed crude differentials, better reflects the key drivers impacting our Hawaii refinery’s financial performance compared to prior reported market indices. The Hawaii Index is calculated as the Singapore 3.1.2 Product Crack, or one part gasoline (RON 92) and two parts distillates (Sing Jet & Sing gasoil) as created from a barrel of Brent crude oil, less the Par Hawaii Refining, LLC (“PHR”) crude differential.
    (5) Beginning in 2025, we established the Montana Index as a new benchmark for our Montana refinery. We believe the Montana Index, which incorporates local market cracks, regional crude oil prices, and management’s estimates for other costs of sales, better reflects the key drivers impacting our Montana refinery’s financial performance compared to prior reported market indices. Beginning in 2025, market cracks have been updated to reflect local market product pricing, which better reflects our Montana refinery’s refined product sales price compared to prior reported market indices. The Montana Index is calculated as the Montana 6.3.2.1 Product Crack less Montana crude costs, less other costs of sales, including inflation-adjusted product delivery costs, yield loss expense, taxes and tariffs, and product discounts. The Montana 6.3.2.1 Product Crack is calculated by taking three parts gasoline (Billings E10 and Spokane E10), two parts distillate (Billings ULSD and Spokane ULSD), and one part asphalt (Rocky Mountain Rail Asphalt) as created from a barrel of WTI crude oil, less 100% of the RVO cost for gasoline and ULSD. Asphalt pricing is lagged by one month. The Montana crude cost is calculated as 60% WCS differential to WTI, 20% MSW differential to WTI, and 20% Syncrude differential to WTI. The Montana crude cost is lagged by three months and includes an inflation-adjusted crude delivery cost. Other costs of sales and crude delivery costs are based on historical averages and management’s estimates.
    (6) Beginning in 2025, we established the Washington Index as a new benchmark for our Washington refinery. We believe the Washington Index, which incorporates local market cracks, regional crude oil prices, and management’s estimates for other costs of sales, better reflects the key drivers impacting our Washington refinery’s financial performance compared to prior reported market indices. Beginning in 2025, market cracks have been updated to reflect local market product pricing, which better reflects our Washington refinery’s refined product sales price compared to prior reported market indices. The Washington Index is calculated as the Washington 3.1.1.1 Product Crack, less Washington crude costs, less other costs of sales, including inflation-adjusted product delivery costs, yield loss expense and state and local taxes. The Washington 3.1.1.1 Product Crack is calculated by taking one part gasoline (Tacoma E10), one part distillate (Tacoma ULSD) and one part secondary products (USGC VGO and Rocky Mountain Rail Asphalt) as created from a barrel of WTI crude oil, less 100% of the RVO cost for gasoline and ULSD. Asphalt pricing is lagged by one month. The Washington crude cost is calculated as 67% Bakken Williston differential to WTI and 33% WCS Hardisty differential to WTI. The Washington crude cost is lagged by one month and includes an inflation-adjusted crude delivery cost. Other costs of sales and crude delivery costs are based on historical averages and management’s estimates.
    (7) Beginning in 2025, we established the Wyoming Index as a new benchmark for our Wyoming refinery. We believe the Wyoming Index, which incorporates local market cracks, regional crude oil prices, and management’s estimates for other costs of sales, better reflects the key drivers impacting our Wyoming refinery’s financial performance compared to prior reported market indices. Beginning in 2025, market cracks have also been updated to reflect local market product pricing, which better reflects our Wyoming refinery’s refined product sales price compared to prior reported market indices. The Wyoming Index is calculated as the Wyoming 2.1.1 Product Crack, less Wyoming crude costs, less other cost of sales, including inflation adjusted product delivery costs and yield loss expense, based on historical averages and management’s estimates. The Wyoming 2.1.1 Product Crack is calculated by taking one part gasoline (Rockies gasoline) and one part distillate (USGC ULSD and USGC Jet) as created from a barrel of WTI crude oil, less 100% of the RVO cost for gasoline and ULSD. The Wyoming crude cost is calculated as the Bakken Guernsey differential to WTI on a one-month lag.
    (8) Beginning in 2025, crude oil prices have been updated and expanded to reflect regional differentials to Brent and WTI, which better reflect our refineries’ feedstock costs compared to prior crude oil pricing.
       

    Non-GAAP Performance Measures

    Management uses certain financial measures to evaluate our operating performance that are considered non-GAAP financial measures. These measures should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes or alternatives to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures or any other measure of financial performance or liquidity presented in accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP measures may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies since each company may define these terms differently.

    We believe Adjusted Gross Margin (as defined below) provides useful information to investors because it eliminates the gross impact of volatile commodity prices and adjusts for certain non-cash items and timing differences created by our inventory financing agreements and lower of cost and net realizable value adjustments to demonstrate the earnings potential of the business before other fixed and variable costs, which are reported separately in Operating expense (excluding depreciation) and Depreciation and amortization. Management uses Adjusted Gross Margin per barrel to evaluate operating performance and compare profitability to other companies in the industry and to industry benchmarks. We believe Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Adjusted EBITDA (as defined below) are useful supplemental financial measures that allow investors to assess the financial performance of our assets without regard to financing methods, capital structure, or historical cost basis, the ability of our assets to generate cash to pay interest on our indebtedness, and our operating performance and return on invested capital as compared to other companies without regard to financing methods and capital structure. We believe Adjusted EBITDA by segment (as defined below) is a useful supplemental financial measure to evaluate the economic performance of our segments without regard to financing methods, capital structure, or historical cost basis.

    Beginning with financial results reported for the second quarter of 2023, Adjusted Gross Margin, Adjusted Net Income (Loss), and Adjusted EBITDA also exclude our portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation expense from our refining and logistics investments acquired on June 1, 2023, as part of the Billings Acquisition.

    Beginning with financial results reported for the fourth quarter of 2023, Adjusted Gross Margin, Adjusted Net Income (Loss), and Adjusted EBITDA excludes all hedge losses (gains) associated with our Washington ending inventory and LIFO layer increment impacts associated with our Washington inventory. In addition, we have modified our environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustment to include only the mark-to-market losses (gains) associated with our net RINs liability and net obligation associated with the Washington Climate Commitment Act (“Washington CCA”) and Clean Fuel Standard. This modification was made as part of our change in how we estimate our environmental obligation liabilities.

    Beginning with financial results reported for the fourth quarter of 2023, Adjusted Net Income (loss) excludes unrealized interest rate derivative losses (gains) and all Laramie Energy related impacts with the exception of cash distributions. We have recast Adjusted Net Income (Loss) for prior periods when reported to conform to the modified presentation.

    Beginning with financial results reported for the first quarter of 2024, Adjusted Net Income (loss) also excludes other non-operating income and expenses. This modification improves comparability between periods by excluding income and expenses resulting from non-operating activities.

    Effective as of the fourth quarter of 2024, we have modified our definition of Adjusted Gross Margin, Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Adjusted EBITDA to align the accounting treatment for deferred turnaround costs from our refining and logistics investments with our accounting policy. Under this approach, we exclude our share of their turnaround expenses, which are recorded as period costs in their financial statements, and instead defer and amortize these costs on a straight-line basis over the period estimated until the next planned turnaround. This modification enhances consistency and comparability across reporting periods.

    Adjusted Gross Margin

    Adjusted Gross Margin is defined as Operating income (loss) excluding:

    •   operating expense (excluding depreciation);
    •   depreciation and amortization (“D&A”);
    •   Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and D&A expense from refining and logistics investments;
    •   impairment expense;
    •   loss (gain) on sale of assets, net;
    •   Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments;
    •   inventory valuation adjustment (which adjusts for timing differences to reflect the economics of our inventory financing agreements, including lower of cost or net realizable value adjustments, the impact of the embedded derivative repurchase or terminal obligations, hedge losses (gains) associated with our Washington ending inventory and intermediation obligation, purchase price allocation adjustments, and LIFO layer increment and decrement impacts associated with our Washington inventory);
    •   Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments (which represents the mark-to-market losses (gains) associated with our net RINs liability and net obligation associated with the Washington CCA and Clean Fuel Standard); and
    •   unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives.
         

    The following tables present a reconciliation of Adjusted Gross Margin to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, operating income (loss), on a historical basis, for selected segments, for the periods indicated (in thousands):

    Three months ended December 31, 2024 Refining   Logistics   Retail
    Operating income (loss) $ (65,399 )   $ 24,772   $ 19,477
    Operating expense (excluding depreciation)   114,706       3,829     21,358
    Depreciation and amortization   24,524       7,140     2,566
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   456       1,101     —
    Inventory valuation adjustment   5,929       —     —
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (937 )     —     —
    Unrealized loss on commodity derivatives   9,220       —     —
    Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments   3,856       —     —
    Loss on sale of assets, net   8       —     —
    Adjusted Gross Margin (1) $ 92,363     $ 36,842   $ 43,401
                       
    Three months ended December 31, 2023 Refining   Logistics   Retail
    Operating income $ 174,038     $ 15,709   $ 14,594  
    Operating expense (excluding depreciation)   120,810       11,272     23,359  
    Depreciation and amortization   21,190       7,321     2,885  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   765       952     —  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   (24,089 )     —     —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (15,672 )     —     —  
    Unrealized gain on commodity derivatives   (50,024 )     —     —  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   219       —     (308 )
    Adjusted Gross Margin (1) (2) $ 227,237     $ 35,254   $ 40,530  
                         
    Year Ended December 31, 2024 Refining   Logistics   Retail
    Operating income $ 17,412     $ 89,351   $ 64,800  
    Operating expense (excluding depreciation)   479,737       15,676     88,869  
    Depreciation and amortization   91,108       27,033     11,037  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   2,493       3,651     —  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   (490 )     —     —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (19,136 )     —     —  
    Unrealized loss on commodity derivatives   43,281       —     —  
    Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments   3,856       —     —  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   8       124     (10 )
    Adjusted Gross Margin (1) $ 618,269     $ 135,835   $ 164,696  
                         
    Year Ended December 31, 2023 Refining   Logistics   Retail
    Operating income $ 676,161     $ 69,744   $ 56,603  
    Operating expense (excluding depreciation)   373,612       24,450     87,525  
    Depreciation and amortization   81,017       25,122     11,462  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   1,586       1,857     —  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   102,710       —     —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (189,783 )     —     —  
    Unrealized gain on commodity derivatives   (50,511 )     —     —  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   219       —     (308 )
    Adjusted Gross Margin (1) (2) $ 995,011     $ 121,173   $ 155,282  

    _______________________________________

    (1) For the three months and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, there was no impairment expense in Operating income.
    (2) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2023, there was no impact in Operating income from accounting policy differences at our refining and logistics investments.
       

    Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Adjusted EBITDA

    Adjusted Net Income (Loss) is defined as Net income (loss) excluding:

    •   inventory valuation adjustment (which adjusts for timing differences to reflect the economics of our inventory financing agreements, including lower of cost or net realizable value adjustments, the impact of the embedded derivative repurchase or terminal obligations, hedge losses (gains) associated with our Washington ending inventory and intermediation obligation, purchase price allocation adjustments, and LIFO layer increment and decrement impacts associated with our Washington inventory);
    •   Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments (which represents the mark-to-market losses (gains) associated with our net RINs liability and net obligation associated with the Washington CCA and Clean Fuel Standard);
    •   unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives;
    •   acquisition and integration costs;
    •   redevelopment and other costs related to Par West;
    •   debt extinguishment and commitment costs;
    •   increase in (release of) tax valuation allowance and other deferred tax items;
    •   changes in the value of contingent consideration and common stock warrants;
    •   severance costs and other non-operating expense (income);
    •   (gain) loss on sale of assets;
    •   impairment expense;
    •   impairment expense associated with our investment in Laramie Energy;
    •   Par’s share of equity (earnings) losses from Laramie Energy, LLC, excluding cash distributions; and
    •   Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments.

    Adjusted EBITDA is defined as Adjusted Net Income (Loss) excluding:

    •   D&A;
    •   interest expense and financing costs, net, excluding unrealized interest rate derivative loss (gain);
    •   cash distributions from Laramie Energy, LLC to Par;
    •   Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and D&A expense from refining and logistics investments; and
    •   income tax expense (benefit) excluding the increase in (release of) tax valuation allowance.
         

    The following table presents a reconciliation of Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Adjusted EBITDA to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, net income (loss), on a historical basis for the periods indicated (in thousands):        

      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Net income (loss) $ (55,695 )   $ 289,324     $ (33,322 )   $ 728,642  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   5,929       (24,089 )     (490 )     102,710  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (937 )     (15,672 )     (19,136 )     (189,783 )
    Unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives   8,729       (48,539 )     42,485       (49,690 )
    Acquisition and integration costs   32       269       100       17,482  
    Par West redevelopment and other costs   3,500       2,907       12,548       11,397  
    Debt extinguishment and commitment costs   270       1,500       1,688       19,182  
    Changes in valuation allowance and other deferred tax items (1)   (12,553 )     (126,219 )     (3,315 )     (126,219 )
    Severance costs and other non-operating expense (2)   154       100       14,802       1,785  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   108       (59 )     222       (59 )
    Equity (earnings) losses from Laramie Energy, LLC, excluding cash distributions   3,163       (14,279 )     1,781       (14,279 )
    Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments   3,856       —       3,856       —  
    Adjusted Net Income (Loss) (3) (4)   (43,444 )     65,243       21,219       501,168  
    Depreciation and amortization   34,911       31,943       131,590       119,830  
    Interest expense and financing costs, net, excluding unrealized interest rate derivative loss (gain)   21,564       18,991       83,589       71,629  
    Laramie Energy, LLC cash distributions to Par   —       —       (1,485 )     (10,706 )
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   1,557       1,717       6,144       3,443  
    Income tax expense (benefit)   (3,639 )     4,142       (2,381 )     10,883  
    Adjusted EBITDA (3) $ 10,949     $ 122,036     $ 238,676     $ 696,247  

    _______________________________________

    (1) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2024, we recognized a non-cash deferred tax benefit of $12.6 million and $3.3 million, respectively. This tax benefit is included in Income tax expense (benefit) on our consolidated statements of operations. For the three months and year ended December 31, 2023, we recognized a non-cash deferred tax benefit of $126.2 million primarily related to the release of a majority of the valuation allowance against our federal net deferred tax assets.
    (2) For the year ended December 31, 2024, we incurred $13.1 million of stock-based compensation expenses associated with accelerated vesting of equity awards and modification of vested equity awards related to our CEO transition and $0.8 million for a legal settlement unrelated to current operating activities.
    (3) For the three months and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, there was no change in value of contingent consideration, change in value of common stock warrants, impairment expense, impairments associated with our investment in Laramie Energy, or our share of Laramie Energy’s asset impairment losses in excess of our basis difference. Please read the Non-GAAP Performance Measures discussion above for information regarding changes to the components of Adjusted Net Income (Loss) and Adjusted EBITDA made during the reporting periods.
    (4) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2023, there was no impact in Operating income from accounting policy differences at our refining and logistics investments.
       

     

    The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted Adjusted Net Income (Loss) per share (in thousands, except per share amounts):

      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023     2024     2023
    Adjusted Net Income (Loss) $ (43,444 )   $ 65,243   $ 21,219   $ 501,168
    Plus: effect of convertible securities   —       —     —     —
    Numerator for diluted income (loss) per common share $ (43,444 )   $ 65,243   $ 21,219   $ 501,168
                   
    Basic weighted-average common stock shares outstanding   55,252       59,403     56,775     60,035
    Add dilutive effects of common stock equivalents (1)   —       1,206     657     979
    Diluted weighted-average common stock shares outstanding   55,252       60,609     57,432     61,014
                   
    Basic Adjusted Net Income (Loss) per common share $ (0.79 )   $ 1.10   $ 0.37   $ 8.35
    Diluted Adjusted Net Income (Loss) per common share $ (0.79 )   $ 1.08   $ 0.37   $ 8.21

    _______________________________________

    (1) Entities with a net loss from continuing operations are prohibited from including potential common shares in the computation of diluted per share amounts. We have utilized the basic shares outstanding to calculate both basic and diluted Adjusted Net Loss per common share for the three months ended December 31, 2024.
       

    Adjusted EBITDA by Segment

    Adjusted EBITDA by segment is defined as Operating income (loss) excluding:

    •   D&A;
    •   inventory valuation adjustment (which adjusts for timing differences to reflect the economics of our inventory financing agreements, including lower of cost or net realizable value adjustments, the impact of the embedded derivative repurchase or terminal obligations, hedge losses (gains) associated with our Washington ending inventory and intermediation obligation, purchase price allocation adjustments, and LIFO layer increment and decrement impacts associated with our Washington inventory);
    •   Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments (which represents the mark-to-market losses (gains) associated with our net RINs liability and net obligation associated with the Washington CCA and Clean Fuel Standard);
    •   unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives;
    •   acquisition and integration costs;
    •   redevelopment and other costs related to Par West;
    •   severance costs and other non-operating expense (income);
    •   (gain) loss on sale of assets;
    •   impairment expense;
    •   Par’s portion of interest, taxes, and D&A expense from refining and logistics investments; and
    •   Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments.
         

    Adjusted EBITDA by segment also includes Gain on curtailment of pension obligation and Other income (loss), net, which are presented below operating income (loss) on our condensed consolidated statements of operations.

    The following table presents a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA by segment to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, operating income (loss) by segment, on a historical basis, for selected segments, for the periods indicated (in thousands):

      Three Months Ended December 31, 2024
      Refining   Logistics   Retail   Corporate and Other
    Operating income (loss) by segment $ (65,399 )   $ 24,772   $ 19,477   $ (25,809 )
    Depreciation and amortization   24,524       7,140     2,566     681  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   5,929       —     —     —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (937 )     —     —     —  
    Unrealized loss on commodity derivatives   9,220       —     —     —  
    Acquisition and integration costs   —       —     —     32  
    Par West redevelopment and other costs   —       —     —     3,500  
    Severance costs and other non-operating expense   —       —     154     —  
    Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments   3,856       —     —     —  
    Loss on sale of assets, net   8       —     —     100  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   456       1,101     —     —  
    Other loss, net   —       —     —     (422 )
    Adjusted EBITDA (1) $ (22,343 )   $ 33,013   $ 22,197   $ (21,918 )
                               
      Three Months Ended December 31, 2023
      Refining   Logistics   Retail   Corporate and Other
    Operating income (loss) by segment $ 174,038     $ 15,709   $ 14,594     $ (29,043 )
    Depreciation and amortization   21,190       7,321     2,885       547  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   (24,089 )     —     —       —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (15,672 )     —     —       —  
    Unrealized gain on commodity derivatives   (50,024 )     —     —       —  
    Acquisition and integration costs   —       —     —       269  
    Par West redevelopment and other costs   —       —     —       2,907  
    Severance costs and other non-operating expenses   100       —     —       —  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   219       —     (308 )     30  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   765       952     —       —  
    Other loss, net   —       —     —       (354 )
    Adjusted EBITDA (1) (2) $ 106,527     $ 23,982   $ 17,171     $ (25,644 )
                                 
      Year Ended December 31, 2024
      Refining   Logistics   Retail   Corporate and Other
    Operating income (loss) by segment $ 17,412     $ 89,351   $ 64,800     $ (123,935 )
    Depreciation and amortization   91,108       27,033     11,037       2,412  
    Inventory valuation adjustment   (490 )     —     —       —  
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments   (19,136 )     —     —       —  
    Unrealized loss on commodity derivatives   43,281       —     —       —  
    Acquisition and integration costs   —       —     —       100  
    Severance costs and other non-operating expenses   642       —     154       14,006  
    Par West redevelopment and other costs   —       —     —       12,548  
    Par’s portion of accounting policy differences from refining and logistics investments   3,856       —     —       —  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   8       124     (10 )     100  
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments   2,493       3,651     —       —  
    Other loss, net   —       —     —       (1,869 )
    Adjusted EBITDA (1) $ 139,174     $ 120,159   $ 75,981     $ (96,638 )
                                 
      Year Ended December 31, 2023
      Refining   Logistics   Retail   Corporate and Other
    Operating income (loss) by segment $         676,161             $         69,744           $         56,603             $         (122,502 )
    Depreciation and amortization           81,017                       25,122                     11,462                       2,229          
    Inventory valuation adjustment           102,710                       —                     —                       —          
    Environmental obligation mark-to-market adjustments           (189,783 )             —                     —                       —          
    Unrealized gain on commodity derivatives           (50,511 )             —                     —                       —          
    Acquisition and integration costs           —                       —                     —                       17,482          
    Severance costs and other non-operating expenses           100                       —                     580                       1,105          
    Par West redevelopment and other costs           —                       —                     —                       11,397          
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net           219                       —                     (308 )             30          
    Par’s portion of interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization expense from refining and logistics investments           1,586                       1,857                     —                       —          
    Other loss, net           —                       —                     —                       (53 )
    Adjusted EBITDA (1) (2) $         621,499             $         96,723           $         68,337             $         (90,312 )

    _______________________________________

    (1) For the three months and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, there was no change in value of contingent consideration, change in value of common stock warrants, impairment expense, impairments associated with our investment in Laramie Energy, or our share of Laramie Energy’s asset impairment losses in excess of our basis difference.
    (2) For the three months and year ended December 31, 2023, there was no impact in Operating income (loss) from accounting policy differences at our refining and logistics investments.
       

    Laramie Energy Adjusted EBITDAX

    Adjusted EBITDAX is defined as net income (loss) excluding commodity derivative loss (gain), loss (gain) on settled derivative instruments, interest expense, gain on extinguishment of debt, non-cash preferred dividend, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and accretion, exploration and geological and geographical expense, bonus accrual, equity-based compensation expense, loss (gain) on disposal of assets, phantom units, and expired acreage (non-cash). We believe Adjusted EBITDAX is a useful supplemental financial measure to evaluate the economic and operational performance of exploration and production companies such as Laramie Energy.

    The following table presents a reconciliation of Laramie Energy’s Adjusted EBITDAX to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, net income (loss) for the periods indicated (in thousands):

      Three Months Ended December 31,   Year Ended December 31,
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
    Net income (loss) $ (11,250 )   $ 42,538     $ (15,546 )   $ 96,586  
    Commodity derivative (income) loss   4,766       (40,338 )     (11,055 )     (73,289 )
    Loss on settled derivative instruments   389       1,594       14,609       161  
    Interest expense and loan fees   4,845       5,366       20,628       20,108  
    Gain on extinguishment of debt   —       —       —       6,644  
    Non-cash preferred dividend   —       —       —       2,910  
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization, and accretion   8,158       7,714       32,841       30,179  
    Phantom units   3,328       2,325       2,825       5,496  
    Loss (gain) on sale of assets, net   —       —       (8 )     307  
    Expired acreage (non-cash)   770       441       1,492       553  
    Total Adjusted EBITDAX (1) $ 11,006     $ 19,640     $ 45,786     $ 89,655  

    _______________________________________

    (1) For the three months and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, there was no exploration and geological and geographical expense, bonus accrual, or equity-based compensation expense.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Diginex Limited Launches ESG Rating Support Service to Help Businesses Secure and Improve ESG Scores

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HONG KONG, Feb. 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Diginex Limited (“Diginex Limited” or the “Company”), an impact technology company specializing in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, is excited to announce the launch of its ESG Ratings Support Service. The innovative service is designed to help businesses secure an ESG score across key rating agencies, including CDP, EcoVadis, Sustainable Fitch, S&P, Sustainalytics, the world’s leading ESG ratings providers. Leveraging Diginex Limited’s expertise and cutting-edge technology, the ESG Ratings Support Service provides companies with a robust framework to optimize their ESG ratings, attract investment, and strengthen stakeholder trust.

    The launch of the ESG Ratings Support Service comes at a pivotal moment as investors, regulators, and consumers increasingly prioritize sustainability. With the global ESG investment market reaching nearly USD 29.86 trillion in 2024, according to a report by Precedence Research, and regulatory bodies like the European Union, SEC as well as many stock exchanges globally who are mandating comprehensive ESG / Climate disclosures, businesses need reliable tools to navigate this landscape. diginexADVISORY’s new ESG Ratings Support Service offers a tailored approach, combining expert consultancy with data-driven insights to help organizations report their ESG data and performance to secure competitive advantages.

    “We believe our ESG Ratings Support Service is a game-changer for companies looking to align sustainability with commercial success,” said Mark Blick, Chief Executive Officer of Diginex Limited. “By providing clear, actionable recommendations into ESG performance, we’re helping businesses to unlock new opportunities for growth and investment. Sustainability isn’t just a compliance exercise—it’s a prerequisite for long-term prosperity.”

    Case Study: Living Style Group’s ESG Performance

    A recent example of the service’s impact is diginexADVISORY’s collaboration with the Living Style Group, a global leader in home decor and furnishings generating over $1.2 billion in yearly revenue. Living Style Group successfully completed its first-ever CDP submission, achieving an impressive B score in Climate on its first attempt.

    “With Diginex’s expert guidance, we successfully navigated our first ESG disclosure, achieving strong CDP scores on our first attempt. Diginex’s structured approach made a complex process seamless,” said Mark Loomis, EVP Quality, Compliance & Sustainability, Living Style Group. “This report marks an important milestone in our journey toward greater sustainability, and we look forward to building on these efforts in the years to come.”

    Through this collaboration, we believe that Living Style Group is now better equipped to attract ESG-focused investors and meet evolving regulatory demands.

    A Comprehensive Solution for ESG Success

    The ESG Ratings Support Service integrates with Diginex’s award-winning diginexESG platform, which supports 17 global frameworks, including GRI (the “Global Reporting Initiative”), SASB (the “Sustainability Accounting Standards Board”), and TCFD (the “Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures”). We expect our clients to benefit from end-to-end support, from materiality assessments and data management to stakeholder engagement and report generation through implementation of the ESG Ratings Support Service.

    The ESG Ratings Service is available immediately to clients worldwide, with options for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and large corporations alike.

    About Diginex Limited
    Diginex Limited is a Cayman Islands exempted company, with subsidiaries located in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Diginex Limited conducts operations through its wholly owned subsidiary Diginex Solutions (HK) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation (“DSL”) and DSL is the sole owner of (i) Diginex Services Limited, a corporation formed in the United Kingdom and (ii) Diginex USA LLC, a limited liability company formed in the State of Delaware. DSL commenced operations in 2020, and is a software company that empowers businesses and governments to streamline ESG, climate, and supply chain data collection and reporting. DSL is an impact technology business that helps organizations address the some of the most pressing ESG, climate and sustainability issues, utilizing blockchain, machine learning and data analysis technology to lead change and increase transparency in corporate social responsibility and climate action.

    Diginex’s products and services solutions enable companies to collect, evaluate and share sustainability data through easy-to-use software. For more information, please visit the Company’s website: https://www.diginex.com/.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Certain statements in this announcement are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and are based on the Company’s current expectations and projections about future events that the Company believes may affect its financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. Investors can identify these forward-looking statements by words or phrases such as “approximates,” “believes,” “hopes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “projects,” “intends,” “plans,” “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may” or other similar expressions. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent occurring events or circumstances, or changes in its expectations, except as may be required by law. Although the Company believes that the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, it cannot assure you that such expectations will turn out to be correct, and the Company cautions investors that actual results may differ materially from the anticipated results and encourages investors to review other factors that may affect its future results in the Company’s filings with the SEC.

    For investor and media inquiries, please contact:

    Diginex
    Investor Relations
    Email: ir@diginex.com

    European IR Contract
    Jens Hecht
    Phone: +49.40.609186.82
    Email: jens.hecht@kirchhoff.de

    US IR Contract
    Jackson Lin
    Lambert by LLYC
    Phone: +1 (646) 717-4593
    Email: jian.lin@llyc.global

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Skyward Specialty Insurance Group Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HOUSTON, Feb. 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SKWD) (“Skyward Specialty” or the “Company”) today reported fourth quarter 2024 net income of $14.4 million, or $0.35 per diluted share, compared to $29.3 million, or $0.74 per diluted share, for the same 2023 period. Net income for the year ended 2024 was $118.8 million, or $2.87 per diluted share, compared to $86.0 million, or $2.24 per diluted share, for the same 2023 period.

    Adjusted operating income(1) for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $33.2 million, or $0.80 per diluted share, compared to $24.3 million, or $0.61 per diluted share, for the same 2023 period. Adjusted operating income(1) for the year ended 2024 was $126.7 million, or $3.06 per diluted share, compared to $80.8 million, or $2.11 per diluted share, for the same 2023 period.

    Highlights for the fourth quarter included:

    • Gross written premiums of $388.4 million, an increase of $66.8 million, or 20.8%, when compared to 2023;
    • Adjusted combined ratio(1) of 91.6%, including catastrophe losses of 2.2 points;
    • Return on equity of 16.3% for the year ended 2024 compared to 15.9% for the same 2023 period;
    • Adjusted return on equity(1) of 17.4% for the year ended 2024 compared to 14.9% for the same 2023 period; and,
    • Book value per share of $19.79, an increase of 18% compared to December 31, 2023.
    (1) See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures”

    Skyward Specialty Chairman and CEO Andrew Robinson commented, “We wrapped up another remarkable year for Skyward Specialty, delivering both outstanding underwriting results while growing gross written premiums at over 20% for the quarter and 19% for the full year, with six out of eight divisions growing double-digits over the prior year. Our 16.3% return on equity for the year was again an excellent outcome. Throughout 2024 we continued to thoughtfully diversify our product portfolio, strategically launching new units including Media Liability, Life Sciences, Mortgage and Credit, and Renewable Energy. Our focus and disciplined execution of our “Rule Our Niche” strategy, and the extraordinary efforts of my 600 plus colleagues made 2024 another impressive year for our Company, and we are confident that we have built the foundation that will propel us in 2025 and beyond.”

    Results of Operations

    Underwriting Results

    Premiums                        
    ($ in thousands)   Three months ended December 31,   Twelve months ended December 31,
    unaudited    2024     2023    %
    Change    		    2024     2023    %
    Change
    Gross written premiums   $ 388,355     $ 321,605     20.8 %   $ 1,743,232     $ 1,459,829     19.4 %
    Ceded written premiums   $ (117,328 )   $ (107,488 )   9.2 %   $ (619,654 )   $ (549,138 )   12.8 %
    Net retention     69.8 %     66.6 %   NM(1)     64.5 %     62.4 %   NM(1)
    Net written premiums   $ 271,027     $ 214,117     26.6 %   $ 1,123,578     $ 910,691     23.4 %
    Net earned premiums   $ 293,240     $ 224,932     30.4 %   $ 1,056,722     $ 829,143     27.4 %
    (1)Not meaningful                        
                             

    The increase in gross written premiums for the fourth quarter and year ended 2024, when compared to the same 2023 periods, was driven by double-digit premium growth primarily from our surety, programs, captives, global property & agriculture and transactional E&S underwriting divisions.

    Combined Ratio   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)   2024    2023    2024    2023 
    Non-cat loss and LAE   60.5 %   60.9 %   60.6 %   60.9 %
    Cat loss and LAE(1)   2.2 %   0.4 %   1.7 %   1.4 %
    Prior accident year development – LPT(2)   4.2 %   (0.2 )%   1.1 %   (0.2 )%
    Loss Ratio   66.9 %   61.1 %   63.4 %   62.1 %
    Net policy acquisition costs   15.3 %   13.4 %   14.2 %   13.0 %
    Other operating and general expenses   13.9 %   16.3 %   15.3 %   16.3 %
    Commission and fee income   (0.3 )%   (0.1 )%   (0.6 )%   (0.7 )%
    Expense ratio   28.9 %   29.6 %   28.9 %   28.6 %
    Combined ratio   95.8 %   90.7 %   92.3 %   90.7 %
    Ex-Cat Combined Ratio(3)   93.6 %   90.3 %   90.6 %   89.3 %
                     
    Adjusted Underwriting Ratios                
    Adjusted loss ratio(2)   62.7 %   61.3 %   62.3 %   62.3 %
    Expense ratio   28.9 %   29.6 %   28.9 %   28.6 %
    Adjusted combined ratio(2)   91.6 %   90.9 %   91.2 %   90.9 %
    (1)Current accident year
    (2)See “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures”
    (3)Defined as the combined ratio excluding cat loss and LAE(1)            
                     

    The loss ratios for the fourth quarter and year ended 2024 increased 5.8 points and 1.3 points, respectively, when compared to the same 2023 periods, primarily due to the net impact of prior accident year development related to the LPT. The fourth quarter and year ended 2024 were also impacted by higher catastrophe losses, primarily from Hurricane Milton in the fourth quarter of 2024 and Hurricanes Helene and Beryl in the third quarter of 2024. The improvement in the non-cat loss and LAE ratios for the fourth quarter and year ended 2024, when compared to the same 2023 periods, was driven by the business mix shift.

    The expense ratio for the fourth quarter improved when compared to the same 2023 period primarily due to earnings leverage partially offset by the business mix shift. The expense ratio for the year ended 2024 increased slightly when compared to the same 2023 period, driven by the business mix shift.

    The expense ratios for all periods presented exclude the impact of IPO related stock compensation and secondary offering expenses, which are reported in other expenses in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

    Investment Results

    Net Investment Income                
    $ in thousands   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)    2024     2023     2024     2023 
    Short-term investments & cash and cash equivalents   $ 3,998     $ 3,670     $ 17,643     $ 11,677  
    Fixed income     15,909       11,680       57,631       36,547  
    Equities     771       880       2,745       2,212  
    Alternative & strategic investments     52       (2,226 )     2,667       (10,114 )
    Net investment income   $ 20,730     $ 14,004     $ 80,686     $ 40,322  
    Net unrealized (losses) gains on securities still held   $ (7,688 )   $ 8,736     $ 7,921     $ 11,130  
    Net realized losses     (2,721 )     (992 )     (1,665 )     (58 )
    Net investment (losses) gains   $ (10,409 )   $ 7,744     $ 6,256     $ 11,072  
     

    Beginning January 1, 2024 we simplified the investment portfolio classifications to align with our strategy and the underlying risk characteristics of the portfolio. The prior period has been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

    Net investment income for the fourth quarter and year ended 2024 increased $6.7 million and $40.4 million, respectively when compared to the same 2023 periods, primarily driven by (i) increased income from our fixed income portfolio and short-term investments due to higher yields and larger asset bases, and (ii) income from alternative and strategic investments compared to losses for the same 2023 periods, which were impacted by the decline in the fair value of limited partnership investments.

    Stockholders’ Equity

    Stockholders’ equity was $794.0 million at December 31, 2024 which represented a decrease of 0.4% when compared to stockholders’ equity of $797.5 million at September 30, 2024. The decrease in stockholders’ equity was primarily due to a decline in the market value of our investment portfolio partially offset by net income.

    Conference Call

    At 9:30 a.m. eastern time tomorrow, February 26, 2025, Skyward Specialty management will hold a conference call to discuss quarterly results with insurance industry analysts. Interested parties may listen to the discussion at investors.skywardinsurance.com under Events & Presentations. Additionally, investors can access the earnings call via conference call by registering via the conference link. Users will receive dial-in information and a unique PIN to join the call upon registering.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    This release contains certain financial measures and ratios that are not required by, or presented in accordance with, generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). We refer to these measures as “non-GAAP financial measures.” We use these non-GAAP financial measures when planning, monitoring, and evaluating our performance.

    We have chosen to exclude the net impact of the Loss Portfolio Transfer (“LPT”), all development on reserves fully or partially covered by the LPT and amortization of deferred gains associated with recoveries of prior LPT reserve strengthening in certain non-GAAP metrics, where noted, as the business subject to the LPT is not representative of our continuing business strategy. The business subject to the LPT is primarily related to policy years 2017 and prior, was generated and managed under prior leadership, and has either been exited or substantially repositioned during the reevaluation of our portfolio. The LPT was commuted effective January 31, 2025. We consider these non-GAAP financial measures to be useful metrics for our management and investors to facilitate operating performance comparisons from period to period. While we believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful in evaluating our business, this information should be considered supplemental in nature and is not meant to be a substitute for revenue or net income, in each case as recognized in accordance with GAAP. In addition, other companies, including companies in our industry, may calculate such measures differently, which reduces their usefulness as comparative measures. For more information regarding these non-GAAP financial measures and a reconciliation of such measures to comparable GAAP financial measures, see the section entitled “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

    About Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc.

    Skyward Specialty is a rapidly growing and innovative specialty insurance company, delivering commercial property and casualty products and solutions on a non-admitted and admitted basis. The Company operates through eight underwriting divisions – Accident & Health, Captives, Global Property & Agriculture, Industry Solutions, Professional Lines, Programs, Surety and Transactional E&S. SKWD stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, which represents the top fourth of all Nasdaq listed companies.

    Skyward Specialty’s subsidiary insurance companies consist of Houston Specialty Insurance Company, Imperium Insurance Company, Great Midwest Insurance Company, and Oklahoma Specialty Insurance Company. These insurance companies are rated A (Excellent) with stable outlook by A.M. Best Company. Additional information about Skyward Specialty can be found on our website at www.skywardinsurance.com. 

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Except for historical information, all other information in this news release consists of forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements are typically, but not always, identified through use of the words “believe,” “expect,” “enable,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “intends,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “predict,” “probable,” “potential,” “possible,” “should,” “continue,” and other words of similar meaning. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, anticipated or implied. The most significant of these uncertainties are described in Skyward Specialty’s Form 10-K, and include (but are not limited to) legislative changes at both the state and federal level, state and federal regulatory rule making promulgations and adjudications, class action litigation involving the insurance industry and judicial decisions affecting claims, policy coverages and the general costs of doing business, the potential loss of key members of our management team or key employees and our ability to attract and retain personnel, the impact of competition on products and pricing, inflation in the costs of the products and services insurance pays for, product development, geographic spread of risk, weather and weather-related events, other types of catastrophic events, our ability to obtain reinsurance coverage at prices and on terms that allow us to transfer risk and adequately protect our company against financial loss, and losses resulting from reinsurance counterparties failing to pay us on reinsurance claims. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information to reflect changes in assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events, or otherwise.

    Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, Inc.

    Investor contact:
    Natalie Schoolcraft,
    nschoolcraft@skywardinsurance.com 
    614-494-4988

    or

    Media contact:
    Haley Doughty
    hdoughty@skywardinsurance.com 
    713-935-4944

    Consolidated Balance Sheets        
    ($ in thousands, except share and per share amounts)        
    (unaudited)   December 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
    Assets        
    Investments:        
    Fixed maturity securities, available-for-sale, at fair value (amortized cost of $1,320,266 and $1,047,713, respectively)   $ 1,292,218     $ 1,017,651  
    Fixed maturity securities, held-to-maturity, at amortized cost (net of allowance for credit losses of $243 and $329, respectively)     39,153       42,986  
    Equity securities, at fair value     106,254       118,249  
    Mortgage loans, at fair value     26,490       50,070  
    Equity method investments     98,594       110,653  
    Other long-term investments     33,182       3,852  
    Short-term investments, at fair value     274,929       270,226  
    Total investments     1,870,820       1,613,687  
    Cash and cash equivalents     121,603       65,891  
    Restricted cash     35,922       34,445  
    Premiums receivable, net     321,641       179,235  
    Reinsurance recoverables, net     857,876       596,334  
    Ceded unearned premium     203,901       186,121  
    Deferred policy acquisition costs     113,183       91,955  
    Deferred income taxes     30,486       21,991  
    Goodwill and intangible assets, net     87,348       88,435  
    Other assets     86,698       75,341  
    Total assets   $ 3,729,478     $ 2,953,435  
    Liabilities and stockholders’ equity        
    Liabilities:        
    Reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses   $ 1,782,383     $ 1,314,501  
    Unearned premiums     637,185       552,532  
    Deferred ceding commission     40,434       37,057  
    Reinsurance and premium payables     177,070       150,156  
    Funds held for others     102,665       58,588  
    Accounts payable and accrued liabilities     76,206       50,880  
    Notes payable     100,000       50,000  
    Subordinated debt, net of debt issuance costs     19,536       78,690  
    Total liabilities     2,935,479       2,292,404  
    Stockholders’ equity        
    Common stock, $0.01 par value, 500,000,000 shares authorized, 40,127,908 and 39,863,756 shares issued and outstanding, respectively     401       399  
    Additional paid-in capital     718,598       710,855  
    Stock notes receivable     —       (5,562 )
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (22,120 )     (22,953 )
    Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)     97,120       (21,708 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     793,999       661,031  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity   $ 3,729,478     $ 2,953,435  
             
    Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
    ($ in thousands)   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)    2024     2023     2024     2023 
                     
    Revenues:                
    Net earned premiums   $ 293,240     $ 224,932     $ 1,056,722     $ 829,143  
    Commission and fee income     806       247       6,703       6,064  
    Net investment income     20,730       14,004       80,686       40,322  
    Net investment (losses) gains     (10,409 )     7,744       6,256       11,072  
    Other income (loss)     35       (632 )     (167 )     (632 )
    Total revenues     304,402       246,295       1,150,200       885,969  
    Expenses:                
    Losses and loss adjustment expenses     196,320       137,396       669,809       515,237  
    Underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses     85,487       66,791       311,757       243,444  
    Interest expense     2,091       2,774       9,496       10,024  
    Amortization expense     908       462       2,007       1,798  
    Other expenses     1,042       1,303       4,392       5,364  
    Total expenses     285,848       208,726       997,461       775,867  
    Income before income taxes     18,554       37,569       152,739       110,102  
    Income tax expense     4,148       8,304       33,911       24,118  
    Net income     14,406       29,265       118,828       85,984  
    Net income attributable to participating securities     —       —       —       1,677  
    Net income attributable to common stockholders   $ 14,406     $ 29,265     $ 118,828     $ 84,307  
    Comprehensive income:                
    Net income   $ 14,406     $ 29,265     $ 118,828     $ 85,984  
    Other comprehensive income:                
    Unrealized gains and losses on investments:                
    Net change in unrealized (losses) gains on investments, net of tax     (14,735 )     30,825       9,792       25,516  
    Reclassification adjustment for losses on securities no longer held, net of tax     (5,682 )     (105 )     (8,959 )     (4,984 )
    Total other comprehensive (loss) income     (20,417 )     30,720       833       20,532  
    Comprehensive (loss) income   $ (6,011 )   $ 59,985     $ 119,661     $ 106,516  
                     
    Share and Per Share Data                
    ($ in thousands, except share and per share amounts)   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)   2024   2023   2024   2023
                     
    Weighted average basic shares     40,107,617       37,570,274       40,056,475       36,031,907  
    Weighted average diluted shares     41,622,397       39,582,352       41,377,460       38,317,534  
                     
    Basic earnings per share   $ 0.36     $ 0.78     $ 2.97     $ 2.34  
    Diluted earnings per share   $ 0.35     $ 0.74     $ 2.87     $ 2.24  
    Basic adjusted operating earnings per share   $ 0.83     $ 0.65     $ 3.16     $ 2.20  
    Diluted adjusted operating earnings per share   $ 0.80     $ 0.61     $ 3.06     $ 2.11  
                     
    Annualized ROE (1)     7.2 %     19.6 %     16.3 %     15.9 %
    Annualized adjusted ROE (2)     16.7 %     16.3 %     17.4 %     14.9 %
    Annualized ROTE (3)     8.1 %     23.0 %     18.6 %     19.0 %
    Annualized adjusted ROTE (4)     18.8 %     19.1 %     19.8 %     17.9 %
                     
                December 31   December 31
                 2024     2023 
                     
    Shares outstanding             40,127,908       39,863,756  
    Fully diluted shares outstanding             42,059,182       41,771,854  
                     
    Book value per share           $ 19.79     $ 16.72  
    Fully diluted book value per share           $ 18.88     $ 15.96  
    Fully diluted tangible book value per share           $ 16.80     $ 13.84  
                     
    (1)Annualized ROE is net income expressed on an annualized basis as a percentage of average beginning and ending stockholders’ equity during the period
    (2)Annualized adjusted ROE is adjusted operating income expressed on an annualized basis as a percentage of average beginning and ending stockholders’ equity during the period
    (3)Annualized ROTE is net income expressed on an annualized basis as a percentage of average beginning and ending tangible stockholders’ equity during the period
    (4)Annualized adjusted ROTE is adjusted operating income expressed on an annualized basis as a percentage of average beginning and ending tangible stockholders’ equity during the period

    Adjusted operating income – We define adjusted operating income as net income excluding the impact of certain items that may not be indicative of underlying business trends, operating results, or future outlook, net of tax impact. We use adjusted operating income as an internal performance measure in the management of our operations because we believe it gives our management and other users of our financial information useful insight into our results of operations and our underlying business performance. Adjusted operating income should not be viewed as a substitute for net income calculated in accordance with GAAP, and other companies may define adjusted operating income differently.        

    ($ in thousands) Three months ended December 31,   Twelve months ended December 31,
    (unaudited)  2024    2023     2024    2023 
      Pre-tax   After-tax   Pre-tax   After-tax   Pre-tax   After-tax   Pre-tax   After-tax
    Income as reported $ 18,554     $ 14,406     $ 37,569     $ 29,265     $ 152,739     $ 118,828     $ 110,102     $ 85,984  
    Less (add):                              
    Net investment (losses) gains   (10,409 )     (8,223 )     7,744       6,118       6,256       4,942       11,072       8,747  
    Net impact of loss portfolio transfer   (12,398 )     (9,794 )     457       361       (11,598 )     (9,162 )     1,427       1,127  
    Other loss   35       28       (632 )     (499 )     (167 )     (132 )     (632 )     (499 )
    Other expenses   (1,042 )     (823 )     (1,303 )     (1,029 )     (4,392 )     (3,470 )     (5,364 )     (4,238 )
    Adjusted operating income $ 42,368     $ 33,218     $ 31,303     $ 24,314     $ 162,640     $ 126,650     $ 103,599     $ 80,847  
                                   

    Underwriting income – We define underwriting income as net income before income taxes excluding net investment income, net realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments, impairment charges, interest expense, amortization expense and other income and expenses. Underwriting income represents the pre-tax profitability of our underwriting operations and allows us to evaluate our underwriting performance without regard to investment income. We use this metric as we believe it gives our management and other users of our financial information useful insight into our underlying business performance. Underwriting income should not be viewed as a substitute for pre-tax income calculated in accordance with GAAP, and other companies may define underwriting income differently.

    ($ in thousands)   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)    2024     2023     2024     2023 
    Income before income taxes   $ 18,554     $ 37,569     $ 152,739     $ 110,102  
    Add:                
    Interest expense     2,091       2,774       9,496       10,024  
    Amortization expense     908       462       2,007       1,798  
    Other expenses     1,042       1,303       4,392       5,364  
    Less (add):                
    Net investment income     20,730       14,004       80,686       40,322  
    Net investment (losses) gains     (10,409 )     7,744       6,256       11,072  
    Other income (loss)     35       (632 )     (167 )     (632 )
    Underwriting income   $ 12,239     $ 20,992     $ 81,859     $ 76,526  
                     

    Adjusted Loss Ratio / Adjusted Combined Ratio – We define adjusted loss ratio and adjusted combined ratio as the corresponding ratio (calculated in accordance with GAAP), excluding losses and LAE related to the LPT and all development on reserves fully or partially covered by the LPT and amortization of deferred gains associated with recoveries of prior LPT reserve strengthening. We use these adjusted ratios as internal performance measures in the management of our operations because we believe they give our management and other users of our financial information useful insight into our results of operations and our underlying business performance. Our adjusted loss ratio and adjusted combined ratio should not be viewed as substitutes for our loss ratio and combined ratio, respectively.

    ($ in thousands)   Three months ended
    December 31,    		   Twelve months ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)   2024   2023   2024   2023
    Net earned premiums   $ 293,240     $ 224,932     $ 1,056,722     $ 829,143  
                     
    Losses and LAE     196,320       137,396       669,809       515,237  
    Less: Pre-tax net impact of LPT     12,398       (457 )     11,598       (1,427 )
    Adjusted losses and LAE   $ 183,922     $ 137,853     $ 658,211     $ 516,664  
                     
    Loss ratio     66.9 %     61.1 %     63.4 %     62.1 %
    Less: net impact of LPT     4.2 %     (0.2 )%     1.1 %     (0.2 )%
    Adjusted loss ratio     62.7 %     61.3 %     62.3 %     62.3 %
                     
    Combined ratio     95.8 %     90.7 %     92.3 %     90.7 %
    Less: net impact of LPT     4.2 %     (0.2 )%     1.1 %     (0.2 )%
    Adjusted combined ratio     91.6 %     90.9 %     91.2 %     90.9 %
                     

    Tangible Stockholders’ Equity – We define tangible stockholders’ equity as stockholders’ equity less goodwill and intangible assets. Our definition of tangible stockholders’ equity may not be comparable to that of other companies and should not be viewed as a substitute for stockholders’ equity calculated in accordance with GAAP. We use tangible stockholders’ equity internally to evaluate the strength of our balance sheet and to compare returns relative to this measure.

    ($ in thousands)   December 31,
    (unaudited)    2024    2023
    Stockholders’ equity   $         793,999   $         661,031
    Less: Goodwill and intangible assets             87,348             88,435
    Tangible stockholders’ equity   $         706,651   $         572,596
             
        Three months ended December 31,   Twelve months ended December 31,
    ($ in thousands)   2024   2023   %
    Change    		   2024   2023   % Change
    Industry Solutions     80,738     78,796   2.5 %     317,198     305,476   3.8 %
    Global Property & Agriculture   $ 31,681   $ 25,996   21.9 %   $ 311,402   $ 273,191   14.0 %
    Captives     57,765     40,375   43.1 %     241,902     167,624   44.3 %
    Programs     52,151     35,694   46.1 %     218,407     178,726   22.2 %
    Accident & Health     44,594     38,882   14.7 %     173,073     151,701   14.1 %
    Transactional E&S     36,262     31,560   14.9 %     169,053     122,508   38.0 %
    Professional Lines     39,130     40,145   (2.5 )%     159,785     154,565   3.4 %
    Surety     46,034     30,157   52.6 %     152,429     106,056   43.7 %
    Total gross written premiums(1)   $ 388,355   $ 321,605   20.8 %   $ 1,743,249   $ 1,459,847   19.4 %
    (1)Excludes exited business                        

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Farmers must be at the heart of biodiversity action

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

    Climate and Environment

    “Without the farmers, it is only political policy without implementation” – that was the stark message delivered by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Director-General on Tuesday to delegates attending the latest round of UN biodiversity talks in Rome. 

    Over 150 countries will be meeting from 25 to 27 February to advance biodiversity finance, accountability and the integration of agrifood systems into global conservation strategies.

    Despite groundbreaking agreements on genetic data and recognising the stewardship role of Indigenous Peoples at the first round of the COP16 conference in Colombia late last year, this new Conference of the Parties – or COP16.2 – aims to close some crucial gaps which are instrumental for implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

    With nature declining at an alarming rate, the challenge now is turning commitments into action.

    Farmers on board

    FAO chief Qu Dongyu called for urgent action to transform agrifood systems, stressing that biodiversity must be embedded in food and farming policies. A key focus is the Agri-NBSAPs Support Initiative, launched at COP16 in Cali, Colombia.

    The initiative is designed to help governments integrate agrifood systems into their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, to eliminate any conflicts between agricultural policy and biodiversity goals.

    Colombia’s COP16 President, Environment Minister María Susana Muhamad, and Agriculture Minister Martha Carvajalino, underscored the importance of full implementation.

    Mr. Dongyu highlighted the deep connections between biodiversity and food security, noting that over half of the Kunming-Montreal Framework’s 23 targets are directly linked to agriculture.

    He explained that “biodiversity is also in the soil and in the water” and that it is critical “to look at biodiversity from a holistic, three-dimensional perspective”.

    ‘On the brink’: Guterres

    Despite commitments made at COP15, funding remains a sticking point.

    Secretary-General António Guterres, warned in a statement that biodiversity is “on the brink” and urged governments to translate pledges into investment. “Success requires accountability. And action demands finance,” he said.

    With only a fraction of the required $200 billion per year mobilised, developing nations are pushing wealthier countries to meet their financial obligations.

    Discussions in Rome are expected to focus on accountability frameworks to track spending and ensure resources reach the communities most affected by biodiversity loss.

    What’s next?

    In the coming days, negotiators will work to finalise agreements on biodiversity finance, implementation strategies and monitoring frameworks.

    Mr. Dongyu closed his statement by calling for an integrated approach across government sectors.

    “We need an integrated approach across government sectors, across Ministries, to ensure the Four Betters: better production, better nutrition, better environment and a better life – leaving no one behind,” he said.

    With time running out to meet the 2030 targets, COP16.2 is a key test of global commitment – whether countries will step up or risk falling short on protecting the planet’s ecosystems.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Donald Trump is a relentless bullshitter

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tim Kenyon, Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Brock University

    There have been many questions raised about the intentions behind Donald Trump’s spate of radical public statements about Canada, in which he claims trade deficits amount to subsidies, massive amounts of fentanyl are flowing across the border and the country should become the 51st American state, among other things.

    The U.S. president’s comments have fuelled speculation about what he means when he makes these kinds of false claims — or whether he means anything at all.

    After all, rounded to the nearest percentage point, zero per cent of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. comes from Canada, trade deficits are not subsidies and annexing Canada is an absurd proposal.

    So why say things that are so untrue?

    Is Trump serious about any of this?

    Ignore Trump? Or fear him?

    The aggregate opinion seems to be both an unhelpful no and a yes, so the answer remains unclear.

    If we take every provocation seriously, we’re falling for the “flood the zone” strategy as Trump spews out outlandish claims as a form of distraction.

    If we shrug off his claims, we’re ignoring the potential danger.

    But there are patterns and incentives behind Trump’s flouting of basic communicative norms. One illustrative example dates back to 2018 talks with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when Trump complained about the U.S. trade deficit with Canada. Later, he told prospective donors in Missouri that he’d made this claim up on the spot.

    Why make up a claim like that? And, having done so, why admit and even brag about it, and then renew this knowingly false claim six years later?

    My colleague Jennifer Saul and I are scholars in the political philosophy of language. We’re among those who cite this example of Trump bullshit in our work on bullshit in authoritarian political speech and how bullshit can succeed even though everyone recognizes that it is, in fact, bullshit.



    Read more:
    Bullshit is everywhere. Here’s how to deal with it at work

    Why Trump bullshits

    Our notion of bullshit is a refinement of the term that was the subject of American philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s seminal 2005 book On Bullshit.

    Most liars care enough about the truth to try to conceal it. But simply not caring either way is a different vice, which Frankfurt called bullshitting.

    An example would be claiming a trade deficit without having any idea whether that’s true or false. Other examples include uttering falsehoods that are so obvious they couldn’t possibly be intended to deceive anyone.

    Really obvious bullshit can succeed politically, we proposed, because there are many audiences in mass communication. Bullshit targeted at Audience A can be a big hit with Audience B, if B thinks A deserves it.

    Then it becomes a display of power over A, with B enjoying the spectacle. This overt bullshitting lends itself to authoritarian politics for someone cultivating a strongman image. It marks an opponent for disrespectful treatment, and advertises that the bullshitter cannot be held to account.

    So Trump’s admission that he bullshitted Trudeau in 2018 was a successful strategy because he revealed it to a sympathetic audience, who got to see themselves as part of the performance and not as its target. Asking: “Does Trump really mean this?” is often less revealing than: “How does this promote Trump’s image as an authority figure, and to which audience?”

    Similarly, Trump falsely remarked in 2019 that Hurricane Dorian’s projected path included Alabama. He responded to fact-checking by showing an official storm track map that he literally altered by hand, with a marker.

    Such a ridiculous invention couldn’t be meant to deceive. But it showed Trump’s base, many of whom distrust mainstream information sources, that he couldn’t be made to back down for reporters, no matter the facts.

    Some claims appear deceptive lies to one audience and bullshit to another, like Trump’s recent claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a dictator who started the war in Ukraine.

    Some audiences might believe it. Others will see it as false and designed to be deceptive, yet recognize it as a threat to treat Ukraine as an aggressor with American demands for Ukraine’s rare earth minerals at stake.



    Read more:
    Ukraine’s natural resources are at centre stage in the ongoing war, and will likely remain there

    Credibility matters in unexpected ways

    Even conservative pundits initially worried that Trump’s propensity to bullshit would diminish the finite resource that is credibility.

    They didn’t recognize that credibility is a dubious virtue in strongman politics. Its absence can even be an asset. Acting without credibility is a chance to flex — to show that you can compel others to take you seriously whether they believe you or not.

    These incentives link frivolous outbursts of bullshit with very serious doubling-downs. Trump first spoke about Canada becoming the 51st state in a meeting with Trudeau in late November so offhandedly that it was not immediately mentioned in news reports.

    Once Fox News seized upon it, Trudeau was forced to publicly dismiss the comment as a joke.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida in November 2024. Trudeau apparently thought Trump was just bullshitting when he made mention of Canada becoming a 51st state during the dinner.
    (X/@JustinTrudeau)

    A great deal more commentary revealed liberal-leaning Canadians and Americans were angry and even frightened by this sort of talk — conditions that made it attractive for Trump to double down rather than back down.



    Read more:
    Canada as a 51st state? Republicans would never win another general election

    Combing through Trump’s speech and actions towards Canada to discover what he really means may just be an attempt to “sane-wash” them; meaning trying to figure out if they reflect a stable and sincere attitude, or even a stable and insincere negotiating strategy.

    What makes Trump’s bullshit so dangerous is that it rarely reflects fixed, coherent meanings or convictions. It lurches from triviality to deadly seriousness, depending on how his various audiences provide the approval and the outrage Trump seeks for his performances of strength.

    Tim Kenyon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why Donald Trump is a relentless bullshitter – https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trump-is-a-relentless-bullshitter-249896

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Prakriti 2025 – International Conference on Carbon Markets

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Prakriti 2025 – International Conference on Carbon Markets

    UN Goodwill Ambassador & Actor Dia Mirza attends Prakriti 2025

    Prakriti 2025: International Conference on Carbon Markets Concludes with Insights from National, International, and Government Experts

    Posted On: 25 FEB 2025 5:53PM by PIB Delhi

    PRAKRITI 2025 (Promoting Resilience, Awareness, Knowledge, and Resources for Integrating Transformational Initiatives), the International Conference on Carbon Markets, successfully concluded on its second day, bringing together national and international experts, policymakers, industry leaders, researchers, and practitioners. The conference was inaugurated on February 24, 2025, by Shri Manohar Lal, Hon’ble Minister of Power and Housing & Urban Affairs. As a flagship initiative of the Government of India, organized by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency under the patronage of the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, PRAKRITI 2025 served as a premier platform for in-depth discussions on global carbon market trends, challenges, and future pathways.

          Ms. Dia Mirza, Actor, Producer, National Goodwill Ambassador for United Nations graced the event with her presence. She participated in an impactful fireside chat moderated by Mr. Saurabh Diddi, Director, Bureau of Energy Efficiency. Speaking of her role in making a change in the climate change scenario, she said that, “As an individual, I have the capacity to change the way I live and hopefully thereby bring some change in the world. Big change will only occur when it starts from the top down because behaviours sometimes take hundreds of years to change.” She commended the Government of India for its initiatives under LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), highlighting its role in promoting mindful consumption and leading a global movement. Additionally, she emphasized the importance of engaging children and youth to drive meaningful change in climate conversations. Concluding the interview, she shared her vision for sustainability, stating, “My dream sustainability project, if finances didn’t have any upper limit, would be one, to eradicate each and every unit of single use plastics, and two, a scenario where every resource comes in the circular economy.”

      

          Mr. Thomas Kerr, Lead Climate Change Specialist, World Bank chaired and moderated the opening plenary session on Private Sector Perspectives on Indian Carbon Market (ICM). He emphasized that the Indian Carbon Market does not operate in isolation, as global carbon pricing policies will influence India’s industries. Businesses must prepare for these shifts. He highlighted the impact of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on Indian exports, particularly in steel, aluminium, and other high-emission industries, stating, “The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impact Indian exports, particularly in steel, aluminium, and other high-emission industries. This calls for urgent action in domestic carbon markets.” Encouraging India’s active participation, he added, “If you build it, they will come.”

           Mr. Ashok Lavasa, Former Finance Secretary and Government Official, delivered a thematic address on Governance, Transparency, and Accountability in Climate Finance and Carbon Markets. His speech highlighted the complexities of global carbon markets and the challenges India faces in developing a robust system. Emphasizing key factors for success, he stated, “Strong MRV frameworks, fair benefit distribution, and strategic market alignment are crucial to India’s success in the carbon economy. International collaboration is necessary, but India must develop policies tailored to its own needs and challenges.”

           The second day of the conference featured thematic addresses and a series of plenary sessions led by senior government officials and industry experts. Key discussions focused on: Incentivizing Renewable Energy developers through Carbon Markets, Development in Article 6 and Opportunities for India, Bringing Price Transparency in Global Carbon Marketplace, Role of Ecosystem-Based Interventions in Achieving Net-Zero Goals, Climate Tech Startups for Sustainable Development, and Leveraging finance for the deployment of clean technologies.

            The two-day event witnessed robust participation from key Indian ministries, including the Ministry of Power, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Financial Institutions, Corporates, International NGOs, PSUs, etc. Approximately 80+ experts and 600+ delegates engaged in the conference’s discussion in the last two days, focusing on carbon market mechanisms, policy framework, climate finance and technologies. This demonstrates a coordinated, intergovernmental strategy, fostering synergistic collaboration and broad stakeholder participation, affirming India’s dedication to meet climate goals.

             More than just a conference, Prakriti 2025 has distinguished itself as one of the most comprehensive and significant carbon market events for learning, sharing knowledge, and exploring opportunities for collaboration in the global effort to combat climate change. Prakriti 2025 will build on this momentum, marking a significant milestone in both India’s national climate agenda and the broader international climate discourse.

    About BEE

    The Government of India set up the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) on March 1, 2002 under the provisions of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001. The mission of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency is to assist in developing policies and strategies with a thrust on self-regulation and market principles, within the overall framework of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 with the primary objective of reducing the energy intensity of the Indian economy. BEE coordinates with designated consumers, designated agencies and other organizations and recognises, identifies and utilises the existing resources and infrastructure, in performing the functions assigned to it under the Energy Conservation Act. The Energy Conservation Act provides for regulatory and promotional functions.

    ****

    JN/SK

    (Release ID: 2106179) Visitor Counter : 58

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Labor likely to win WA election, but the campaign is exposing faultlines in the state’s politics

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University

    With Western Australia heading to the polls on March 8, the Cook Labor government will likely prove the exception to the rule that incumbency is a liability for contemporary governments.

    Despite incumbent governments around the world losing office, Labor looks headed for a comfortable re-election.

    The WA contest begins from an unusual position. In 2021, Labor won a historic victory, driven by the popularity of the then premier Mark McGowan. It won 53 of 59 seats in the Legislative Assembly, with the Liberals reduced to two elected members in that chamber.

    Since then, however, Labor’s popularity has slipped.

    In September 2024, the Freshwater Strategy poll reported Labor’s primary vote had declined from 60% to 39%, while the Liberals’ primary vote had increased to 32% from 21% since the 2021 state election.

    A January-February 2025 Newspoll had Labor’s primary vote down from 59.9% to 42%, and its two-party preferred primary vote down from 69.7% to 56%.

    Nevertheless, on a two-party preferred basis, Labor is ahead on 56% to the Liberals’ 44%. While Premier Roger Cook is no McGowan, his approval rating is higher than that of the Liberal leader, Libby Mettam.

    The WA Labor government has several factors working in its favour.

    First is the healthy (two-party preferred) margins that Labor holds in many seats, including traditionally safe Liberal seats. After 2021, the WA Electoral Commission (WAEC) reclassified several former Liberal-held seats as “very safe” or “safe” Labor seats. Labor’s margins in Dawesville, South Perth, Riverton and Darling Range make it far from certain these seats will return to the Liberals in 2025.

    Second, Labor is presiding over a strong local economy. While it has faced criticism for weak responses on housing, equitable access to government concessions, and climate action, Labor’s fiscal record is not in contention.

    Third, Cook is not shy about activating WA’s sensitivities about the east coast. He has railed about “laws which damage Western Australia’s economy”, and complained that the nation’s high “standard of living […] is because of West Australian industry and the West Australian economy”.

    The Cook government can back in its “WA-first” position by pointing to policy wins against federal governments. These include securing increases in WA’s GST share and forcing the shelving of proposed federal nature-positive legislation.

    However, WA Labor cannot take all the credit for its strong position. The WA opposition is doing itself remarkably few favours.

    A challenge for the Liberals is the loss of (people) presence due to their spectacular electoral losses in 2021. In addition to losing the status of the official opposition, the remaining party room lacked star power, featuring a National party defector, an upper house member later sacked for lying to the party leader, and divisive figures such as Nick Goiran and Peter Collier, both key players in the destabilisation that contributed to the party’s 2021 defeat.

    Mettam has also been undermined by forces within her own party.

    Her most serious challenger is the media personality, Lord Mayor of Perth, and Liberal candidate for Churchlands, Basil Zempilas.

    In November 2024, an employee of Zempilas admitted to leaking an internal poll to the media that suggested Mettam’s continued leadership would cause a 3% swing against the party. While Zempilas denied knowledge of the poll, Mettam was forced to hold a party room meeting to defend her leadership five months before the election.

    Then there are some questionable decisions taken by Mettam.

    She flipped on the Voice to parliament referendum and later adopted federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton’s position on refusing to stand in front of the First Nations Flag. Such positions will be popular among some voters, but not the inner metropolitan constituencies that the party hopes to win back.

    The final complication is the Liberals’ tetchy relationship with the Nationals, the official opposition since 2021.

    The WA Liberals and Nationals have always had a tense relationship. Not even the shared experience of a depleted parliamentary presence inspired camaraderie. Despite their alliance, the Labor government exploited policy tensions between them.

    In preparation for even more fraught times ahead, the two parties signed an election code of conduct, agreeing to play nice at elections. However, the Nationals face an existential crisis owing to changes to the state upper house electoral rules. Introducing a single statewide upper house electorate ended the malapportionment that had bolstered the Nationals’ representation in the Legislative Council.

    The Nationals responded by fielding additional lower house candidates, although fewer than the party had foreshadowed. Crucially, the Nationals are competing in the seats of South Perth and Bateman, which are key inner metropolitan seats for the Liberals. Labor, however, is doing the Nationals no favours by preferencing the Liberals.

    There is also an assortment of minor parties and independents. Climate 200 is backing several independents, two of whom are contesting the prized former Liberal seats of Churchlands and Nedlands. Now that McGowan fever has abated, the “Teals” might swoop in as the progressive middle path between Labor and Liberals. Green victories will be likely restricted to the Legislative Council.

    The election might be a foregone conclusion in WA but it would be a mistake to think it is a prelude to the federal election. While WA Labor remains broadly popular among the state’s voters, polling suggests there is less love for the federal Labor party.

    Nothing to disclose.

    Nardine Alnemr and Narelle Miragliotta do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Labor likely to win WA election, but the campaign is exposing faultlines in the state’s politics – https://theconversation.com/labor-likely-to-win-wa-election-but-the-campaign-is-exposing-faultlines-in-the-states-politics-249690

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Public transport price hike in Bologna and EU climate targets – E-000750/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000750/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Stefano Cavedagna (ECR)

    The Municipality of Bologna’s recent decision to raise the cost of bus tickets has sparked much concern among residents. From 1 March 2025, the cost of a single ticket will soar by 53.3 %, jumping from EUR 1.50 to EUR 2.30. This price hike comes at a critical juncture for urban mobility in Bologna with the city contending with tram construction works and travel disruption on buses. Bologna is now the city with the most expensive public transport in Italy.

    The 2019 communication on the European Green Deal introduced new ambitious climate targets, including the goal to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. These targets were made binding in 2021, when they were laid down in the European Climate Law.

    Public transport alleviates road traffic, improves energy efficiency and promotes a more sustainable mobility.

    In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

    • 1.Is the public transport price hike in Bologna – which will encourage the use of private vehicles and increase CO2 emissions – consistent with the EU’s climate targets?
    • 2.Can the Commission take action to ensure that local public transport policies in Bologna and other European cities are consistent with the EU’s sustainability goals?

    Submitted: 19.2.2025

    Last updated: 25 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Urgent steps to secure the release of Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu – P-002959/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The EU has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding the intensification of repression against civil society, political opponents and independent media in Azerbaijan.

    In this context, the EU continues to raise the case of Dr Ibadoghlu, both in direct contacts with the authorities and in public statements, urging the authorities to lift his travel ban in order for him to obtain the urgent medical attention he requires abroad[1].

    Moreover, the EU Delegation in Azerbaijan and the EU Special Representative for Human Rights have repeatedly raised his case with the Azerbaijani authorities.

    The EU Delegation is also in direct contact with Dr Ibadoghlu and his lawyers, and regularly attends the court hearings in his case.

    Moreover, on the occasion of his official visit to Azerbaijan in October 2024, the Commissioner for Climate Action met Dr Ibadoghlu.

    The EU Delegation also facilitated the organisation of a meeting between Dr Ibadoghlu and the European Parliament Delegation, which visited Baku in November 2024 during the Conference of the Parties ( COP29).

    The EU is committed to phasing out its energy dependency on Russia, including through the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and efforts to diversify the supply of energy imports.

    • [1] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/azerbaijan-statement-spokesperson-human-rights-situation_en; https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2024-10-22-ITM-020_EN.html; https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2024-12-18-ITM-019-03_EN.html
    Last updated: 25 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Decarbonisation investments in the steel sector – E-002694/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The hydrogen and decarbonised gas market package[1] sets a clear framework for the development of infrastructure and the revised Renewable Energy Directive[2] creates obligations for the consumption of renewable hydrogen in industry and transport. When transposing them, Member States should put in place incentives for the sectors.

    In 2023, the Commission identified 65 European priority hydrogen infrastructure projects[3], that can benefit from funding under the Connecting Europe Facility and accelerated permitting. The Commission launched the second European Hydrogen Bank auction on 3 December 2024[4], next to Innovation Fund calls[5].

    In line with Article 30 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/956, the Commission will in 2025 assess a potential scope extension of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

    This includes an assessment of goods further down the value chain, goods at risk of carbon leakage other than those listed in Annex I of the CBAM Regulation and other input materials.

    On this basis, the Commission will prepare, where appropriate, a legislative proposal, including an impact assessment, on extending the scope of the regulation.

    Member States can prioritise sectors for potential future Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs). Several approved IPCEIs[6] have benefitted the steel industry’s green transition through renewable hydrogen.

    In addition, the Guidelines for Climate, Environmental Protection and Energy and the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework allow Member States to notify individual aid measures[7] and aid schemes supporting industrial decarbonisation[8] or renewable hydrogen production or carbon capture and storage.

    • [1] Directive (EU) 2024/1788 and  Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 .
    • [2]  Directive (EU) 2023/2413.
    • [3] Projects of Common Interest and Projects of Mutual Interest, including ~20,000km of pipelines, storages, terminals, and electrolysers: C/2023/7930 final.
    • [4] EUR 1.2 billion of EU funds and up to EUR 836 million from Spain, Lithuania, and Austria for projects in their Member State.
    • [5] Two H2 DRI projects producing and consuming large volumes of H2 have already been awarded under the Innovation Fund, ‘HYBRIT’ (Sweden) https://ec.europa.eu/assets/cinea/project_fiches/innovation_fund/101051316.pdf) and ‘H2Green Steel’ (Sweden) (https://ec.europa.eu/assets/cinea/project_fiches/innovation_fund/101133206.pdf).
    • [6] ‘Hy2Tech’ (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_4544), ‘Hy2Infra’ (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_789) and ‘Hy2Use’ (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5676).
    • [7] See an example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5968
    • [8] For instance a German scheme (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_845) and an Austrian scheme (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_4746).

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Deputy Secretary-General, at Asia-Pacific Forum, Urges Faster Regional Action Warning on Current Trends Less Than One Sixth of Sustainable Development Goals Will Be Met

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Following is the text of UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed’s video message at the twelfth session of the Asia-Pacific Forum for Sustainable Development 2025, in Bangkok today:

    I thank the Government of Thailand for hosting this important Forum and Executive Secretary Ibu Armida Alisjahbana for bringing us together.  We stand at a critical juncture in history, where our actions over the next five years will define the future of our planet and its people.  All of you here today share the immense responsibility of steering the Asia-Pacific region towards a sustainable and prosperous future.

    The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is not just a set of goals, it is our collective promise to future generations.

    Yet, globally, only 17 per cent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are on track.  Progress on almost a third of targets has stalled or gone into reverse. Here in the Asia-Pacific, less than a sixth of the SDG targets will be met on current trends.  Though economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty, it has been uneven, and a series of global crises have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations.

    Five years to the 2030 deadline, we need urgent action to get the Goals on track.  The Pact for the Future, agreed by countries last year, includes commitments to action to turbocharge sustainable development.  We must come together to ensure they are delivered.

    This region has immense potential to accelerate SDG progress — through action to harness the power of technology, accelerate the energy transition and transform food systems, driving progress across all the Goals.

    You are a global leader in digital innovation and connectivity.  You have accessible emerging technologies.  And you are transforming financial inclusion and service delivery through rapid fintech adoption and initiatives.  The Republic of Korea’s Digital New Deal and Thailand’s Big Data Initiative are prime examples.

    The region is also uniquely positioned to lead the global energy transition.  You are rapidly deploying clean energy and embracing cross-border energy integration.  Initiatives like the South Asian Hydropower Trade and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Power Grid are enhancing energy security while reducing emissions.  Innovations in food systems, such as regenerative agriculture in India, are improving sustainability and food security.

    Accelerating action requires regional collaboration.  With a common vision of sustainability and prosperity, we can create new opportunities for economic resilience and social progress.  Strengthened financial cooperation can enhance cross-border connectivity and drive regional supply chain integration.

    The United Nations and the Regional Economic Commissions will continue to work closely with Resident Coordinators and the UN country Teams to strengthen support for sustainable development across the region. Helping to forge investment paths. Shape policy and regulatory frameworks. And garner support from United Nations agencies and partners, including multilateral and regional development banks and private investors.

    The strong link between the Regional Economic Commissions and our Resident Coordinators since the reforms made by Secretary-General António Guterres has been critical in bringing together our policy and operational assets in ways we had not witnessed before.

    It gives me great hope that we can build on this strong foundation to step up our support to each country in Asia and the Pacific, as you strive to accelerate action and protect our ambition for people and planet. 

    And I urge all of you to make the most of the opportunities this year to accelerate action. From Beijing+30 to the Fourth Conference on Financing for Development, the World Social Summit, the Fourth Food System Summit Stocktake, and COP30 (Thirtieth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).  Use your voice to ensure that the needs and priorities of this region shape action over the coming years.  So, together, we ensure sustainable development truly leaves on one behind.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘I thought about escaping every day’: how survivors get out of Southeast Asia’s cybercrime compounds – Scam Factories podcast, Ep 3

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    Every day that he was locked up in a scam compound in Southeast Asia, George thought about how to get out. “We looked for means of escaping, but it was hard,” he told The Conversation.

    George, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, managed to secretly contact a rescue organisation in Myanmar, where he was being held. That set in motion a chain of events that would eventually lead to his freedom, but it would take months before he made it back home to his family in Uganda.

    Hundreds of thousands of people like George are estimated to have been caught up in the brutal scamming industry in Southeast Asia, many forced into criminality against their will.

    Scam Factories is a podcast series from The Conversation Weekly taking you inside these brutal fraud compounds. It accompanies a series of multimedia articles on The Conversation.

    In our third and final episode, Great Escapes, we find out the different ways people manage to escape and at what costs, what it takes for them to get home, and what is being done to clamp down on the industry.

    The Conversation collaborated for this series with three researchers: Ivan Franceschini, a lecturer in Chinese Studies at the University of Melbourne; Ling Li, a PhD candidate at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, and Mark Bo, an independent researcher.

    They’ve spent the past few years researching the expansion of scam compounds in the region for a forthcoming book. They’ve interviewed nearly 100 survivors of the compounds, analysed maps and financial documents related to the scam industry and tracked scammers online to find out how these compounds work.

    Read an article by Ivan Franceschini and Ling Li which accompanies this episode.

    The Conversation contacted all the companies mentioned in this multimedia series for comment, except Jinshui who we could not contact. We did not receive a response from any of them.

    This episode was written and produced by Gemma Ware, with assistance from Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Leila Goldstein was our producer in Cambodia and Halima Athumani recorded for us in Uganda. Hui Lin helped us with Chinese translation. Sound design by Michelle Macklem and editing help from Ashlynee McGhee and Justin Bergman.

    Newsclips in this episodes are from CNA, Reuters and Al Jazeera English.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly podcast via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Mark Bo, an independent researcher who works with Ivan Franeschini and Ling Li, is also interviewed in this podcast series. Ivan, Ling, Mark, and others have co-founded EOS Collective, a non-profit organisation dedicated to investigating the criminal networks behind the online scam industry and supporting survivors.

    – ref. ‘I thought about escaping every day’: how survivors get out of Southeast Asia’s cybercrime compounds – Scam Factories podcast, Ep 3 – https://theconversation.com/i-thought-about-escaping-every-day-how-survivors-get-out-of-southeast-asias-cybercrime-compounds-scam-factories-podcast-ep-3-250673

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI: ASM announces fourth quarter 2024 results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Almere, The Netherlands
    February 25, 2025, 6 p.m. CET

    Eighth consecutive year of double-digit full-year growth, outperforming WFE in 2024

    ASM International N.V. (Euronext Amsterdam: ASM) today reports its Q4 2024 results (unaudited).

    Financial highlights

    € million Q4 2023 Q3 2024 Q4 2024
    New orders 677.5 815.3 731.4
    yoy change % at constant currencies (14%) 30% 8%
           
    Revenue 632.9 778.6 809.0
    yoy change % at constant currencies (7%) 26% 27%
           
    Gross profit margin % 47.2  % 49.4 % 50.3  %
    Adjusted gross profit margin 1 47.9  % 49.4 % 50.3  %
           
    Operating result 131.5 215.2 222.3
    Operating result margin % 20.8  % 27.6  % 27.5  %
           
    Adjusted operating result 1 141.0 219.9 227.0
    Adjusted operating result margin 1 22.3  % 28.2  % 28.1  %
           
    Net earnings 90.9 127.9 225.8
    Adjusted net earnings 1 100.3 133.6 231.5

    1 Adjusted figures are non-IFRS performance measures. Refer to Annex 3 for a reconciliation of non-IFRS performance measures. 

    • New orders of €731 million in Q4 2024 increased YoY by 8% at constant currencies (also 8% as reported), with the increase again mainly driven by solid demand for gate-all-around (GAA) and high-bandwidth memory (HBM) DRAM.
    • Revenue of €809 million increased by 27% at constant currencies (increased by 28% as reported) from Q4 of last year and at the upper end of the guidance (€770-810 million).
    • YoY improvement in adjusted gross profit margin is due to strong mix.
    • Adjusted operating result margin increased to 28.1%, compared to 22.3% in Q4 2023 mainly due to higher gross margin and a moderation in SG&A, partially offset by higher investments in R&D.
    • Revenue for Q1 2025 is expected to be in the range of €810-850 million.

    Comment

    “ASM continued to deliver a solid performance in 2024. Sales increased by 12% at constant currencies, outperforming the wafer fab equipment (WFE) market which increased by a mid-single digit percentage in 2024. This marks our company’s eighth consecutive year of double-digit growth.” said Hichem M’Saad, CEO of ASM. “Revenue in Q4 2024 increased to €809 million, up 27% year-on-year at constant currencies and at the top end of our guidance of €770-810 million. The revenue increase in Q4 was driven by higher sales in leading-edge logic/foundry. Q4 bookings of €731 million increased, at constant currencies, by 8% from Q4 2023. Bookings were down from the level in Q3 2024, which was in part explained by order pull-ins from Q4 2024 to Q3 2024, as communicated last quarter. GAA-related orders increased strongly from Q3 to Q4, but this was offset by a drop in China demand. The gross margin came in at 50.3% in Q4 2024. Operating margin of 28.1% increased by nearly 6% points compared to Q4 2023.

    Growth in the WFE market was uneven in 2024: AI-related segments continued to increase strongly, but other parts of the market showed a mixed performance. For ASM, this meant strong momentum in our GAA-related applications. With the mix shifting from pilot-line to high-volume manufacturing, both quarterly GAA-related sales and orders increased strongly in the course of 2024.  We also saw a surge in demand for HBM-related, high-performance DRAM applications in 2024. This fueled a rebound in our total memory sales from a relatively low level of 11% in 2023 to a very strong level of 25% in 2024. Sales from the Chinese market remained strong in 2024, but dropped from the first half to the second half and also from Q3 to Q4, as expected. Sales in the power/analog/wafer market dropped by a significant double-digit percentage in 2024, reflecting the cyclical slowdown in the automotive and industrial end markets. Our SiC Epi increased by a mid-single digit percentage in 2024. While this was below our prior expectation of double-digit growth, we believe it was still a robust performance in view of significant weakening of the SiC market in 2024. 

    Financial results were again strong in 2024. Adjusted gross margin increased to 50.5% in 2024, supported by mix, a continued substantial contribution from the Chinese market, and improvements in our operations to reduce costs. In 2024, adjusted operating profit increased by 17%. We further stepped up adjusted net R&D spending (+20%) in view of our growing pipeline of opportunities, while the increase in adjusted SG&A expenses moderated (+3%), reflecting ongoing cost control. Free cash flow increased by 23% in 2024 to a record-high level of €548 million. 

    We remain on track towards our strategic targets and continue to invest in our people, in innovation and expansion, including in our planned new facilities in Hwaseong, Korea, and Scottsdale, Arizona.  We also made further strides in accelerating sustainability. We published our Climate Transition Plan last year, and, as a first milestone, we achieved our target of 100% renewable electricity in 2024, which contributed to a 52% drop in our combined Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions.”

    Outlook

    Market conditions continue to be mixed looking into 2025, with WFE spending expected to increase slightly. Leading-edge logic/foundry is expected to show the highest growth in 2025. There have been some further shifts in capex forecasts among customers in this segment, but overall our forecast for a substantial increase in GAA-related sales in 2025 is unchanged. In memory, we expect healthy sales in 2025, supported by continued solid demand for HBM-related DRAM, although it is too early to tell if memory sales will be at the same very strong level as in 2024. The power/analog/wafer segments are still in a cyclical correction with no signs of a recovery in the near term. In SiC Epi, the outlook further weakened. Taking into account the recently announced new U.S. export controls and as communicated in our press release of December 4, 2024, our China revenue is expected to decrease in 2025, with equipment sales from this market falling in a range of low-to-high 20s percentage of total ASM revenue.

    We confirm our target for revenue in a range of €3.2-3.6 billion in 2025, but it is too early to provide a more specific forecast due to market uncertainty and as visibility for the second half of the year is still limited.
    At constant currencies, we expect revenue for Q1 2025 to be in a range of €810-850 million, with a projected further increase in Q2 compared to Q1.

    Share buyback program

    ASM announces today that its Management Board authorized a new repurchase program of up to €150 million of the company’s common shares within the 2025/2026 time frame. This repurchase program is part of ASM’s commitment to use excess cash for the benefit of its shareholders.

    Dividend proposal

    ASM will propose to the forthcoming 2025 Annual General Meeting on May 12, 2025, to declare a regular dividend of €3.00 per common share over 2024, up from €2.75 per common share over 2023.

    Modification in spares & service revenue reporting definition

    Effective 2025, ASM will include installation and qualification revenue as part of spares & services revenue aligning with our business organization structure at ASM. Further details of the quarterly and full-year impact on 2024 revenue can be found in annex 4.

    About ASM

    ASM International N.V., headquartered in Almere, the Netherlands, and its subsidiaries design and manufacture equipment and process solutions to produce semiconductor devices for wafer processing, and have facilities in the United States, Europe, and Asia. ASM International’s common stock trades on the Euronext Amsterdam Stock Exchange (symbol: ASM). For more information, visit ASM’s website at www.asm.com.

    Cautionary note regarding forward-looking statements: All matters discussed in this press release, except for any historical data, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. These include, but are not limited to, economic conditions and trends in the semiconductor industry generally and the timing of the industry cycles specifically, currency fluctuations, corporate transactions, financing and liquidity matters, the success of restructurings, the timing of significant orders, market acceptance of new products, competitive factors, litigation involving intellectual property, shareholders or other issues, commercial and economic disruption due to natural disasters, terrorist activity, armed conflict or political instability, changes in import/export regulations, epidemics, pandemics and other risks indicated in the company’s reports and financial statements. The company assumes no obligation nor intends to update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect future developments or circumstances.

    This press release contains inside information within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation.

    Quarterly earnings conference call details

    ASM will host the quarterly earnings conference call and webcast on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. CET.

    Conference-call participants should pre-register using this link to receive the dial-in numbers, passcode and a personal PIN, which are required to access the conference call.

    A simultaneous audio webcast and replay will be accessible at this link.

    Contacts  
    Investor and media relations Investor relations
    Victor Bareño Valentina Fantigrossi
    T: +31 88 100 8500 T: +31 88 100 8502
    E: investor.relations@asm.com E: investor.relations@asm.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Invasive Species Science at WARC

    Source: US Geological Survey

    Cuban treefrogs are native to Cuba, the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands, but are an invasive species in the U.S. They outcompete native frogs for food and habitat and can be a nuisance to homeowners as they clog plumbing and cause power outages when they seek shelter in utility boxes. WARC researchers use frog calls – or vocalizations made primarily by males interested in attracting a mate – to identify and track invasive frog species in the southeastern U.S. WARC researchers also perform visual encounter surveys and passively capture Cuban treefrogs to remove as many of the invasive anurans as possible.

    What is an invasive species?

    A species is considered invasive if it is introduced outside of its native range and causes harm to ecosystems, the economy, and/or human health.  

    Nonnative, or nonindigenous, species are those organisms that have been introduced outside of their native range but are not yet known to cause harm. This means that while an invasive species is also non-native, not all non-native species are considered invasive.

    Why are they an issue?

    More than 6,500 of these harmful, non-native species cause more than 100 billion dollars in damage each year to the U.S. economy. Invasive species can severely impact native species and ecosystems. They often outcompete and prey upon native species, which can ultimately reduce biodiversity and alter an ecosystem’s food web. Aquatic invasive plant species, like hydrilla, can rapidly overtake a water body, blocking sunlight from reaching the plants and animals below and preventing navigation due to clogged waterways. Other aquatic invasive species, like the zebra mussel, damage infrastructure associated with power plants and other water systems, which results in increased maintenance costs.

    What is WARC doing to address invasive species in the U.S.?

    The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area’s Biological Threats and Invasive Species Program provides the research, management tools, and decision support needed to meet the science needs of resource managers to reduce or eliminate the threat of invasive species and wildlife disease. At WARC, we work closely with our local, state, Tribal, and federal partners to provide the science they need to address the critical invasive species issues facing the southeastern U.S. Our center leads research and monitoring programs and implements innovative technologies to help control or eradicate invasive species.

    Monitoring the Introduction and Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species

    The USGS WARC houses the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database, which tracks the distribution of introduced aquatic organisms across the United States. The publicly accessible information repository monitors, records, and analyzes reported sightings for more than 1,300 plant and animal species such as lionfish, zebra mussels, and hydrilla. The database contains observations from as early as 1800, derived from many sources, including scientific literature; federal, state, and local natural resource monitoring programs; museum collections; news agencies; and direct submission through online reporting forms from citizen scientists. Subscribers to NAS alerts emails can be informed when a new non-native species has been reported in their area as part of a national early detection and rapid response (EDRR) system. The NAS program also uses the data to help forecast where these species may go next. One such tool developed by members of the NAS team, along with WARC’s Advanced Application Team, is the NAS Flood and Storm Tracker (FaST) maps, which help natural resource managers track and manage the potential spread of non-native aquatic species into new water bodies due to storm-related flooding. The FaST maps are easily accessible, informative, and provide the most up-to-date information to resource managers about potential new invasions, acting as an additional tool for EDRR systems.

    Hurricane Isaias (2020) Flood and Storm Tracker (FaST) Map for Zebra MusselsFlooding related to hurricanes and tropical storms can help spread non-native aquatic plants and animals, like zebra mussels, into new waterbodies. Once established, they have the potential to cause infrastructural damage (e.g., block pipes) and upset aquatic food webs by preying on native species. The USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) program, which houses records for non-native aquatic species across the nation, creates Flood and Storm Tracker (FaST) maps which help managers track and manage the potential spread of non-native aquatic species into new water bodies via storm-related flooding.For more information, please visit: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/viewer/Flooding/

    CSI: Python-Style

    How do you detect a cryptic species? A droplet digital PCR platform can detect even a single piece of genetic material, if present in an environmental sample. This information can be used to accurately estimate the likelihood that the species of interest is present in the environment.

    True crime shows/movies/podcasts often tell the story of a criminal who thought they got away with it, only to be brought down by a forensic investigator who discovered a small piece of genetic material at the crime scene belonging to said criminal. Just like a crime scene, ecosystems often require researchers to zoom in to the microscopic, hard-to-spot clues to better understand the full picture. Like humans, wildlife shed genetic material, in the form of excrement, hair, saliva, mucus, skin cells, etc., as they move. The organism’s genetic material is shed into the surrounding environment (i.e., soil, water, snow, air) and referred to as environmental DNA (eDNA). At WARC, researchers are using eDNA techniques to help detect hard-to-find invasive species, like the Burmese python. The cryptic constrictor camouflages into the surrounding Everglades ecosystem, which has made it difficult to find and eradicate. By testing environmental samples, WARC scientists can identify python eDNA in an area whether or not a snake has actually been observed. With improved detection capabilities comes the increased capacity to effectively delineate range limits and better assess the status, distribution, and habitat requirements for pythons and other secretive or rare invasive species.

    This close-up is of the radio-transmitter on a 16 1/2-foot python. The snake, being removed from the wild by USGS and NPS personnel, was re-captured in a thicket in Everglades National Park in April 2012. After its first capture, the snake was equipped with a radio-transmitter and an accelerometer as part of one of the Burmese python projects led by USGS to learn more about the biology of the species to help in efforts to develop better control methods.

    EDRR – Early Detection and Rapid Response

    The first confirmed lionfish sighting was reported in 1985 off the coast of Dania Beach, Florida. Though native to the Indo-Pacific region, a single lionfish didn’t raise many alarms. But then another lionfish was reported in 1990. And then another one in 1992. And then a few more in 1995. By the early 2000s, lionfish had taken over coastal waters in the southeastern U.S. Lionfish have invaded Atlantic coastal waters from New York to the Florida Keys, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf with unprecedented speed and now serve as a case study demonstrating why early detection and rapid response efforts (also known as EDRR) are critical. A single non-native fish might not immediately pose a problem, but if it isn’t removed, it could reproduce and quickly take over the new habitat. Once a population has established and begins reproducing, it is difficult to manage or eradicate. 

    Since 2013, WARC has led a non-native freshwater fish scavenger hunt in Florida. The two-day Fish Slam event helps USGS and partners monitor new non-native fishes and track the possible spread of known non-natives. Many of these species, such as the Asian swamp eel and the sailfin catfish, are outcompeting native species and disrupting the aquatic food webs. By monitoring the introduction and expansion of non-native fishes, USGS WARC is able to provide communities and land managers with critical information to help inform and guide management strategies. This includes removing the fish whenever possible, to help prevent potential future invasions.

    Using hook and line, electroshock boats and backpacks, seines, traps, and other fishing techniques, USGS and partners capture non-native fishes. from Florida canals, ponds, and even ditches. The data collected during the event is entered into the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database, a publicly accessible resource that monitors the introduction and expansion of non-native aquatic plant and animal species. The database also uses this information to project potential future spread of species into new areas during hurricanes and flooding events. USGS’s Fish Slam has provided a unique opportunity for federal, state, local, Tribal, and academic partners to coordinate sampling, data collection, and information sharing while providing up-to-date geographic distribution information via publicly accessible resources. Florida spends millions of dollars each year to combat invasive species and the data collected by Fish Slam informs managers and communities what species are present in their area and helps them develop control/removal plans and allocate resources appropriately.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Defense News: FRCE team saves millions for Marine Corps

    Source: United States Navy

    A small team of skilled technicians working at the Fleet Readiness Center East (FRCE) detachment at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina, is making a big difference for the Marine Corps in terms of cost savings and flight line readiness.

    FRCE’s Beyond Capable Maintenance Interdiction (BCMI) team at Beaufort provides dedicated service to Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 224 (VMFA-224), Marine All Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 312 (VMFA-312) and Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 31 (MALS-31), supporting the F/A-18 C/D Hornet platform and assisting with component repairs the squadrons are neither resourced nor staffed to complete. Comprising three artisans, the Beaufort detachment’s BCMI team is a small program that adds up to huge savings: In 2024 alone, the team supported a cost avoidance for MALS-31 totaling more than $59 million. 

    “The BCMI team does a phenomenal job, and the cost savings they support give you an idea of what they’re capable of,” said Bryan Holland, FRCE’s F-18 branch manager at Beaufort. “They’re working radar components and circuit cards and pneudraulics – there are some high-cost items they’re repairing, and they’re able to save them and put them back into service. I don’t think we saw any part last year that they weren’t able to fix.”

    Having the BCMI team on-site saves the Marines both time and money because it prevents the squadrons from having to turn in the nonfunctional components and procure new ones through the supply chain. The process helps speed replacement of specific components needed by the fighter squadron – which performs maintenance at the organizational level, or O-level – that cannot get replaced or repaired through the MALS, which provides maintenance at the intermediate level, or I-level. FRCE’s Beaufort detachment, including the BCMI team, performs maintenance at the depot level, or D-level – the most advanced level in the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program structure. 

    “Flight line availability of aircraft is the priority, and if it weren’t for our BCMI team working with the MALS, those parts would have to leave Beaufort and go into depot maintenance at either our FRC East location at Cherry Point, another Fleet Readiness Center location in Florida or California, or even back to the original equipment manufacturer,” Holland explained. “If our guys weren’t there, the squadron might have to wait two-three weeks or longer to get the parts they need, if there’s not one available on the shelf – we can usually do the job much faster.”

    Ted Light, the FRCE site supervisor, agreed that the BCMI process saves valuable maintenance turnaround time.

    “Think about it: The component is in your hands, and if it’s able to be repaired, that’s generally going to be a lot faster than the Marines having to go out and order a new one,” Light added. “If a complete rework of the component isn’t necessary, but maybe just one or two parts in it require repair that is beyond the capability of the I-level Marines, it just makes sense to give it to our BCMI team. They can usually turn around and give it back to the Marines within a day or two, depending on what needs to be fixed.”

    The BCMI team works hand-in-hand with Marines, even sharing some spaces with the MALS-31. In addition to supporting faster turnaround, this close proximity allows BCMI team to share their advanced knowledge of components repair with the Marines, Light said.

    “Our BCMI team can teach the Marines what to look for in order to identify an issue with a component, or show them what we do to correct that issue,” he said. “It can give the Marines a higher-level understanding of the inner workings of these components, and what needs to be done to fix them. The team is not training the Marines to perform work the Marines aren’t qualified for, of course, but knowledge is power – always has been.”

    Being essentially collocated with the squadrons also allows the BCMI team – along with all of FRCE’s Beaufort workforce – to see exactly where their end products go. This reinforces the sense of responsibility and determination to get a quality product out the door and back in the hands of the fighter squadron, Holland noted.

    “Our number one priority is to make sure the squadrons have the aircraft they need to go out and train their pilots,” he said. “We have a sense of urgency to get the components and airplanes back up and running for the warfighter, so they can do their job.

    “I’ll say it 100 times: Readiness of the warfighter is always the priority. At the big depots, most people see the product come in, they do their work on it, and then see it go right back out the door, with a general sense that they’re supporting our nation’s warfighters,” Holland continued. “At Beaufort, it’s different because we can see who that warfighter is. We see the Marines who pilot and crew the aircraft we’re working on, every day.”

    FRCE is North Carolina’s largest maintenance, repair, overhaul and technical services provider, with more than 4,000 civilian, military and contract workers. Its annual revenue exceeds $1 billion. The Beaufort detachment employs 32 workers in support of maintenance for the F/A-18 C-D Hornet, an all-weather, twin-engine, multi-mission tactical aircraft. The depot provides service to the fleet while functioning as an integral part of the greater U.S. Navy; Naval Air Systems Command; and Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Human Interest sets a new standard for customer experience in the retirement industry

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Industry disruptor Human Interest, the award-winning innovator of automated 401(k) plans1, is once again redefining the retirement industry by revolutionizing what it means to commit to and care for customers. Today, Human Interest announces its Customer Experience Guarantee for ALL customers, big and small. Human Interest is making a bold commitment to participants and administrators through a transparent pledge to deliver outstanding, fast, reliable service with accountability.

    In short, Human Interest is putting its money where its mouth is; if Human Interest doesn’t deliver, customers will get compensated.

    Why a customer-centric approach is key to fixing a broken industry

    For too long, 401(k) customers have experienced frustrating delays and subpar service. Recognizing the urgent need for greater accountability across the retirement savings industry, Human Interest took a hard look at service and support policies — including its own. Now, they’re going all-in on accountability and setting a new standard for transparency and customer service.

    “The ability to retire with peace of mind is a really big deal,” says Rakesh Mahajan, Chief Revenue Officer at Human Interest. “So why has it been an industry standard to leave people on hold, or worse, not even pick up their calls? At Human Interest, we know the stakes are high for both administrators and participants who trust us with their futures. That’s why we’re raising the bar for all customers.”

    A driving factor behind the Customer Experience Guarantee is Human Interest’s commitment to being there for people when their lives dictate a need for their funds, whether it’s as they reach retirement or before. Mahajan elaborates, “Whether our customers need early access to savings or just want to talk to someone on the phone about their plan, it’s often during a critical moment. They shouldn’t have to deal with unnecessary delays or inefficiencies. That’s why we’re guaranteeing exceptional service and challenging the rest of the industry to meet these higher standards.”

    This commitment is an essential and overdue evolution for the industry. According to PBS, more Americans are making hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts than ever before.2 Receiving a check from a 401(k) provider can take up to 15 business days — assuming a person can get in touch with their provider in a timely manner.

    Mahajan explains, “Times are tough, and calamities like hurricanes, fires, and other disasters are all too frequent. When Hurricane Milton hit Florida, many homeowners needed their retirement plans to cope with the destruction. As customers called us, we were able to process their requests and deposit funds into bank accounts within two days so they could start rebuilding their lives. Typical timeframes for legacy providers can take days — or even weeks — to process distributions via the faxing of paper forms and checks being delivered by mail, leaving people sitting and waiting for help. Everyone deserves better, so we’re doing something about it.”

    A first-of-its-kind service-level agreement standard

    The Customer Experience Guarantee, which goes into effect on March 1, 2025, includes specific, measurable service commitments, and we have plans to improve guarantees year-over-year. If at any time these standards aren’t met, Human Interest will provide administrators 50% off their next invoice. Participants will be eligible for a $25 gift card. The Customer Experience Guarantee highlights:

    For administrators3:

    • 100% of an administrator’s inquiry submitted through the Human Interest Support Center will receive a non-automated response within four business hours.
    • 100% of a plan’s contributions will be processed within five business days of running payroll.

    For plan participants4:

    • 100% of a participant’s distributions will be sent to their bank accounts within two business days.
    • 100% of a participant’s calls will be answered within five minutes during business hours.
    • 100% of a participant’s initial inquiries submitted through the Human Interest Support Center will receive a non-automated response within four business hours.

    Investment in automation and customer service excellence fuels commitment

    As part of distancing itself from legacy providers and blazing a more customer-centric trail, Human Interest has built a streamlined, technology-driven system appropriate for present-day life. With its modern approach, the company can seamlessly process payroll contributions, handle inquiries faster, and ultimately, provide participants with timely access to their funds.

    For example, 75% of all payroll contribution files are automatically pulled by Human Interest without any intervention from administrators, saving them up to 40 hours annually and reducing errors. In 2024 alone, Human Interest processed nearly one million contribution files, with 95% processed in three days or less, and nearly 200,000 distributions, with 75% of distributions completed in under 48 hours.5

    Today’s announcement comes just over a year after the company opened its Center of Excellence in Lindon, Utah, which houses nearly all of Human Interest’s 250+ employees focused on customer service. “Our investments in automation and customer experience have positioned us to deliver ‘enterprise-grade’ service for all customers, irrespective of their size,” explains Mahajan. “This is just the beginning of our commitment to continuously improving and exceeding customer expectations.”

    Inspiring change across the retirement industry

    Human Interest hopes that launching this guarantee of this kind will spark broader change in the retirement planning space. “We want to lead by example and encourage other providers to prioritize customer needs over outdated practices,” Mahajan says. “We’ve come a long way, and we’re putting ourselves out there because transparency matters. We’re going to keep improving. Others should, too.”

    Human Interest’s vision is to empower businesses and their employees to build a secure financial future with confidence. The company’s guarantee reflects its mission to make retirement planning more accessible to all.

    About Human Interest

    Human Interest Inc. is a full-service 401(k) and 403(b) provider that makes it easy and affordable for small and medium-sized businesses to help their employees save for retirement. Founded in 2015 and headquartered in San Francisco, Human Interest has helped employees at 31,000+ companies access retirement benefits and a path to financial independence. For more information, please visit humaninterest.com.

    Media Contact:
    Maura Lafferty
    Firebrand Communications for Human Interest
    humaninterest@firebrand.marketing

    1https://humaninterest.com/disclosures/
    2Why more Americans are making hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts. PBS. 4/5/2024. Accessed 1/28/2025.
    3 Discount applies to monthly administrative and per employee fees; maximum cumulative discount may not exceed $5,000 per calendar year; limit of 1 claim per month; must submit claim form. See terms and conditions.
    4 Participants are eligible for a maximum of four (4) successful claims per calendar year; limit of 1 claim per month; must submit claim form. See terms and conditions.
    5 Human Interest, Internal Calculation, 2025

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Calculating the economic cost of climate change is tricky, even futile – it’s also a distraction

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Wesselbaum, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Otago

    Piyaset/Shutterstock

    Climate change is no longer a distant threat. It’s here, it’s real and it increasingly affects us all.

    But predicting climate change and its associated costs, particularly over long periods of time, is inherently uncertain. And based on the best available evidence from organisations such as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the economic costs of climate change appear to be small – making this a relatively weak argument for environmental action.

    At its most basic, climate is the long-term average of the weather we experience. Or, as former president of the American Meteorological Society, Marshall Shepherd, famously put it, “weather is your mood, and climate is your personality”.

    It’s widely accepted that climate change refers to a shift in long-term weather patterns, typically driven by human activities.

    But the impact of climate change, ranging from rising temperatures and extreme weather events to health impacts and disruptions to food and water supply, varies greatly. Some areas experience more extreme impacts than others, exacerbating social and economic disparities.

    There also appears to be a false sense about our state of knowledge. For example, many believe climate change already causes more frequent and intense storms, but the evidence for this is inconclusive.

    Trying to predict the unpredictable

    To understand the economic costs of climate change, we must first grasp how climate affects socioeconomic outcomes.

    The relationship between temperature and socioeconomic outcomes can be modelled using a “dose-response” function, which shows how much a given change in temperature (the “dose”) influences the outcome (for example, temperature-related mortality).

    A key challenge is to understand the shape of the dose-response function. Is the relationship between temperature and mortality linear or is it more complex? Does it have thresholds beyond which the effects substantially change? Is there only one function or are there different ones for different populations?

    As climate change shifts the distribution of weather variables, it alters the outcomes as well. Yet, predicting how these distributions will evolve is difficult.

    The further into the future we look, the harder it is to make reliable predictions about both weather and the associated economic costs.

    If you were asked in 1925 to predict the economy in 2000, for example, how accurate would you have been? In 1925 you drove a Ford Model T, used coal-fired steam trains and passenger ships for travel, and a trip from London to Auckland took up to eight weeks by sea. You used a telegraph for long-distance communication and a radio for entertainment.

    Compare that with the globalised, interconnected economy of the year 2000. Given the technological advancements, would your prediction have been even close?

    Rather than focusing on the uncertain future economic costs of climate change, we should be addressing how it is affecting human life now.
    James Andrews1/Shutterstock

    Cost estimates

    There are a wide range of estimates on the economic costs of climate change. But one of the most reliable has come from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    The panel’s latest assessment report avoids quantifying the economic costs of climate change. So, to understand the economic costs of climate change, we can use the best estimate based on the previous report and the insights from meta studies. These analyses posit a temperature rise of 3.7°C will reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by about 2.6% (ranging from 0.5 to 8.2%) by 2100.

    For New Zealand, this is equivalent to about NZ$11 billion, or twice the cost of Auckland’s City Rail Link.

    However, this comparison is extremely misleading. The value of 2.6% today will differ substantially from 2.6% in 75 years.

    The New Zealand economy grew at a compound annual rate of 1.4% between 1960 and 2000. Using this same average growth rate, New Zealanders will have a 184% higher standard of living in 2100. If nothing is done to address climate change, and given the best cost estimate, our standard of living would still be 176% higher than it is now.

    Reporting costs

    There are also issues with how some people report costs. For instance, while the total damage caused by floods and hurricanes in the United States has gone up in dollar amounts, it has not actually increased as a percentage of peoples’ incomes.

    In this context, it is crucial to distinguish between the damage caused by climate change and that resulting from human activities – such as the construction of more houses, higher property prices and river management practices.

    The economic costs of climate change based on the best available evidence appear to be small and highly uncertain.

    Shifting the focus

    Even if we accept our best estimates, economic costs are not the issue, but saving the environment is.

    Instead of focusing the debate of climate change around economic costs, we need to refocus the debate on tangible impacts happening right now: retreating glaciers, species extinction, shifting seasons and coastal erosion, to name a few.

    Addressing these issues is costly, but action will be needed to save the environment and ensure a liveable world into the future.

    Dennis Wesselbaum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Calculating the economic cost of climate change is tricky, even futile – it’s also a distraction – https://theconversation.com/calculating-the-economic-cost-of-climate-change-is-tricky-even-futile-its-also-a-distraction-248862

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: ‘Drill Baby, Drill’: Report shows Woodside hell-bent on profit while people and nature pay the price

    Source: Greenpeace Statement –

    SYDNEY/PERTH, Tuesday 25 February 2025 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has condemned gas corporation Woodside’s annual earnings announcement today, saying its billion dollar profits come at the expense of Australian communities and nature on the frontlines of extreme weather disasters.

    The fossil fuel multinational reported AUD$3.57 billion in net profits after tax for 2024, a 115% year-on-year increase, as output rose to a record high.

    Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “With so many Australians struggling to pay for groceries or rent as the cost of living crisis rages on, it’s not right that fossil fuel corporations are raking in billions from destroying our planet. 

    “Communities across Australia are reeling from the extreme weather disasters unfolding every summer, which the Insurance Council estimates will cost $35.2 billion a year by 2050. It is immoral for fossil fuel corporations like Woodside to toast their profits today, while people on the frontlines are left to pick up the tab when floods or bushfires destroy their homes. 

    “As Ningaloo Reef suffers another mass coral bleaching, Woodside is hell-bent to ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ for even more polluting gas at neighbouring Scott Reef. We must not allow the nature we love to become another victim of the fossil fuel industry’s endless pursuit of profit.

    “The era of rampant corporate greed must end — it’s time for fossil fuel polluters to pay for the climate destruction they are unleashing on communities in Australia, the Pacific and around the world. We must hold polluters like Woodside accountable for their propaganda and for knowingly holding back climate action in this country.

    “Let’s invest in the proven climate solutions we have right now — renewable wind and solar energy backed by storage. Greenpeace will continue to advocate for clean, safe, affordable renewable energy that will reduce global emissions and ensure a livable planet for all.”

    Policies to make polluters pay are gaining momentum around the world, with governments including New York and Vermont introducing legislation forcing fossil fuel companies to pay for the climate destruction caused by their emissions. 

    -ENDS-

    For more information or interviews contact Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or [email protected]

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Professor Sir Ian Chapman appointed next CEO of UK Research and Innovation with renewed focus on economic growth

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Press release

    Professor Sir Ian Chapman appointed next CEO of UK Research and Innovation with renewed focus on economic growth

    Sir Ian will lead the team at UKRI in backing thousands of researchers and innovators in developing solutions which improve people’s lives and help grow the economy

    Professor Sir Ian Chapman appointed as new UKRI CEO

    Professor Sir Ian Chapman will become the next CEO of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), leading a refreshed mission that puts economic growth at the heart of public investment in R&D, helping to fulfil the potential of science and technology in improving lives, Science Minister Lord Vallance has announced today (Tuesday 25 February).

    UKRI is the country’s largest public research funder, with a budget of £9 billion per year, giving it a central role in ensuring public funding is invested in ambitious, pioneering research that will benefit the whole of the UK and provide a clear return on investment for hardworking taxpayers.

    Its work in recent years includes backing the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, which has saved countless lives and the construction of the world’s most advanced wind turbine test facility, helping the UK to become a clean energy superpower. It has also been a major contributor to the £1 billion of UK public investment in AI R&D so far so the UK captures the technology’s opportunities to enhance growth and productivity as the third largest AI market in the world.

    Sir Ian will lead its team in supporting thousands of bright researchers and innovators in developing solutions from life-saving medicines to protecting our environment – ultimately making a visible, positive difference to people’s lives and supporting the missions at the heart of the Government’s Plan for Change.

    His experience will be a major asset in drawing on the UK’s world-leading research talent, facilities, universities and businesses, as drivers of R&D which will kickstart economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower and build an NHS fit for the future.

    During his time as CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, Sir Ian has led the transition from an organisation rooted in deep R&D excellence, to one that is now also delivering a major infrastructure project to design and build a prototype powerplant; driving inward investment and economic growth; and enabling development of a skilled workforce and supply chain.

    Science Minister, Lord Vallance, said:

    “Growing the economy is this government’s number one mission and taking full advantage of the innovative ideas, talent and facilities across our country is key to reaching that goal and improving lives across the UK.

    “Sir Ian’s leadership experience, scientific expertise and academic achievements make him an exceptionally strong candidate to lead UKRI in pursuing ambitious, curiosity-driven research, as well as innovations that will unlock new benefits for the UK’s people and drive our Plan for Change.

    “We also thank Dame Ottoline Leyser ahead of her stepping down this summer, recognising her pivotal work in guiding UKRI through challenging times, notably during the Covid pandemic and through the UK’s return to participation in Horizon Europe.”

    Incoming UKRI CEO, Professor Sir Ian Chapman, said:

    “I am excited to be joining an excellent team at UKRI focussed on improving the lives and livelihoods of UK citizens.

    “Research and innovation must be central to the prosperity of our society and our economy, so UKRI can shape the future of the country.

    “I was tremendously fortunate to represent UKAEA, an organisation at the forefront of global research and innovation of fusion energy, and I look forward to building on those experiences to enable the wider UK research and innovation sector.”

    Through our world-class universities and institutes, UKRI develops and nurtures future talent who can maintain the UK’s position as a global hub of research, development and deployment in the long term while collaborating with partners around the world so that scientific and technological advances driven in the UK can benefit lives at home and around the world.

    UKRI plays a key part in driving up UK participation in the world’s largest research programme, Horizon Europe, helping to build a more efficient and joined-up approach to research funding and unleashing the power of UK research and innovation.

    UKRI will also play an increasing role in steering our long-term industrial strategy, removing barriers to growth and building on the UK’s strategic advantage in its fundamental science capability.

    UKRI Chairman, Sir Andrew Mackenzie, said:

    “The board and I are delighted that Ian will become UKRI’s next CEO in the summer. 

    “Research and Innovation are fundamental to UK growth. Ian has the skills, experience, leadership and commitment to unlock this opportunity to improve the lives and livelihoods of everyone. We look forward to working with him on the next phase of UKRI’s development and our stewardship of the UK’s innovation culture and systems.  

    “We thank Ottoline for an outstanding five years as UKRI’s CEO. She has delivered a step-change in operational effectiveness and cross-discipline work through collective and inclusive leadership and secured more social and commercial impacts from our investments.” 

    Climate Minister Kerry McCarthy said: 

    “I’d like to thank Sir Ian for his many years of dedicated service at UK Atomic Energy Agency, the last nine as CEO. In that time, he has transformed the organisation into a world leading hub for fusion energy commercialisation and driven the UK and global strategy for fusion development forward.

    “I am delighted that the UK will continue to benefit from his drive and expertise in his new role. We will shortly begin recruiting a new UKAEA CEO to lead the UK’s world-class fusion programme into the next decade.”

    Notes to editors

    • Established in 2018, UKRI is a non-departmental public body that combines the strengths of nine distinct research and innovation funders:

    • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
    • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
    • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
    • Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
    • Innovate UK (IUK)
    • Medical Research Council (MRC)
    • Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
    • Research England (RE)

    • Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)

    • Sir Ian – who currently sits on UKRI’s Board – will take up the post in the summer, bringing strong leadership experience from his role as CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority since 2016 and links to academia. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Physics, and a visiting Professor at Durham University.
    • With a background in fusion and firm grasp of the part that ambitious and targeted R&D can play in improving lives, he has published over 100 journal papers and received several awards for his research.
    • His appointment follows an open recruitment process launched in August 2024, after Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser announced her intention to stand down as UKRI’s CEO from June 2025.
    • Having held the post since 2020, Dame Ottoline leaves a strong foundation to build on, from navigating the continued delivery of research through the pandemic to supporting the UK’s return to participation in Horizon Europe – putting UKRI in a strong position to bolster its role as an engine for delivering pioneering research to improve lives and grow our economy.
    • The UKAEA Board has provisionally agreed that Tim Bestwick (UKAEA deputy CEO) will take over as interim CEO of UKAEA after Sir Ian leaves, whilst a permanent replacement is appointed.

    Updates to this page

    Published 25 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Broken Hill’s energy future secured by hi-tech air energy storage system

    Source: New South Wales Premiere

    Published: 25 February 2025

    Released by: Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

    An old Broken Hill mine site will soon be transformed into a first-of-its-kind compressed air energy storage system, delivering energy security, jobs and investment to Broken Hill.

    The Minns Labor Government has provided planning approval for Hydrostor’s compressed air energy storage system with a capacity of 200 megawatts (MW) / 1,600 MW-hours (MWh). The Silver City Energy Storage Centre could power about 80,000 homes in peak demand and will maintain a reserve capacity of 250 MWh to provide back-up to Broken Hill during times of planned and unplanned outages.

    The project is the first-of-its-kind in Australia. It utilises advanced technology that uses compressed air to store energy and generate electricity, without producing greenhouse gases.

    The $638 million project will boost the local economy, creating up to 400 full-time construction jobs and around 26 ongoing operational jobs.

    During periods of low-energy demand, excess electricity is used to compress air and store it in large underground caverns or tanks.

    When energy demand is high, the compressed air is released, heated and expanded through turbines to generate electricity.

    The project will be supported by a 65-year government lease on a Crown land site near the Potosi mine at Broken Hill.

    The energy storage system will support different renewable energy sources in the region to reliably power homes and businesses in and around Broken Hill.

    Broken Hill City Council will receive $3.1 million under a Voluntary Planning Agreement, paid over five years, to benefit the local community.

    With work expected to start this year, it is estimated construction of the project will take three to four years.

    For more information visit Silver City Energy Storage System | Planning Portal – Department of Planning and Environment

    Minister for Climate Change and Energy Penny Sharpe said:

    “Hydrostor’s Silver City Energy Storage Centre boosts the reliability of the NSW electricity grid and provides back-up for homes and businesses in the state’s far west in times of planned and unplanned outages.

    “Energy storage solutions like this will go a long way to preventing blackouts like the ones the Far West experienced last year.

    “The project will provide construction and ongoing jobs, and will put Broken Hill on the map as a nation leader in renewable energy.”

    Minister for Planning and Public Spaces Paul Scully said:

    “The city needs a reliable supply of power and this project will provide certainty and reliability for local residents and businesses.

    “The Minns Government is working with proponents to see industrial sites rehabilitated and renewed for future use.

    “This technology not only supports our transition to cleaner energy sources but also promotes economic growth through job creation in the energy sector.”

    Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper said:

    “It’s fantastic to see planning approval confirmed for the Hydrostor project which will be further supported by a 65-year government lease on a Crown land site near Broken Hill.

    “The Silver City Energy Storage Facility will be the first of its kind for Australia, generating both vital backup energy for Broken Hill and significant ongoing jobs and investment spending for the Far West economy.”

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI Australia: NSW Government taking action on waste crisis

    Source: New South Wales Premiere

    Published: 25 February 2025

    Released by: Minister for Energy and Climate Change

    Minns Labor Government is taking strong action to prevent a waste crisis in NSW, with landfill due to reach capacity in Greater Sydney by 2030.

    NSW has just passed landmark legislation to become the first state to implement a statewide mandate for Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) recycling, to divert food waste from landfill into compost.

    The legislation mandates FOGO collection services for households by July 2030, and for businesses and institutions in stages from July 2026.

    FOGO bins will be rolled out at premises such as supermarkets, pubs, cafes, universities, schools, hotels and hospitals. Large supermarkets will also be required to report on the amounts and types of surplus food donated to charities like OzHarvest, Second Bite and Foodbank.

    With FOGO taking up to a third of household red bin capacity, this legislation will help take some pressure off landfill. It also takes us one step closer to a circular economy in NSW, where resources are recycled, reused and repurposed.

    The new laws are backed by a $81 million FOGO Fund to go largely to Councils for infrastructure including bins, kitchen caddies and liners, contamination audits, community education programs and staffing, including a $9 million boost in funding allocated to:

    • $4 million to support implementation in apartments and multi-unit dwellings
    • $3 million for a statewide advertising campaign to raise awareness and encourage behaviour change
    • $1 million for councils with existing FOGO services to conduct annual ‘booster’ education campaigns
    • $1 million for a pilot to tackle contamination hotspots using artificial intelligence.

    The new laws are projected to divert up to one million tonnes of organic waste from landfill each year. Most will be transformed into high-quality compost for parks, sporting fields and agriculture, promoting healthier soils and sustainable food production.

    The NSW Environment Protection Authority is working closely with communities, councils and industry to ensure a smooth and effective transition.

    A step-by-step Best Practice Guide has also been launched to help councils introduce FOGO and manage contamination risks.

    To learn more about the rollout, visit the NSW EPA website.

    The next step to tackle the waste crisis is the refinement of the Energy from Waste framework in NSW.

    A discussion paper outlines some small, proposed changes to the existing Energy from Waste framework, including clarification around the definition of thermal treatment.

    Public consultation is open from Tuesday, 25 February until Tuesday, 8 April, and feedback can be provided through the NSW Government’s Have Your Say platform.

    Quote attributable to Minister for Energy, Penny Sharpe:

    “NSW has ignored the crisis for landfill capacity for too long. We cannot kick this can down the road any longer.

    “The new FOGO laws mean NSW is leading the nation in combating food waste, becoming the first to mandate this recycling revolution across the state.

    “These new laws are backed by $81 million to support councils to move to FOGO by 2030.”

    MIL OSI News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hickenlooper, Bennet, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Combat Wildfires, Drought Across the West

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Colorado John Hickenlooper
    Protect the West Act would invest $60 billion to reduce wildfire risks, restore watersheds, and protect communities
    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet, Ron Wyden, Ruben Gallego, and Jacky Rosen reintroduced the Protect the West Act, which invests $60 billion in forests across the West to reduce wildfire risk, restore watersheds, protect communities, and decrease the cost of fighting wildfires.
    “Colorado’s forests, grasslands, and waterways are the bedrock of our outdoor economy,” said Hickenlooper. “Every effort we make to prevent wildfires and mitigate the impact of climate change is an investment in Colorado’s future.”
    “In the West, our forests, grasslands, and watersheds are essential to our economy and way of life. But they are under threat from the worsening effects of climate change and consistent underinvestment from the federal government,” said Bennet. “As we face a 1,200-year megadrought and wildfire season that never seems to end, we need to break from the status quo and invest in the restoration of our forests and public lands to meet this challenge. We have no time to waste.”
    “Climate change is threatening our way of life in Colorado. We must act,” said Crow. “The Protect the West Act would help combat intensifying wildfires and help better protect Colorado communities.”
    “With summers getting dryer and hotter, the West and Oregon’s treasured lands are a tinderbox waiting to light ablaze,” said Wyden. “In my town halls, I’ve heard countless Oregonians fearing for their health and safety while struggling to maintain their economic livelihood as severe drought and wildfires wreak more havoc on their communities every year. More investments are needed to protect our forests and watersheds so local communities across the West are healthy and can have the opportunity to explore its beautiful natural treasures for generations.”
    “In Arizona and across the West, we face a rapidly growing backlog of projects for wildfire mitigation, drought resilience, and land restoration,” said Gallego. “I’m proud to help introduce the Protect the West Act which will finally give states and tribes the tools they need to take on these projects, all while creating good-paying jobs and boosting rural economies.”
    “Nevada’s forests and public lands are increasingly susceptible to wildfires, drought, and other extreme weather events. We need to do everything we can to protect our communities from the damage caused by these disasters and bolster our ability to recover,” said Rosen. “This critical legislation will support Nevada’s wildfire mitigation and restoration efforts, helping to keep Nevadans safe. I’ll always work to ensure Nevada has the resources it needs to fight wildfires and other weather-related events.”
    In the West, our strong outdoor rec industry and our agricultural communities depend on healthy lands, forests, and waterways. Increasingly frequent wildfires threaten those communities and our economy.
    Currently, the federal government spends approximately $2.9 billion to fight wildfires every year, with costs expected to increase by a billion by 2050. Already, the U.S. spent nearly $48 billion fighting wildfires over the last five years.
    Preventing wildfires before they even start is thirty times more cost-effective. Investing in fire mitigation and making our communities more resilient will save taxpayers money by reducing response and recovery costs.
    Specifically, the Protect the West Act would:
    Establish an Outdoor Restoration & Watershed Fund to better support local efforts to restore forests and watersheds, reduce wildfire risk, clean up public lands, enhance wildlife habitat, remove invasive species, and expand outdoor access
    Establish an advisory council of local, industry, conservation, Tribal, and national experts to advise funding priorities, coordinate with existing regional efforts, and provide oversight
    Empower local leaders by making $20 billion directly available to state and local governments, Tribes, special districts, and nonprofits to support restoration, drought resilience, and fire mitigation projects
    Partner with states and Tribes to invest $40 billion to tackle the backlog of restoration, fire mitigation, and resilience projects
    Create or sustain over two million good-paying jobs, primarily in rural areas, to support existing industries like forest product, agriculture, and outdoor recreation
    Save landowners and local governments money by investing in wildfire prevention and natural hazard mitigation.
    “The Protect the West Act is a significant investment in Colorado’s natural resources and Colorado is proud to support its reintroduction in the US Senate,” said Dan Gibbs, Executive Director, Colorado State Department of Natural Resources. “As Colorado experiences drought and continued threats from devastating wildfires, now is the time to invest in Colorado’s forests, watersheds, and landscapes that drive economic activity across the west, employ thousands of Americans, and provide environmental and ecological benefits to our communities and wildlife.”
    “One of the greatest threats to our Tribal lands are the devastating wildfires caused by the extreme drought conditions in the western United States,”said the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. “Sen. Bennet’s Protect the West Act will provide much needed investment in conservation, restoration and wildfire mitigation. A key component of this legislation is Sen. Bennet’s recognition of the importance that Tribes have in land use and regulation, assuring that funds will be made available directly to Tribes for maintenance of our forests, watersheds and rangeland. Moreover, he assures that Tribes will have a seat at the table in determining the distribution of funds, ensuring that there will be a tribal representative working alongside our state and federal partners on the Restoration Fund Advisory Council. We thank Sen. Bennet for introduction of this important legislation and look forward to its swift passage in Congress.”
    “Healthy watersheds face numerous challenges, including increasing drought, longer and hotter fire seasons, disconnected watersheds and degraded streams that no longer support healthy fisheries. The most effective way to tackle this challenge is through partnerships and collaborative conservation at the landscape scale,” said Chris Wood, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “The Protect the West Act would foster collaboration and provide resources for public-private partnerships to restore lands and waters across multiple jurisdictions, creating jobs and better fishing along the way. We thank Senator Bennet for his leadership and vision to restore our lands and waters at the scope and scale that will make a difference for future generations.”
    “The Colorado River District’s highest priority is to protect the water security of Western Colorado. Water security starts with our forests,” said Andy Mueller, General Manager, Colorado River District. “Our largest source of water is the snowpack that develops in our forests above 9,000 feet in elevation, mostly on federal lands. Sen. Michael Bennet’s $60 billion Protect the West Act proposal is a direct water security initiative through the funding of proactive watershed protection actions. These actions would help prevent catastrophic fires and start restoration work where warming temperatures and fires have already done harm. It’s noteworthy that $20 billion will be available to fund projects generated at the state and local levels. We applaud Senator Bennet for advocating for important western priorities in the Senate.”
     “I support the Senator’s Protect the West Act. This is a great first step in recognizing and acknowledging the problem that was created over 30 years ago,” said Merrit Linke, Grand County Commissioner. “The lack of proactive management and the ‘hands-off’ approach is now clearly having devastating effects on our communities, forest health and sustainable watersheds. This bill addresses this problem, provides much needed funding, and hopefully is the beginning of a new era in resource management. Now it is time to get to work.”
     “As Western communities continue to face the threats and the impacts of the climate crisis, now is the time to pursue initiatives that will help us become more resilient,” said Jon Goldin-Dubois, President of Western Resource Advocates. “The Protect the West Act will provide critical resources to help Western states mitigate wildfire, restore forests, improve air and water quality, and advance equity, all while pumping billions of dollars into local economies and supporting millions of good-paying jobs; it’s a true win-win. We applaud Senator Bennet for his leadership and look forward to supporting this legislation to build a more resilient West.”
    “Healthy forests support fish and wildlife habitat and outdoor access important to hunters, anglers, and recreationists in Colorado and across the nation,” said Joel Pedersen, CEO, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “However, decades of inadequate funding for forest management have placed a strain on the National Forest System that will require active management and sustained funding to increase workforce capacity. Further, these investments will help to ensure we’re better prepared to address the growing risks associated with wildfire.  The TRCP applauds the proactive investments in our forests and watersheds and the additional resources for growing the forest management workforce provided through the Protect the West Act.”
    The bill is supported by: The National Wildlife Federation, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, National Association of State Foresters, The Freshwater Trust, American Forests, National Wild Turkey Federation, National Audubon Society, Family Farm Alliance, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Western Landowners Alliance, Western Resource Advocates, Trout Unlimited, and Conservation Legacy.
    U.S. Representative Jason Crow introduced companion legislation in the House.
    The full text of the bill is available HERE.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Merkley, Wyden: Trump Devastates Oregon’s Rural Communities with Federal Funding Cuts and Mass Firings

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)

    February 24, 2025

    Washington, D.C. – Today, Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley, the former top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Ron Wyden demanded recently confirmed U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins immediately reverse disastrous actions at the USDA that have harmed Oregon farmers and families.

    Their letter follows President Donald Trump’s illegal executive orders cutting federal funds which support farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners and mass firings across the federal government, impacting researchers at units in Burns, Newport, Hood River, and Pendleton.

    “These funding freezes and mass firings are cutting jobs, stopping essential investments for our farmers and rural communities, and making our communities less resilient to market volatility from climate, supply chain disruptions, tariffs, and natural disasters,” wrote the Senators. “These agency actions must be immediately reversed.”

    The Senators stressed the effects on Oregon by saying, “Many of our constituents have already started much-needed infrastructure projects – such as irrigation modernization under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program to help farmers in drought-prone areas upgrade their irrigation practices to increase efficiency and conserve water – under the assurance that they would receive their grant money. Halting these payments means that a project in Hood River County will not only be delayed for over 100 days but will put the irrigation district at risk of insolvency. Even if funds are restored immediately, the current delay will ultimately increase the overall costs of this and other urgent projects while also costing hardworking Americans their jobs. Preventing grant recipients from finishing their projects is not a cost-effective or efficient approach to governance and is irresponsible stewardship of Congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars.”

    “While there are reports that some funds have been released, in accordance with the Constitution and federal law, we direct you to immediately release all funds under these grants to ensure these projects stay on schedule, on budget, and preserve jobs. Further, we direct you to stop these senseless firings and restore these dedicated public servants to their jobs to enhance our agriculture industry, protect food safety, and bolster jobs in rural communities and throughout Oregon,” the Senators directed.

    Full text of the letter can be found by clicking here and follows below:

    Dear Secretary Rollins,

    On the same day he was sworn in, President Trump signed an Executive Order effectively halting all investments under the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act, jeopardizing vital programs that support Oregon farmers and families. Despite court intervention at other agencies pausing these harmful cuts, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to freeze critical funding, which continues to cause severe disruption to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who are implementing projects under these landmark pieces of legislation. Since then, the Trump Administration has also fired an estimated 4,200 dedicated public servants in Oregon and across the country, grinding critical work and research to a halt across the agency.

    These funding freezes and mass firings are cutting jobs, stopping essential investments for our farmers and rural communities, and making our communities less resilient to market volatility from climate, supply chain disruptions, tariffs, and natural disasters. These agency actions must be immediately reversed.

    Critical research partnerships with universities and local farmers and ranchers through the USDA Agricultural Research Service are devastated with uncertain futures after public servants at research stations in Pendleton, Burns, Hood River, Corvallis, and Newport were fired. This vital work helps Oregon’s leading agricultural sectors find solutions toward improving soil health, dealing with wildfire smoke exposure in wine grapes, protecting the rangeland for both ranchers and ecosystems, and navigating threats like disease and pests to reliably bring global-class products to market.

    Many of our constituents have already started much-needed infrastructure projects – such as irrigation modernization under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program to help farmers in drought-prone areas upgrade their irrigation practices to increase efficiency and conserve water – under the assurance that they would receive their grant money. Halting these payments means that a project in Hood River County will not only be delayed for over 100 days but will put the irrigation district at risk of insolvency. Even if funds are restored immediately, the current delay will ultimately increase the overall costs of this and other urgent projects while also costing hardworking Americans their jobs. Preventing grant recipients from finishing their projects is not a cost-effective or efficient approach to governance and is irresponsible stewardship of Congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars.

    Other projects, such as programs that partner with farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in over half of Oregon’s 36 counties – including in Baker, Coos, Crook, Douglas, Grant, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Polk, Umatilla, Union, and Wheeler counties – to confront the challenges of drought and other extreme weather events have had the rug pulled out from under them. These landowners have already started projects amounting to tens of millions in investments to build operational and environmental resiliency into our food systems by implementing innovative production practices, increasing market competitiveness, and supporting local manufacturing.

    Other longer-term grants for wildfire resiliency through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, such as a $22.25 million investment for work in Jackson County, has also been frozen. This has paused vital work to help ensure local landowners can not only recover from past devastating wildfires but are able to protect their neighbors and communities from future wildfires.

    Grant recipients are expecting reimbursement or payment for projects already underway and instead have been met with the message that their projects were either being paused or completely stopped. Many of these recipients are now scared to come forward for fear of further retribution and loss of vital federal support.

    While there are reports that some funds have been released, in accordance with the Constitution and federal law, we direct you to immediately release all funds under these grants to ensure these projects stay on schedule, on budget, and preserve jobs. Further, we direct you to stop these senseless firings and restore these dedicated public servants to their jobs to enhance our agriculture industry, protect food safety, and bolster jobs in rural communities and throughout Oregon.

    MIL OSI USA News –