Category: Energy

New York Primary “Fracking” Fight

Bernie Sanders is demanding a nation-wide ban on hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” while he campaigns in the state of New York against Hillary Clinton, using the anti-fracking position of the state of New York to sway more voters over to his side.

Bernie’s campaign aligning with the anti-fracking effort claims that the drilling process has extremely hazardous effects. However, some very extensive studies prove otherwise.

Last year the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an extensive study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. The study:

  • Did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.
  • Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, there were specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells.
  • The number of identified cases, the study concluded however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

In addition to the EPA’s findings, the processes of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling created an energy/economic boom in the United States.

Apr 13, 2016 | 3 comments | by

Oregon & EPA Launch Aggressive Moves Against Coal

Oregon is now one of the first states to announce that it plans to officially wean itself off coal consumption. Governor Kate Brown signed a bill that prohibits the state’s utilities from purchasing coal-fired power after 2030. The bill is largely symbolic, since Oregon is not a coal producing state and consumes very little coal. In fact, Oregon produces and consumes far more hydroelectric energy than coal and natural gas.

  • The level of coal consumption has been steadily rising in Oregon.
  • Coal consumption is only 3 percent of all fossil fuel consumption.
  • Coal consumption is only 2 percent of all fuel and renewable energy consumption.
  • Hydroelectric power accounts for close to 35 to 40 percent of all of Oregon’s energy consumption.

In addition to Oregon’s anti-coal move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that 11 states have failed to submit plans to reduce sulfur dioxide air pollution. The EPA says the states have not reduced their emissions enough to meet federal limits or submitted plans to the EPA outlining how they will meet an October 2018 deadline for meeting standards.

Both of these efforts will more than likely have very little effect. Oregon is not much of a coal consuming state and the EPA’s deadline comes after the next federal administration is sworn into office.

Mar 14, 2016 | 5 comments | by

Utah Joins Oklahoma in Rejecting Clean Power Plan

The state of Utah has now joined Oklahoma in outright rejecting complying with the Clean Power Plan after the Supreme Court halted the regulations earlier in February. Utah was already a member of a coalition of 30 states challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the plan, all states are required to come up with their own carbon emission reduction goals or have federal goals imposed on the state. It directs states to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2030, specifically targeting the coal industry. An outright rejection may be viewed as the state is unwilling to come up with their own goals, thereby requiring the federal government to interfere in each state’s coal industry and electricity production.

Groups suing the agency say is an impossible goal that will raise energy prices and raise the potential for rolling blackouts. In addition, a study by NERA Economic Consulting concluded that:

The EPA has severely underestimated the cost of compliance with its regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, and by doing so it is trying to make Americans believe that the government can force the electric generating sector to eliminate a massive amount of low-cost coal-fired generation for little or relatively no cost. U.S. consumers of electricity will pay for prematurely retiring coal-fired plants through substantially higher electricity prices. Because EPA has set emission reduction targets by state, the impact of the higher costs will not be borne equally, but 40 states (out of 47 affected) could see average electricity prices rise by 10 percent or more and 27 states could see average electricity prices increase 20 percent or more.

With the recent Supreme Court decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, other states say they will continue to work on complying with the plan. EPA senior officials have said they will meet with any states that wish to voluntarily continue working on the regulations.

 

Mar 02, 2016 | 1 comment | by

Cruz’s Victory Against Ethanol Cartel

Most presidential candidates in the past would go to Iowa, the first state to cast a ballot for President of the United States, and proudly, boldly support ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) ‒ even if they talked badly about it everywhere else in the nation.

However, Senator Ted Cruz set himself apart from all the others. Cruz voted to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard. He stood up to the ethanol cartel, while he was campaigning very hard in Iowa. In response, the cartel mobilized an army to fight him, and they were defeated Monday night when he took first place in the Iowa Caucus.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a law requiring traditional fuel to have increasing blends of ethanol and later, other biofuels. However, the RFS plan has already failed.

 

Feb 03, 2016 | 2 comments | by

Murkowski Outlines Senate Energy Plan

In the GOP weekly address, Sen. Murkowski describes the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which includes liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Looks like it is still on the Senate calendar this week…although it may slip.

On LNG exports, the bill requires the Energy Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days, so the applications don’t linger. That’s for nations that don’t already have free trade agreements with us, since most free trade agreements already address expedited LNG exports. It also puts federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) in control of all federal LNG authorizations.

The bill authorizes a new “e-prize” competition, which is basically an x-prize for energy. I’m seeing more and more of these x-prizes in public policy.

The section on nuclear power misses the opportunity to promote molten salt reactors, a nice byproduct of a robust rare earth element policy…but it does call for more nuclear reactor fusion and fission reactor prototypes, so that might encompass molten salt even if it isn’t listed specifically.

There are a ton of repeals and program eliminations, which is a good sign of conservative legislation.

  • Repeal of the methanol study.
  • Repeal of the weatherization study.
  • Repeal of various DOE programs.

Unfortunately, it also reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is bad public policy.

Jan 25, 2016 | 1 comment | by

SOTU: President Obama’s Reckless Energy Policy

Last night, President Obama gave his final State of the Union (SOTU) address to the nation. He briefly discussed energy policy:

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.  Here are the results.  In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.  On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.  We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support.  Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.  Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future – especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels.  That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.  That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.

Seven years ago, President Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry, he has come pretty close to doing just that. The American coal industry is on the verge of collapse, with around 50 companies out of business and stock prices of the big four companies have fallen as much as 99 percent! Most recently, the second largest coal company has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In addition to all the regulations placed on the coal industry by the Obama administration, natural gas has experienced a boom due to new discoveries and the advanced technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Natural gas recently passed coal as America’s top source of energy power.

Despite the President’s efforts and the natural gas boom, coal is still a major source of American energy power. While, renewable energy is only supplying 6 percent of our electric power.

Wind power and solar power are also not cheap, compared to energy options such as natural gas and coal. The savings that the President is referring to are the very high subsidies that both the federal government and some states have been giving to individuals for buying wind or solar. Also, I am sure he is adding in the possible savings over something like 20 or 50 years. Yet leaving out the very high initial installation and maintenance costs.

The President’s SOTU last night coverage a variety of topics, including the reckless energy policy over the past seven years. An energy policy that has unnecessarily put our coal industry on life support, at a high cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Jan 13, 2016 | Leave a Comment | by

“Green” Energy: The Color of Money

In light of the recent legal filing for creditor protection by Spain-based, Abengoa, Inc., the viability of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is getting appropriate scrutiny and reconsideration. Through that program, the giant green-energy company received billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in grants, loans, and subsidies. Still, last week they were forced to close their cellulosic ethanol facility in Hugoton, Kansas. The court filing for creditor protection came the day before Thanksgiving and within a week, the Kansas employees received layoff notices while many creditors received nothing.

Economic predictions suggest taxpayer losses could amount to five-times that of the 2011 Solyndra collapse. For local farmers, $5 million in unpaid, delivered product prompted their cooperative (CHS, Inc.), to file a lawsuit just two days prior to Abengoa filing for protection in a Spanish court. While some articles and blogs appear to revel in an Obama administration failure, others denounce the fact-based reporting of Abengoa’s troubles as a hit-piece against green-energy. Neither position is accurate, valid or productive.

From a free-market, smaller government perspective, the issue is not green-energy versus traditional energy sources. There is no denying the world would be a better place if everyone had access to affordable, renewable clean energy. But, consider the financial sink-hole that is the Hugoton plant and contrast that with the stunning announcement that it has sold zero gallons of cellulosic ethanol, and it is apparent that to some the label of “green” energy denotes big money as opposed to an emphasis on low environmental impact.

It should be noted that Abengoa’s demise was not a shock to everyone. Various sources have been sounding the warning sirens for years.

  • A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warned of multiple challenges to RFS’s increasing volumes of biofuels, particularly cellulosic.
  • November 2011: Senator Jeff Sessions of the Senate Budget Committee specifically requested all documents relating to Abengoa and other solar companies from the Department of Interior (DOI).
  • 2012 GAO letter to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, and House & Senate members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations stating it was the sixth time GAO had reported its concerns about (DOE) loan guarantees for biofuels.
  • March 2012 GAO report to Congress restating concerns about the lack of adequate review and oversight by DOE and its $30 billion loan program, detailing Abengoa as the recipient of $1.2 billion.
  • March 2012: U.S. House Oversight Committee report specifically finds loans and resources granted to Abengoa, created excessive risk. The report reveals that “Abengoa managed to obtain a DOE loan commitment for the lowest rated project across the entire DOE Junk portfolio — which received an extraordinarily low CCC rating and was still approved by DOE for a direct loan to the project. This overinvestment in this single firm will likely cause substantial harm to the taxpayer.”
  • May 29, 2012: Letter from the U.S. House Oversight Committee threatened the Department of Interior (DOI) with “compulsory action” if they failed to release requested documents related to Abengoa and other solar companies. The Committee stated appearance of preferential treatment in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees.
  • April 30, 2013: Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported Abengoa of received $2 million dollars through The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for a project completed before the passing of the law.
  • May 1, 2014: GAO warned a significant threat to taxpayers in the DOE biofuels loan programs due to poor oversight and deviation from monitoring and qualifying procedures that, “pose an unacceptable risk of default.”

Highlighted above are but a few examples of serious problems with the government’s renewable fuels program. So, as presented, critics are not opposed to the concept of green energy but see the RFS as a seriously flawed mechanism to that end. The wasting of billions of dollars on infrastructure for a product that is not market ready could be better served funding advancing research projects in laboratories. The simple concept of putting the cart before the horse comes to mind. It is not Capitalism when the Federal government, through sheer financial force develops unsustainable, artificial industries.

Even Abengoa knew the Kansas plant would not be self-sustainable. In a 2014 report to DOE, the company presented their risk mitigation plan. The list included a push for the development of “energy crops”, continued dependence on the RFS to maintain a premium for ethanol, and to encourage the USDA to allow farmers to produce cellulosic biofuel crops on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands.

The Abengoa plan does not reflect the goal of eventual self-sufficiency, but instead, details what others may contribute to help restructure market fundamentals to suit Abengoa’s projected goals. That is not capitalism. We have limited lands for food production, and the thought of more farmland to biofuel production is alarming. Also, the move would defeat one of the RFS stated goals of developing renewable energy by utilizing material currently identified as low valued waste or by-products.

To be clear, green-energy, as in renewable, eco-friendly, sustainable, and affordable, is a national security and humanitarian issue. There is little debate about the need to pursue that end. But, the government mandates and financial handouts created extremely provocative incentives to abuse the U.S. taxpayers. Through big dollar, experimental programs that ignore market impact, economic viability, coupled with extremely lax oversight, the term “green-energy” takes on a different meaning.

Dec 14, 2015 | 3 comments | by

U.S. House Energy Bill Debate Today

The House of Representatives starts the debate today on 38 amendments out of an original 103 submitted for H.R. 8 —North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 — and concludes discussion tomorrow. The 2015 energy bill would modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America’s energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability.

Despite the President’s threat to veto the House bill, lawmakers from both parties have over one hundred amendments to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s broad energy bill to discuss in this week’s floor debate.

The amendments included many policy recommendations relating to energy, natural resources, infrastructure and grid security. Below are a few of the 38 amendments to be debated:

  • Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has filed an amendment to repeal the crude oil exports ban.
  • Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) is proposing to require the Secretary of Energy to collaborate with the Secretariat of Energy in Mexico and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada when developing guidelines to develop skills for an energy and manufacturing industry workforce.
  • Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) has offered an amendment that would establish a permitting process within DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Department for cross-border infrastructure projects.
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has an amendment that includes energy storage as a form of energy that DOE should consider to enhance emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions during natural disasters.
  • Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has an amendment that secures the most critical components of America’s electrical infrastructure against the threat posed by a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.
Dec 02, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Renewable Fuel Standard Mandates, or Not?

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) provisions of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), mandates an increasing blend of renewable products into our domestic fuel supply. The law amends the Clean Air Act, and allows for an initial blending of food-based ethanol (corn), beginning in 2008. In subsequent years, the blend was to transition towards satisfying the annually increasing volumes with non-food “second stage” cellulosic ethanol, referred to as RFS2. The cellulosic, or advanced biofuels, are derived from biological materials such as wood shavings, leaves, corn cobs and grasses. In addition to the blend provisions, the law requires the program to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the costly experiment has failed to meet several goals, including air quality and the defined blend requirements.

To explain, in 2008 Congress mandated the EPA to set the RFS at a 10% blend of corn ethanol. Drivers then began to see labels informing them of E10 in fuel pumps. By 2010, the law states we were to move towards the use of non-food products (the second-stage RFS2), to fill the increasing blend requirements. However, in 2010 and 2011, no cellulosic biofuel was available to fill the volume requirements. Similarly, in 2012 and 2013 the available production did not amount to 1% of the mandated levels. As a result, the EPA adjusted the blend formulas allowing for first stage corn-based ethanol to fill the void.

In 2011, the EPA approved the blend increase to E15 (15% ethanol). An increase mandated to include cellulosic renewables (non-food) as opposed to corn. Now, several years into the program, cellulosic biofuels are still not available. Nevertheless, the EPA should not continue to adjust the volumes between ethanol and biofuels. It was at the onset of the program in 2007 that the Department of Energy (DOE), assured the taxpayers cellulosic ethanol would be ready and cost competitive with gasoline by the year 2012. Again, yet another goal the program failed to meet. Incidentally, that promise accompanied an astounding $385 million federal investment in six privately owned plants.

Unfortunately, at this time technological realities and market fundamentals simply do not support large-scale production of cellulosic biofuels and the industry is not near capable of meeting the RFS2 mandates. The creation of a law does not guarantee that science and economics will cooperate. As we look at the legal requirements and limits of alternative fuels made from wood chips and corn cobs, one thing is wholly apparent. We can’t get there from here.

So then, where are we? In regards to the ethanol mandate, we are quite possibly near the end. It was a poorly drafted piece of legislation that is not sustainable without government backing. Aside from corn farmers and their lobbyist, there is little support for continuing the project. Unfortunately, and unavoidably, the same corn farmers who benefited from the program will suffer the greatest financial impact upon its demise.

Nov 30, 2015 | 6 comments | by

New NERA Study Details Economic Impact of Clean Power Plan

A new study by NERA Economic Consulting explains the economic impact from increased regulations from the federal government’s Clean Power Plan (CCP) in great detail. The CCP’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled power plants in the United States. States have the responsibility to meet the CPP goals. If they fail to come up with a carbon reduction plan or submit a plan that does not comply with CPP, the federal government steps in with their plan to meet the CPP goals. CPP goals include:

  • All compliance scenarios lead to large reductions in average CO2 emissions.
  • Reductions range from 19% to 21%.
  • By 2031, annual emissions are expected to be 36% to 37% lower than in 2005.

NERA estimates that the impact of the CPP on the energy sector, electricity rates and to the economy include:

  • Total energy sector expenditure from 2022 through 2033 increases range from $220 to $292 billion.
  • Annual average expenditures increase between $29 and $39 billion each year.
  • Average annual U.S. retail electricity rate increases range from 11%/year to 14%/year over the same time period.
  • Losses to U.S. consumers range from $64 billion to $79 billion on a present value basis over the same time period.

State-level average electricity price increases demonstrate that many states could experience significant price increases:

  • 40 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 10% or more.
  • 17 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 20% or more.
  • 10 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 30% or more.

The highest annual increase in retail rates relative to the baseline also shows that many states could experience periods of significant price increases:

  • 41 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 10% or more.
  • 28 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 20% or more.
  • 7 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 40% or more.
Nov 18, 2015 | 2 comments | by
Next Page »