Blog

On Friday, I participated in an online video interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel regarding the green scandal that engulfed Oregon Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber. After the video, I’ve posted my summary of the situation.

Oregon’s Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber announced his resignation on Friday, 13th February, as the result of revelations that Oregon’s “First Lady” Cylvia Hayes has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs from green energy clients and non-profit groups to promote their interests.  Kitzhaber will be succeeded by Oregon’s elected Secretary of State, Kate Brown, until a special election is held in November 2016 to fill the last two years of his term.

Hayes has been Kitzhaber’s girlfriend for several years and more recently his fiancée.  The governor designated her as Oregon’s official first lady and allowed her to run her clean energy consulting business out of the governor’s mansion and gave her authority to direct state employees on policies related to her clients.  Hayes received payments from some of these clients that were not reported by her in state conflict of interest filings.  These payments included $118,000 from the Clean Economy Development Center in 2011 and 2012 and a further $85,000 in 2013, including $50,000 from the Energy Foundation. [click to continue…]

Which State in the lower 48 has the highest gas prices? You probably already know the answer. But today’s gas price map on GasBuddy.com is too pretty not to share with visitors to this blog.

The long-reigning, undisputed champion of pain at the pump is (drum roll . . .) the State with the most ‘progressive’ energy and climate policies.

Source: GasBuddy.Com

EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CCP) would set carbon dioxide (CO2) performance standards for state electric power sectors. The standards are calibrated in pounds CO2 per megawatt hour. They translate into statewide emission-reduction mandates or caps. On average, states would have to reduce their power-sector CO2 emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Under §111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), a performance standard, whether for new or existing sources, must reflect the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) that has been “adequately demonstrated,” taking “cost” into account.

Performance standards must also be “achievable,” defined by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to mean achievable by the regulated industry as a whole (National Lime Association V. EPA, 627 F. 2d 416 at 443 [1980]).

Finally, before EPA may promulgate “existing source performance standards” (ESPS), as it proposes to do through the CPP, the agency must first promulgate new source performance standards (NSPS), as it proposes to do through the Carbon Pollution Standards rule.

State policymakers should have no legal qualms about refusing to comply with the CPP. EPA’s proposal is unlawful on at least 10 counts.

(1) CAA § 111(d) prohibits EPA from requiring ESPS for sources already regulated under §112. EPA has been regulating power plants under §112 since December 2011, when the agency finalized the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. Therefore, the very provision under which EPA proposes to establish performance standards for existing power plants prohibits the agency from doing so.

(2) A state’s electric-power sector is not a “source” to which a performance standard may lawfully be assigned. Unlike all previous §111 performance standards, which, pursuant to the statute, apply to “particular sources,” CPP proposes to cap emissions from each state’s entire electric-power sector. CAA §111(a)(3) defines “stationary source” (whether new or existing) as “any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.” Obviously, a state’s power sector is not any such individual physical object.

(3) A “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) is a technology or set of technology options “adequately demonstrated” for “designated facilities,” not a green wish-list of market-restructuring energy policies Congress has repeatedly declined to approve. Nothing in the statutory text, EPA’s implementing regulations, or past practice indicates that EPA may control state policies regarding renewable energy, electricity dispatch, or demand management.

(4) A BSER for CO2 emissions from existing power plants does not exist. Commercial technology to capture or filter CO2 emissions from existing power plants has not yet been developed, as EPA admits. Hence there is no “best system of emission reduction” on the basis of which EPA or states could set CO2 performance standards for existing power plants. [click to continue…]

As previously discussed on this blog, the EPA recently challenged a key conclusion of the State Department’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL).

State concluded that denying approval of the KXL would actually increase net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Canadian crude would still reach U.S. refiners, it would just come by alternate modes of delivery (principally rail transport) that are more carbon-intensive than the proposed pipeline. The alternate routes would emit 28% to 42% more carbon dioxide (CO2) per barrel of oil delivered (FSEIS, ES-34).

That assessment was intolerable to Keystone haters, and last week EPA came riding to their rescue.

EPA argued that State’s GHG impact assessment assumes crude oil prices remain at $75 per barrel or higher. When oil prices fall into the $65-$75 range, State acknowledged, the additional cost incurred to transport crude by rail could make new oil sands development projects uneconomical. Thus, EPA reasoned, with crude prices now hovering around $50 per barrel, building the KXL could make uneconomic oil sands projects commercially viable, increasing oil sands development and the associated emissions beyond what would otherwise occur.

As noted in my previous post, EPA did not accurately describe State’s analysis. State did not opine that blocking the KXL by itself would render oil sands development uneconomical in a period of low oil prices. Rather, State opined that the higher cost of rail transport would constrain oil sands development if “all new and expanded Canadian and cross-border pipeline capacity, beyond just the proposed Project, is not constructed” (FSEIS, ES-12, emphasis added).

Yesterday, TransCanada, the corporation seeking to build the KXL, sent a letter to State rebutting EPA’s critique. In a nutshell, TransCanada argues, quoting the FSEIS, that the “dominant drivers of oil sands development are more global than any single infrastructure project,” pointing out that both Canadian and U.S. Bakken crude production increased since late 2008, despite crude oil prices falling below $75 per barrel during most of December 2008-December 2009.

From TransCanada’s letter (footnotes removed):

In updating the market assessment and related conclusions . . . the Department should take note that history has demonstrated short- and medium-term fluctuations in oil prices do not significantly impact whether the oil sands resource will be developed. When TransCanada applied for approval of the Project in late 2008, the price of oil closed around $41 per barrel. Today the price is approximately $50 per barrel and over that period of time the price of oil has ranged between $110 per barrel and $39 per barrel. Over that same period of time, Canadian oil sands production has grown from 1.2 million barrels per day to 2.1 million barrels per day, an increase of 0.9 million barrels per day or 1.2 times the capacity of the Project. In addition, over that period of time, US Bakken crude oil production has grown from 0.25 million barrels per day to 1.1 million barrels per day, an increase of 0.9 million barrels per day or nine times the capacity of TransCanada’s Bakken Marketlink Project. It is clear that building or not building the Project will not cause crude oil production to go up or down. [click to continue…]

Over the last two days, energy reporters from Politico and National Journal have reached opposite conclusions regarding the congressional GOP caucus’s strategy on climate change.

Here’s Politico on Monday:

And here’s National Journal on Tuesday.

They both can’t be right! I suspect Politico’s Schor is closer to the truth, and that the GOP isn’t yet willing to challenge the President’ climate regulations. There are three tea leaves that suggest as much. [click to continue…]

Over at Chris Mooney’s Washington Post energy and environment blog, which goes by the twitter handle “@PostGreen,” there’s a recent piece by Puneet Kollipara that is titled, “No, climate models aren’t exaggerating global warming.” According to Dictionary.com, “exaggerate” means to “overstate.” Now, keeping in mind both the title of the post and also the definition of “exaggerate,” consider Kollipara’s fourth paragraph:

It’s true that air temperatures have increased slower in the past 15 years or so, and climate models on average instead predicted much more warming. And scientists are slowly beginning to figure out why temperatures didn’t rise quite as much as expected. 

To my eyes, the excerpt above seems to blatantly contradict the title.

This same thing happened yesterday, in a Grist blog by David Roberts. The title of that post is “Obama’s carbon rule hangs on this one legal question.” He’s referring to EPA’s illegitimate and illegal Clean Power Plan. For the first 16 paragraphs, Roberts describes the “one legal question” that will make or break the rule. And then, he says (in a parenthetical, no less):

(For another argument that EPA’s interpretation is likely to be struck down in court, see this paper from lawyers Brian Potts and David Zoppo.) [click to continue…]

On Friday, the White House released its National Security Strategy, which lists climate change alongside international terrorism and Russian aggression as the preeminent threats today facing the United States. This assessment mirrors the tone struck by President Obama during his State of the Union, when he said that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

Thus, both the National Security Strategy and the State of the Union Address elevate the threat of AGW, such that it exists on par with the direst perils facing America. And yet, for the third weekend in a row since the State of the Union, and only days removed from the roll-out of the National Security Strategy, the four Sunday political talkies failed to field a question about climate change (see chart).

Of course, all four shows dealt squarely with ISIS and the Ukraine, which are co-equal threats with climate change, per the White House. For example, NBC Meet the Press host Chuck Todd scored the sole interview with Secretary of State John Kerry, who wears on his sleeve his belief that climate change is among America’s clearest and most present dangers. The host is no dummy; he’s perfectly aware that Kerry would love nothing more than wax lyrical about the putative threat posed by global warming. Nonetheless, Todd grilled Kerry about the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and he even asked him whether he would rule out another run for President in 2016, but he didn’t ask Kerry a single question about climate change.

Other weekend notes: [click to continue…]

The State Department’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL Pipeline vexes environmentalists. While acknowledging that petroleum made from Canadian oil sands emits 17% more CO2 than other types of heavy crude (FSEIS, ES-15), State concluded that U.S. refiners would obtain roughly the same amount of Canadian crude whether permission to build the pipeline is granted or denied.

If denied, the oil would just come by alternate modes of delivery, principally trains but also incremental pipelines and barges. Those other routes are not only more costly but also less energy efficient than transport via the proposed KXL. Thus, State concluded, compared to the KXL, transport by rail would emit 28% to 42% more CO2. [FEIS, ES-34] Implication: If you’re really worried about global warming, then you should support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Beautiful!

In a letter sent Monday Feb. 2, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles asked State to revisit that assessment. State estimated that as long as crude oil sells for $75 per barrel or higher, “revenues to oil sands producers are likely to remain above the long-run supply costs of most projects responsible for expected levels of oil sands production growth.” [FEIS, ES-12]. Producers would still earn profits notwithstanding the extra cost – roughly $8 per barrel — to ship the oil by rail rather than through a big new pipeline.

Times have changed, Giles argues. State published its FSEIS in January 2014, when West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude sold at about $94 per barrel. In recent weeks, WTI crude has been selling below $50 per barrel.

Giles quotes State’s conclusion that if oil prices decline to $65-$75 per barrel, the higher transport costs of shipment by rail “could have a substantial impact on oil sands production levels — possibly in excess of the capacity of the proposed project.” Indeed, State goes on to say,  “Prices below this [$65-$75] range would challenge the supply costs of many projects, regardless of pipeline constraints, but higher transport costs could further curtail production.” [FSEIS, ES-12]

Giles concludes: “In other words, the Final SEIS found that at sustained oil prices within this range, construction of the pipeline is projected to change the economics of oil sands development and result in increased oil sands production, and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, over what would otherwise occur.” She advises State to give “additional weight” to the “low price scenario” in the FSEIS “due to the potential implications of lower oil prices on project impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions.”

Allow me to translate. The future of Canada’s oil sands industry may have looked bright a year ago. Today that future is clouded by falling prices and profit margins. A long period of low prices could force a large contraction and throw tens of thousands of people out of work. So let’s kick ‘em while they’re down! Let’s deny oil companies the option to invest their own money to cut operating expenses, protect their capital investment, or just plain survive.

To opponents, the Keystone XL Pipeline is objectionable precisely because it will increase the economic efficiency of an industry they believe should not exist. [click to continue…]

On last night’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the eponymous host went off on a bizarre rant (goaded by the audience, alas) during which he said that we perfectly understand the climate, but we “don’t know” about vaccines, fake  sugar, genetically modified foods, and the benefits of moderate drinking. Wacky stuff. I’ve provided a partial transcript below.

BM: Could I make one more point about the media that bothered me this week. The analogy that I see all the time where if you ask any questions [about vaccines] then you are the same thing as a global warming denier. I think this is a very bad analogy. Because I don’t think that all science is alike. I think climate science is rather straightforward, cause you’re dealing with the earth. It’s a rock. I’m not saying that I know how to deal with it. But climate scientists, from the very beginning, have pretty much said the same thing. And their predictions have pretty much come true. It’s atmospherics. And its uhhh geology and chemistry. That’s not true of the medical industry. I mean, they’ve had to retract a million things. Because the human body is infinitely more mysterious. People get cancer, and doctors just don’t know why. They just don’t know why, and they don’t know how to fix it. And they put mercury in my teeth. I remember my father had ulcers, and they treated it wrong when I was a kid. I mean, I could go on with all the times that they’ve been wrong. So to compare the sciences, I just think, is wrong.

[Applause]

…

Again, about this era that we live, where we can’t ask any questions. I’m going to ask a few questions…

Maher then went on to question vaccines, sugar substitutes, genetically modified foods, and the benefits of moderate drinking. He concluded thusly:

There’s a lot we don’t know, unlike global warming, which we do know.  [click to continue…]