Coal Is Still King

For all the talk about the demise of coal, it’s important to note that coal generated 35% of the world’s electricity in 2020, more than any other fuel. Even in the U.S., coal was expected to generate 23% of the nation’s electricity in 2021—up from 19% in 2020.

In addition to electricity generation, coal is critical for industry, making the cement, iron, and steel needed for modern civilization, including even wind turbines and solar panels. Without coal, the industrial revolution would not have occurred. Without coal, a carbon-free energy transition— forced or otherwise—is simply unrealistic.

Coal supplies the world with 27% of its total energy needs, second only to oil (which supplies 31%). China and India alone consumed 66% of the world’s coal in 2020, and coal supplies at least 55% of their total energy needs.

Coal Generation

In the U.S., coal is regaining market share from natural gas, whose generation is expected to drop to 36% in 2021 from 39% the year prior. Incidentally, coal’s increased generation from July 2020 to July 2021 is four times larger than that of wind and solar generation combined for the same period.

U.S. electricity generators are returning to coal because they have the existing plant capacity and it is an abundant, affordable, and reliable domestic source of electricity. The U.S. is blessed with the largest share of the world’s coal reserves (23%), eclipsing second-place Russia (15%) and third-place Australia (14%).

Around the world, coal is still the dominant source of electricity generation. Though it has just 13% of the world’s coal reserves, China generates more than 60% of its electricity from coal. India, with 10% of the world’s coal reserves, generates more than 70% of its electricity from coal. Similarly, Poland, the second-largest coal producer in Europe (behind Germany), generates 74% of its electricity from coal. Even Japan generates 30% of its electricity from coal and has no plans to phase it out any time soon.

COP26 Framework

At the recent United Nations climate conference in Scotland (COP26), U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry boasted that the U.S. will end the use of coal-fired power by 2030. Fortunately, Kerry has been wrong more often than he has been right, and he has no actual authority with respect to power generation.

India was quick to point out that providing their citizens with affordable and reliable energy requires the continued use of coal, and successfully urged other nations to commit to slowing coal power generation, rather than deliberately transitioning away from it.

India is not alone in that sentiment. South Africa gets more than 80% of its electricity and nearly one-fifth of its liquid fuel from coal. The nation is one of the top 10 coal producers in the world and has spent the equivalent of 6% of its annual gross domestic product on two huge coal-fired power plants that will become fully operational in the coming years. It is the most coal-dependent country in the Group of 20, or G20, major economies. At COP26, the U.S., Germany, France, the UK, and the European Union all pledged to mobilize $8.5 billion over the next three to five years to help South Africa replace coal with renewable energy and find new livelihoods for mining communities. South Africa, however, said it needs more than $26 billion from wealthy nations to transition its power system from coal to renewables.

Also, at COP26, China, India, and other developing economies demanded that wealthy nations pay them $1.3 trillion annually for climate projects starting in 2030, half of which would be dedicated to subsidizing renewable energy in the developing world, with the other half earmarked for protecting other countries from the effects of global warming. For China to achieve its net-zero emissions targets in 2060, investments of as much as $2 trillion a year through 2060 would be necessary. That includes more than tripling its current pace of renewable energy installations. According to China’s Premier Li Keqiang, China cannot easily pivot away from coal until it has enough other alternatives to ensure reliable power. He hinted that even his country’s pledge to cap its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 could be torn up sooner rather than later.

These are examples of the benefits of affordable and reliable coal power, and the likely costs to transition away from it. Much of what gets reported in the news, or hyped by climate alarmism about coal, is simply wrong. Until technologies that haven’t even been dreamed of yet come along, an affordable, predictable baseload future led by cleaner-burning coal is preferable to a wildly expensive, unrealistic carbon-free future. In other words, the rumors of coal’s death have been greatly exaggerated.


*This article was originally published by Power Magazine

The Unregulated Podcast #64: The Prediction Episode

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna make stunning and bold predictions for what will unfold in 2022.

The Unregulated Podcast #63: Christmas Special

Just in time for Christmas, the jolliest podcast hosts you know, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna, unveil their inaugural holiday special.

Links:

Biden Orders Federal Agencies On Wildly Expensive Fool’s Errand

On December 8, President Biden directed federal agencies to cut the government’s carbon dioxide emissions by 65 percent by 2030 with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Biden is directing federal car shoppers to buy only zero-emission passenger vehicles and light trucks by the end of fiscal year 2027, with 100 percent compliance by all vehicles by 2050. His executive orders call for federal buildings to transition to net-zero emissions by 2045, by primarily powering the facilities with wind, solar, and nuclear energy and using “sustainable” building materials. By 2030, Biden wants the federal government to purchase electricity produced only from sources that do not emit carbon dioxide. By 2032, the Biden administration wants to see carbon dioxide emissions from building operations, such as heating, cut in half.

In a series of executive orders, Biden directed the government to transform its 300,000 buildings, 600,000 cars and trucks, and use its annual purchases of $650 billion in goods and services to meet his goal of a federal government that is net zero in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The plan does not cover purchasing by the Department of Defense, which accounts for a large portion of the government’s energy spending.

Issues

Currently, only 40 percent of the electricity purchased by the federal government of its $4.5 billion in electricity expenditures annually comes from renewable sources like wind and solar. Biden’s goal is to ramp that up to 100 percent in less than a decade. The federal government consumes just 1.5 percent of the nation’s energy, although it is a major player in certain states where it has significant operations, such as Virginia, California, Georgia and North Carolina. In converting its power to wind, solar and other sources that do not produce carbon dioxide emissions, the government intends to follow the path set by companies like Google, Apple and Wal-Mart, which established tariffs or developed power-purchase agreements with local utilities to achieve their goals of 100 percent renewable energy.

Currently electric vehicles represent only about 1.5 percent of the government fleet. In fiscal year 2021 the administration purchased 650 electric vehicles, but that number would have to increase several-fold this year and beyond to achieve the goal. The government buys about 50,000 vehicles a year, many of which are replacements. Renewable energy and other “clean” energy purchases are likely to cost the government more money, and many of the components like electric charging stations for an all-electric federal vehicle fleet have not yet been built and will also run up the price tag of achieving Biden’s goals.

According to the White House Fact Sheet, the following acquisitions will begin the effort toward meeting the goals:

  • In 2022, the Department of Defense’s Edwards Air Force Base in California will add 520 megawatts of solar photovoltaic energy.
  • In 2022, the Department of Defense’s Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii will complete construction of a 14-megawatt solar facility paired with a 70 megawatt-hour battery energy storage system sited on the base.
  • In 2023, the Department of Transportation will complete its Volpe Transportation Center project that transforms six buildings into a low-emissions building with rooftop solar PV panels, zero electric vehicle charging stations for the federal fleet and employee vehicles, green and cool roof technologies, a rainwater reclamation and reuse system, and a climate-resilient above-grade data center.
  • By 2022, the Department of the Treasury will have completed the majority of its energy infrastructure improvements at an Internal Revenue Service Center outside of New York City through a 17-year, $30.9 million energy savings performance contract.
  • Some federal agencies have taken steps toward integrating electric vehicles into their fleet, including the Department of Homeland Security which plans to begin field testing an electric Ford mustang model next year for law enforcement use. The U.S. Department of Interior’s U.S. Park Police have begun using lightweight motorcycles and dirt bikes at some locations.

These are just a drop in the bucket to what will be needed to attain Biden’s goals.

Conclusion

These executive orders are to get the Biden administration closer to its announced goal of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The White House plans to use money from the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, the annual budget and the Build Back Better Act, which Congress has yet to pass, to pay for these federal initiatives, which will harm workers in the fossil fuel industries. While Biden’s goals will be creating jobs in the renewable energy and electric vehicle markets, these jobs will not compensate for the losses in the fossil fuel industries and their higher salaries. Luckily, given that these goals are set by executive order, they can be reversed by a future administration more concerned about financial responsibility to taxpayers.


*This article was originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #62: Greedy Meat Conglomerates

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss Democrats’ crazy attempts at inflation deflection and nail down what exactly is causing the consumer price index to skyrocket.

Links:

Biden Directs Department of Energy to Flout the Law

One of the President’s most important jobs is to “take Care that the Laws are faithfully executed” as it says in Article II Section 3 of the Constitution. Put another way, an important purpose of the Executive Branch is to execute the laws. The Department of Energy, however, does not want to do that with research and development on oil, natural gas, and coal. In fact, they have gone so far as to say that it is “a central ethic of our [Fossil Energy] office is that if a non-fossil energy option exists today, it should always be preferred to the use of fossil energy.”

In July 2021, the Biden administration changed the name of the Fossil Energy Office at the Department of Energy from the Office of Fossil Energy to the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM). There is nothing wrong with changing the name of the office and there is nothing wrong to note that part of the work the office does is “carbon management.” The problem is that they would like to ignore their statutory instructions—the law—in the name of climate change.

On December 6, 2021, the Office posted an explanation of their name change. They wrote, “This is not a rebranding; it is a historical shift in focus.” The problem is that this gets it exactly wrong. The Department of Energy is free to rebrand the office, but they are not free to shift focus or execute their own goals. Congress writes the laws explaining the focus and goals and then the Executive Branch executes those directives.

But the Biden administration doesn’t want to execute the law as it is written, but rather to make up their own statutes to execute. For example, DOE writes, “we have refocused FECM to center our work on climate.” The problem is that Congress has not authorized DOE to “center their work on climate.” There is no statutory authorization to only focus on climate. DOE’s work on fossil energy is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 16291. It instructs DOE to work on improving energy from fossil energy including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, here is part of the office’s objectives:

(2) Objectives

The programs described in paragraph (1) shall take into consideration the following objectives:

(A) Increasing the energy conversion efficiency of all forms of fossil energy through improved technologies.

(B) Decreasing the cost of all fossil energy production, generation, and delivery.

(C) Promoting diversity of energy supply.

(D) Decreasing the dependence of the United States on foreign energy supplies.

(E) Improving United States energy security.

(F) Decreasing the environmental impact of energy-related activities, including technology development to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and associated emissions of heavy metals within coal combustion residues and gas streams resulting from fossil fuel use and production.

… [emphasis added]

Congress instructed the Department of Energy to work on reducing GHGs from fossil energy, but that is only part of a list of things they are supposed to work on, not the only focus. The Department of Energy is also supposed to work on decreasing the cost of oil, natural gas, and coal production for Americans. But the Department of Energy would like to ignore that.

One of the most concerning things in DOE’s statement is its rejection of fossil energy overall. The original version of the statement posted on DOE’s website states, “a central ethic of our [Fossil Energy] office is that if a non-fossil energy option exists today, it should always be preferred to the use of fossil energy.” This statement was apparently a little too honest because DOE edited the statement and removed that sentence. But that sentence is certainly the spirit of the statement as a whole.

The statement also talks about climate goals, net-zero goals, and decarbonization goals. The problem with these goals is that Congress has not set them. Again, Congress has legislative power and the Executive Branch is supposed to execute the law, not extra-statutory goals of temporary office-holders with personal beliefs.

With this rebranding and refocusing, DOE is thumbing their noses at Congress and our very form of government with its divided roles. It is critical that Congress forces DOE to focus on its statutorily defined mission and not allow DOE to ignore the law.


*This article was originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

The Unregulated Podcast #61: The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss this week’s headlines and the arrival of an unexpected ally in the fight against Biden’s Build Back Beter.

Links

The Unregulated Podcast #60: Greedy Capitalist Marshmallows!

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss this week’s wildest headlines.

Links:

Democrats Attack Domestic Energy Producers Through “Build Back Better”

On November 19, the House of Representatives passed a $2 trillion budget bill with a long list of increases in federal royalties and fees, plus new fees, new taxes, and barriers to leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico. It passed on a party-line vote of 220-213 and was sent to the Senate, where changes are expected. It contains a long list of higher costs for oil and gas companies, especially those operating on federal lands. The arbitrary new fees would add millions of dollars in operating costs, pricing out U.S. production. This bill taxes American energy, restricts access to resources owned by Americans and advances ‘import-more-oil’ strategy that the Biden administration has been promoting—all of which will cost Americans more to heat their homes with natural gas and fill their tanks with gasoline.

On the other hand, the bill contains some $300 billion in spending for renewable energy—by far the largest component of the climate spending in the package. It would expand tax credits for renewable power, electric vehicles, biofuels and energy efficiency. The credits could accelerate investments in both utility-scale and residential renewable energy as well as electricity transmission, power storage and “clean-energy” manufacturing. Thus, the bill uses taxpayer funds to promote “green” causes that cannot efficiently and affordably supply energy to the American public.

Source: House Rules Committee; Novogradac

Build Back Better Act Attacks the Oil and Gas Industry

The bill ups the royalty rate for all new onshore oil and gas leases on federal lands to 18.75 percent, up from the 12.5 percent minimum currently. For offshore, the minimum would be 14 percent, and the policy option of royalty relief for economic reasons would be terminated.

Royalties for natural gas would cover all natural gas, including gas vented, flared, or leaked from onshore and offshore operations in the upstream, with an exception only for 48 hours of emissions during an emergency.

Onshore minimum bids and rental rates would increase, and the primary term for onshore leases in the 48 contiguous states would be limited to 5 years. An “expression of interest fee” of $15 to $50 per acre would be added to Department of Interior costs.

A new annual “conservation of resources fee” would be set at $4 per acre onshore and offshore, and a new annual “speculative leasing fee” would be set at $6 per acre for new nonproducing leases. No noncompetitive leasing would be permitted. Bonding to cover potential costs would need to be updated by Interior.

Offshore inspection fees are specified, while onshore inspection fees would be required from the Department of Interior. A severance fee would be collected by Interior at a rate of $0.50 per barrel of oil equivalent produced.

An annual fee would be levied for “idled” wells—idled for at least 2 years—and  for which there is no anticipated beneficial future use.

An annual fee would be imposed on offshore pipeline owners: $1,000 per mile in waters less than 500 feet deep and $10,000 per mile in deeper waters.

The leasing program for the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be repealed, and all payments made for leases would be returned to lessees. New exploration and production would be barred in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf of Mexico—a codification of what has been the status quo for many years.

A new methane “waste emissions charge” would apply to all onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and production work, as well as oil and gas gathering lines, upstream and midstream gas pipeline transmission, gas pipeline compression, onshore gas processing, underground storage, liquefied natural gas storage, and LNG import and export equipment. In other words, it will not just apply to operations on federal lands. The fee would be $900 per ton for methane emissions in 2023, $1,200 in 2024, and $1,500 thereafter. For production sites, the new fee would apply to emissions that exceed two-tenths of 1 percent of the natural gas sent to sale, though an alternative calculation also is provided. For natural gas transmission, upstream from retail utility operations, the fee would apply to emissions that exceed 0.11 percent of the gas sent to sale.

At the COP26 meeting in Scotland, the United States announced it will participate in the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions 30 percent by 2030.The methane fee in the Build Back Better bill is part of Biden’s commitment to reach that goal. But, two of the world’s biggest methane emitters — China and Russia — refused to sign the Global Methane Pledge. Here again Biden wants to use Americans as examples without concern about what the financial outcome would be to American energy expenses.

Renewable Energy Benefits

The proposed bill includes a variety of renewable energy tax incentives. It would structure various credits as tiered incentives, providing either a base rate or a bonus rate of five times the base amount for projects that meet certain prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. An additional increased credit amount could be claimed in certain cases if projects comply with domestic content requirements, such as ensuring that any steel, iron, or manufactured product was produced in the United States.

The production tax credit (PTC) for energy facilities that produce electricity from renewable energy sources would be extended through 2026 and increased for facilities in energy communities where a coal mine or a coal-fired electric generating unit has been shut down. The PTC for solar facilities would also be reinstated through 2026. The investment tax credit would be extended through 2026 for most property and increased for projects in energy communities and for solar and wind facilities that serve low-income communities. The PTC would consist of a base credit rate of 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour and bonus credit rate of 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour through 2026.

The renewable energy investment tax credit (ITC) includes projects that begin construction before the end of 2026 and then would phase down over two years. The ITC would be expanded to include energy storage technology and linear generators. These technologies would be eligible for a 6 percent base credit rate or a 30 percent bonus credit rate. It would provide an additional 20 percent credit for the ITC if the solar facility was placed in service in connection with a qualifying low-income residential building/low-income benefit project, or an additional 10 percent credit if the facility is located in a low-income community.

The production tax credit and investment tax credit would be available after 2026 and phased out beginning in 2031 or when U.S. emissions targets are achieved.

Other provisions include:

  • A new investment credit for electric transmission property that would apply to facilities placed in service through 2031.
  • A new zero-emission nuclear power production credit for facilities that produce electricity, available through 2027.
  • A new credit for producing clean hydrogen, based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emission rates, through 2028.
  • An investment tax credit for advanced manufacturing facilities that start construction before 2026 and a production tax credit for eligible components that would begin to phase down in 2027.
  • A credit for the domestic production of clean fuels that would be based on their lifecycle carbon emissions, which would also be phased out beginning in 2031 or when emissions targets are achieved.

Electric Vehicle Tax Credits

Under the Build Back Better bill a $7,500 consumer tax credit would be made refundable and expanded by $4,500 for cars assembled domestically by plants represented by unions. An additional $500 bonus would be added for vehicles that use batteries made in the United States for a total of $12,500. The legislation also would create a new $4,000 tax credit for the purchase of used electric vehicles. The new tax-credit package also eliminates the 200,000-vehicle cap, making GM and Tesla vehicles eligible again.

More expensive vehicles would not qualify for the tax credit under the current proposal. Sedans and smaller cars would only be eligible if they cost less than $55,000. For sport-utility vehicles and trucks, the sticker price would have to be under $80,000 to qualify. The proposed tax credit includes an income cap. Individuals have to make under $250,000 annually to be eligible for the credit. For households, the cap is $375,000 for a single-income family and $500,000 for a dual-income family.

The $2 trillion tax and spending bill, passed by the House, would significantly expand the nation’s demand for lithium batteries and provide opportunities for Chinese electric vehicle supply chain leaders including the Contemporary Amperex Technology Company (CATL). Based in the southeastern province of Fujian, CATL is the world’s largest manufacturer of power batteries and materials. Auto giants Daimler, BMW, and BAIC Motor Corp are customers.

Conclusion

Despite high gasoline prices stressing the U.S. consumer and home heating prices expected to soar this winter, the House Democrats are hiking fees and increasing red tape on the U.S. oil industry. The House Build Back Better bill provides oil and gas provisions that are punitive measures, including arbitrary new fees that would add millions of dollars in annual operating costs, pricing out U.S. production on federal lands and waters and taxing methane emissions from all production, even on private lands. These provisions are a gift to higher emitting producers like Russia and China that wield their energy resources as a geopolitical tool and would fundamentally weaken one of America’s most important economic, energy, emissions and national security assets. At the same time, it would give renewable technologies subsidies that they have been receiving for decades to replace efficient and affordable energy from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power. The result of the Build Back Better Bill is not better energy or a better life style for Americans. Rather, it is a costly measure, increasing transportation fuel, heating, and electricity bills for Americans.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

Biden’s Black Friday Bombshell: Interior to Pursue Policies That Will Make Gasoline Even More Expensive


President Biden seeks further restrictions of oil and gas development on federal lands, substantially higher royalty fees.


WASHINGTON DC (November 23, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, strongly condemns President Biden’s Black Friday release of a report on the federal oil and gas leasing program calling for further restrictions on federal lands for oil and gas development.

AEA President Thomas Pyle made the following statement in response to the release of the report:

“Just days after taking to the podium to feign his concern for higher gasoline prices, President Biden’s Interior Department released a Black Friday bombshell report calling for even less drilling on federal lands and draconian increases in royalty payments. If enacted, theses policies would further limit our ability to produce oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters and lead to even greater pain at the pump.

“While Americans are enjoying their Thanksgiving holiday, despite the fact that they are paying more because of Biden’s anti-energy and inflationary policies, the Administration is attempting to bury their latest assault on the oil and gas industry with a Black Friday announcement. It’s just another example of their open disregard for the struggles of hard working American families. 

“President Biden’s actions speak louder than his words. He wants American families to think he cares about high gasoline prices, yet all of his actions since day one of his presidency make it abundantly clear he wants them to soar even higher.”


Additional Resources:


For media inquiries please contact: 

PRESS@ENERGYDC.ORG