Post image for Renewable Fuel Standard: EPA Retreats from Cutbacks

Greenwire (subscription required) reports that EPA will pull back from its November 2013 proposal to reduce this year’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blending targets. However, a final rule establishing RFS targets for 2014 is not expected until 2015.

By law, EPA was supposed to finalize the 2014 targets in November 2013.* EPA only proposed the 2014 targets last November, and things have been on hold since then.

Because the statutory blending target for 2014 exceeded the amount of ethanol that could actually be sold as E10 (motor fuel containing 10% ethanol, the maximum blend millions of vehicles can use without risk of engine damage and voided warranties), the agency proposed to trim the 18.15 billion gallon statutory target to 15.21 billion gallons, a 16% cutback. That ignited a firestorm of protest from the biofuel lobby, and EPA has been dithering ever since.

What’s the policy significance of today’s news?

It’s common knowledge that the RFS is a textbook study in the law of unintended consequences. The program inflates food and fuel costs, exacerbates world hunger, contributes to political instability and violence in developing countries, expands aquatic dead zones, accelerates wetlands conversion and habitat loss, and likely increases net greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA’s more-than-year-long delay in finalizing the 2014 targets reveals what may be the most damning unintended consequence yet: market unpredictability. [click to continue…]

Post image for EPA Air Regulations: 15% Real-Dollar (35% Nominal-Dollar) Increase in Utility Bills by 2020, Study Finds

A new study by Energy Ventures Analysis for Peabody Energy examines the cumulative impacts on electricity and natural gas costs from 2012 to 2020 due to recent and proposed EPA regulations.

Regulations examined include: new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter; the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of air pollution; Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule; regional haze regulations; and the Clean Power Plan (CCP), proposed in June 2014, to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from state electric power sectors.

The study, Energy Market Impacts of Recent Federal Regulations on the Electric Power Sector, forecasts the following real-dollar (inflation-adjusted) impacts in 2020 compared to 2012:

  • Annual power and gas costs for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers will be $173 billion higher—a 37% increase.
  • Average annual household gas and power bills will increase by $293 or 15%.
  • Residential power bills increase the most in Texas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Rhode Island. Families in those states will pay $566 more annually for electricity in 2020 than in 2012.

Because “income growth is being outpaced by inflation for many Americans (the lower earning half of U.S. households experienced a 25% decline in real income from 2001-2014),” the report’s authors believe “it is more appropriate to focus on the results in nominal terms.”

Here are the results presented above in actual (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars: [click to continue…]

Post image for No Brainer: Senate Should Approve Keystone XL

On Friday, the House passed H.R. 5682, Louisiana Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy’s bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, by 252-161. On Tuesday, the Senate takes up North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven’s identical legislation, S. 2280. As of Friday, 59 senators had publicly committed to support the bill — one vote shy of the 60 required to send the measure to the President’s desk.

The President should have approved the KXL long ago. The Keystone controversy is completely artificial — a fabrication of green politics

The State Department is the lead agency in determining whether to grant the TransCanada Corporation permission to construct the pipeline for one reason only — the project crosses the U.S.-Canada boundary line, making it technically an issue of international relations. State’s job is to determine, on behalf of the President, whether the project would serve the U.S. national interest.

TransCanada filed its first application for a cross-border permit in September 2008. It has taken State more than six years not to render a decision. Yet the issue is a no-brainer.

  • Do modern commerce and transport chiefly run on petroleum-based products? Yes.
  • Are pipelines the most economical and safe way to transport large volumes of petroleum? Yes.
  • Is Canada our staunch ally and biggest trading partner? Yes.
  • Is Canada already the largest single source of U.S. petroleum imports? Yes.
  • Would the KXL enhance the efficiency of oil transport from Canada to U.S. markets? Yes.
  • Would the KXL support tens of thousands of American jobs and add billions to the GDP during the construction period? Yes.
  • Would all the financing be private and not cost taxpayers a dime? Yes.

So how could building the KXL not be in the national interest?

According to anti-Keystone protest leader Bill McKibben, “If this thing gets built, it’s game over for the planet.” In reality, the KXL is climatologically irrelevant. As Cato Institute scientist Chip Knappenberger shows, using EPA climate sensitivity estimates, even under the unrealistic assumption that all 830,000 bpd of Canadian crude coming through the pipeline is additional oil in the global supply that would otherwise remain in the ground, the warming contribution works out to about 1/100th of a degree Celsius by century’s end. “So after nearly 100 years of full operation, the Keystone XL’s impact on the climate would be inconsequential and unmeasurable.” [click to continue…]

Post image for The Profound Political Illegitimacy of Obama’s Climate “Deal” with China

Three days ago, the President reached a much ballyhooed “deal” with China to mitigate climate change. In a recent post, my colleague Myron Ebell explained that the agreement is non-binding and therefore empty. Another colleague of mine, Chris Horner, had a more pessimistic take: He argues that the President is trying to establish precedential “customary international law.” Regardless whether the agreement has teeth, it enjoys zero political legitimacy, as is demonstrated by the brief timeline below:

  • 2012: President Obama ran to the right of Mitt Romney on energy policy during the 2012 election. In so doing, the President took great pains to avoid mentioning climate change.
  • November 2014: Environmentalists spend an unprecedented sum to make climate change a major issue in the midterm elections. However, upon realizing that voters simply don’t care about climate change, the greens shifted tactics and instead spent their money on run of the mill attack ads. They still lost.

To recap: Polling data and election results demonstrate clearly that American voters give ultra-low priority to climate change. This explains why opposition to cap-and-trade in the Congress is healthily bipartisan. It also explains why Obama dodged the issue of climate change in 2012. And it explains why environmental special interest had to shelve climate change as an issue in the 2014 midterm elections, even though they desperately wanted to harp about it. Finally, the absence of a popular mandate explains why the President’s climate “deal” with China is flavored so authoritarian: According to the White House, the “deal”—which, as described by various editorial boards is “landmark” international diplomacy—does not require congressional approval, because it is based on executive actions that he’s taking without congressional approval. It’s a closed loop of executive power!

Post image for Carbon Tax Advocates Discuss Post-Election Prospects; Ignore Lesson of Plato’s Republic

The Energy and Enterprise Initiative, an advocacy group headed by former South Carolina Republican congressman Bob Inglis, launched a new Web site today: In an inaugural blog post, Mr. Inglis opines about the post-election day prospects for enacting a carbon tax:

The timing couldn’t be better as far as we’re concerned. On Election Day 2014, Republicans won the majority in the Senate and increased their majority in the House, creating a huge opportunity for real conservative reform. . . . Now’s the time to step up with free-market solutions and show the country that clean air and clean-energy innovation are best achieved by accountable free enterprise, not big government.”

Huh? What Inglis means by “accountable free enterprise” is a carbon tax. Republicans “won the majority in the Senate and increased their majority in the House” despite Tom Steyer, Environmental Defense Action Fund, NRDC Action Fund, League of Conservation Voters, and Sierra Club spending an unprecedented $85 million to elect ‘climate champions’ and unseat ‘climate deniers.’ Consistent with survey research finding climate change to be among voters’ lowest priorities, the election results indicate that Republicans are less vulnerable than ever to green attack ads.

So why is now the time for a Constructive Republican Alternative Proposal that would raise energy prices, deny Americans the benefits of affordable, plentiful, reliable coal-based power, and have negligible impacts on potential climate change?

Suppose the attacks had worked, and the GOP sustained huge losses; what would Inglis say then? Very likely, ‘I told you so.’ He would blame Republicans for failing to offer a ‘free-market’ solution (viz. carbon taxes), leaving voters no choice but to support Obama’s climate policies. Now more than ever, he would undoubtedly say, Republicans need to rally round the carbon tax or become irrelevant to the national debate. In short, from opposite results, Inglis would likely draw the same conclusion.

[click to continue…]

Headlines tout that the “U.S. and China have announced a landmark agreement to curb carbon emissions,” with the U.S. promising (to China) that it would emit 26% to 28% less carbon dioxide in ten years hence than it did ten years ago.  Naturally, under our system, for any such promise to be meaningful it requires Senate ratification under the Constitution’s Art. II, Sec. 2.  Therefore, some explanation is in order.

This promise — to China, recall — is not binding, is not intended to be binding, and will not be part of a binding promise to the rest of the world for the December 2015 Paris climate treaty talks.

This is the latest example of a new species of promise described as “politically binding”, a turn of phrase introduced in this context during the Bush years, in recognition of the fact that two-thirds of the US Senate will never agree to Kyoto-style constraints.  Shifting to “politically binding” promises also is an effort to circumvent that same reality by effectively introducing treaty commitments to the country without declaring them at customs.

Specifically, the Obama administration’s rhetorical vow is part of the shift in strategy recognizing that the successor to the 1997 Kyoto treaty must culminate with a series of “soft” commitments (those who doubt this might compare the rhetoric by pressure groups embracing Beijing with their insistence during the Bush era that nothing less than a binding pact would do).

In very short, the idea is to embed the Obama EPA’s proposed GHG rules in a series of promises to the world, mindful of “customary international law.”  Under that often gauzy notion, once commitments, however informal, rise to a certain level of recognition, a nation is bound to not violate their “object and purpose.”  So, post-Paris, options could include (according told draft pleadings produced under open records laws) activist state attorneys general turning to the court system to add law to otherwise non-binding commitments.  That would similarly afford an opening to compliant regulatory agencies enamored of the practice known as sue-and-settle.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Obama, Xi Agree on Meaningless Climate Deal

U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a commitment by both countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2025-30, at the end of the APEC summit meeting in China on Wednesday.  President Obama pledged that the United States would reduce it emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, while President Xi pledged that China’s emissions would peak by “around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the share of non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20% by 2030.”  That quote is from the White House fact sheet on the agreement.

The Obama Administration’s long-stated goal has been to reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.  That works out to an annual cut of 1.2% from 2005 onward.  The new goal would require a much faster rate of cuts.  The White House calculated that if the faster rate doesn’t begin until 2020, then the annual cut would work out to 2.3-2.8% from 2020 to 2025.

It is not clear what President Xi’s commitment means, but President Obama’s signature on the deal has no legal force.  And it will be up to future Presidents and Congresses after he leaves office in January 2017 to decide whether to require the emissions reductions agreed to.

Leaders of the official climate establishment quickly claimed that the U. S.-China agreement will provide new momentum to the international negotiations on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which will continue at the annual United Nations climate conference in December in Lima.  A new international agreement is supposed to be signed at the next UN conference scheduled for December 2015 in Paris.

Here for example is what former Senator Timothy Wirth said in a written statement: “Today’s announcement is the political breakthrough we’ve been waiting for….  If the two biggest players on climate are able to get together, from two very different perspectives, the rest of the world can see that it’s possible to make real progress.”  Wirth is the vice chairman of Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation and served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs during the Clinton Administration, where he prepared the groundwork for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

However, it doesn’t appear that there is much that is new in the agreement.  The Reuters story by David Stanway reporting from the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation) summit in Beijing got it right in the headline: “China, US agree limits on emissions, but experts see little new.” [click to continue…]

Post image for Cellulosic Ethanol: KiOR Files for Bankruptcy

Greenwire (paywall protected) reports that KiOR, Inc., a biofuel company backed by billionaire Vinod Kohsla, missed a $1.8 million loan payment to the state of Mississippi, now owes more than $312 million, and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection late Sunday:

The company estimated its assets are worth between $10 million and $50 million and reported debts between $100 million and $500 million (Jeff Amy, AP/ABC News, Nov. 10).

In addition, the Pasadena, Texas-based company said its default on the Mississippi loan triggered provisions of other loans, making an additional $234 million immediately due (AP/Fuel Fix, Nov. 7). — SP

EPA once pinned its hopes on KiOR to supply 9 million of the agency’s 17 million gallon 2014 cellulosic biofuel quota. As of July, however, U.S. cellulosic production was about 50,000 gallons, or 0.3% of EPA’s target, according to Platts energy analyst Herman Wang. EPA’s target is itself less than 1% of the statutory 1.75 billion gallon cellulosic target for 2014.

More proof, if any were needed, that the point of central planning is not to accomplish its stated purposes but to amass power, rig markets, and (in democratic countries) buy votes.

On August 20, commodity analyst Dave Juday contributed a guest editorial to this blog titled “KiOR News Underscores Problems with Renewable Energy Industrial Policy.” Because the column is even more timely today, I repost it (lightly edited) below:

[click to continue…]

Post image for Beyond Coal? Far From It — Study

Climate scientist John Christy states the common sense of the matter when he says, “If it’s not economically sustainable, it’s not sustainable.”

Why have carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions surged despite a quarter century of global warming advocacy?







Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

Contrary to Al Gore, Tom Steyer, and IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, the answer is not ‘lack of political will’ or ‘the Koch brothers.’ The root cause is far more fundamental: Commercial energy is essential to civilization, much of the world is energy poor, even in industrialized countries low- and middle-income households struggle with high energy costs, and zero-emission energy sources that are cheap, reliable, and scalable do not yet exist.

Consequently, a political movement bent on taxing, regulating, and mandating the world ‘beyond coal,’ ‘beyond petroleum,’ and ‘beyond gas’ is doomed to fail (although, sadly, it can do considerable economic damage before finally imploding).

A new report by Manhattan Institute scholar Robert Bryce explains by the numbers why the world is nowhere near ‘beyond coal.’ Policies aggressive enough to achieve IPCC and other popular CO2 reduction targets would inflict severe economic losses, rendering such policies unsustainable.

[click to continue…]

Per the twitter account of SNL Energy’s Dan Lowrey:


The Hill’s Laura Barron Lopez reports the full quote by Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune:

“Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get out the vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day.”

You can’t make this stuff up!

Of course, this is utter nonsense. As my colleague Myron Ebell explained here, environmental special interests & their billionaire benefactors had intended to make climate change an issue in this campaign, but they quickly learned an inconvenient truth: Voters don’t care about climate change. So, instead of spending scores of millions of dollars highlighting environmental issues, they spent all their money on run of the mill political attack ads. The upshot is that unsubstantiated, wild-eyed claims of “voter suppression” fail miserably to account for why “strong climate action” candidates lost. Rather, they lost for the ultra-simple reason that voter priorities are far different that those shared by environmental special interests.