Blog

The analysis below subjects EPA’s proposed Carbon Pollution Standard to the D.C. Circuit Court’s rigorous standard of review under Clean Air Act Section 111. Previously, I explained how EPA’s proposed standard, whose purpose is to reduce greenhouse gases, is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions in practice.

New studies are raising doubts about the reliability of climate model forecasts. As far back as the 1970s, most climate models have anticipated a decline in Antarctic sea ice. However, instead of declining, Antarctic sea ice in 2013 has approached record levels not seen since the 1970s. Scientists are scrambling to find explanations for this anomaly, but one thing is clear – model projections are facing a crisis of credibility.  If actual conditions diverge from the predicted, then how can we trust the predictions? It seems we are as likely to arrive to the truth about the Earth’s future climate using models as we are from reading tea leaves or performing an augury to pagan gods.

In order to salvage their credibility, scientists have sought a variable to explain away the errors of their models – increased polar winds. According to a new study, increased polar winds have offset the effect of rising temperatures. Adjusting for higher polar winds, models were able to account for 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic ice cover. The author of the study, Dr. Jinlun Zhang, an Oceanographer at the University of Washington, describes the results:

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging. Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth

While higher winds could be driving the increase in polar ice, the remaining 20 percent of the increase remains unaccounted. This suggests some other factor, or combination of factors, might be driving the decrease. Moreover, scientists admit they are uncertain why the models did not anticipate the increase in polar wind. Thus, the explanation for the model error is based on the admission the models were wrong about polar wind speed. If the models were wrong about polar wind speed, then criticism about model reliability still stands.

Accepting this explanation, however, raises another problem. According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Cover Data Center, previous studies suggest increases in polar wind speed lead to a faster rate of sea ice melt. How can the wind both increase and decrease the extent of ice?

It is clear that models must be taken with a grain of salt. Scientists are often uncertain about the exact cause of long-term changes in the Earth’s climate. Numerous variables should be considered. As Zhang notes in the study,

Still unknown is why the southern winds have been getting stronger. Some scientists have theorized that it could be related to global warming, or to the ozone depletion in the Southern Hemisphere, or just to natural cycles of variability.

The Obama administration’s major new plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions appears to have a major flaw: It would increase carbon dioxide emissions.

Talk about an unintended consequence!

Last Friday, EPA proposed a regulation, known as the Carbon Pollution Standard, which would require partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all new coal-fired power plants. In fact, it is highly debatable whether CCS can actually be achieved. Industry claims—and I agree—that the technology is not yet commercially viable, and therefore violates the Clean Air Act’s requirement that CCS be “adequately demonstrated” before it can be imposed as a regulatory requirement. EPA, on the other hand, claims that CCS is feasible.*

*For all the details: I’m currently working on a comprehensive review of the legality of EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standard. It will be done soon and then I will post it here.

However, whether or not CCS technology is achievable may become a moot point, in light of the fact that the technology as envisioned by EPA would increase greenhouse gas emissions, thereby rendering the rule plainly absurd. Allow me to explain.

Due to the high cost of capturing, transporting, and sequestering carbon dioxide, EPA expects that any new coal fired power plants built in the foreseeable future will defray the costs of CCS by selling its carbon dioxide to oil companies, which can use the gas to help extract oil by displacing liquid fuels deep underground, in a process known as CO2 enhanced oil recovery (or CO2-EOR). In the proposed rule, EPA states that, “as a practical matter, we expect that new fossil fuel fired EGUs that install CCS will generally make the captured CO2 available for use in EOR operations (p 262).”

Moreover, EPA expects the CO2 supply created by the Carbon Pollution Standard will spur development of oil recovery. The agency claims,

“oil and gas fields now considered to be ‘depleted’ may resume operation because of increased availability and decreased cost of anthropogenic CO2, and developments in EOR technology, thereby increasing the demand for and accessibility of CO2 utilization for EOR (p 232).”

So…EPA expects that plants complying with the Carbon Pollution Standard will sell their captured CO2 to oil producers. And by increasing the supply of commercial CO2 on the market, EPA posits that the price of CO2 will decrease, leading to a boom in oil and gas production.

But there’s a HUGE problem with EPA’s proposal. It completely fails to take into account the expanded carbon footprint of the oil industry caused by its power plant rule. And, if my admittedly simplistic calculations are correct, EPA’s rule would result in an increase of carbon dioxide emissions.

I should note here that CO2-EOR is an engineering marvel, one that I would never pretend to comprehend. So I called someone who does. And I asked him whether there was a relationship between the amount of CO2 injected in an EOR well, and the amount of oil that comes out. He replied that there was, and that it is known in the industry as the “utilization ratio.” He explained that a utilization ratio is not a static figure. Evidently, the initial stages of drilling require much more CO2 than the later stages. After cautioning that the calculation of a utilization ratio is highly sensitive to assumptions, he said that a reasonably representative utilization ratio is 5,000 cubic feet of CO2 per barrel of oil. I then asked how much does a standard cubed foot of CO2 weigh, and he answered .05189 kilograms. Finally, I looked up online the weight of CO2 emissions from the combustion of a barrel of oil. The answer is 433 kilograms.

With this data, it is possible to calculate a rough approximation of how much CO2 will be created by each kilogram of CO2 captured from a CCS coal plant, and used to enhance oil recovery.

1 Kg CCS CO2*(1 cubed foot CO2/.05189 Kg)*(1 barrel oil/5,000 cubed feet)*(433 Kg CO2/1 barrel oil)

This works out to 1.66 Kg CO2 emitted for each 1 Kg CO2 captured and then used in EOR.

Assuming that a CCS project captures 600 lbs CO2/MWh and that the plant is running at 85% capacity, then a typical coal plant in compliance with EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standard would result in the emission of 1.3 million more kilograms of CO2 than the plant would “save” per megawatt capacity annually. And that doesn’t include the emissions due to the energy input necessary to extract the oil.

Again, I’m no engineer. So if my math is wrong, please let me know (I can be reached at wyeatman@cei.org ). If I’m right, however, then this rule is toast.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on 17th September on the nomination of Ron Binz to be chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  It was not a pleasant day for Mr. Binz, but his week went downhill from there.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking Republican on the committee, asked Binz why he had told her in a private meeting that he wasn’t working with an outside PR firm to support his confirmation, when e-mails released soon after showed that he was working with the hard-left firm Venn Squared Communications plus two lobbyists who have many energy company clients.  In response, Binz said, “I apologize if I have left a different impression from what we now agree has happened.”

It didn’t work.  Senator Murkowski announced at the end of the hearing that she could not support Binz’s confirmation.  The next day Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that he would vote no.  Then Senator Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who always has to worry about what his fellow Nevada Senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, can do to him, sent out a press release announcing that he would vote no.  By the end of the week, all the Republican Senators on the committee had come out against Binz.  If Manchin plus all the Republicans vote against him in committee mark-up, the nomination will fail on an 11 to 11 tie.

President Obama’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) nominee Ron Binz was caught in a tangle of contradictions during his confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

For starters, Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) suggested that Binz misled her during a previous face to face meeting. As reported by Politico’s Darius Dixon,

Murkowski suggested early in the hearing that Binz may have misled her last week when they discussed whom he has worked with to guide his confirmation.

“You’ve effectively got a team — a shadow team* — of lobbyists and PR experts that have been helping throughout,” she told Binz. She added, “But what I can’t reconcile is your statement to me that said the only ones that you were working were the FERC external team.” (full article here)

So that’s one instance of Binz seeming to bend the truth before the U.S. Senate.

Later, during the same hearing, Binz told another apparent whopper. According to our friend Todd Shepherd at Complete Colorado,

Mr. Binz attempted to defend his record on coal by telling Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Va.), “I approved the largest coal plant that was ever built in Colorado.”* Mr. Binz is referring to the Comanche-3 power plant. Only the Colorado Public Utilities Commission would have the authority to approve new coal plants.

The problem is the fact the decision by Colorado’s PUC to build the largest coal plant in the state’s history came in 2004, according to Xcel Energy’s website. Mr. Binz did not become a member of the PUC board until 2007.

Alas, there’s more.

Regarding a 2010 fuel switching plan that Binz implemented as Chair of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the FERC nominee told the junior Senator from West Virginia, “The legislation told us to approve a plan to comply with future EPA regulations.”

Binz clearly was intimating to Sen. Manchin, who represents a pro-coal state, that it was Colorado lawmakers (rather than Ron Binz) who were responsible for the plan that required fuel switching from coal to gas for almost 1,000 megawatts of power generation. But that’s not the whole story. As I explain in this report on Binz’s Colorado history, Binz helped write the fuel switching law! Here’s the relevant excerpt from the report (citations omitted):

Binz’s operating thesis is that “today’s regulation may not be up to the task” of “making over” the utility industry. Thus, Binz sought to expand his regulatory role at the Colorado PUC, in order to facilitate clean energy investment and energy efficiency. To this end, he actually participated in the drafting of legislation that mandated fuel switching from coal to gas for almost 1,000 megawatts of power generation. From a separation of powers perspective, it is unsettling that Binz helped write legislation whose implementation he oversaw. Due to this appearance of impropriety, seven Colorado state senators sent former Colorado governor Bill Ritter a letter demanding that Binz recuse himself from implementing the fuel switching law.

Binz’s seeming difficulty telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was not without consequence. At the hearing, Sen. Murkowski announced her intention to oppose his nomination. And yesterday, Sen. Manchin announced his opposition, citing Binz’s Colorado history.

Assuming that no Republican breaks ranks with Ranking Member Sen. Murkowski and all the Committee Democrats (other than Sen. Manchin) vote for Binz, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee vote is 11 -11. This puts confirmation in doubt. According to National Journal, “since 1987 only five nominations that got a neutral reporting from a committee were brought to the floor, and only one was approved.”

A neutral committee report would be an extraordinary development coming from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is known for harmony. However, Binz is an extraordinary case. As I explain in the aforementioned study on his history in Colorado, Binz has a troubling record of pushing the boundaries of regulatory power in order to discriminate against fossil fuels and promote green energy.

*N.B. The existence of Binz’s “shadow team” was revealed earlier this week by the Washington Times’s Stephen Dinan. His report, in turn, was based on emails obtained by my colleague Chris Horner on behalf the Independence Institute and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic.