Tag: "energy electricity coal natural gas petroleum oil renewable"

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

Supreme Court Ruling Temporarily Helps Coal Industry

The Supreme Courts’ recent ruling temporarily holds off increased regulations on the coal industry. The administration’s stricter coal plant rules, which call for a phased-in 30-percent reduction in emissions by 2030 will be based on a state-by-state voluntary basis.

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

We will continue to provide tools and outreach. But we clearly understand that the courts will be winding through the process of looking at that rule. The [Supreme Court’s ruling] means that it’s going to take a little longer for that to happen. We will respect that, but in the meantime we’re going to continue to address greenhouse gases with the authorities under the Clean Air Act that are available to us today.

The Clean Power Plan requires very strict environmental controls to limit emissions from power plants. Twenty-seven states and a group of industry advocacy organizations challenged the new plan at the Supreme Court. The coalition of states and industry asked the Supreme Court to allow them to hold off on implementing the Clean Power Plan until after the Supreme Court has ruled on its legality. The Supreme Court granted a stay on the Clean Power Plan, giving hope, for now, to the coal industry and its allies.

Feb 17, 2016 | 2 comments | 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

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

Clean Power Plan Opposition Grows

A coalition of 24 states and a power company are suing to stop the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), calling it an unlawful federal bid to control state power grids.

As part of the lawsuit, the states seek to place a hold on the Clean Power Plan’s deadlines for meeting its carbon emission goals, which supporters have described as necessary to improve air quality but foes have criticized as arbitrary and unrealistically strict.

In addition to the lawsuit by the states, pro-business groups have also joined the fight against the Clean power Plan that mandates a massive reduction in carbon emissions in the next 15 years, arguing that it will jack up energy costs and slash jobs without making a dent in greenhouse gases.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 14 other business groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Their lawsuit:

  • Claims the EPA has overstepped its authority by attempting a takeover of state power plants.
  • Seeks a hold on the rule’s implementation pending the legal challenge.
  • Parallels the lawsuit filed same day by 24 states.

The Rule requires a fundamental restructuring of the power sector, compelling States, utilities and suppliers to adopt EPA’s preferred sources of power and fuel and to redesign their electricity infrastructure in the process.

A preliminary analysis of the Clean Power Plan issued in October, 2014 by the NERA economic consulting calculated that the CPP could boost retail electricity prices 12 percent to 17 percent.

The Clean Power Plan would effectively shut down coal-fired power plants, which provide inexpensive and reliable electricity but cannot reduce their emissions to the required levels using current technology.

Thousands of businesses will stop providing support services to coal-fired plants and coal mines. Many coal mines will have to reduce operations or close entirely, laying off numerous employees in the process.

Oct 28, 2015 | 1 comment | by

The Changing Price of Oil Relative to Gold

It is true that a shift in supply or demand will change prices in any market; however, not all market-price movements are necessarily due to a change in market supply or demand — especially in the case of prices for commodities as highly political as crude oil. Longer term trends in the price of oil also reflect cumulative changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. Looking at oil prices relative to gold prices instead of U.S. dollars takes account of the long-term decline in the value of the dollar and allows us to recognize more clearly the effect of supply, demand and public-policy factors that influence the price of petroleum.

The long historical tendency for the price of crude oil to parallel the price of gold and other precious metals is well known. As a whole, the trend is toward an average annual increase in the oil-gold price ratio through 2014 of 1.1 percent. The long-term increase is attributable to:

  • The slowly increasing scarcity of crude oil.
  • The fact that the cost of exploiting crude oil reserves has risen faster than the cost of exploiting gold reserves.
  • The growth of market forces that also govern the relative flow of capital into the oil and goldmining industries.

If it takes two years to half-close the gap in current oil prices compared to the equilibrium price suggested by the table, it would be reasonable to expect the price of crude to rise at an annual rate of about eight dollars a barrel over the next 12 months.

Source: R. David Ranson, “The Changing Price of Oil Relative to Gold,” National Center for Policy Analysis, July 27, 2015.

Aug 05, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

A Bland but Workable Energy Plan

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski have been working jointly on a passable energy bill. The Congressmen have also been coordinating with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to ensure the bill will not get vetoed at the President’s desk.

On infrastructure, the Energy Policy Modernization Act (the Senate version) aims to modernize the electricity grid and add cybersecurity safeguards. There are also provisions to streamline the process for natural gas export projects and maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill provides for the “responsible development of American resources”, to include hydropower, geothermal and bioenergy, as well as traditional resources. Surprisingly, the act creates a new National Park Maintenance and Revitalization Fund to fix the maintenance backlog of the nation’s public parks (the park delayed an estimated $11.5 billion worth of maintenance last year alone).

The drafters of the bill chose to avoid big button issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline, allowing the exportation of crude oil and climate change.

The inclusion of maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is in direct contrast to the transportation bill being presented by the Senate, which offers to sell part of the reserve to fund the Highway Trust Fund.

This week, 11 environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have come out against the bill stating that several provisions in the bill could cause detrimental effects to public health and the environment. The groups seemed specifically opposed to expediting liquefied natural gas exports and mineral mining permits because they felt “a stronger vision for accelerating the development and deployment of clean energy” was needed. The House bill received less opposition from these groups since it did not include measures on hydropower and liquefied natural gas exportation.

Jul 29, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Senate Energy Policy Leaves Out Oil and Highway Funding

The focus of the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 includes energy efficiency and conservation, protecting the electric grid and speeding up the application process for liquid natural gas refineries. The bill includes:

  • The secretary of the Energy Department to issue a final decision on applications to export liquefied natural gas within 45 days after projects have won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  • The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of nearly 700 million barrels of oil, should be used only in emergencies — while there are legislative efforts to sell off some of that oil to help pay for surface transportation funding.

The most recent senate energy bill failed to address some of the most important energy issues currently facing the nation. The bill avoided such issues as:

  • The ban on exporting crude oil.
  • Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Federal gas tax reform.
  • The failure to fund our highway system.
  • Renewable Fuel Standard reform.

U.S. energy policy that includes natural gas, but leaves out oil, is not real energy policy. Protecting the electric grid and leaving out critical funding for the highway system, addresses half of our most pressing infrastructure needs.

Jul 27, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Electric Vehicles: More Harm than Good?

A recent study by Stephen P. Holland from the University of North Carolina- Greensboro and other economics and business professors has found the environmental benefits and harms of electric cars vary state by state. The federal government currently awards a subsidy of $7500 for each electric vehicle bought, with some states adding their own subsidies to such purchases. Such subsidies reflect current movements towards green policies.

Electric vehicles, however, are clearly not “zero emission vehicles.” First of all, the components of those vehicles are made in factories most likely powered by fossil fuels. Second, the electricity used for the vehicles themselves comes from power plants across the United States, where around 70 percent of power plants operate on natural gas or coal. In most areas around the country, driving an electric vehicle means choosing to burn coal and natural gas rather than burning oil.

Due to differences in energy production by states, using electric vehicles may be better in some states while continuing to drive gas-powered cars in others may be best. In California, for example, the electric grid is relatively clean while gasoline vehicles produce more environmental damages. In North Dakota, the opposite is true as the electric grid uses more coal.

The report found that on average electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars. However, gas-powered cars are worse in congested urban areas while electric cars are worse outside of metropolitan areas. A one-size-fits-all policy regarding electric cars therefore does not make sense. The federal subsidy should be eliminated, leaving only state subsidies for electric vehicles where they already exist.

 

Jul 01, 2015 | 5 comments | by
Next Page »