Search anytime by typing below

Thanks for joining the AEA efforts to help combat rising energy prices. We don’t want to bug you that often, so let us know what energy issues interest you, and we’ll keep your inbox happy.

*Please fill in all items

NREL Survey Fatally Flawed; Past Time to Repeal RPS

January 22, 2015 by Leave a Comment

More than half of U.S. states have established Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requiring electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. These mandates raise energy costs by forcing households and businesses to use more wind and solar energy, which are more expensive and less reliable than traditional energy sources like nuclear, natural gas, coal, and hydro.

Faced with these facts, some states are considering repealing or reforming their RPS mandates. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, however, are trying their best to build the case for the states to keep their RPSs with a recent survey. But as a new study from the Reason Foundation shows, the NREL and Lawrence Berkley Laboratory survey is fatally flawed.

The authors of the Reason study, Tom Tanton and Julian Morris, found that the NREL survey contains “a number of structural and conceptual problems” that “end up potentially misleading policymakers” who may be interested in repealing their state’s RPS. Some of the study’s key flaws include:

  • “The Survey is incomplete with respect to the cost of integration of intermittent and volatile generation sources. Specifically it ignores the cost of backup capacity and the lost efficiency of power plants required to balance the output of intermittent and volatile generation.”
  • “Similarly, the Survey ignores the very expensive Production Tax Credit that shunts almost half of the cost of wind installations onto taxpayers (many of whom realize zero benefit from wind installations) made even worse by special tax depreciation available only to certain renewables.”
  • “The benefit estimates also suffer from double counting. Double counting is especially prevalent with emission reductions, as those benefits (and their costs) have already been accounted for in such regulatory programs as Clean Air Act Regulations. The majority of the dollar benefits from emission reduction cited in the Survey are from reductions of carbon dioxide ‘priced’ at the EPA’s highly controversial ‘social cost of carbon.’”

The NREL survey claims that the benefits of RPS mandates generally outweigh the costs. But as Tanton and Morris explain, the survey fails to take into account the full costs of forcing more renewables on to the grid while it double counts some of the benefits. Reason concludes that the survey “should not be used to formulate or justify policy in any state or federal legislation.”

Indeed, RPS mandates make energy more expensive for American families. As the Institute for Energy Research explains in testimony submitted to the Kansas State Senate, RPSs force states to replace their most affordable, abundant energy sources (nuclear, natural gas, coal) with more expensive, unreliable sources (wind and solar).

The following chart compares the costs of installing and using various types of energy sources. As you can see, wind and solar are both significantly more expensive than nuclear, natural gas, and coal.

lcoe rps

These figures are not an academic exercise—they have real-world impacts on electricity prices. States that use the most affordable energy sources also tend to have the lowest energy prices. As the following chart illustrates, coal generates the largest share of electricity in seven out of the top 10 states with the lowest retail electricity prices. The other three states use primarily natural gas and hydro. And only three out of the 10 states with the lowest electricity rates have RPS mandates (a few set voluntary goals).

lowest res prices

Lawmakers who are considering repealing or reforming their state RPS mandates should not let the flawed NREL study give them cold feet. Renewables are more expensive and less reliable than traditional energy sources. That means any state laws mandating or subsidizing renewables tend to result in more expensive energy costs in that state. These costs will only increase as RPS mandates increase. If people want to see lower prices, getting rid of RPS mandates is a good place to start.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

White House Threatens to Veto American Infrastructure

January 21, 2015 by 1 Comment

In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the importance of infrastructure while at the same time making a not-so-subtle quip about the Keystone XL oil pipeline:

21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure – modern ports, stronger bridges, faster trains and the fastest internet. Democrats and Republicans used to agree on this. So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come. [Emphasis mine]

However, the president’s disdain for improving America’s pipeline infrastructure is not unique to Keystone XL. Before his SOTU speech, the White House announced that the president planned to veto H.R. 161, The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act if it ever made it to his desk. This legislation, introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), would “provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects.” God forbid.

Essentially, the bill would speed up the process of expanding and constructing new natural gas pipelines by:

1. Requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve or deny an application within 12 months.

2. Requiring the responsible agency to approve or deny a license, permit, or approval within 90 days of FERC’s approval. The agency can extend the time period by 30 days if it demonstrates that it cannot complete the process in the 90 days.

Why We Need More Pipelines

Pipelines are critical for delivering affordable and reliable energy to American families. Last winter’s polar vortex and the stress it put on the Northeast’s pipeline infrastructure demonstrated the need to expedite the permitting process and construct more natural gas pipelines. In recent years, the region has increasingly turned to natural gas as an electricity source in addition to using it as a heating source. When demand for heating spiked last winter, there simply wasn’t enough pipeline capacity to meet this demand.

As the Institute for Energy Research has explained, this lack of infrastructure sent natural gas and electricity prices through the roof last winter. On January 6, 2014 natural gas prices more than doubled in New England and nearly quadrupled in New York. Similarly, on Tuesday January 7, 2014, wholesale electricity prices in the region, which typically hover around $40 or $50 per megawatt-hour, jumped to $200 in New England and $500 to $1,000 in other parts of the region. These skyrocketing prices could have been avoided, or at least lessened, had there been enough pipeline capacity.

Conclusion

Last winter’s polar vortex clearly demonstrated the need for more natural gas pipelines. By streamlining the process, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act would help the Northeast and other impacted regions avoid a similar fate during future winters. Unfortunately, President Obama’s promise to veto this commonsense infrastructure bill could leave Americans susceptible to future price spikes.

Click here to read AEA’s “Key Vote” alert for H.R. 161

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Durbin’s Petcoke Amendment Will Drive Up Cost of Energy

January 21, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Today the Senate is voting on an amendment offered by Sen. Durbin to increase the regulation of petroleum coke or “petcoke.” This is another example of the administration and its allies trying to drive up the cost of domestic energy production and domestic energy use.

What is Petcoke?

Like gasoline and diesel, petcoke is produced in oil refineries. Once viewed as a byproduct, petcoke is now an important internationally-trade commodity and is helping to grow many developing economies. Petcoke is not only used as a fuel, but also as a source of carbon for industrial processes.

How is Petcoke Produced?

Petcoke is produced after crude oil undergoes two processes. First, the oil is distilled into various products, separating out the light parts of the oil—the gasoline vapors, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, and kerosene from the heavier parts of the oil. The heavier portion of the oil is then processed through a “coker” which subjects the remaining oil to high heat and pressure to exact as much of the lighter gasoline-like parts of the oil as possible. What remains after the coker after the high heat and pressure is a substance called petroleum coke.

What are petcoke’s uses?

Petroleum coke is high in carbon—this makes it chemically similar to coal and both energy dense and useful for many other industrial processes that require carbon.

About 80 percent of petcoke is used as fuel. While petcoke is similar to coal, it generates just 0.2 percent of America’s electricity, while coal generates nearly 40 percent. Instead, petcoke is usually used as a fuel to make cement, lime, brick, glass, steel, and fertilizer as well as many other industrial applications.

Much of the rest of the petcoke is “calcined petroleum coke.” Calcined petcoke is petcoke that is again heated to remove moisture, volatile matter, and impurities and to increase the electrical conductivity. Calcinced petcoke is used to make steel, graphite, and titanium.

Calcined petcoke is essential to the creation of aluminum. Because of its high carbon purity and a lack of contaminants, calcined petcoke provides the only economically viable method to produce primary aluminum. Calcined petcoke also produces titanium dioxide, a safer alternative to the lead used in paint.

Why is petcoke Important?

Demand for U.S. petcoke is rising, with China, Mexico, Japan, Canada, India and Turkey as the largest importers. China, for instance, imported 3.2 million barrels of petroleum coke from the U.S. in this past April alone, their third largest monthly volume of all time.

America became a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 and the exports of petroleum coke is one of the reasons. As the next chart shows, the U.S. exported 184,167,000 barrels of petcoke in 2012, a nearly 30 percent increase since 2009.

Coal is one of the most affordable and abundant sources of energy for electricity generation. But international coal prices are often higher than U.S. petcoke prices, making U.S. petcoke an attractive option for many countries to use as a fuel.

Growing demand in developing countries, coupled with affordable prices, has enabled U.S. petcoke to emerge as a valuable export for the U.S. and a cost-effective analogue for coal for much of the rest of the world.

Sen. Durbin’s Amendment

Sen. Durbin’s amendment would require the federal EPA to develop new regulations for petcoke. This is unnecessary because petcoke is already regulated by the states and multiple federal laws including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and it is regulated under the International Fire Code as well. New regulations from EPA would drive up the cost of producing and using petcoke. It should be noted that EPA has been the agency of choice for President Obama to carry out his plan to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

One of the ways that Sen. Durbin’s amendment would increase energy prices is that it could reclassify petcoke as a “hazardous waste,” which could lead to the closing of coker units at refineries. This is because it is possible that the refineries would stop making petcoke altogether instead of dealing with the regulations on hazardous waste.

If all of the coking units at refineries were to close, it would decrease domestic gasoline production by over 1.3 million barrels a day and diesel production would decrease by over 650,000 barrels a day. To put that in perspective, the U.S. produces about 9.6 million barrels of gasoline a day and 4.9 million barrels of distillate (which includes diesel) a day. This reduction would increase the cost of producing gasoline and diesel in the United States and would “offshore” some of our gasoline and diesel production to other countries.

Also, reducing petcoke production in the U.S., as the Durbin amendment would lead to, would reduce the amount of this valuable commodity for other manufacturing purposes, such as aluminum production, steel production, and fertilizer production—further harming U.S. manufacturing.

Conclusion

Petroleum coke is an important product of America’s refineries and is used around the world for manufacturing processes and to make energy. Senator Durbin’s amendment threatens to drive up the costs of making and using petcoke in the United States. This would only harm U.S. manufactures with no environmental gain. After all, EPA does not classify petcoke as a hazardous waste and EPA has not observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects from petcoke. In other words, Sen. Durbin’s amendment is all pain and no gain.

Filed Under: Blog, Products and Power Tagged With: , ,

Obama’s SOTU: The Good, the Bad, and the Forgotten

January 21, 2015 by 1 Comment

On Tuesday, President Obama delivered his sixth annual State of the Union address. The address was peppered with references to low gas prices (which are good but he has nothing to do with) and booming energy production (also good but happening despite his policies), part of an agenda he described as “middle-class economics.”

The address was also notable for what the president didn’t say. While the president declared that “no challenge poses a greater threat” than climate change, he failed to point out that his policies do almost nothing to solve the climate problem while making life harder for American families, particularly the “middle class” families Obama claims he supports.

Below we read between the lines to bring you the good, the bad, and the forgotten from President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union.

The Good: Gas Prices are Low; Energy Production is Booming

President Obama: “And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump.”

Gas prices have fallen for 16 consecutive weeks to just $2.07 per gallon—the lowest levels in more than five years—according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Low gas prices are an economic boon for American families, adding disposable income that can be spent on consumer goods like restaurants and movie theaters, used to pay down debts, or saved. The following chart shows the 16-week decline in U.S. gas prices that started June 23:

Screen Shot 2015-01-21 at 11.38.06 AM Source: Energy Information Administration

However, it is disingenuous for the president to claim that higher fuel standards save Americans money just like lower gas prices. Although the administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) force automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, the rules also make cars more expensive, pricing millions of Americans out of the new-car market. Low gas prices don’t do much good for the family that can’t even afford a car.

In fact, booming domestic energy production, not fuel efficiency standards, are driving affordable gas prices. The drop in gas prices followed a precipitous decline in world oil prices, which have been cut in half since last summer. And oil prices are down because the U.S. is producing record amounts of energy here at home, reducing our need to import oil from overseas. The following chart shows how U.S. oil production has climbed by 32 percent since 2011:

Screen Shot 2015-01-21 at 11.38.58 AMSource: Energy Information Administration

As we will explain below, America’s domestic energy boom benefits American families, but it is not happening everywhere. It is only occurring on state and private lands outside of President Obama’s control.

The Bad: Obama’s Policies Threaten Abundant and Affordable Energy

President Obama: “We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas.”

The president is correct that the U.S. is now the world’s top combined oil and natural gas producer, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia. However, President Obama has nothing to do with the domestic energy boom. In fact, the boom is proceeding despite—not because—of the president’s policies.

Energy production is soaring, but not everywhere. On lands controlled by states and private individuals (where the president has little input) oil output has increased 61 percent since 2009. Meanwhile, oil production has actually declined 6 percent on lands under federal control. The following chart compares oil and natural gas production on federal vs non-federal lands:

IER-Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Production-on-Federal-vs.-State-Lands

To make matters worse, the administration is gearing up to impose unprecedented federal rules on hydraulic fracturing and methane that threaten to undermine America’s impressive energy gains. Here’s a rundown:

  • Methane plan threatens state and private lands with federal control. Last week, the White House announced a plan to reduce methane emissions from certain oil and gas operations. The rule is unnecessary, as methane is already down 16 percent since 1990. Moreover, methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing have plummeted 73 percent since 2011, even as natural gas output has soared (on non-federal lands).
  • BLM set to impose federal hydraulic fracturing rules. A proposed rule from the Bureau of Land Management would regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. As IER explained in comments to BLM, the rule is “duplicative, costly, and unnecessary” because states and localities already regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal lands. The rule is expected to affect more than 5,000 oil and gas wells and cost up to $1.61 billion per year.

America’s energy producers are thriving on non-federal lands, where state regulators and individuals with local knowledge make development decisions. The continued success of America’s energy boom depends on keeping the federal government off of state and private lands.

The Forgotten: Minorities Suffer Under President Obama’s Policies

Just as important as what the president said during is State of the Union address is whom the president forgot to mention. Climate-change researcher Nicole Hernandez Hammer earned a seat in the First Lady’s guest box during the State of the Union address. The president, however, failed to highlight her work during the address.

Her only mention comes from the White House website, which describes Hernandez Hammer’s work on sea-level issues, including “how cities and regions most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and sea-level rise also have large Hispanic populations—something she learned firsthand growing up in South Florida.”

The administration’s implication is clear: if you’re Hispanic, you should care about climate change. Unfortunately, the president’s climate agenda harms the minority populations it is designed to help and does almost nothing to combat climate change. Here are a few reasons why:

  • EPA rule fails to reduce sea levels. The cornerstone of the president’s climate action plan, proposed carbon dioxide limits for existing power plants, is expected to reduce sea-level rise by just 1/100th of an inch, or about the thickness of three sheets of paper.
  • Hispanics, Floridians, and all Americans face higher energy prices. While doing nothing to abate sea-level rises, Obama’s policies raise energy costs on American families, including Hispanics. A NERA analysis finds that Florida, where Hernandez Hammer resides, could face 17 percent higher electricity rates under EPA’s existing power plant rules. Nationally, households in 43 states could see double-digit electricity rate hikes.
  • Obama’s climate agenda disproportionally harms minorities. Hispanics and other minority groups spend a larger share of their household budgets on energy, which means they also shoulder a larger burden of Obama’s costly energy policies. According to the Libre Initiative, median household income for Hispanics is $40,979. For households with incomes of less than $50,000 per year, energy comprises nearly 15 percent of total spending and is the second largest category of family expenses, ahead of even food.

President Obama’s rhetoric on “middle class economics” belies his record. His climate agenda harms those it is supposed to help but does little to actually reduce sea levels associated with climate change.

Conclusion

In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama referenced booming domestic energy production and low gas prices. Unfortunately, the U.S. has more abundant and affordable energy despite the president’s policies, not because of them. While America’s energy innovators are producing record amounts of oil and natural gas on state and private lands, output on federal lands has been dropping for years. Meanwhile, the president’s costly climate agenda would make energy more expensive for all Americans, particularly minorities and low-income households. A positive vision for energy prosperity lies with America’s energy producers and American families, not with President Obama’s policies.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,

Obama’s Methane Plan Whiffs on Climate Change

January 20, 2015 by Leave a Comment

As we explained last week, President Obama’s proposed methane scheme is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. Methane emissions are declining as natural gas production is booming—and it’s happening all without federal intervention because natural gas producers have an economic incentive to reduce methane emissions.

The proposal also fails to accomplish its stated purpose to “curb climate change.” A new report from the Cato Institute explains:

The amount of methane that falls under the new EPA regs is very small; in the grand scheme of global warming, it is so small as to be climatically immaterial (which is the other thing wrong with Podesta’s blog headline—it won’t “curb” climate change a whit).

In 2013, methane emissions accounted for about 9% of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States. (Carbon dioxide accounted for 82%.)  Of this 9%, about 3% are the subject to the proposed EPA regulations—which seeks to cut those emissions in half.

Cato estimates the plan would reduce global temperatures by just 0.002°C by the end of the century—an essentially negligible amount. Despite grandiose claims of leaving a “more stable environment for future generations,” Obama’s methane rules will do almost nothing to address climate change.

Meanwhile, even the administration admits that methane is already declining without “ambitious” federal rules. A White House fact sheet states, “[Methane] emissions from the oil and gas sector are down 16 percent since 1990 and current data show significant reductions from certain parts of the sector, notably well completions.” Even more impressive is that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured gas wells have plummeted by 73 percent since 2011, according to EPA’s own data.

All of this is happening during one of the largest domestic energy booms in U.S. history. The following chart shows soaring U.S. oil and gas production amid declining methane emissions:

methane-emissions-vs-oil-and-gas-production

The numbers don’t lie: President Obama’s methane rules are unnecessary. Energy producers already have an incentive to reduce emissions because methane (the primary component of natural gas) is a valuable fuel that provides electricity and heating to millions of American households. Affordable natural gas has also fueled a domestic manufacturing renaissance, encouraging businesses to expand operations and bring more jobs back home from overseas. Instead of adding new layers of red tape chasing non-existent problems, President Obama should simply stand aside and admire the great American energy boom.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Wind Fall

January 16, 2015 by 2 Comments

Wind Fall 600 AEA

Filed Under: Blog, Cartoons

The War on Coal in One Map

January 15, 2015 by 21 Comments

coalThe Obama administration likes to deny there’s any “War on Coal,” but the numbers don’t lie. West Virginia, the heart of coal country, now has the lowest labor participation rates among all 50 states — less than 50% of people 16 and up are employed. It is the only state in the country with a labor participation rate below 50 percent. Market Watch reports:

West Virginia quietly passed the ignominious milestone of having less than half of its adult, civilian population in the workforce in November.

State data compiled by the Labor Department shows that West Virginia’s civilian labor participation rate has fallen to 49.8%, from 50% in October. The national rate in December was 62.7%.

The Mountain State is the only state in the history of the series, which goes back to 1976, to have fallen below 50%, though Mississippi at 50.8% isn’t far behind.

The fact that West Virginia fell below 50 percent for the first time in the history of the Labor Department measuring labor participation isn’t surprising. US coal companies let 7,700 employees go in 2012 then lost another 2,000 jobs before May 2013. None of these numbers include the pain suffered by communities supported by the coal industry.

These are the results of a coordinated from our government to end American coal, all from the same President Obama, who said “if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant it will bankrupt them” and Vice President Biden, who said “no coal plants here in America”.

While increased production of inexpensive natural gas certainly plays a role in the demand for coal, so too have new regulations. Without approval from Congress, this administration created new regulations attacking existing coal-fired power plants and essentially banning new high-tech coal-fired power plants. Policies like this could increase electricity rates by as much as 80%, hitting those who can least afford it the hardest.

West Virginia is feeling the heat from Obama’s anti-affordable energy policies; the rest of the country should take note of the canary in the coal mine.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Obama’s Methane Scheme a Solution in Search of a Problem

January 15, 2015 by Leave a Comment

On Wednesday, the White House announced a long-awaited plan to reduce methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector, with the goal of slashing methane from new and modified oil and gas processing and production facilities by up to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. The administration directed EPA and other agencies to develop rules to meet its goal.

President Obama’s methane scheme is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. Energy producers have an economic incentive to prevent natural gas leaks: methane (the major component of natural gas) is a valuable commodity that provides heating and electricity to millions of American families and serves as a vital feedstock for chemical and manufacturing companies. As a result, methane emissions are declining even as oil and gas production is booming—all without federal intervention.

Any federal rules to tackle our non-existent methane problem will only complicate existing industry-led efforts, resulting in less domestic energy production and thus higher energy costs for American families.

Solution in Search of a Problem

Energy producers have an economic incentive to reduce methane emissions and are already doing so without federal regulation. As the White House states, “reducing methane emissions means capturing valuable fuel that is otherwise wasted and reducing other harmful pollutants.”

Fortunately, energy producers are already reducing natural gas leaks without federal controls, as even the administration admits. A White House fact sheet explaining the plan notes, “Emissions from the oil and gas sector are down 16 percent since 1990 and current data show significant reductions from certain parts of the sector, notably well completions.”

Even more impressive is that energy producers are reducing methane emissions even as energy production is booming. The following chart shows the percent change in U.S. oil and gas production since 2008 compared to U.S. methane emissions.

methane-emissions-vs-oil-and-gas-production

Source: Environmental Protection Agency and BP Statistical Review of World Energy

These emission reductions didn’t happen by accident—and especially not due to federal regulation. Energy producers had an incentive to reduce waste, so they developed innovative ways to capture more methane, thus lowering emissions even as production soared.

Methane is an energy and environmental success story. It shows how energy producers can balance energy development with environmental protection, all without federal intervention. In the midst of a massive production boom that has made the U.S. the top combined oil and gas producer in the world, we are still managing to reduce emissions and protect our environment for future generations.

It’s a testament to the ingenuity of America’s energy producers and a rebuke of the Obama administration’s attempts to mess with success. Instead of trying to fix what isn’t broken, the president should step aside and let America thrive.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , ,

No, Republicans Don’t Really Support EPA’s Climate Agenda

January 14, 2015 by Leave a Comment

Misinformation abounds at Yale University’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. The university’s Project on Climate Change Communication released a new survey that is grabbing headlines but is riddled with flaws.

The survey claims that “Republican voters are actually split in their views about climate change,” with a majority of “moderate” Republicans supporting EPA’s proposed rule to “set strict CO2 emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants.” Overall, the survey finds that 64 percent of registered voters supported the plan.

Readers should dismiss these “results” for several reasons, as explained below.

Biased Question Wording

The survey is worded to pump up the supposed benefits of EPA’s plan (“reduce global warming and improve public health”) without mentioning anything about costs. But numerous surveys show that Americans take a much dimmer view of EPA’s agenda—and environmental regulations generally—when they are told of the potential costs. Some examples include:

  • After being told that EPA’s power plant rule would result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, a majority of voters in key battleground states opposed the regulation, according to a July survey released by AEA.
  • A recent survey conducted by MWR Strategies on behalf of AEA finds that 60 percent of likely voters believe that it is “mostly a bad thing” to “require States to impose mandates on their citizens to buy certain amounts of renewable energy, whether or not it is cost-effective,” as EPA’s power plant rule would.
  • Harvard Professor Stephen Ansolabehere finds that people will pay just $5 more per month to combat climate change. “People are not willing to really put their dollars—even people who say they are concerned about global warming—are not willing to put their dollars where their hearts are,” says Ansolabehere.
  • Fifty-six percent of registered voters in Oregon oppose a state plan to reduce the carbon-intensity of gasoline after being told that doing so could raise their fuel costs by up to 19 cents per gallon (see poll here).

Cherry-picked Results

The researchers claim that Republicans are “actually split in their views about climate change” including the EPA’s carbon-dioxide regulations. If that were actually true, it would be a compelling narrative. After all, “Republican leaders in Congress have pledged to roll back the EPA’s proposed new regulations on coal-fired power plants.” That would put the views of Republicans in Congress at odds with the views of Republican voters.

But Republicans aren’t actually as split as the researchers claim. So-called “moderate Republicans” (62 percent of which support EPA’s plan based on the survey’s biased wording) comprise just 23 percent of “total Republicans” surveyed. “Conservative Republicans” who make up more than half of all Republicans surveyed oppose the rule by a 3:2 margin. Overall, just 44 percent of all Republicans support EPA’s plan.

Yale’s attempt to find a schism in the Republican Party over EPA’s climate agenda may grab headlines, but it is mostly hype.

Voters Give Climate Change Low Priority

There is a difference between supporting an issue in principle and believing that addressing the issue should be a priority. Surveys are conducted in a vacuum, but policy is made in the real world with finite time and resources. That requires the public to decide which issues are most urgent—and the public doesn’t think climate change is one of them.

In fact, addressing climate change consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans’ priorities. For example:

  • “Dealing with global warming” ranked dead last in a 2013 Pew survey of the public’s top policy priorities. It has ranked at or near the bottom of the agenda every year since 2007, when Pew added the issue to its survey.
  • A long-running Gallup survey finds that just 1 percent of Americans think the environment is “the most important problem facing” the country.
  • When likely voters were asked to identify “the most pressing issue facing the United States,” climate change or the environment didn’t even register, according to an AEA survey.

Any discussion of the public’s views on climate change should be tempered by the fact that most people don’t think climate change is a top priority. Yale’s failure to poll voters on their top priorities deprives readers of this key context.

Conclusion

Yale University’s survey of Republican attitudes toward EPA’s climate agenda is flawed and misleading. The survey relies on biased questions and cherry-picked results to advance a narrative that does not exist. Republicans are not nearly as divided as Yale claims: in fact, its own data show that most Republicans oppose EPA’s power plant rule. Before releasing their next survey, Yale’s climate-change researchers ought to bone up on basic statistics—fortunately, their employer has many course offerings.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Oregonian is Mad as Hell and Won’t Take it Any More

January 12, 2015 by 1 Comment

Channeling their inner Howard Beale, The Oregonian’s editors are mad as Hell with the governor and they aren’t going to take his tax schemes any more. Last week, the editorial board slammed Gov. John Kitzhaber’s plan to raise gasoline costs on Oregon families, which the editors panned as a “global-warming gas tax.”

The editorial begins by admonishing gas-tax advocates for deceiving Oregonians:

Gov. John Kitzhaber and other proponents of a low-carbon fuel standard, we wrote last month, habitually mislead Oregonians about the program’s pocketbook impact. Full implementation of the complicated mandate, they like to say, could save businesses and individuals up to $1.6 billion in fuel over about 10 years. What they don’t say is that the study from which they cherry-picked this number assumes that Oregonians will realize these “savings” by spending an extra $1.6 billion on electric cars and plug-in hybrids. In other words, they’ll save bubkes. [Emphasis mine]

Far from saving money for Oregon families, the low-carbon fuel standard would likely make gasoline more expensive. As the editors point out, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality projected that the scheme would increase pump prices by as much as 19 cents per gallon. When asked, 56 percent of Oregonians opposed the plan if it would raise their fuel costs.

Even if Gov. Kitzhaber gets his “global-warming gas tax,” it will do little to combat global warming. As the editors explain:

Oregon, which accounts for about 1.2 percent of the nation’s population, was responsible for less than seven tenths of 1 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide in 2011, the most recent year for which the U.S. Energy Information Administration has released state-level data. In the global-warming universe, Oregon is a rounding error, and most people reasonably conclude that 19 cents a gallon is a high price to pay merely to burnish the state’s brand. [Emphasis mine]

Oregon’s proposal is modeled on California’s low-carbon fuel standard. The Golden State requires fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel fuel by 10 percent in 2020. A lot of factors contribute to the price that motorists pay at the pump, but it’s no coincidence that California’s gas prices are the second highest among the lower-48 states.

A low-carbon fuel standard is a lose-lose for Oregon families: it raises fuel costs and does nothing to combat global warming. Kudos to The Oregonian for calling out the governor and looking out for its readers.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , , ,
Previous
Next