Last week on National Journal’s Energy Experts Blog, 16 wonks addressed the question: ”Is Washington Ready for a Carbon Tax?” Your humble servant argued that Washington is not ready — unless Republicans are willing to commit political suicide. That’s no reason for complacency, because spendaholics have on occasion gulled the Dumb Party into providing bi-partisan cover for unpopular tax hikes. President G.H.W. Bush’s disastrous repudiation of his ‘read-my-lips, no-new-taxes’ campaign pledge is the best known example.

To help avoid such debacles in the future, I will recap the main points of my National Journal blog commentary. Later this week, I’ll excerpt insightful comments by other contributors.

Nearly all Republicans in Congress have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise not to increase the net tax burden on their constituents. Although a “revenue neutral” carbon tax is theoretically possible, the sudden interest in carbon taxes is due to their obvious potential to feed Washington’s spending addiction. If even one dollar of the revenues from a carbon tax is used for anything except cutting other taxes, the scheme is a net tax increase and a Pledge violation. Wholesale promise-breaking by GOP leaders would outrage party’s activist base. 

Even if the Taxpayer Protection Pledge did not exist, the GOP is currently the anti-tax, pro-energy alternative to a Democratic leadership that is aggressively anti-energy and pro-tax. Endorsing a massive new energy tax would damage the product differentiation that gives people a reason to vote Republican. Recognizing these realities, House GOP leaders recently signed a ‘no climate tax’ pledge.

That’s good news. But this is a season of fiscal panic and I was there (in 1990) when the strength of Republicans failed. Perhaps the best time to kick carbon taxes is when they are down. So let’s review additional reasons to oppose a carbon tax.

Carbon taxes are regressive, imposing a larger percentage burden on low-income households. If Republicans support a carbon tax in return for cuts in corporate or capital gains taxes (a popular idea in some circles), they will be pilloried — this time fairly — for seeking to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

If, on the other hand, the tax provides “carbon dividends” to offset the impact of higher energy prices on poor households, it will create a new class of welfare dependents. Guess which party is better at organizing people on welfare?

Carbon taxes pose an existential threat to the development of North America’s vast coal, oil, and natural gas deposits — one of the few bright spots in the economy. The core purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate carbon doxide-emitting activities. The tax ‘works’ by shrinking the economic base on which it is levied. To keep revenues up, carbon tax rates must continually increase as emissions decline. Likely result: an exodus of carbon-related capital, jobs, and emissions (“carbon leakage”). Problem: Nobody knows how to run a modern economy on cellulose, wind turbines, and solar panels. Bipartisanship on carbon taxes means co-ownership of U.S. economic decline.

In umpteen hearings on the Solyndra debacle, Republicans excoriated the Obama administration for trying to pick energy market winners and losers. A carbon tax is an even more ambitious green industrial policy than the $34.5 billion in loan guarantees  lavished by the Department of Energy (DOE) on a few dozen renewable energy projects. Carbon taxes attempt to pick and losers across the entire economy, handicapping all firms that produce or rely on carbon-based energy. Indeed, central to Solyndra’s business plan and DOE Secy. Chu’s green tech strategy was the bet that Congress would enact cap-and-trade, the regulatory surrogate for a carbon tax.

Some economists say government should tax ‘bads’ like emissions rather than ‘goods’ like labor and capital. This is sloppy thinking. In technical economic terms, only finished products and services are ‘goods.’ Labor and capital are inputs, production factors, or costs. Energy too is a key input. Without energy, most labor and capital would be idle or not even exist. About 83% of U.S. energy comes from carbon-based fuels. So a carbon tax also taxes what these economists loosely call ‘goods.’ Pretending that carbon taxes only tax emissions and nothing of value is free-lunch economics — a recipe for failure and worse.

Some speculate about a grand bargain in which carbon taxes replace carbon regulations — everything from the EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards to California’s cap-and-trade program to State-level renewable electricity mandates. The EPA, the California Air Resources Board, the major environmental organizations, and the renewable energy lobbies have spent decades building the regulatory programs they administer or influence. They want to add carbon taxes to carbon regulation, not substitute one for the other. Talk a grand bargain is a ploy designed to lure gullible Republicans to the negotiating table. Few if any of the Left’s regulatory sacred cows would be traded away. In the meantime, carbon tax negotiations would divide GOP leaders from their rank and file and demoralize the party’s activist base.

The backlash against GOP leaders’ complicity would be swift and severe. Yet for all the economic pain inflicted and political damage incurred, they would accomplish no discernible environmental gain. As hurricane expert Roger Pielke Jr. points out, even under IPCC assumptions, changes in energy policy “wouldn’t have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more.” Similarly, also using IPCC assumptions, Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science calculates that even if the U.S. eliminated all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the impact on global temperatures would be a reduction ”of approximately 0.08°C by the year 2050 and 0.17°C by the year 2100 — amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible.”

Under a carbon tax, the U.S. would keep emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide annually for a long time – otherwise the tax wouldn’t raise much revenue. So the notion that carbon taxes can measurably reduce extreme weather risk or climate change impacts within any policy-relevant timeframe is ludicrous.

A major disagreement erupted this week in the British government over future onshore windmill installations.  The number two minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, John Hayes, MP, declared that “enough is enough,” and that no more wind farms needed to be built in the United Kingdom.  Hayes complained that wind turbines had been “peppered across the country” without regard for public opinion.

Hayes’s boss, Energy Minister Ed Davey, MP, quickly and angrily responded that Hayes’s views are not shared by the Cabinet and that there is no formal change in government policy towards renewable energy.

Davey is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the junior partner in the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government.  Hayes, a member of the Conservative Party, clearly speaks for the majority of MPs in his party.

In response to a question by Ed Miliband, MP, leader of the Labour Party opposition, Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that government policy had not changed, thereby apparently backing Davey.  But then Cameron said that it was time for a debate about future policy on onshore wind installations.

Official British government policy aims for 13 gigawatts of wind capacity by 2020. Current capacity is 7.3 gigawatts, with hundreds of wind turbines currently under construction.

U.S. biofuel expansion has cost developing countries $6.6 billion in higher food costs, estimates Tufts University economist Timothy A. Wise in Fueling the Food Crisis, a report published by ActionAid. A 10-minute video interview with Wise about his research is available here.

The 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), established by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), exerts long-term upward pressure on grain prices by diverting an ever-growing quantity of corn from food and feed to auto fuel. This is great for corn farmers but not good for U.S. consumers and harmful to millions of people in developing countries, many of whom live in extreme poverty.

“Commodity prices are a small percentage of the retail price of food in the US” because “we heavily process our food,” notes Wise. In contrast, in developing countries, ”commodity prices are a bigger percentage of the retail price, in part because people buy whole foods more often than processed foods.” Even small commodity price increases ”can have a big impact on local market prices in developing countries.”

As it happens, during the same period that U.S. ethanol production and corn prices increased, many developing countries became more dependent on grain imports to feed their people and livestock. The recent drought-induced spike in U.S. corn prices is “just the latest episode in a devastating, protracted global food crisis that has pushed millions into poverty and hunger around the globe over the past 6 years,” argues the ActionAid report.

To assess the impact of biofuel expansion on developing countries, Wise used a conservative estimate of ethanol’s contribution to corn prices and multiplied that by the quantity of U.S. corn imported by those countries. A summary of key findings follows:

• Net Food Importing Developing Countries, among the most vulnerable to food price increases, incurred ethanol-related costs of $2.1 billion.
• Thirteen developing countries incurred per-capita impacts greater than Mexico’s (where tortilla prices have risen 69% since 2005), and they include a wide spectrum of large and small countries from all regions of the developing world – Colombia, Malaysia, Botswana, Syria.
• North African countries saw large impacts, with $1.4 billion in ethanol-related import costs, led by Egypt ($679 million). Other countries experiencing social unrest – Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iran, Yemen – also suffered high impacts, highlighting the link between rising food prices and political instability.
• Central American countries felt impacts nearly those of Mexico, scaled to population. The region has seen its dependence on food imports rise over the last 20 years, and corn imports cost an extra $368 million from 2006-11 due to U.S. ethanol expansion. Guatemala saw the largest impacts, with $91 million in related costs. In 2010-11 alone, U.S. biofuel expansion cost Guatemalans $28 million – an amount nearly equivalent to U.S. food aid to Guatemala over the same period.
• Latin American partners to trade agreements with the United States saw high costs, as import-dependence grows. The six-year ethanol-related cost of corn imports was $2.4 billion for Latin American nations involved in NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and the bilateral agreements with Panama, Colombia, Peru, and Chile.

Wind energy advocates often point out that a State, the U.S., or the entire world has enough wind energy to supply all of its electricity needs many times over. Writing in Scientific American, for example, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi note that the world in 2030 is projected to consume 16.9 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW) of power, with about 2.8 TW consumed in the U.S. Total wind flows worldwide generate about 1,700 TW, and accessible wind resources total an estimated 40-85 TW. 

Based on such math, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) argues, for instance, that Arizona has enough wind to meet 40% of its electricity needs, Michigan wind resources could meet 160% of the State’s electricity needs, and wind in Oklahoma could provide nearly 31 times the State’s electricity needs. Yet despite ratepayer subsidies, special tax breaks, and renewable energy mandates and goals in 37 States, wind supplied 2.2% of total U.S. electric generation in 2010. Why don’t we get lots more of our electricity from this ’free,’ ‘non-polluting’ ‘renewable’ source?

The chief impediments are wind energy’s inherent drawbacks. First, wind energy is intermittent — at any given time the wind may blow too hard or too soft or not blow at all. Second, wind is non-dispatchable. When Shakespeare’s Owen Glendower boasted, “I can call spirits from the vasty deep,” Henry Hotspur replied: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?” Like Glendower’s spirits, the winds answer to no man. The wind is not ours to ’dispatch’ as electricity demand rises or falls. 

There are three main ways of compensating for wind’s intermittency and non-dispatchability — pumped storage (pump water uphill when there’s too much wind relative to demand; let it run downhill and drive turbines when there’s too little wind), natural gas backup generation, and wind dumping (idle the turbines when demand is low). Incorporating those techniques to keep supply in balance with demand adds to the cost of wind electricity, which is typically more costly than coal- and gas-generated electricity even without storage and backup.

What’s more, according to a new Reason Foundation/Independence Institute report, the storage, backup, and idling costs become prohibitive as wind’s share of total generation increases beyond 10-20%. 

The report, The Limits of Wind Power by William Korchinski, contains several sobering graphics. Figure 6 from the study shows how variable (intermittent) the wind can be, reducing output as much as 16 MW per minute.

The report quotes E.ON, the German power producer that experienced this sudden decline in wind energy during Christmas in 2004:

Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15 am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW. Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.

Let’s suppose that some States actually take AWEA’s message to heart and build enough wind capacity to meet 100% of their power needs. To what extent would actual wind generation match electric demand throughout the year? Figure 11 of the study illustrates the results for the PMJ Interconnection region comprising all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. 

As the figure shows, on hundreds of days the PJM region’s turbines would produce either significantly more or significantly less power than customers consume.

As noted above, there are three main ways of dealing with wind’s intermittency and non-dispatchability. One technique is pumped storage: “pumping water uphill when there is excess wind energy, and then running the water downhill through a turbine when wind energy is limited.” The PJM pumped storage capacity for 2010 was about 5,000 MW, compared to the area’s average hourly electric demand of 77,800 MW. In other words, PJM currently has about two hours worth of stored power. That’s okay because the overwhelming lion’s share of the region’s electricity does not come from wind.

But suppose PJM got all of its electricity from wind — what would it take to have enough pumped storage in case the wind doesn’t blow? Korchinski calculates that PJM would need to be able to pump uphill “a body of water that is about 2,000 square miles by 100 feet deep” — the dimensions of Lake of the Woods in Canada.

Since constructing artificial lakes of that size is impractical (and would have significant ecological impacts as well), pumped storage is typically combined with natural gas backup generation and wind dumping. Turbines left idle (dumping) do not generate income. Gas backup means running gas turbines inefficiently, in ”spinning reserve” mode, so they are “ready to increase or decrease power on short notice.” The greater the penetration of wind in the electricity fuel mix, the greater the reliance on wind dumping and gas backup.

Korchinski comments:

As wind penetrations increase, the grid requires increasing amounts of spinning reserves to maintain reliability. At high wind penetrations, even large amounts of power storage cannot prevent significant (and expensive) wind dumping. The already high cost of wind power increases with the construction of storage facilities, and the cost to construct extra wind turbines, which will be dormant during periods of wind dumping.

The takeaway message for policymakers and a public bombarded with propaganda about obtaining 40%, 160%, or even 3100% of a State’s electricity from wind?

Very high wind penetrations are not achievable in practice due to the increased need for power storage, the decrease in grid reliability, and the increased operating costs. Given these constraints, this study concludes that a more practical upper limit for wind penetration is 10%.

This September, the “EPA honored Hispanic Heritage Month by promoting a Marxist mass murderer,” Che Guevara, who killed many Hispanics. Che Guevara was the Cuban “revolutionary” and henchman of Fidel Castro. Guevara murdered children and political dissidents and imprisoned suspected homosexuals in labor camps, and called himself “Stalin II” (after Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator who tortured, murdered and starved to death more than 20 million people, especially ethnic minorities, like Ukrainians, Kazakhs, and Crimean Tatars). What’s next? Will the Education Department celebrate the bloodthirsty African dictator Idi Amin, who killed more than 300,000 Ugandans, as part of Black History Month? (Under the Obama administration, the Education Department has shown contempt for civil liberties like due process and free speech.)

As Buzzfeed noted at the time:

The Environmental Protection Agency commemorated the start of Hispanic Heritage Month with a picture of Che Guevara and a bit of plagiarism. An internal email . . .  distributed to agency employees . . . this Saturday, featured [an] image of a horse and buggy passing a billboard of the Marxist revolutionary, in addition to a listing of facts about Hispanic culture. . .that text and the photo appear to be lifted word-for-word and without attribution from the website Buzzle.com.

The EPA doesn’t just celebrate killers.  It also kills jobs.  NFIB lists the “EPA’s top 5 job killers,” recent rules that will wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs, and likely cost over $1 trillion.  Some of the most costly new regulations will have no discernible public health benefit at all.

It’s not just businesses and workers that will suffer under Obama Administration policies, but also consumers.  Obama earlier admitted that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Although harvesting season for corn is ongoing, there isn’t much hope from the Agriculture Department for a strong season. We know that production levels are already down 13 percent from 2011. Adding to the hurt caused by this year’s devastating drought on corn is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Under the Clean Air Act the RFS requires that in 2012, refiners sell 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol – this number equates to roughly 4.7 billion bushels of U.S. corn.  Corn estimates were down to 10.8 billion bushels last month; right now that means that at least 40 percent of corn production is being forced into the ethanol market.

The decline in corn production is already leading to rising prices in various farming sectors — cattle, swine, poultry — that use corn as feed. These economic effects will be intensified by the diversion of corn supply by ethanol requirements. This has prompted Congress, National Associations, and now individual state Governors to urge the EPA to permit a waiver for ethanol requirements in 2012-2013 under the Renewable Fuel Standard.

In Governor Deal’s August 20th letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson describes the importance and scale of the livestock agriculture to the Georgia economy:

As Georgia’s largest industry, agriculture accounts for over 15.7 percent of the state’s economy in terms of sales and output and represents 11.2 percent of the state’s value added production. Georgia agriculture has an annual impact of $68.9 billion on the state’s economy and provides 380,000 jobs to citizens of the state.  Poultry and livestock are critically important components of the state’s economy, representing over 50 percent of Georgia’s farm gate value, while broilers alone account for over 40 percent of farm gate value. From a national perspective, Georgia ranks first in broiler production and third in value of eggs produced. For Georgia, the poultry industry alone accounts for over $20 billion in annual economic impact, and an estimated 98,000 jobs depend on poultry directly or indirectly.

He also points out the grueling effects the Renewable Fuel Standard will have on not only Georgia, but the whole country coupled with this drought:

According to the University of Georgia, the state’s poultry producers are spending $1.4 million extra per day on corn due to the drought and the upward pressure on corn prices caused by the demand created by the RFS for ethanol. This translates to over $516 million per year if these market conditions continue. These additional input costs are not sustainable, and I urge you to consider all options available to the agency to provide some relief in the coming year.

The ultimate impact on consumers in Georgia and throughout the United States in the form of higher food prices must also be fully considered. A recent analysis confirmed that food inflation, particularly for those food categories most impacted by grain costs, has risen much faster than overall inflation since 2005. The reality of this current crisis is that consumers will have to pay more for protein and other food items, or they will simply not be able to afford certain food items.

As I have outlined, Georgia is experiencing severe economic harm during this crisis, and important economic sectors in the state are in serious economic jeopardy. This harm is precisely of the type, character and extent that Congress envisioned when it granted EPA authority to waive RFS applicable volumes in both the original RFS enacted in 2005 and in the substantial revisions made to the law in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act.

Other states such as; Arkansas, Texas, North Carolina, and others have also filled letter with Administrator Jackson.

On August 20th the EPA opened a 30 day comment period for the public on the waiver requests specifically from the Governors of Arkansas and North Carolina. This week, the comment period was extended another 30 days. After the comment period ends, EPA is afforded time to consider the public’s input. As a result, EPA won’t have to make a decision until after the election. How convenient.

When Congress created the RFS, it gave EPA the flexibility to waive part or all of the volumetric blending targets if the Administrator determines that implementation of a specific requirement would “severely harm” the economy of a State, region, or the U.S.  Well, we’re now in the worst drought of the past 50 years, and USDA projects the smallest corn crop in six years and the lowest corn yields per acre since 1995. Corn prices are at record highs, rising from $2.00 a bushel in 2005, the year before Congress created the RFS, to more than $8.00 a bushel this year.  The RFS is contributing to the spike in corn prices, which is detrimental to livestock producers and consumers.  If this is not a situation justifying a relaxation of politically-imposed (rather than market-driven) diversion of a major agricultural commodity from food to auto fuel, it is difficult to imagine what would qualify.

If the EPA denies the Governors’ petition, it will have a lot of explaining to do.

The Governors of Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina have petitioned EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to waive the mandatory ethanol blending requirements established by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The petitioners hope thereby to lower and stabilize corn prices, which recently hit record highs as the worst drought in 50 years destroyed one-sixth of the U.S. corn crop. Corn is the principal feedstock used in ethanol production.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Bebe’s letter to Administrator Jackson concisely makes the case for regulatory relief:

Virtually all of Arkansas is suffering from severe, extreme, or exceptional drought conditions. The declining outlook for this year’s corn crop and accelerating prices for corn and other grains are having a severe economic impact on the State, particularly on our poultry and cattle sectors. While the drought may have triggered the price spike in corn, an underlying cause is the federal policy mandating ever-increasing amounts corn for fuel. Because of this policy, ethanol production now consumes approximately 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and the cost of corn for use in food production has increased by 193 percent since 2005 [the year before the RFS took effect]. Put simply, ethanol policies have created significantly higher corn prices, tighter supplies, and increased volatility.

Agriculture is the backbone of Arkansas’s economy, accounting for nearly one-quarter of our economic activity. Broilers, turkeys, and cattle — sectors particularly vulnerable to this corn crisis — represent nearly half of Arkansas’s farm marketing receipts. Arkansas poultry operators are trying to cope with grain cost increases and cattle familes are struggling to feed their herds.

Section 211(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes the EPA to waive all or part of the RFS blending targets for one year if the Administrator determines, after public notice and an opportunity for public comment, that implementation of those requirements would “severely harm” the economy of a State, a region, or the United States. Only once before has a governor requested an RFS waiver. When corn prices soared in 2008, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas requested that the EPA waive 50% of the mandate for the production of corn ethanol. Perry, writing in April 2008, noted that corn prices were up 138% globally since 2005. He estimated that rising corn prices had imposed a net loss on the State’s economy of $1.17 billion in 2007 and potentially could impose a net loss of $3.59 billion in 2008. At particular risk were the family ranches that made up two-thirds of State’s 149,000 cattle producers. Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected Perry’s petition in August 2008.

In the EPA’s Request for Comment on the 2012 waiver petitions, the agency indicates it will use the same “analytical approach” and “legal interpretation” on the basis of which Johnson denied Perry’s request in 2008. This means the regulatory decks are stacked against the petitioners. As the EPA reads the statute, CAA Section 211(o)(7) establishes a burden of proof that is nearly impossible for petitioners to meet. No matter how high corn prices get, or how serious the associated economic harm, the EPA will have ready-made excuses not to waive the corn-ethanol blending requirements.

According to the EPA, Petitioners must show that the “RFS itself” would cause severe economic harm, not merely “contribute” to it. Petitioners therefore must also show that the relief sought would achieve a substantial reduction in the prices of corn, feed, and food.

This reading of the statute effectively prejudges the issue. ”Severe” economic harm typically results from a combination of factors, not one single cause. An ethanol mandate that causes little economic harm when unemployment rates are low, corn production is high, and China’s demand for U.S. corn imports is low could inflict severe harm when the opposite conditions obtain — as they do today.

If Congress wanted the EPA to grant a waiver only when the RFS alone causes severe economic harm, it could have easily said so. The statute specifies no such limitation. CAA Section 211(o)(7) does not tell the EPA to ignore non-RFS factors that might also adversely affect food and feed prices, agricultural employment, and the competitiveness of U.S. livestock producers.

The EPA’s demand that the waiver be a ”remedy for the harm” is the flip side of this same trick coin. By law, the EPA may grant a waiver for only one year at a time. Although a series of waivers might provide a complete remedy, a one-year waiver may have little impact on markets shaped by the RFS’s 17-year (2006-2022) production quota schedule. So the EPA could reject the waiver petitions on the grounds that a piecemeal solution is no solution at all.

Note: The EPA argues the exact opposite when the issue is whether or not to pull a regulatory trigger. In such cases, even small contributions to an alleged harm are considered sufficient grounds for regulation, and even minute regulatory contributions to the hoped-for solution are deemed fully justified and legally required.

Take, for example, the EPA’s heavy-duty truck greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards. The EPA estimates that the standards for model year (MY) 2014-2018 heavy-duty vehicles will reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations by 0.732 parts per million, which in turn will avert an estimated 0.002-0.004°C of global warming and 0.012-0.048 centimeters of sea-level rise by the year 2100 (Proposed Heavy Truck Rule, p. 74289). Such changes would be too small for scientists to distinguish from the “noise” of inter-annual climate variability. The EPA acknowledges no obligation to demonstrate either that heavy-truck GHG emissions alone harm public health and welfare or that regulating MY 2014-2018 heavy-truck GHG emissions would have a major impact on global warming.

Consider also the EPA’s Utility MACT Rule for coal-fired power plants. The agency acknowledges that U.S. mercury (Hg) emissions constitute only 5% of global anthropogenic Hg emissions and only 2% of the total global Hg pool, and that U.S. power plant emissions account for only 0.6% of the global pool. More importantly, the EPA estimates  — based on dubious epidemiological evidence and questionable demographic modeling – that the MACT Rule’s Hg emission reductions will avert the loss of 0.00209 IQ points per child in a guesstimated population of 240,000 subsistence fishing households. IQ points cannot be measured out to five decimal places. The MACT Rule’s microscopic mercury-related health benefits are literally undetectable and unverifiable. The EPA is completely undaunted by such facts. In the agency’s words (Proposed Utility MACT Rule, p. 24978):

However, as the U.S. Supreme Court has noted in decisions as recently as Massachusetts v. EPA, regarding the problem of climate change, it is not necessary to show that a problem will be entirely solved by the action being taken, nor that it is necessary to cure all ills before addressing those judged to be significant. 549 U.S. 497, 525 (2007).

In stark contrast, when the issue before the EPA is whether to grant regulatory relief, then the regulation itself must be shown to cause severe harm, and even temporary relief must be shown to cure all ills (or most of them). This is not surprising. Being a regulatory agency, the EPA does not accord the harms of over-regulation the same weight as the harms of under-regulation.

So in all likelihood, the EPA will deny the Governors’ waiver requests, even though a waiver would undoubtedly lower and stabilize corn prices to some extent.

This cloud may have a silver lining. If the EPA once again refuses to balance the interests of corn farmers against those of other industries and consumers, it will furnish new evidence that the RFS is a policy disaster. Especially if the drought persists into 2013, an EPA that won’t heed the reasonable requests of domestic livestock producers, seven governors, 156 House members, 26 Senators, the head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and other food security advocates will build support for RFS reform — or repeal.

Climate alarmists have long warned that warming of the Arctic could melt frozen marine and permafrost sediments, releasing methane trapped in peat bogs and ice crystals (clathrate hydrates, see photo above). Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that packs 21 times the global warming punch as CO2 over a 100-year time span and more than 100 times the CO2-warming effect over a 20-year period.

So the fear is that methane emissions from the thawing Arctic will accelerate global warming, which in turn will melt more clathrates and methane-bearing sediments, which will produce still more warming, in a vicious circle of climate destabilization. In a previous post, I offered a skeptical perspective on this doomsday scenario.

This week the journal Nature published a study raising similar concerns about the potential for significant releases of methane from the Antarctic ice sheets. The study’s 14 authors, led by Jemma Wadham of the University of Bristol in the UK, estimate that about 21,000 petagrams (gigatons) of organic carbon (OC) are buried in sedimentary basins under the East and West Antarctic ice sheets – more than 10 times the estimated magnitude of OC stocks in northern permafrost regions. Microbial production of methane from OC (a process known as methanogenesis) is common across many cold subsurface environments, and may have been at work for millions of years beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheets. 

Although “No data exist for rates of methanogenesis in sub-Antarctic marine and terrestrial sediments,” the model used by the Wadham team indicates the potential hydrate reserve could be 70–390 petagrams of carbon (PgC) beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) and tens of PgC beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). ”This represents a sizeable reservoir of methane hydrate, of a similar order of magnitude to more recent estimates of Arctic permafrost and Arctic ocean hydrate reserves,” the authors state. They contend that subglacial hydrate deposits are likely to be located at shallow depths, “highlighting the strong potential for deglaciation to trigger hydrate destabilization.”

The researchers conclude that “the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be a neglected but important component of the global methane budget, with the potential to act as a positive feedback on climate warming during ice-sheet wastage.”

Well, kudos to Wadham and her colleagues for not injecting apocalyptic rhetoric into a scientific paper. Nonetheless, the paper is attracting media coverage (e.g. here and here) because it raises the possibility of a significant new ‘positive feedback’ that dramatically accelerates global warming.

I wouldn’t lose any sleep about this even if ”deep drilling” later validates the researchers’ estimates of the quantity of hydrates lying beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheets.

Ice core data obtained from the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica do show a strong correlation over the past 420,000 years between changes in global temperature and atmospheric levels of both CO2 and methane. The data, however, also indicate that two previous interglacial periods were warmer than the Holocene.

Clearly, warming periods release large quantities of methane trapped in frozen marine and terrestrial sediments. Yet in none of the previous interglacials — including the two that were warmer than the present — did warming produce a self-perpetuating, climate de-stabilizing spike in atmospheric methane levels.

The greenhouse effect did not gallop away. Global temperatures largely determined methane levels, not the other way around. Even greater-than-present warmth did not turn Antarctica’s OC deposits into a climate-disrupting methane bomb.

Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 2-1 decision that automakers, petroleum refiners, and food producers lack standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) approval of E15 — a blend of gasoline and 15% ethanol — for motor vehicles manufactured after 2000.

Petitioners argued that the EPA acted illegally. Section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits the introduction of new fuels and additives into the U.S. motor fuel supply unless the manufacturer demonstrates that such fuels or additives “will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system” of any motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad vehicle, or nonroad engine manufactured after model year 1974. By the EPA’s own admission, E15 can contribute to emission failures in vehicles manufactured between 1975 and 2000. Petitioners argued that CAA 211(f) gives the EPA no authority to grant a “partial waiver” for the sale of new fuels or additives to a subset of vehicles (e.g., model years 2001 and later).

Chief Justice David Sentelle and Judge David Tatel held that petitioners lack standing to sue. According to Sentelle and Tatel, petitioners could not show that the EPA’s approval of E15 would likely cause a ‘concrete’ and ‘imminent’ injury to any automaker, refiner, or food producer.

I’ll grant that the automakers’ asserted injury may be ‘speculative’ or ‘conjectural.’ However, it is hard to fathom how the EPA’s approval of E15 would not impose substantial costs on both petroleum refiners and food producers. The switch from E10 to E15 means a 50% increase in the quantity of ethanol blended into the nation’s motor fuel supply, potentially increasing ethanol sales from 14 billion gallons a year to 21 billion gallons. Since nearly all U.S. ethanol today comes from corn, the switch to E15 could substantially increase demand for corn, corn prices, and the quantity of corn diverted from feed and food production to motor fuel production.

Sentelle and Tatal argued that refiners and food producers are not injured because the EPA is merely giving refiners the ‘option’ to blend and sell E15, not forcing them to do so. But this is a distinction without a difference. As the justices acknowledge, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) will soon require refiners to sell more ethanol than can be blended as E10. Thus, if the EPA waiver is upheld, refiners will have no real choice but to blend and sell E15, and this will impose substantial, predictable costs on both refiners and food producers. Their injury is concrete and imminent. The Court, therefore, should have reviewed the case on the merits and struck down the waiver as exceeding the EPA’s authority under CAA Section 211.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent is so powerful and convincing that I will be surprised if the case is not appealed and overturned. Excerpts from Kavanaugh’s dissent follow.  

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

In order to issue the waiver under the statute, EPA had to find that E15 would not cause any car models made after 1974 to fail to meet emissions standards. EPA found that E15 could cause emissions failures in some cars made after 1974 (namely, in cars made between 1975 and 2000). Nonetheless, EPA still granted the waiver. For the first time ever, EPA granted what it termed a “partial waiver,” meaning that the waiver allowed E15 use only in cars made after 2000.

In this suit, members of the food industry and the petroleum industry contend that EPA’s E15 waiver is illegal. The food group is suing because, as a result of EPA’s E15 waiver, ethanol production will increase and demand for corn (a necessary raw material for ethanol) will rise significantly. In turn, corn prices will rise. Therefore, food producers, which compete directly with ethanol producers in the upstream market for purchasing corn, will have to pay more for corn. The petroleum group is suing because, as a result of EPA’s E15 waiver and the statutory renewable fuel mandate, those in the petroleum industry now must refine, sell, transport, and store E15, incurring significant costs to do so. 

Despite the fact that two enormous American industries will be palpably and negatively affected by EPA’s allegedly illegal E15 waiver, the majority opinion tosses the case for lack of standing.

The food group includes producers of processed food made with corn and those who raise livestock fed with corn. It is hard to overestimate the significance of corn to the American food industry. And petitioners’ submissions to EPA and this Court reveal the following about the effects of EPA’s E15 waiver on the food industry: In E10, up to 10% of gasoline is made up of ethanol. In E15, up to 15% of gasoline is made up of ethanol. That’s a 50% increase in the amount of ethanol used. In hard numbers, with only E10 on the trade market, 14 billion gallons of ethanol could be produced each year for the Nation’s gasoline supply. With E15 on the market, 21 billion gallons of ethanol can be produced each year. That’s an additional 7 billion gallons of ethanol annually produced for use in the U.S. gasoline supply. As a result of the E15 waiver, there is likely – indeed, nearly certain in the current market – to be a significant increase in demand for corn to produce ethanol. The extra demand means that corn producers can charge a higher price. Therefore, the E15 waiver will likely cause higher corn prices, and members of the food group that depend on corn will be injured.

This is Economics 101 and requires no elaborate chain of reasoning. It is no surprise that EPA – which is typically quite aggressive in asserting standing objections in lawsuits against it – has not contested the food group’s standing in this case.

When an agency illegally regulates an entity’s competitor in a way that harms the entity – for example, by loosening regulation of the competitor – we have said that the entity has Article III standing to challenge the allegedly illegal regulation. . . .Here, EPA’s E15 waiver loosens a prohibition on gasoline and ethanol producers and thereby harms entities such as the food group that directly compete with gasoline and ethanol producers in the upstream market for purchase of corn.

To show causation, the petroleum group must demonstrate a “substantial probability” that the E15 will cause at least one of its members to incur higher costs. Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002). To be sure, the E15 waiver alone does not require the petroleum group to use E15, make changes, and incur costs. But we cannot consider the E15 waiver in some kind of isolation chamber. The Energy Independence and Security Act imposes a renewable fuel mandate that requires a certain amount of renewable fuel to be introduced into the market every year. Pursuant to that law, an increasing amount of renewable fuel such as ethanol – rising to 36 billion gallons in 2022 – must be introduced into the market. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(2)(B)(i)(I). EPA regulations identify petroleum refiners and importers who produce gasoline as “obligated” parties – they are responsible for introducing a percentage of the required amount into the market each year. 40 C.F.R. § 80.1406; see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 80.1407, 80.1427.

Before the E15 waiver, however, petroleum producers likely could not meet the requirement set by the statutory renewable fuel mandate. Now that EPA has allowed E15 onto the market, producers likely can meet the renewable fuel mandate – but they must produce E15 in order to do so. So the combination of the renewable fuel mandate and the E15 waiver will force gasoline producers to produce E15. In tort law, when two acts combine to create an injury, both acts are considered causes of the injury. So it is here. In the current market, there is at least a “substantial probability” that, in the wake of the E15 waiver, gasoline producers will have to use E15 in order to meet the renewable fuel mandate. And that’s all that the petroleum group needs to show to carry its burden on the causation issue. . . .On those facts, the petroleum group’s injury is not self-imposed, but is directly caused by the agency action under review in this case. For those reasons, the petroleum group has Article III standing to challenge the E15 waiver provision.

The majority opinion concludes otherwise. But the fundamental flaw in the majority opinion’s reasoning is its belief that petroleum producers could meet the renewable fuel mandate without using E15. In the current market, the majority opinion’s assumption is simply incorrect as a matter of fact. One way to answer the causation question in this case is to ask the following: In the real world, does the petroleum industry have a realistic choice not to use E15 and still meet the statutory renewable fuel mandate? The answer is no, and  intervenor Growth Energy’s claim to the contrary seems rooted in fantasy.

Having found that there is standing, I turn to the merits of this case. The merits are not close. In granting the E15 partial waiver, EPA ran roughshod over the relevant statutory limits.

Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act prohibits manufacturers of fuel or fuel additives from introducing new fuels or fuel additives into commerce for use in car models made after 1974, unless the new fuel or fuel additive is “substantially similar” to certain fuels or fuel additives already in use. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(f)(1)(B). All agree that E15 is not substantially similar to fuels already in use. But Section 211(f)(4) allows EPA to waive that prohibition if EPA “determines that the applicant has established that such fuel or fuel additive or a specified concentration thereof, and the emission products of such fuel or fuel additive or specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards with respect to which it has been certified.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(f)(4) (emphasis added). Put in plain English, in order to approve a waiver, EPA must find that the proposed new fuel will not cause any car model made after 1974 to fail emissions standards.

Here, EPA issued a waiver for E15 even though it acknowledged that E15 likely would contribute to the failure of some cars made after 1974 (namely, those made between 1975 and 2000) to achieve compliance with emissions standards. EPA maintains that E15 will not contribute to the failure of emissions control systems in cars built in 2001 and later. But EPA concedes that E15 likely will contribute to the failure of emissions control systems in some cars built before 2001. EPA’s E15 waiver thus plainly runs afoul of the statutory text. EPA’s disregard of the statutory text is open and notorious – and not much more needs to be said.

EPA does throw out a few arguments to try to get around the text of the statute. None is persuasive.

First, EPA tries to weave ambiguity out of clarity in the statutory text. EPA contends that the statute does not expressly address partial waivers. But as petitioners aptly  respond in their brief, to suggest “‘that Chevron step two is implicated any time a statute does not expressly negate the existence of a claimed administrative power (i.e., when the statute is not written in ‘thou shalt not’ terms), is both flatly unfaithful to the principles of administrative law, and refuted by precedent.’” Petitioners’ Reply Br. 8-9 (quoting API v. EPA, 52 F.3d 1113, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). There is no plausible way to read this statute as allowing partial waivers of the kind granted by EPA here.

EPA also suggests that a plain text reading of the statute would be absurd – “[c]learly Congress did not mean to require testing of every vehicle or engine.” EPA Br. 23. But that argument confuses methods with standards. As to methods, the statute may allow EPA to test a reasonable sample of vehicles and extrapolate from those results to conclude that a new fuel will not cause any vehicles to fail their emissions tests. But the standard remains that a new fuel cannot cause any vehicles to fail their emissions tests. Just because EPA can restrict its testing to a reasonable sample does not mean that EPA can restrict its waivers to a subset.

If Congress wanted to authorize this kind of partial waiver, it could easily have said so (and going forward, could still easily do so). After all, the statute elsewhere allows EPA to partially waive other statutory requirements.

The food group petitioners and the petroleum group petitioners each independently have standing to challenge EPA’s E15 waiver. On the merits, EPA’s E15 waiver is flatly contrary to the plain text of the statute. I would grant the petition for review and vacate EPA’s E15 waiver decision. I respectfully dissent.

The worst drought in 50 years has destroyed one-sixth of the U.S. corn crop. The USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WSDE) report, released Friday, projects the smallest corn crop in six years and the lowest corn yields per acre since 1995.

As acreage, production, and yields declined, corn prices spiked. Last week, corn futures hit a record high of $8.29-3/4 per bushel.

If corn prices remain  high through 2013, livestock producers who use corn as a feedstock will incur billions of dollars in added costs. “These additional costs will either be passed on to consumers through increased food prices, or poultry farmers will be forced out of business,” warn the National Chicken Council and National Turkey Federation.

Even before the drought hit, corn prices were high. Prices increased from $2.00 a bushel in 2005/2006 to $6.00 a bushel in 2011/2012, notes FarmEcon LLC. A key inflationary factor is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), commonly known as the ethanol mandate. Since 2005, the RFS has required more and more billions of bushels to be used to fuel cars rather than feed livestock and people.

Suspension of the mandate would allow meat, poultry, and dairy producers to compete on a level playing field with ethanol producers for what remains of the drought-ravaged crop. That would reduce corn prices, benefiting livestock producers and consumers alike.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has authority under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) to waive the RFS blending targets, in whole or in part, if she determines that those requirements “would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United States.” The pressure on her to do so is mounting.

On July 30, a coalition of meat, dairy, and poultry producers petitioned Jackson to waive the 2012 and 2013 RFS blending requirements. From the petition:

As detailed below, the extraordinary and disastrous circumstances created for livestock and poultry producers by the ongoing drought in the heart of our grain growing regions requires that all relevant measures of relief be explored and taken where possible. One of these measures must be the amount of grain utilized for the production of renewable fuel. The ongoing drought is taking an enormous toll on the nation’s corn crop. As we detail below, the 15.2 billon gallon  renewable fuel standard (“RFS”) in 2012 coupled with the prospect of a 16.55 billion gallon standard in 2013 will require the renewable fuels industry to utilize a major portion of the drought-limited available corn supply. The drought-induced reductions in the corn supply means that the mandated utilization of corn for renewable fuels will so reduce the supply of corn and increase its price that livestock and poultry producers will be forced to reduce the size of their herds and flocks, causing some to go out of business and jobs to be lost. In addition to this direct harm, these herd and flock reductions will ripple through the meat, milk and poultry sectors, causing severe harm in the form of more job and economic losses. This drought-induced harm exists now, will continue to exist into the latter part of 2012 and 2013, and could continue to be felt in 2014 depending on the policy choices made now.

On August 1, bi-partisan groups of 156 House Members  and 26 Senators sent letters to Jackson asking her to “adjust” the RFS targets in light of the drought and rising corn prices. The House letter argues, in part:

As you are aware, U.S. corn prices have consistently risen, and the corn market has been increasingly volatile, since expansion of the RFS in 2007. This reflects the reality that approximately 40 percent of the corn crop now goes into ethanol production, a dramatic rise since the first ethanol mandates were put in place in 2005. Ethanol now consumes more corn than animal agriculture, a fact directly attributable to the federal mandate. While the government cannot control the weather, it fortunately has one tool still available that can directly impact corn demand. By adjusting the normally rigid Renewable Fuel Standard to align with current market conditions, the federal government can help avoid a dangerous economic situation because of the prolonged record high cost of corn.

 On August 9, Secretary General of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Jose Graziano da Silva called for an “immediate, temporary suspension” of the mandate  to help avert a repeat of the 2008 food crisis.

Also on August 9, the Govs. of Delaware (Jack Markell) and Maryland (Martin O’Malley), both Democrats, sent Jackson a letter in support of the industry coalition’s petition. From the Governors’ letter to Jackson:

In 2012, more than 40% of the U.S. annual corn supply was to be used to meet the RFS corn based ethanol requirements established annually by the EPA. If you were to exercise your statutory authority to waive the RFS standards for the next year, it would make more than 5 billion bushels of corn available to the marketplace for animal feed and foodstuffs, driving down costs and significantly lessening the financial impact to Delmarva’s [Delaware-Maryland-Virginia] poultry farms and consumers. While there may be some who question the true price impact of waiving the RFS standards for a limited period, those debates are quantitative, not qualitative, as it is not in dispute that a waiver would put downward pressure on corn pricing. Given the likely impacts to the poultry industry, not to mention the increased cost of food for consumers, of this dramatic increase in price due to the undersupply of corn, it is hard to imagine any scenario when exercising your authority would be more appropriate.

There is, alas, little chance Jackson will waive any part of the RFS. That would be asking an executive agency to put economic rationality ahead of political calculation in a presidential election year. President Obama today makes his fifth visit to Iowa this year. Iowa, with six electoral votes, is the heart of corn country. Supporting a waiver to lower corn prices would spoil the President’s photo ops.

Today’s Greenwire (subscription required) reports that the USDA has announced it will purchase up to $170 million worth of meat, poultry, and catfish to help producers who have been adversely affected by high corn prices. The fix on offer is not to scale back regulatory excess but to expand corporate welfare.