Connect with us

Energy

Biden’s Mad War On Natural Gas Will Not End Well For Americans

Published

6 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By DAVID BLACKMON

 

Even as the Biden administration’s regulatory agencies are moving to render the building of new natural gas power plants too costly to justify, a consensus has formed in the analyst community that the added power demands from AI will require a big expansion of natural gas generation to ensure grid stability.

Over a span of less than 20 days in April and May, Biden regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) published new regulations that, according to grid expert Robert Bryce, add more than 1 million words targeting natural gas to the federal register.

On April 25, the EPA finalized new power plant emission rules that will essentially force the retirement of America’s remaining coal-fired power plants by 2030 by rendering them too costly to continue operating. Most media reports focused on that aspect of the new regulations, which had been anticipated.

Reporters gave less attention to the fact that the new rules also constitute a clear effort to make it nearly impossible to finance and operate additional gas-fired power plants over the same time. The requirement that new gas plants be accompanied by costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) capability adds millions in additional costs and would also consume as much as 30% of the power generated by the plants, greatly diminishing their profitability. The fact that some operators have already tried and failed to add CCS to at least five such plants in the United States leads to an almost inevitable conclusion that this rule is intentionally structured to shut down the natural gas power industry in this country.

On May 13, the FERC rules added hundreds of thousands of more words targeting natural gas with its Order 1920. Where the EPA rules make it vastly more expensive to build and operate natural gas power plants, FERC Order 1920 makes it more costly and difficult to permit transmission lines needed to carry their electricity to market. FERC does this by discriminating between generation sources, streamlining and incentivizing permitting for power lines that are connected to wind and solar projects.

It is a regulatory pincer move designed to force generation companies to invest in wind and solar to the exclusion of natural gas generation, one that Bryce says “will strangle AI in the crib.” Rapidly expanding power loads will require a generation source that is reliable 24 hours, seven days each week, one that can be rapidly dispatched to meet demand surges that take place every day. Only natural gas can reliably fill that breach.

A series of recently published analytical studies support Bryce’s case. A Goldman Sachs analysis published in mid-May estimates that natural gas is the most fit generation tech to meet about 60% of the incremental demand load by 2030. Tudor Pickering & Holt estimates that meeting the new demand could require the building of as much as 8.5 bcf/day of new natural gas generation capacity over the same time frame.

Bryce quotes from a Morningstar report that pegs the additional gas demand at 7 to 10 bcf/day. He also refers to an Enverus study that concludes that power demand from AI and other data centers will double by 2035, requiring an additional 4.2 bcf/day of new natural gas generation by that time for their needs alone.

“This type of need demonstrates that the emphasis on renewables as the only source of power is fatally flawed in terms of meeting the real demands of the market,” Richard Kinder, executive chairman of pipeline operator Kinder Morgan, told analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings in April, as reported by CNBC.

Seldom do we see a consensus so broad and diverse as this emerge on any topic in the energy space, yet the Biden regulators at EPA, FERC and other relevant agencies appear to be impervious to having their green energy fantasies interrupted by such pesky realty. They have one goal, which is to finalize as many new regulations negatively impacting the coal and oil and gas industries as possible before time runs out on the administration’s first term.

In that mad rush to consolidate authoritarian control, any and all inconvenient facts are to be ignored. This will not end well.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Poll: Majority says energy independence more important than fighting climate change

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.

The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.

Those surveyed also were asked:  Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?

Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.

When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.

The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points

​Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Energy

Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada

Published on

By Resource Works senior fellow Jerome Gessaroli

Canada has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, and to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.

Now a senior fellow at Resource Works, Jerome Gessaroli, argues that Canada is over-focusing internally on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, when we should “look at cooperating with developing countries to jointly reduce emissions.”

He continues: “And we do that in a way that helps ourselves. It helps meet our own goals. That’s through Article 6 of the Paris Accord, allowing countries to share emission reduction credits from jointly developed projects.”

Reduction on a global scale

Article 6, says Gessaroli, means this: “We can work towards meeting our own emission goals, and can help developing countries meet theirs. We can do it in a way that’s much more efficient. We get a lot more bang for our buck than if we are trying to just do it domestically on our own.”

The point is that, in the end, emissions are reduced on a global scale — as he stressed in a five-part series that he wrote for Resource Works last November.

And in a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (where he is a senior fellow) he wrote: “The benefits could be large. Canada could reduce emissions by 50 per cent more if it carried out methane reduction projects both internationally and domestically, rather than solely in Canada.”

But is Ottawa interested?

Gessaroli says the federal government expressed interest in Article 6 in 2019 — but has not moved since then.

“They barely looked at it. Since this requires government-to-government coordination, it needs Ottawa’s initiative. But there doesn’t seem to be too much interest, too much appetite in that.”

All Ottawa has said so far is: “Going forward, Canada will explore these and other similar options to strengthen international co-operation and generate incentives for further emission reductions.”

Gessaroli on Resource Works

Gessaroli has been working with Resource Works since he first spoke with our Stewart Muir, following a letter that Muir wrote in The Vancouver Sun in 2022: ‘Gas has key role to play in meeting 1.5C climate targets.’

Gessaroli saw in Resource Works advocacy for responsible resource development “for the people, the citizens of BC, in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that’s efficient, driven by the private sector.”

And: “Resource Works supports responsible resource development, not uncritical expansion. We have these resources. We should develop them, but in a way that benefits society, respects nature, respects the local peoples, and so that wide elements of society can benefit from that resource development.”

Gessaroli on electric vehicles 

Gessaroli hit a shared interest with Resource Works in a 2024 paper for its Energy Futures Institute, critiquing BC’s plan to require that all new vehicles sold in the province must be electric zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035.

For one thing, he wrote, BC would need to spend $1.8 billion to provide electric charging points for the vehicles. And billions more would be required to provide expanded power generation and transmission systems.

“The Government of BC should adjust or rescind its mandated targets for new minimum zero-emission vehicle sales.”

And on ZEV subsidies 

Stewart Muir and Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Institute, wrote a guest column last October in Business in Vancouver. They cited Gessaroli’s paper above, and noted: “According to Gessaroli, meeting BC’s ZEV targets will require an additional 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2030, and 9,700 gigawatt hours by 2040—almost equal to the output of two Site C dams.”

Gessaroli has also looked at the subsidies BC offers (up to $4,000) to people who buy an electric vehicle.

“The subsidies do help. They do incentivize people to buy EVs. But it’s a very costly way to reduce carbon emissions, anywhere upwards of $600, $700, even $800 a tonne to eliminate one tonne of carbon.

“When you look at the social cost of carbon, the government uses a figure around $170 a tonne. That’s the damage done from every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So we’re paying $800 to remove one tonne of carbon when that same tonne of carbon does damage of about $170. That doesn’t sound like a very cost-effective way of getting rid of carbon, does it?”

Gessaroli on Donald Trump’s policies

Gessaroli says tariffs on imports are not the only benefit that Donald Trump plans for U.S. industry that will hurt Canada.

“He also wants to reduce tax rates, 15% for US manufacturers, and allow full deductibility for equipment purchases. You reduce regulations and red tape on companies while lowering their tax rates. They’re already competitive to begin with. Well, they’re going to be even more competitive, more innovative.”

For Canada, he says: “Get rid of the government heavy hand of overtaxing and enforcing inefficient and ineffective regulations. Get rid of all of that. Encourage competition in the marketplace. And over time, we’d find Canadians can be quite innovative and quite competitive in our own right. And we can hold our own. We can be better off.

“And there’d be more tax revenues being generated by the government. With the tax revenue, you can build the roads, build the hospitals, improve the healthcare system, things like that.

“But without this type of vibrant economic type activity, you’re going to get the stagnation we’re seeing right now.”

About Jerome Gessaroli

Gessaroli leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the B.C. Institute of Technology. He is the lead Canadian co-author of Financial Management: Theory and Practice, a widely used textbook. His writing has appeared in many Canadian newspapers.

Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, highlights Gessaroli’s impact: “Jerome brings a level of economic and policy analysis that cuts through the noise. His research doesn’t just challenge assumptions—it provides a roadmap for smarter, more effective climate and energy policies.

“Canada needs more thinkers like him, who focus on pragmatic solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”

Gessaroli and Karen, his wife of 34 years, live in Vancouver and enjoy cruising to unwind. In his downtime, Gessaroli reads about market ethics and political economy — which he calls his idea of relaxation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X