The Unregulated Podcast #56: Meet The Depressed

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the results of the 2021 state elections in Virginia and elsewhere and what Glenn’s Youngkin’s victory means for the rest of the country.

The Unregulated Podcast #55: The Diplomat

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna respond to breaking news and discuss the efforts of everyone’s favorite globe-trotting “diplomat.”

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #54: Words of Wisdom

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna dispense a few words of wisdom for our elected leaders and anyone else who will listen.

The Unregulated Podcast #53: What is it Exactly That You Do Here?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss election updates from around the country, prospects for 2024, and headlines from around the world.

Links:

Dems Propose Methane Tax to Fund Reckless Spending Bill

One of the ways Democrats intend to pay for their reconciliation infrastructure bill is through the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, a proposed tax on methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum production. The tax would start at $1,800 per ton of emissions in 2023 with the potential direct cost of the tax to the economy being as high as $14.4 billion, increasing 5 percent above inflation annually.

This tax would most likely reduce oil and gas production in the U.S. at a time when global energy markets are already stretched thin because of government intervention. Furthermore, it is regressive in that its costs will be passed onto consumers in their gas and electric bills, which will affect lower income people more since they spend more of their income on energy. It also conflicts with President Biden’s campaign promise to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. As we have pointed out before, because there is already an EPA regulation addressing methane emissions, and another which will be released this month, this tax is duplicative. 

The methane tax would also create new reporting thresholds, adding to the costs of oil and gas businesses. It would direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), within two years, to lower the emissions threshold for companies to report emissions from the current 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to 10,000 metric tons per year, covering many smaller operators for the first time.

I encourage everyone to read Benjamin Zycher’s analysis of the methane tax. He points out that it is an all-downside proposal that would come at a high cost and have a negligible impact on the climate. 

As he points out, the climate justification for this proposed methane tax is a lot weaker than we have been led to believe. U.S. methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum account for about 30 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, which in turn are about 10.1 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions. American GHG emissions represent about 12.6 percent of global GHG emissions. If we suppose that the proposed methane tax eliminates all U.S. methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems, that would produce a reduction in global GHG emissions of less than 0.4 percent. As Zycher notes:

“The impact on global temperatures by 2100: about 5 one-thousandths of a degree C. How much is that worth?”

Zycher is also correct to point out that this proposed methane tax targets only the natural gas and petroleum industry. If the goal is to eliminate methane emissions, shouldn’t the tax also be levied on agricultural operations which are responsible for 38 percent of the total methane emissions in the U.S.? Perhaps Democrats are overlooking those emissions because reducing methane emissions from the agricultural sector would be extremely costly and voters might not be thrilled about the inevitable outcome of such a proposal. As Zycher notes:

“These realities demonstrate that this punitive policy aimed at the fossil-fuel sector is heavily political: efforts to reduce agricultural emissions are extremely difficult and would engender highly visible adverse economic effects in terms of agricultural costs and food prices confronted by Americans every day.”

In short, the methane tax is designed to narrowly target a politically disfavored industry, making it a costly policy that would produce very little benefit for the climate. The tax is also coupled with an import fee, which could potentially spark trade disputes at a time where global energy markets are already under stress because of too much government intervention

To all of this I would add that it isn’t even clear that the industry needs to be incentivized to reduce methane emissions. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, energy producers already have strong incentives to capture methane emissions as methane is a valuable commodity. In the same way companies invest in their employees to improve their productivity, oil and gas companies invest in technology that make their drilling operations more efficient. For this reason, U.S. oil and natural gas producers have been extremely innovative in finding new ways to curb methane emissions. In fact, methane emissions from U.S. petroleum and natural gas systems have declined from 235.8 million metric tons (on a CO2 equivalent basis) in 1990 to 196.7 million metric tons in 2019. All of this occurred while U.S. production of crude oil increased from 7.4 to 12.3 million barrels per day and natural gas production increased from 17.8 to 33.9 trillion cubic feet

The Unregulated Podcast #52: Clueless or Lying?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss OPEC+, JP Morgan’s energy paper, Europe’s energy crunch, China, and much, much more.

Links:

Key Vote NO on H.R. 3684

The American Energy Alliance urges all members to vote NO on H.R. 3684, the infrastructure bill as amended by the Senate.

This legislation is poor policy and a bad use of taxpayer resources. The subsidies for electric vehicles and charging are not the responsibility of the federal government. The tens of billions of dollars for unneeded and impractical passenger rail will only fuel more wasteful white elephants to accompany California’s ongoing high-speed rail fiasco. The tens of billions of dollars more to mass transit systems whose ridership have collapsed is yet more waste. The tens of billions in subsidies for electricity transmission is simply not needed. The amendment also layers on billions in questionable spending in pursuit of central planning of energy.

But beyond the bad policy in the infrastructure bill itself, the legislation is inextricably linked to the multi-trillion dollar inflationary budget that the administration hopes to see passed through reconciliation. The energy taxes, mandates and distortionary subsidies in the reconciliation bill would be a disaster for the American economy. Its provisions will drive up the cost of energy and goods throughout the country, turbo-charging already persistently high inflation and exacerbating the challenges posed by federal deficits. Because of the linkage of the two pieces of legislation, a vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill makes passage of the inflation bill more likely. AEA therefore urges members not to collude in raising energy prices for Americans.

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on  H.R. 3684.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #51: Tom and Mike Discuss Europe’s Energy Crisis

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Europe’s looming energy crisis.

Links:

Key Vote NO on Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning

The American Energy Alliance urges all Senators to oppose the nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning for director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Stone-Manning has a demonstrated history of environmental radicalism that is disqualifying for the role of BLM director. Her involvement in violent, criminal activism alone should be disqualifying. But beyond that incident Stone-Manning has established a clear track record of hostility towards the statutory multiple use of federal lands as mandated by Congress. Her implacable opposition to multiple use means that she cannot be trusted with the role of BLM director, a position that is tasked with managing the very multiple use of federal lands which she opposes. 

The AEA urges all members to support free markets and affordable energy by voting NO on the nomination of Stone-Manning for BLM director.  AEA will include this vote in its American Energy Scorecard.

The Unregulated Podcast #50: Tom and Mike Provide an Update on Reconciliation

On the latest episode of The Plugged-In Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna give an insider update on the Congressional proceedings surrounding Democrats’ reconciliation bill.

Links: