Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation

Published

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.

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.

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

Alberta

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Q&A with Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transport and Economic Corridors

Devin Dreeshen, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation
and Economic Corridors.

CEC: How have recent developments impacted Alberta’s ability to expand trade routes and access new markets for energy and natural resources?

Dreeshen: With the U.S. trade dispute going on right now, it’s great to see that other provinces and the federal government are taking an interest in our east, west and northern trade routes, something that we in Alberta have been advocating for a long time.

We signed agreements with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have an economic corridor to stretch across the prairies, as well as a recent agreement with the Northwest Territories to go north. With the leadership of Premier Danielle Smith, she’s been working on a BC, prairie and three northern territories economic corridor agreement with pretty much the entire western and northern block of Canada.

There has been a tremendous amount of work trying to get Alberta products to market and to make sure we can build big projects in Canada again.

CEC: Which infrastructure projects, whether pipeline, rail or port expansions, do you see as the most viable for improving Alberta’s global market access?

Dreeshen: We look at everything. Obviously, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas, but also rail is part of the mix of getting over four million barrels per day to markets around the world.

The beauty of economic corridors is that it’s a swath of land that can have any type of utility in it, whether it be a roadway, railway, pipeline or a utility line. When you have all the environmental permits that are approved in a timely manner, and you have that designated swath of land, it politically de-risks any type of project.

CEC: A key focus of your ministry has been expanding trade corridors, including an agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to explore access to Hudson’s Bay. Is there any interest from industry in developing this corridor further?

Dreeshen: There’s been lots of talk [about] Hudson Bay, a trade corridor with rail and port access. We’ve seen some improvements to go to Churchill, but also an interest in the Nelson River.

We’re starting to see more confidence in the private sector and industry wanting to build these projects. It’s great that governments can get together and work on a common goal to build things here in Canada.

CEC: What is your vision for Alberta’s future as a leader in global trade, and how do economic corridors fit into that strategy?

Dreeshen: Premier Smith has talked about C-69 being repealed by the federal government [and] the reversal of the West Coast tanker ban, which targets Alberta energy going west out of the Pacific.

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done on the federal side. Alberta has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to economic corridors.

We’ve asked the federal government if they could develop an economic corridor agency. We want to make sure that the federal government can come to the table, work with provinces [and] work with First Nations across this country to make sure that we can see these projects being built again here in Canada.

Continue Reading

Energy

Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?

Published on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute By Rory Johnston for Inside Policy

While Canadian crude markets are as optimistic as they’ve been in months regarding US tariffs, the industry is still far from safe.

Western Canadian heavy crude oil prices are remarkably strong at the moment, providing a welcome uplift to the Canadian economy at a time of acute macroeconomic uncertainty. The price of Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude recently traded at less than $10/bbl (barrel) under US Benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI): a remarkably narrow differential (i.e., “discount”) for the Canadian barrel, which more commonly sits around $13/bbl but has at moments of crisis blown out to as much as $50/bbl.

Stronger prices mean greater profits for Canadian oil producers and, in turn, both higher royalty and income tax revenues for Canadian governments as well as more secure employment for the tens of thousands of Canadians employed across the industry. For example, a $1/bbl move in the WCS-WTI differential drives an estimated $740 million swing in Alberta government budget revenues.

Why are Canadian oil prices so strong today? It’s due to the perfect storm of three distinct yet beneficial conditions:

  • Newly sufficient pipeline capacity following last summer’s start-up of the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which eliminated – albeit temporarily – the effect of egress constraint-driven discounting of Western Canadian crude;
  • Globally, the bolstered value of heavy crudes relative to lighter grades – driven by production cuts, shipping activity, sanctions, and other market forces – has benefited the fundamental backdrop against which Canadian heavy crude is priced; and
  • The near elimination of tariff-related discounting as threat of US tariffs has diminished, after weighing on the WCS differential to the tune of $4–$5/bbl between late-January through early March.

We break down each of these factors below.

A quick primer: differentials, decomposed

Before we dive in, let’s quickly review how Canadian crude pricing works. WCS crude is Canada’s primary export grade and is virtually always priced at a discount to WTI, the US benchmark for oil prices, for two structural reasons outlined below. More accurately referred to as the differential (in theory, the price difference could go both ways), this price difference is a fact of life for Canadian crude producers and sits between $11–$15/bbl in “normal” times. Over the past decade, WCS has only sported a sub-$10/bbl differential less than 10 per cent of the time and most such instances reflected unique market conditions, like the Alberta government’s late-2018 production curtailment and the depths of COVID in early 2020.

The structurally lower value of WCS relative to WTI is driven by two main structural factors: quality and geography.

First and very simply, WCS is extremely heavy oil – diluted bitumen, to be specific – in contrast to WTI, which is a light crude oil blend. Furthermore, WCS has a high sulphur content (“sour,” in industry parlance) compared to the virtually sulphur-free WTI (“sweet”). WCS crude requires specialized equipment to be effectively processed into larger shares of higher-value transportation fuels like diesel as well as the remove the sulphur, which is environmentally damaging (see: acid rain)l; so, WCS is “discounted” to reflect the cost of that additional refining effort. Quality-related discounting typically amounts to $5-$8/bbl and can be seen in its pure form in the price of a barrel of WCS is Houston, Texas, where it enjoys easy market access.

Second, Western Canadian oil reserves are landlocked and an immense distance from most major refining centers. Unlike most global oil producers that get their crude to market via tanker, virtually all Canadian crude gets to end markets via pipeline. So, this higher cost of transportation away from where the crude is produced (aka “egress”) represents the second “discount” borne by the relative price of Canadian crude, required to keep it competitive with alternative feedstocks. Transportation-related discounting typically amounts to $7-$10/bbl and can be seen in the difference between the price of a barrel of WCS in the main hub of Hardisty, Alberta and the same barrel in Houston, Texas.

Moreover, transportation-related discounting is worse when pipeline capacity is insufficient, which has so frequently been the case over the past decade and a half. When there isn’t enough pipeline space to go around, barrels are forced to use more expensive alternatives like rail and that adds at least another $5/bbl to the required industry-wide pricing discounting – because prices are always set at the margin, or in other words by the weakest barrel. In especially acute egress scarcity, the geographic-driven portion of the differential can blow out, as we saw in late-2018 when the differential rose to more than $50/bbl before the Alberta government forcibly curtailed provincial production to reduce that overhang.

Additionally, the election of US President Donald Trump – and, specifically, the threat of US tariffs on Canadian exports – has introduced a third factor in the differential calculation. Over the past few months, shifts in the WCS differential have also been reflecting the market’s combined handicapping of (i) the probability of tariffs hitting Canadian crude and (ii) the rough share of the tariff burden borne by Canadian exporters.

All three of these factors – global quality, egress availability, and market anticipation of tariff US risk – have shifted decisively and strongly in favour of WCS over the recent weeks and months.

More pipelines, fewer problems

The first reason that Canadian oil prices are remarkably strong at the moment is sufficient pipeline capacity. The perennial bugbear of Western Canadian oil producers, pipeline capacity is, quite unusually, sufficient thanks to last summer’s start-up of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX). TMX is the largest single addition to Western Canadian egress capacity in more than a decade and, since TMX entered service last summer, the transportation-related differential has remained low and stable, eliminating the largest and most common drag on Canadian crude pricing.

Without TMX, the Western Canadian oil industry would be suffering an all too familiar and increasingly acute egress crisis. Acute egress shortages would have dwarfed the threat of US tariffs and pushing differentials, in stark contrast to today, far wider – the spectre of provincial production curtailment would not have been out of the question. And it is also important to note that this pipeline sufficiency is inherently temporary. Current pipeline sufficiency will likely only last another year or two at most and then Western Canadian egress will require additional expansions to avoid the resurrecting of egress-scarcity-driven differential blowouts.

Heavy is the crude that wears the crown

The second reason that Canadian oil prices are remarkably strong now is the unusually strong global market for heavy crude. Heavy crude grades (e.g., Iraqi Basra Heavy and Mexican Maya), medium crude grades (e.g., Dubai and Mars), and high sulphur fuel oil (used in global shipping) have all seen their value rise relative to Brent and WTI benchmarks, which both reflect lighter, sweet grades of crude.

For WCS, the differential has narrowed from more than $10/bbl at the end of 2023 to around $2.8/bbl under WTI. The bolstered value of heavy crudes relative to lighter grades is being driven by a host of factors including ongoing OPEC+ production cuts (much of which came in the form of heavier crude grades), strong shipping activity, and tighter sanctions against traditional suppliers of heavy shipping fuel like Russia and more recently Venezuela.

What tariff threat?

Finally, the most acute and volatile reason that Canadian oil prices are remarkably strong at the moment is the near elimination of US tariff-related discounting. The US imports more than half of its total foreign oil purchases from Canada and Canadian crude has long enjoyed tariff-free access to the US market. Tariff-related pricing pressure began in earnest in late-2024 as Canadian crude markets tried to build in an ever-evolving handicapping of that tariff risk following Trump’s initial tariff threats. Tariff-related discounting grew stronger from mid-January through February with the excess geographic WCS differential rising to nearly $5/bbl (see chart above and read “Canadian Crude Drops Tariff Discount” for more on the logic of this measure).

After a months-long rollercoaster of “will he/won’t he” uncertainty around the imposition of US tariffs on Canadian crude imports, USMCA-compliant exemptions and broader US official chatter regarding potential outright Canadian crude exemptions have allowed markets to reduce the (roughly) implied probability to effectively zero. This factor alone narrowed the headline WCS differential in Hardisty, Aberta, by $3–$4/bbl over the past month.

Conclusion

Canadian oil prices are so strong today because just about everything that can be going right is going right. WCS differentials are benefitting from a perfect storm of (i) unusually sufficient pipeline capacity, (ii) exceptionally strong global heavy crude markets, and (iii) a near elimination of US tariff-related discounting. Together, these factors are lifting the relative value of Canadian crude oil exports, and this is a boon for Canadian oil industry profits, provincial royalty income, income tax receipts, and employment in the sector.

Looking ahead, WCS differentials may narrow by another dollar or two as this beneficial momentum persists. However, the balance of risk is now tilted towards a reversal (i.e., widening) of differentials over the coming year as OPEC+ begins to ease production cuts and Western Canadian production continues to grow without the hope of any new near-term pipeline additions. While Canadian crude markets are as optimistic as they’ve been in months regarding US tariffs, the industry is still far from safe – given the volatility of policy coming out of the White House, there is still a chance that this near-erasure of tariff risk from Canadian crude pricing may have come too far, too fast.

If and as tariff concerns fall away, egress sufficiency (i.e., pipeline capacity) will resume its place as king of the differential determinants. At the current rates of Western Canadian production growth, Canada is set to again overrun egress capacity – after the relief provided by the start-up of TMX – over the next year or two at most. While Canada may have dodged a near-term bullet to crude exports destined for the US, this situation serves to only emphasize the continued challenges associated with current pipeline infrastructure. It would be prudent for Canadian politicians to begin shifting their current concerns towards the structural, and entirely predictable, threat of renewed egress insufficiently coming down the pipe.


About the author

Rory Johnston is a leading voice on oil market analysis, advising institutional investors, global policy makers, and corporate decision makers. His views are regularly quoted in major international media. Prior to founding Commodity Context, Johnston led commodity economics research at Scotiabank where he set the bank’s energy and metals price forecasts, advised the bank’s executives and clients, and sat on the bank’s senior credit committee for commodity-exposed sectors.

Continue Reading

Trending

X