Sorry, WaPo, but the CES may be third best, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), expressed it well during a hearing on the proposal last week:

 “First and foremost, we have been reminded of the importance of affordable energy.  Most of the focus is on gasoline, but electricity costs are also going up. Bringing energy prices down should be our objective – not driving them up today, or in the future, as some analyses have projected a CES would do.

“I recognize that affordability is not the only goal, and that most folks support cleaner energy. Federal mandates are just one of many tools at our disposal and, as it turns out, they can be fairly blunt instruments.  In the energy space in particular, federal mandates make it difficult to account for regional differences, consumer preferences, and international competitiveness. Hanging over all of this is our more recent experience in healthcare, which shows just how unpopular mandates are right now.

“What we should remember is that we’re not limited to one policy, or one option, for addressing our energy challenges. My preference would be to increase funding for energy innovation with the revenues we generate from increased domestic production of oil, gas, coal and other resources. If we plan ahead, we could develop a long-term policy that allows those resources to work themselves out of a job by paying for the commercialization of newer, cleaner alternatives – and we would protect families and businesses from added costs and burdens in the meantime.”

That’s exactly right.  And unfortunately during the hearing there was some serious misinformation peddled, in the category of true but misleading, that was then dutifully reported by E&E as “electricity bills will fall under a CES.”

It’s true that bills will go down under the CES — but only because consumers will choose to purchase less of now more expensive electricity.  As the EIA testified:

“Projected national average electricity prices start to rise after 2020 . . .by 2035 they are 18 percent above the Reference case level.  Increasing the dispatch of existing natural gas plants provides a quick, low-cost route for early compliance efforts, but the value of natural gas as a compliance option is significantly reduced as the clean energy target share starts to exceed the credit value for this resource.”

With abundant natural gas finally making the US a competitive manufacturing location again, now is not the time to artificially raise electricity prices with a misguided “clean energy” mandate.

The mix of fuels used to generate electricity in the United States is experiencing a seismic shift that is unlike anything that has happened in decades.  Looking across all sectors, U.S. coal-fired generation in 2011 fell to its lowest level since at least 1949, which is the earliest data available from EIA.  Moreover, according to EIA’s latest estimates, this trend will accelerate sharply in 2012, with coal-fired generation falling to just 36.2 percent of the U.S. total—far removed from its decades-long position as the source of more than half of U.S. power generation.

What’s driving this shift?  One look at the graph above tells the story pretty clearly.  The use of natural gas in power generation—which has steadily increased since about 2003—is set to soar in 2012.  While total U.S. power generation will increase by less than 1 percent between 2011 and 2013, gas-fired generation will increase by 23 percent.

In the past, natural gas was viewed as a risky option for baseload power generation, because fuel prices tended to be both high and volatile, making them unable to compete with coal. This fuel price volatility has historically outweighed the distinct advantage held by natural gas generators when it comes to capital cost. The revolution in domestic shale gas production, which has depressed natural gas prices to levels that are highly competitive with coal in numerous U.S. markets, has fundamentally changed the calculus for power generation economics.  Moreover, some recent analysis suggests that the capital cost equation has been moving even farther in favor of natural gas as air quality regulations and the complex construction requirements drive the cost of coal plants higher.

Changes in the fuels used to generate electricity could have important implications for everything from electricity prices to greenhouse gas emissions and air quality.  One area of particular interest to us is the impact a cleaner grid will have on the upstream CO2 emissions associated with plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).  We sometimes point out that PEVs are the only vehicles that will get “cleaner” as they get older as the grid moves toward lower-carbon forms of electricity.  The experience of the past several years and expectations about the very near term demonstrate this quite well.

As the figure below shows, the amount of upstream CO2 emitted by a PEV in charge-depleting mode has been declining substantially in recent years—even when it is powered by the average U.S. grid mix.  A driver who purchased a PEV in 2005 would have seen his or her upstream emissions fall by 16 percent by 2012.  In other words, the driver’s vehicle would have continuously improved its advantage over the average light-duty vehicle for that year, which achieved an adjusted fuel-economy rating of 19.9 miles per gallon.  In fact, even when taking into account line losses, a PEV purchased in 2005 would just about be on par with the best hybrids on the road today, which tend to register fuel-economy ratings of about 50 miles per gallon. Going forward, as more U.S. electricity is generated by natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables, electric vehicles will only continue to get cleaner.

A final note: Of course, no EV is likely to be powered by the ‘average mix.’  Instead, it will be powered by the marginal power plant serving its load.  To the extent that this is a natural gas turbine, nuclear power plant, or renewable source, EVs are already the cleanest available transportation option.  Analyses like this one from Oak Ridge National Labs suggest that gas turbines are likely to play a key role in powering EVs.

Ever since wind energy came on the scene, questions have been raised about their impacts on local weather.  It stands to reason that diverting wind from its old pattern of whistling down the plain to make electricity would have SOME type of impact on weather patterns.  Now comes this study, that ”showed for the first time that wind farms of a certain scale, while producing clean, renewable energy, do have some long-term effect on the immediate environment.”

This is a first, at least for your writer.  And the methodology seems sound:

“Using sensors aboard a NASA satellite, researchers at the University at Albany-State University of New York, and the University of Illinois systematically tracked a cluster of wind farms in central Texas as the installations grew from a few dozen turbines in 2003 to more than 2,350 by 2011.

On average, the nighttime air around the wind farms became about 0.72 degree Celsius warmer over that time, compared with the surrounding area, the scientists reported Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.”

Far from earth-shattering — and clearly offering no reason to shy away from wind energy — today’s report once again demonstrates two things:  1) The law of unintended consequences is real; and, 2) there is no impact-free technology we can use to harness energy.  The net effect of wind farms is of course still overwhelmingly positive, but let’s not pretend that it is uniformly so.

How fortunate we are that taxpayers did NOT buy a bunch of expensive gas and put it in storage.  A cautionary tale.  Similarly cautionary is what EPAct 05 looks like today with its focus on diversification of electricity fuels, taxpayer subsidies for various energy technologies related to electricity generation (clean coal, nuclear and renewables), encouragement for nuclear plant licensing and liquified natural gas imports — and relatively little about our damaging dependence on oil in the transportation sector.

Sure, the ethanol lobby in 2005 achieved its trifecta of taxpayer support:  a blend mandate (known as the renewable fuels standard, or RFS), continued tax credits for blenders, and continued tariff’s against imports.  Of course Congress finally wised up last year and jettisoned the tax credits due to deficit concerns.  But the most important tools in our energy security tool box — increased domestic production and fuel efficiency standards — were largely ignored in 2005.

The 2005 Act’s emphasis on electricity generation now seems misplaced, as natural gas producers can only sit and hope that utilities switch from coal to natural gas quickly and massively to soak up the gas before we run out of storage.  Or producers can ramp up their move away from gas and into oil production.  Oil continues to pay off for investors and producers — and high prices continue to make Canadian oil sands and US tight oil formations sound investments.  Shale gas and tight oil — the former is dramatically reshaping our electricity landscape while the latter is only slightly mitigating the damaging impact of our dependence on oil.  When will policy-makers learn which portion of our energy market needs an intervention?

Gold writes:  A couple of years ago, natural gas was touted as a bridge fuel to a renewable-energy future. But the bridge is looking longer and longer, spanning decades into the future. Is gas still a bridge, or a detour? Will it keep renewables from reaching viability that much longer?

Gold quotes venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who has bet heavy on alternative energy sources and spent years lobbying for supportive state and federal policies, as calling shale gas “a black swan.”  Now, black swans can be good, but high-impact surprises usually aren’t.  In this case, if you are long on renewables, you are feeling pain with low natural gas prices.

If you are a consumer, or somebody who is elected by them however, you’re liking low energy bills:

California Gov. Jerry Brown said gas could help his state meet aggressive goals for generating a third of its power from renewables. The low cost of natural gas is helping offset the higher cost of wind and solar. It’s helping prevent “sticker shock,” he said.

That is close to a traditional role for natural gas in the electricity system — providing load-smoothing electrons that fill the gap when its cloudy and the wind isn’t blowing.  But what about abundant natural gas as baseload power?  What if it crowds out renewables altogether, rather than supplementing them?  Here’s Bill Gates on that prospect:

Having so much natural gas is “phenomenal,” he said, “if you put aside climate change.”

The idea that natural gas use is bad for the climate has been a recent, ahem, discovery.  Back when natural gas was thought of as a substitute for coal — and that being only the coal needed after aggressive efficiency and conservation measures were adopted — we always heard that burning natural gas for power emitted half the greenhouse gases that burning coal releases.  Which is true.

But now that natural gas production and usage is far more robust, enviros are concerned about two things:  1) displacing truly clean fuels like renewables — who emit negligible GHGs on a life-cycle basis (counting wind turbine or solar cell production activities) — and, in a more recently expressed worry, 2) how much methane “leaks” during the production and transport of the gas to the combustion facility.  Since methane is such a powerful GHG — 25 times more potent than CO2 — even a small leakage rate will have a big climate impact.

So, is focusing our electricity generation on natural gas a good thing?  Depends on your metric.

It’s not necessarily easy to get support to the right level. . . . .Governments aren’t always good at knowing how to profile their subsidies against market conditions.

Too true.  Indeed, as Birnbaum and Faiola report it, the levels set in Europe were clearly not in — or even near — the sweet spot.  What’s the sweet spot for clean energy subsidies?  Something that internalizes the externalities that fossil fuel consumption imposes on the market, whether they be environmental, public health, or national defense.  That should, but may not always, bring renewable costs closer to fossil fuel rates without turning the market upside down.  Europe’s levels weren’t anywhere near that, judging by these statements:

In December alone, Germany installed nearly as much solar capacity as the United States has in total, fueled by the subsidies that solar companies admit sometimes made it possible not to worry whether there was sufficient demand in a given area for the power they would produce. (Emphasis added)

 Though solar energy supplied 3.1 percent of Germany’s electricity needs in 2011 — hampered in part by the country’s famously dreary weather — the industry consumed closer to half of the overall renewable subsidies, which also support other energy sources such as wind and biomass.

The company had entered a lucrative niche in which it installed solar panels on British homes free, and simply collected the government subsidies in return.

It would seem that those levels of subsidy simply caused overinvestment in otherwise unwise solar power.  Now, it may be difficult to determine the precise level of a subsidy – the first step would be a rigorous analysis of what externalities the market-distorting subsidy is designed to address.   And economists would argue that valuing externalities is not rocket-science.

What is clear, with the benefit of 20/20 hindisight, is that a subsidy regime that completely removed market forces from the equation — no worries about demand, no customer payment required to make a project profitable — is and should be unsustainable.

A smart grid combined with electrified vehicles  that are either charging in demand mode on the grid or discharging and supplying the grid can create synergies purely within the electric sector itself — to say nothing of the massive energy security and macroeconomic benefits of weaning the transportation sector from its addiction to oil.

Now comes Bill Ford, Jr., to talk about smart cars to deal with a different grid — gridlock.  Mike Ramsey’s piece in today’s WSJ is worth a read as he notes that “the No. 2 U.S. auto maker is stepping up investment in technology and services that respond to problems created by increased congestion in the world’s biggest cities.”

“For instance, the auto maker will invest in systems for its vehicles that will lead to cars that avoid traffic jams, reserve parking spaces and, under certain conditions, drive themselves, in an effort to cut down on global gridlock, he said. The company also is moving to expand the use of crash-avoidance technology and will broaden its collaboration with car-sharing companies such as Zipcar Inc.”

This is in some ways a natural evolution, as the rolling computers we still call cars continue to become smarter and smarter.  Grid-electrified vehicles that can help avoid gridlock — it may not be Jetsons-style futurism, but it will be a major improvement on the path we’re on today: addicted to petroleum at grave cost to our economic health, enduring congestion and its drain on individual productivity, and pumping out CO2 that contributes to dangerous global climate change.  We can and must take a different path, one that includes smart, electrified vehicles linked to a smart grid.

First things first.  In a fairly stunning piece, even to jaded DC insiders, former Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) is reported to be working for the small coastal town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay “for help in developing a wind energy project.”

The catch?  “While in Congress, he personally earmarked $1.7 million for the same energy project.”  And it gets worse, as “80 percent” of the funds his firm will receive will be “from the pot of money he created through a pair of Energy Department grants in his final term of office, records and interviews show.”

Now most former members of Congress who end up in law and lobbying firms claim they aren’t actually lobbyists but instead are “strategists.”  And the former Congressman released a statement quoted by the NYT saying:  “I have no federal lobbying relationship with any past or current client.”  That may be news to the town of Hull, who’s town manager is quoted a few paragraphs later using a textbook definition of access-lobbying:

“Obviously he’s got connections into the federal government that we don’t have . . . . We’re hoping he can open doors at the federal level that we could never open.”

So the Hull wind energy project will soon join Solyndra as grist for the argument that the federal government should not be providing incentives for clean energy technology deployment because those incentives are inevitably transformed into “crony capitalism.”  But just as Solyndra was evidence of the misuse of an innovative technology loan guarantee program for economic stimulus rather than evidence of a problem with government incentives; so too is the Hull project actually a fair indictment of earmarking rather than a fatal flaw in the concept of deployment incentives.  The solution?  Programs that provide funding only where the merits of various projects can be clearly compared using  objective metrics rather than “awarded” through either the legislative process or via an opaque administrative ”negotiation.”  Reverse auctions — where bidders commit to delivering X units of energy at Y cost to the taxpayer and only the best deals are then funded — are particularly suitable for such an objective process.

The second piece begins with the type of human interest angle that can obscure rather than teach, as (again, Massachusetts) a hilltop homeowner laments that the local utility wouldn’t run a natural gas line out to his place and he must instead rely on expensive home heating oil.  The real story, as we soon learn, is that home heating oil users are spending between double and triple what their natural gas-using counteparts do.  Some are out of luck due to location; others because they can’t afford the cost of conversion — even though savings due to lower monthly bills may pay for the investment in just a few years.

What’s the current federal policy response to this problem?  It is a well-intentioned effort to help low-income homeowners stay warm in the winter through the much-maligned Low Income Heating Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, whereby taxpayers subsidize the heating bills of qualified consumers.  Unfortunately, that neither fixes the problem nor encourages conservation, but instead simply transfers wealth to homeowners (and ultimately heating oil providers) “trapped in a cycle of spending more and more for heat . . . .”

Is there a better way?  For some, it could be the hugely popular state and local program called PACE — Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds (see www.pacenow.org).  Designed to let homeowners invest in energy efficiency retrofits in an affordable way, at no cost to taxpayers, this program has been literally sweeping the nation during the last few years.  And if it doesn’t include switching from heating oil to natural gas as an eligible activity, it should.  That would be an obvious energy market intervention worth making.  No earmarks required.

But that’s history, and the annual two-week negotiations over addressing global climate change did end on Sunday with what the WaPo called “a last-minute deal.”  The deal?  An agreement to potentially reach an agreement that would apply something called “an agreed outcome with legal force” to developing nations.  This is arguably an advance on the Kyoto Protocol, which did not require developing nations to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.   And that’s important because some “developing nations” — namely China and India — are leading the globe in aggregate emissions.  To be fair, their per capita emissions are far lower than developed nations, but that shouldn’t give them a free pass.  The key negotiating issue since the US pointed out the fundamental unworkability of the Kyoto Protocol has been  how to account for developing nations’ exploding emissions without unfairly impeding their economic growth — after all, the developed nations built their economies on cheap fossil fuels and only subsequently has the world (well, most of it) realized that there will be highly negative consequences because of it.

It remains to be seen whether this year’s climate confab really moved the ball on this point.  Host South African foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane certainly thinks so, as the WaPo quotes him saying, “We have indeed saved tomorrow today.“  Veteran climate watcher Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, had a different view, noting failure to achieve agreement on reducing the gap between expected emissions and those most scientists believe are the maximum that the climate can endure without expensive and life-threatening damage:  “There’s nothing [in the agreement] that’s going to get the world to lift its game and close that gap.”

Maybe more important news this weekend came from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where dysfunction apparently reigns.  Both the WaPo and the WSJ reported Saturday on four NRC Commissioners, two Democrats and two Republicans, writing to the White House accusing Chairman Greg Jaczko of  ”actions and behaviors [that] are causing serious damage to this institution.”  That quote is from the WSJ, which runs an unfortunate lead sentence (“Four of the five members . . .”) — if you didn’t already know that there are only four commissioners and a chairman, you don’t find that out until the end of the piece, so casual readers may have thought there was a hold-out.  The fact is that all four of these highly respected professionals, Democrat and Republican alike, took the trouble of airing their concerns about the NRC’s leadership to the White House.  House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, not the fuming four, released the letter to the media.

The bipartisan nature of the criticism made Senator Harry Reid’s (D-NV) otherwise laudable defense of his former staffer ring a bit hollow.  As reported in the WaPo on Sunday, he called the complaints “a politically motivated witch hunt.”  We’re guessing Senator Reid meant that Chairman Issa was hunting witches, not labelling the letter such.  But since loyalty in Washington is often in short supply, we’ll give him a pass either way.  Not so the NRC as a whole, an organization too critical to our energy future to have it’s oversight confined to the weekend papers.  Oversight hearings, anyone?

power plants are already ratcheting back purchases of thermal coal, which produces smog and soot-causing emissions as it is burned to produce electricity, in favor of cleaner fuels.

Globally, however, Day notes that there will be steady or higher coal prices in the form of demand from Asia; China and India are building coal-fired power plants at a furious pace.

This is an important point.   Many clean energy advocates repeatedly claim that China is investing multiples more in clean energy than is the US.  That’s true, but it’s also true that China is investing multiples more in all energy than is the US.   Why?  Because they have to.  The US and the rest of the West are nearly 100% electrified — China, India and the developing world have a ways to go before they hit that.  Indeed, lack of comprehensive electricity is a key determinant of a nation’s status as developed or developing.

So, while US generators are turning from coal, US miners have been exporting coal, including thermal coal, at a near-record pace this year.

And coal’s disadvantage against natural gas — investment in pollution-control technology doesn’t make sense in the face of cheap natural gas — will eventually go away, as natural gas prices eventually will climb.

Day quotes analyst Chris Kostas on the prospect of new emissions rules having an impact on natural gas prices:  “I don’t think that the natural gas market has priced (them) in.”  That may be a minority view, given the long lead time these rules have had, but it is a fact that natural gas settled Friday at $3.58 per million  Btus, and has been stuck down there for months.

 Devon Maylie had a piece in the WSJ reporting from South Africa, where the annual Kyoto Protocol climate change negotiations are making hardly any news.  Maylie notes that South Africa is poised to invest $12 billion in solar, wind and biomass projects to reduce their 90% reliance on coal.  Watch for China’s heavily subsidized renewable industry to soak up much of that new work.

And finally, Guy Chazan reported, also in the WSJ, that EU sanctions against Syria are causing Shell to pull out of the country.  We’ll end on that piece of good news.