Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation

Published

3 years ago

13 minute read

From Michael Schellenberger

Moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema Are Right to Oppose the Clean Energy Performance Program

Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden’s budget “This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package,” said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation. “We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals. That’s just the reality.”

But that’s not the reality. The “Clean Energy Performance Program” is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.

Consider Waxman-Markey. That’s the name of the “cap and trade” climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010. It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.

Subscribe now

Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, “the Environmental Protection Agency projects that even if the emissions limits go into effect, the U.S. would use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005.”

The same thing would likely have been true for the Clean Energy Performance Program, which lock in natural gas. Consider France. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018. But the money spent on renewables did not lead to cleaner electricity. In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity increased.

After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016. The reason? Record-breaking wind and solar production did not make up for falling nuclear energy output and higher natural gas consumption. And now, the high cost of renewable electricity is showing up in French household electricity bills.

Some pro-nuclear people supported the proposed Clean Energy Performance Program. They claimed it would have saved existing nuclear plants at risk of closure. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the closure of nuclear plants including Diablo Canyon in California, will result in nuclear energy in the U.S. declining by 17% by 2025. If the Program had passed, some pro-nuclear people believe, plants like Diablo Canyon could have been saved.

But the Clean Energy Performance Program would not have saved Diablo Canyon for the same reason it would not have saved Indian Point nuclear plant, which closed in New York, earlier this year: progressive Democratic politicians are forcing nuclear plants to close, and at a very high cost to ratepayers.

If the Clean Energy Performance Program had passed into law, Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas & Electric, would simply have passed the $500 million to $1.5 billion penalty imposed by the Program onto ratepayers, along with the other billions in costs related to closing Diablo Canyon 40 years earlier than necessary. The same would have happened with Indian Point.

Where there is political support for saving nuclear plants, state legislators and governors save nuclear plants, as they did in Illinois a few weeks ago, and as they have done in Connecticut, New Jersey, and with up-state nuclear plants in New York. In other states, nuclear plants are protected from cheap natural gas by regulated electricity markets. And now, with natural gas prices rising dramatically, any nuclear plants at risk of closure for economic reasons are no longer at risk.

Share

What threatens the continued operation of nuclear power plants, and nuclear energy in general, is the continued subsidization of renewables, which the Clean Energy Performance Program would have put on steroids. Under the program, utilities would have received $18 for each megawatt-hour of zero-emissions energy it produces between 2023 to 2030, on top of the existing $25 per megawatt-hour subsidy for wind energy.

Under such a scenario, notes energy analyst Robert Bryce, a wind energy company “could earn $43 per megawatt-hour per year for each new megawatt-hour of wind energy it sells. That’s a staggering sum given that the wholesale price of electricity in New York last year was $33 per megawatt-hour. In Texas, the wholesale price of juice was $22 per MWh.”

Manchin is joined in his opposition to the Plan by moderate Democratic Arizona Senator, Krysten Sinema, and understandably so. The legislation would cost Arizona ratepayers nearly $120 billion in additional electricity costs, according to energy analysts Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling of the American Experiment. “This would result in a 45 percent increase in electricity prices by 2031, compared to 2019 rates,” they note.

As troubling, the Clean Energy Performance Program would increase dependence on solar panels made in China by incarcerated Uighyr Muslims living in concentration camps and against whom the Chinese government is committing “genocide,” according to the U.S. State Department. New research shows that China made solar panels cheaper through the use of forced labor, heavy government subsidies, and some of the dirtiest coal in the world. The Program would have done nothing to shift production of solar panels back to the U.S.

Nor would the legislation have done anything to internalize the high cost of solar panel waste disposal. Most solar panels become hazardous waste, and create dust from heavy metals including lead, as soon as they are removed from rooftops. A major study published in Harvard Business Review earlier this year found that, when the high cost of managing toxic solar panel waste is eventually accounted for, the true cost of solar electricity will rise four-fold.

As troubling, the continued expansion of weather-dependent renewables will increase electricity costs and blackouts across the United States, as they did in California and Texas. Those renewables-driven blackouts were likely on Senator Manchin’s mind when he made his decision to oppose the Clean Energy Performance Plan. He certainly knows about the problems of renewables in Texas and California, since I discussed them directly with Manchin when I testified before his committee earlier this year.

Subscribe now

A better approach would be for Congress to seek nuclear-focused legislation to expand nuclear from its current 19% of U.S. electricity to 50% by 2050. It should take as a model the British government’s announcement yesterday that it would put nuclear energy at the center of its climate plans. Global energy shortages triggered by the lack of wind in Europe have led nations to realize that any efforts to decarbonize electricity grids without creating blackouts must center nuclear power, not weather-dependent solar and wind.

Environmental Progress and I met with British lawmakers in 2019 to advocate for a greater focus on nuclear. At the time, many British energy analysts, as well as ostensibly pro-nuclear climate activists, Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, were telling the public that their nation did not need more nuclear, as Britain could simply rely more on wind energy, and natural gas. Now, electricity prices are skyrocketing and factories are closing in Britain, due to a bad year for wind.

It was a strange experience to be alone in Britain, without support from supposedly pro-nuclear Britons, in urging lawmakers to build more nuclear plants, but I was similarly alone in many other parts of the world, and got on with the task. Happily, one year later, former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joined me in advocating for nuclear, and quickly forced the government to agree to a nuclear build-out.

Today, in the U.S., there is a growing grassroots movement for nuclear energy, one which saved nuclear plants, twice, in Illinois, and other states, and is gearing up to save Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. Doing so will require a new governor, since the current one, Gavin Newsom, made closing the plant a feature of his sales pitch to powerful environmental groups, including Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Fund which are, like Newsom himself, heavily funded by natural gas and renewable energy companies that stand to benefit from the Diablo’s destruction.

Leadership at the national level will need to come from Senators Manchin and Sinema. While a significant amount of electricity policy is determined by the states, the Senate can play a constructive role in maintaining the reliability, resiliency, affordability, I testified to Senator Manchin and other committee members. Senator Sinema is from Arizona, a state with the largest nuclear plant in the U.S., Palo Verde, and which is a model of how to make electricity both low in emissions, and in costs.

With the Clean Energy Performance Program now apparently dead, the Congress, led by Manchin and Sinema, should take policy action to not only keep operating the nuclear plants that have been critical to preventing power outages in recent years, but also expand them.

About Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,”Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.

He is author of the best-selling new book, Apocalypse Never (Harper Collins June 30, 2020), which has received strong praise from scientists and scholars. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” wrote climate scientist Tom Wigley. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” says historian Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “Within its lively pages, Michael Shellenberger rescues with science and lived experience a subject drowning in misunderstanding and partisanship. His message is invigorating: if you have feared for the planet’s future, take heart.”

Additional Reading:

Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart

Nuclear Plant Closures And Renewables Increase Electricity Prices & Unreliability, Testifies Michael Shellenberger to U.S. Senate

China Made Solar Cheap With Coal, Subsidies, And “Slave” Labor — Not Efficiency

Why Everything They Said About Solar Was Wrong

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ – Good News for Canadian Energy and Great News for WCSB Natural Gas

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

Trump’s new NIH head fires top Fauci allies and COVID shot promoters, including Fauci’s wife

Freedom Convoy / 5 hours ago

Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich, Chris Barber found guilty of mischief

Business

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ – Good News for Canadian Energy and Great News for WCSB Natural Gas

Published on April 3, 2025

By

By Maureen McCall

April 2 was ‘Liberation Day’ according to U.S. President Donald Trump.  While the announcement of U.S. reciprocal tariffs was not good news for many countries, Trump’s announcement also had some good news for Canadian Energy companies – 0% tariffs.  Some tariffs against Canada are still in place, but for now, no energy sector tariffs against Canada underscores the importance of Canadian energy to the Trump administration.

President Trump announced new tariffs on April 2nd, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” with a 10% baseline tariff for all U.S. trading partners, to go into effect on April 5th. He also announced more reciprocal tariffs against the “worst offenders,” which will go into effect on April 9th but no tariffs on Canadian energy were announced.

Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs Announcement

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith celebrated the win which she says is precisely what she has been advocating for from the U.S. Administration for months.

“The United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian Federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. Administration. It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including 0% tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and a host of other Canadian goods.”

This is great news for Canadian energy producers, especially natural gas producers who are experiencing dramatic growth in the Montney.

At this year’s S&P Global CERAWeek, Mike Verney, Executive Vice-President of petroleum reserves with McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. had great news for Canadian companies.

McDaniel’s study, commissioned by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), reported data indicating that Alberta has proven natural gas reserves of 130 trillion cubic feet (TCF), compared to previous provincial estimates of only 24 TCF. According to the study, if probable gas reserves are added in, the overall figure is 144 TCF.

As reported in the Financial Post, Verney said “We’re growing like mad in the Montney. The major natural gas plays in the U.S. are actually declining versus the Montney that is actually growing.”

This message was echoed by Michael Rose, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil,  Canada’s largest natural gas producer during his keynote address at the SPE Canadian Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition last month in Calgary.

Not a Sunset Industry

Michael Rose – Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tourmaline Oil

Rose opened his keynote speech with optimism saying: “This is not a sunset industry- it is closer to sunrise than sunset” and spoke about Canada’s compelling opportunity for natural gas production as well as Tourmaline’s successes.

Reuters reports that analysts are wondering about the U.S.’s ability to meet the demand growth of booming liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects and also to meet huge domestic demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation to supply new data centre growth. Canada’s resources in Alberta’s Deep Basin and the North East BC Montney will be a huge supply source.

Deep Basin and the Montney are where the most competitive gas plays are found, and where Tourmaline operates as well as producing oil in the Peace River Triassic Lake.

Rose credits technology development and the building and ownership of midstream infrastructures as keys to affordability and profitability for Canadian companies which can control costs by controlling more of the production cycle. In addition, AI optimization has helped the company increase production. He also pointed out the environmental advantage of natural gas production. Since society needs the energy density of hydrocarbons to power industries, natural gas is the best choice as it is “the cleanest member of the fossil fuel stack.” He quoted Arjun Murti– 30 year Wall Street research analyst, buy-side investor, and advisor covering the global energy sector now with Veriten.com who asserts that there is no real energy transition and the only thing humans have actually transitioned off in the energy world is whale oil.

Rose said that 2022 statistics indicated the world set a record for all sources of energy. He pointed out that coal was supposed to replace wood 200 years ago, and it still hasn’t while wood, which has been renamed as biomass is still 7% of the overall energy stack.

The Golden Age of Gas

Rose’s natural gas outlook to 2028 in Canada was rosy saying gas “never looked better.” Beyond 2028 also looks good with a proliferation of electricity generation planned to feed data centre growth. In Alberta alone, 15 projects are in queue which will create a material increase in demand. In the U.S. however, some large U.S. natural gas supply basins have reached a tipping point with only 50% estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) left. Rose reported that drilling inventory is an issue in the U.S. but not in Canada. For example, Tourmaline has over 20 years of Tier 1 drilling inventory left while its U.S. peers don’t have the same luxury. He noted that U.S. M&A is currently driven by a quest for inventory. He noted that U.S. companies will chase profitable acquisitions in a quest for inventory to lower future costs saying “Things are still cheap in Canada.”

Canadian Resources – Will we ever be an energy superpower?

With global exploration down sharply, focus has turned to the WCSB where in the case of the Montney, only 5% has been produced so far.

“All you hear about is the western Canadian sedimentary basin and it is a monster, and it is the gift that keeps on giving, but we’re actually blessed with multiple other opportunities. Like the U.S., a number of them are off limits for government policy reasons, but certainly changes are in order.”

Some of the undeveloped basins in Canada which Rose referred to as “forbidden basins” are located on the West Coast and in the lowlands in Quebec. The tariff issue may be changing attitudes towards oil and gas development in those areas. Dealing with an unsupportive Federal Government for the last decade has made capital attraction difficult. Routine talk about phasing out Oil and Gas and the series of regulations, bills and initiatives that have stalled basin development and new pipelines have taken its toll. It has discouraged capital from flowing into the sector – a period that Rose said “ felt like an endless hurricane.”

So what is the right path forward?

The challenge for industry and policymakers is finding the right balance between energy and the environment according to Rose. He advises that setting unrealistic goals and timelines that are not based in science/technology or economics won’t work, and notes a shift away from the time frame set by net zero.

“We look at the whole environment, air, land and water, and we develop plans to improve performance in all three. We have a group of young engineers working on what amounts to an embedded clean tech business within our company, and I think they’re having a lot of fun doing it.”

One of Tourmaline’s longest initiatives, is the conversion of drilling rigs from diesel to natural gas, using field gas for fuel. The result is that projects have an improved economic return as well as reduced emissions. Rose says this year, Tourmaline will cross a “200 million barrier” and will have displaced 200 million litres of diesel and save $200 million including the makeup gas used. He says they like to think of it as a drill bit to burn initiative.

Mike Rose still had an optimistic view of the path forward for energy companies that is certainly more relevant after yesterday’s “Liberation Day” announcement from Trump.

“We’ve missed 10 years of opportunities,” Rose said. “It would have made us so much stronger than we are today as an industry and a country. Still, late is better than never. The only thing I’ll say about tariffs is that they are just another curve ball. We’ve had nothing but curve balls for 10 years, and we’ll figure out how to hit this one too. Given how integrated both countries’ energy systems are and will continue to be, I think a great narrative that just might appeal is: ‘Let’s make North America the world’s preeminent energy and oil and gas superpower’.”

Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

Saskatchewan Indigenous leaders urging need for access to natural gas

Published on April 3, 2025

By

Piapot First Nation near Regina, Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Piapot First Nation/Facebook

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Cody Ciona and Deborah Jaremko

“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”

Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says a new report by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).

It’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.

“We’re here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,” said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11 ESF webinar.

Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations’ annual general assembly calling on the federal government to “immediately enhance” First Nations financial supports for “more desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.”

“We’ve been calling it heat poverty because that’s what it really is…our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,” Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.

“We should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.”

At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).

ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.

“Most Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,” the ESF report said.

“Recent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.”

Natural gas costs less than half — or even a quarter — of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, according to CER data.

“Natural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. It’s not considered a renewable for them,” said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.

“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”

According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.

“Natural gas is the new water,” Lonechild said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X