Energy Outlook
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Speculation Witch Hunt?
This morning's financial press was riveted by the prospect of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) imposing tough new regulations on energy markets. Speculation has been widely blamed for the run-up in oil prices since early spring--as well as for last year's roller-coaster up to $145 per barrel and then down to $34--though in a subtle but important shift the focus seems to be turning to volatility, which is a very different thing than absolute price levels. I don't need to add my voice to the many already warning that limits on speculative positions could hamper the proper functioning of the market by drying up liquidity and depriving "legitimate" participants of the access to hedging they need. Instead, I believe the CFTC and its supporters in Congress and the administration are barking up the wrong tree, altogether, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the markets.
Let's begin by stipulating that speculation probably has a finite but impossible-to-quantify impact on oil prices. I pointed out this likelihood in mid-2007, when oil prices were at roughly their current level and before they began their wild ride. I've also described the difficulties involved in discerning precisely which trades are speculative and which aren't, based on my own experience trading oil commodities, futures and derivatives over a 10-year span earlier in my career. However, the current determination to clamp down on speculation appears to be based on two hypotheses that are not only unprovable in the real world, but probably entirely false: First, that in the absence of speculation, oil prices would not have spiked to nearly the degree they did last year and would be much lower today than they are, and second, that a market without speculators--or indeed without any futures trading at all--would be inherently less volatile than one in which those factors are present.
The latter proposition is easier to refute, because we've seen ample volatility in markets for which no futures contracts or easily-traded derivatives exist. I experienced this first-hand in the west cost spot gasoline market in the 1980s, a market consisting entirely of the trading representatives of local refiners and a small number of trading companies, some with storage tanks but many with no fixed assets other than a phone and a desk. Every time a refinery experienced a major operational upset, the market would spike by as much as a dime a gallon--a significant fraction of the value of a commodity that was trading well under a buck at the time. I recall one instance when the coking unit of my employer's L.A. refinery had a major fire and was out of commission for several months. Local supplies weren't adequate to cover the shortfall, and the gap had to be filled through imports. I started buying gasoline cargoes at around $0.60/gal., and by the time I had lined up all the supply we needed the price had hit $1.00/gal. before it fell back to more normal levels. That's volatility, and it is a feature of markets in tight balance between supply and demand, whether or not speculators play a role.
The question of where oil prices would have ended up last year absent speculation seems much more complex, until you consider that between 2002 and 2007 global oil demand had been growing steadily at an average rate of more than 1.5 million barrels per day (MBD) per year, outpacing the growth of global supply, and crucially of non-OPEC supply. The latter was essentially flat from 2004-7, when the price of oil roughly tripled from the low-$30s to the low $90s. In effect, the demand curve was marching to the right against a supply curve with a sharply steepening slope, as spare capacity was used up and the long inherent time lags for new oil projects constrained the amount of new production that could be brought on quickly. That path was then quickly reversed in mid-2008, once it became clear just how rapidly demand was falling, both in direct response to the high price of petroleum products--the full manifestation of which in many markets was delayed by government price controls--and by contraction of the global economy due to what we now know was the onset of a recession on a scale not seen in decades. Between February and September of last year, demand in the developed world fell by an astonishing 3.5 MBD. We'll never know whether prices would have fallen sooner if speculation hadn't maintained its momentum during the first half of 2008, but it's borderline delusional to imagine we wouldn't have spiked above $100/bbl without it.
The Wall St. Journal's "Heard on the Street" column on this topic begins with the sage observation that blame is a commodity in infinite supply. To that I would add that we rarely like to apportion that blame on ourselves, though in this case the government would do well to consider how its own actions exacerbated last year's oil price spike and the run-up in prices we've seen this year. The oil markets are mainly driven by supply and demand, and with OPEC maintaining remarkable discipline and cohesion in the face of last year's demand collapse, the supply component that has the most influence in holding down oil prices is non-OPEC production. What has our government done to promote that production? Have we seen our elected officials traveling the world and using their influence and the still-considerable diplomatic and economic leverage of the US to urge producing countries to increase access for foreign firms and investors to new oil exploration and production opportunities, on attractive terms, as the Chinese government has? Have they fast-tracked development in the most promising regions of our own country that were off-limits for drilling, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico, where reserves have already been discovered?
Such actions didn't even occur under an administration that was widely viewed as being in the pocket of the oil industry, and they certainly aren't happening now, for reasons I could devote many more paragraphs to dissecting. "Drill, baby, drill" has given way to tax, baby, tax--and I'm not referring to the climate bill, here, but to earlier talk of a windfall profits tax to fund tax relief for the middle class, which has morphed into an effort to close perceived tax loopholes such as the intangible drilling allowance for producers and the manufacturing tax deduction for refiners. None of this is going to add a barrel of real oil to our supply, and it seems likely to eliminate more than a few, while we pin our hopes on corn ethanol that still only supplies 2% of our total liquid fuels demand, after adjusting for its lower energy content. How much of the market's volatility ultimately derives from our own deeply conflicted attitudes towards oil?
Oil prices have fallen by $10/bbl. or around 14% since June 29. This coincides with a general recognition that the economy hasn't yet turned the corner to a real recovery; we've also seen the S&P 500 drop by about 7% since mid-June. Now, you might suggest that this proves that speculators had driven up prices unrealistically, but it makes at least as much sense to suggest that the producers and consumers of physical oil and its products have altered their buying and inventory decisions in light of new information about the likely state of the economy for the rest of the year. No one can win that argument, but we can all lose if regulators impose tough new controls on energy markets based on a misunderstanding of what has occurred. To that end, while I am deeply skeptical of the idea of anyone at the CFTC passing judgment on what is and what is not a proper hedge, I wholeheartedly support Chairman Gensler's call for greater transparency of market reporting, and for a healthy dialog between the industry and its regulators aimed at reining in those practices most likely to add speculative froth to the market without contributing meaningfully to the liquidity required by all participants. Let's get the additional insights that transparency will bring us, before we decide to blunt the tools that actually provide one of the few means by which firms can mitigate the effect of underlying physical market volatility on their activities.
|
Let's begin by stipulating that speculation probably has a finite but impossible-to-quantify impact on oil prices. I pointed out this likelihood in mid-2007, when oil prices were at roughly their current level and before they began their wild ride. I've also described the difficulties involved in discerning precisely which trades are speculative and which aren't, based on my own experience trading oil commodities, futures and derivatives over a 10-year span earlier in my career. However, the current determination to clamp down on speculation appears to be based on two hypotheses that are not only unprovable in the real world, but probably entirely false: First, that in the absence of speculation, oil prices would not have spiked to nearly the degree they did last year and would be much lower today than they are, and second, that a market without speculators--or indeed without any futures trading at all--would be inherently less volatile than one in which those factors are present.
The latter proposition is easier to refute, because we've seen ample volatility in markets for which no futures contracts or easily-traded derivatives exist. I experienced this first-hand in the west cost spot gasoline market in the 1980s, a market consisting entirely of the trading representatives of local refiners and a small number of trading companies, some with storage tanks but many with no fixed assets other than a phone and a desk. Every time a refinery experienced a major operational upset, the market would spike by as much as a dime a gallon--a significant fraction of the value of a commodity that was trading well under a buck at the time. I recall one instance when the coking unit of my employer's L.A. refinery had a major fire and was out of commission for several months. Local supplies weren't adequate to cover the shortfall, and the gap had to be filled through imports. I started buying gasoline cargoes at around $0.60/gal., and by the time I had lined up all the supply we needed the price had hit $1.00/gal. before it fell back to more normal levels. That's volatility, and it is a feature of markets in tight balance between supply and demand, whether or not speculators play a role.
The question of where oil prices would have ended up last year absent speculation seems much more complex, until you consider that between 2002 and 2007 global oil demand had been growing steadily at an average rate of more than 1.5 million barrels per day (MBD) per year, outpacing the growth of global supply, and crucially of non-OPEC supply. The latter was essentially flat from 2004-7, when the price of oil roughly tripled from the low-$30s to the low $90s. In effect, the demand curve was marching to the right against a supply curve with a sharply steepening slope, as spare capacity was used up and the long inherent time lags for new oil projects constrained the amount of new production that could be brought on quickly. That path was then quickly reversed in mid-2008, once it became clear just how rapidly demand was falling, both in direct response to the high price of petroleum products--the full manifestation of which in many markets was delayed by government price controls--and by contraction of the global economy due to what we now know was the onset of a recession on a scale not seen in decades. Between February and September of last year, demand in the developed world fell by an astonishing 3.5 MBD. We'll never know whether prices would have fallen sooner if speculation hadn't maintained its momentum during the first half of 2008, but it's borderline delusional to imagine we wouldn't have spiked above $100/bbl without it.
The Wall St. Journal's "Heard on the Street" column on this topic begins with the sage observation that blame is a commodity in infinite supply. To that I would add that we rarely like to apportion that blame on ourselves, though in this case the government would do well to consider how its own actions exacerbated last year's oil price spike and the run-up in prices we've seen this year. The oil markets are mainly driven by supply and demand, and with OPEC maintaining remarkable discipline and cohesion in the face of last year's demand collapse, the supply component that has the most influence in holding down oil prices is non-OPEC production. What has our government done to promote that production? Have we seen our elected officials traveling the world and using their influence and the still-considerable diplomatic and economic leverage of the US to urge producing countries to increase access for foreign firms and investors to new oil exploration and production opportunities, on attractive terms, as the Chinese government has? Have they fast-tracked development in the most promising regions of our own country that were off-limits for drilling, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico, where reserves have already been discovered?
Such actions didn't even occur under an administration that was widely viewed as being in the pocket of the oil industry, and they certainly aren't happening now, for reasons I could devote many more paragraphs to dissecting. "Drill, baby, drill" has given way to tax, baby, tax--and I'm not referring to the climate bill, here, but to earlier talk of a windfall profits tax to fund tax relief for the middle class, which has morphed into an effort to close perceived tax loopholes such as the intangible drilling allowance for producers and the manufacturing tax deduction for refiners. None of this is going to add a barrel of real oil to our supply, and it seems likely to eliminate more than a few, while we pin our hopes on corn ethanol that still only supplies 2% of our total liquid fuels demand, after adjusting for its lower energy content. How much of the market's volatility ultimately derives from our own deeply conflicted attitudes towards oil?
Oil prices have fallen by $10/bbl. or around 14% since June 29. This coincides with a general recognition that the economy hasn't yet turned the corner to a real recovery; we've also seen the S&P 500 drop by about 7% since mid-June. Now, you might suggest that this proves that speculators had driven up prices unrealistically, but it makes at least as much sense to suggest that the producers and consumers of physical oil and its products have altered their buying and inventory decisions in light of new information about the likely state of the economy for the rest of the year. No one can win that argument, but we can all lose if regulators impose tough new controls on energy markets based on a misunderstanding of what has occurred. To that end, while I am deeply skeptical of the idea of anyone at the CFTC passing judgment on what is and what is not a proper hedge, I wholeheartedly support Chairman Gensler's call for greater transparency of market reporting, and for a healthy dialog between the industry and its regulators aimed at reining in those practices most likely to add speculative froth to the market without contributing meaningfully to the liquidity required by all participants. Let's get the additional insights that transparency will bring us, before we decide to blunt the tools that actually provide one of the few means by which firms can mitigate the effect of underlying physical market volatility on their activities.
Labels: offshore drilling, oil futures, oil prices, oil production, speculation
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Forgotten Renewable
An editorial in the New York Times last week highlighted a topic I've been meaning to comment on for some time, the gradual demise of our oldest and still largest source of renewable energy: hydroelectric dams. Along with lauding plans to remove several West Coast dams in order to protect fish populations, the Times urged the dismantling of the four large power dams on the lower Snake River in Washington state. The disconnect between that position and the paper's long-standing advocacy of stronger measures to address climate change is remarkable, considering the elimination of 3,000 MW of zero-emission power generation that would accompany the loss of these dams. But if the unpopularity of existing hydropower dams in environmental circles explains the exclusion of this vital energy resource from the definition of "qualified renewables" included in the proposed national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, that hardly excuses a policy so counter-productive for our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Consider the four dams in question. I can't speak to concerns about declining salmon populations or other habitat issues, though I note that the dams in question are all "run of river" facilities, without large reservoirs. What is clear, however, is that if the four facilities typically operate at the national average hydropower utilization rate of around 36%, their annual power generation would come to about 10 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, equivalent to the output of 4,000 MW of wind capacity, or roughly 20% of the entire US wind power output in 2008. After a banner year for wind turbine installations in 2008, the US might not add much more new wind capacity than that this year, and wind remains the largest-scale technology among our preferred renewable power options. In fact, since 1999 US hydropower output has declined by an amount greater than the entire current contribution of wind power. That means the emissions benefits of a decade of dramatic growth in wind and solar power have been negated by the loss of hydroelectric generation--a loss that the authors of Waxman-Markey have chosen to ignore by counting in their RES only "incremental hydropower", which they define as
"(A) energy produced from increased efficiency achieved, or additions of capacity made, on or after January 1, 1988, at a hydroelectric facility that was placed in service before that date and does not include additional energy generated as a result of operational changes not directly associated with efficiency improvements or capacity additions; or
`(B) energy produced from generating capacity added to a dam on or after January 1, 1988, provided that the Commission certifies that--
(i) the dam was placed in service before the date of the enactment of this section and was operated for flood control, navigation, or water supply purposes and was not producing hydroelectric power prior to the addition of such capacity;
`(ii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is licensed (or is exempt from licensing) by the Commission and is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the license or exemption, and with other applicable legal requirements for the protection of environmental quality, including applicable fish passage requirements; and
`(iii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained, subject to any license or exemption requirements that require changes in water surface elevation for the purpose of improving the environmental quality of the affected waterway."
In other words, a utility would be able to count increases in hydropower towards its RES compliance only if they came from certain carefully-specified improvements, while the sole penalty for lost hydropower capacity and output would be an increase in the base amount on which the RES would be calculated. So at the full 20% RES level for 2020 and beyond, a MW of new wind, solar or other "qualified renewable" capacity would count 5 times as much as a MW of hydro dismantled.
This mismatch speaks to our conflicted attitudes toward climate change and the broader issues of sustainability. I'm sure that those advocating the removal of these dams would argue that we shouldn't make such decisions on the basis of any single criterion, even one as important as greenhouse gas emissions. Yet that view is at odds with the underlying philosophy of a climate bill that aims to do more than just level the playing field by imposing a charge on greenhouse gas emissions to account for the environmental externality not captured in the economics of the energy market. In addition to its skewed version of cap & trade, Waxman-Markey would stack the deck for a chosen group of renewable energy technologies, in the process excluding the one that produces more zero-emission MWhs than all the rest put together. When the Senate takes up this legislation, it should abandon this narrow focus on specific technologies in favor of one that creates a positive bias for all our low-emission sources, including hydropower and nuclear energy. For a government so determined to demonstrate our seriousness about tackling our emissions, in advance of December's Copenhagen climate conference, that would speak far more loudly than another thousand-plus pages of convoluted new regulations.
|
Consider the four dams in question. I can't speak to concerns about declining salmon populations or other habitat issues, though I note that the dams in question are all "run of river" facilities, without large reservoirs. What is clear, however, is that if the four facilities typically operate at the national average hydropower utilization rate of around 36%, their annual power generation would come to about 10 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, equivalent to the output of 4,000 MW of wind capacity, or roughly 20% of the entire US wind power output in 2008. After a banner year for wind turbine installations in 2008, the US might not add much more new wind capacity than that this year, and wind remains the largest-scale technology among our preferred renewable power options. In fact, since 1999 US hydropower output has declined by an amount greater than the entire current contribution of wind power. That means the emissions benefits of a decade of dramatic growth in wind and solar power have been negated by the loss of hydroelectric generation--a loss that the authors of Waxman-Markey have chosen to ignore by counting in their RES only "incremental hydropower", which they define as
"(A) energy produced from increased efficiency achieved, or additions of capacity made, on or after January 1, 1988, at a hydroelectric facility that was placed in service before that date and does not include additional energy generated as a result of operational changes not directly associated with efficiency improvements or capacity additions; or
`(B) energy produced from generating capacity added to a dam on or after January 1, 1988, provided that the Commission certifies that--
(i) the dam was placed in service before the date of the enactment of this section and was operated for flood control, navigation, or water supply purposes and was not producing hydroelectric power prior to the addition of such capacity;
`(ii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is licensed (or is exempt from licensing) by the Commission and is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the license or exemption, and with other applicable legal requirements for the protection of environmental quality, including applicable fish passage requirements; and
`(iii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained, subject to any license or exemption requirements that require changes in water surface elevation for the purpose of improving the environmental quality of the affected waterway."
In other words, a utility would be able to count increases in hydropower towards its RES compliance only if they came from certain carefully-specified improvements, while the sole penalty for lost hydropower capacity and output would be an increase in the base amount on which the RES would be calculated. So at the full 20% RES level for 2020 and beyond, a MW of new wind, solar or other "qualified renewable" capacity would count 5 times as much as a MW of hydro dismantled.
This mismatch speaks to our conflicted attitudes toward climate change and the broader issues of sustainability. I'm sure that those advocating the removal of these dams would argue that we shouldn't make such decisions on the basis of any single criterion, even one as important as greenhouse gas emissions. Yet that view is at odds with the underlying philosophy of a climate bill that aims to do more than just level the playing field by imposing a charge on greenhouse gas emissions to account for the environmental externality not captured in the economics of the energy market. In addition to its skewed version of cap & trade, Waxman-Markey would stack the deck for a chosen group of renewable energy technologies, in the process excluding the one that produces more zero-emission MWhs than all the rest put together. When the Senate takes up this legislation, it should abandon this narrow focus on specific technologies in favor of one that creates a positive bias for all our low-emission sources, including hydropower and nuclear energy. For a government so determined to demonstrate our seriousness about tackling our emissions, in advance of December's Copenhagen climate conference, that would speak far more loudly than another thousand-plus pages of convoluted new regulations.
Labels: cap-and-trade, copenhagen, greenhouse gas, hydropower, waxman-markey, wind power
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
An Energy Bill for the Other 92%
Now that the Waxman-Markey Bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009--all 1428 pages of it--has been narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, its fate rests in the hands of the US Senate, a body that has spurned a long series of cap & trade bills. The Senate's rules will require a much larger plurality just to bring such a bill to a vote, and that doesn't look easy, despite the belated resolution of the Minnesota race. The situation is further complicated by the existence of the Senate's own recently-drafted energy legislation, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA) from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Senator Bingaman (D-NM). Although lacking a counterpart to Waxman-Markey's cap & trade provisions, ACELA seems in many respects the better bill, promoting both renewable energy and the sources that supply 92.5% of our current energy needs and are likely to dominate our energy diet for many years: fossil fuels and nuclear power. This broader scope will be crucial, if our goals extend beyond reducing emissions to include shoring up energy security and fostering net job creation, not just "green jobs."
The full text of the Senate energy bill isn't yet available, nor has it been assigned an "S-number", by which it can be tracked. In reviewing the summary of ACELA on the committee website, I was struck by a marked contrast in its approach, compared to the House bill. ACELA is the product of a deliberately bi-partisan process, and the results of the horse-trading that went into it seem more cohesive and less jarring than the non-cap-and-trade portions of Waxman-Markey. ACELA's renewable electricity standard--which really ought to be a low-emission electricity standard--would start at 3% of electricity sales and ramp up to 15% by 2021. Importantly, the bill emphasizes energy efficiency, particularly for buildings, which would account for most of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions it would promote.
It also includes several provisions that echo themes I've advocated in a number of previous blog postings, such as updating the strategy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and opening up more of the Gulf of Mexico for offshore drilling. That would provide prompt access to identified hydrocarbon resources such as Destin Dome and take in a healthy portion of the currently-understood resource potential of those areas that had been kept off-limits by the expired offshore drilling moratoria. In addition, the bill would expand our knowledge of our offshore energy resources, conventional and renewable, through a detailed inventory including seismic exploration. If we're going to have a meaningful national debate concerning the expansion of access for oil & gas drilling, a better understanding of what's actually there is a critical prerequisite. If that seems contrary to the goal of reducing our emissions, consider that the main CO2 cuts from the hydrocarbon sector will result from reduced consumption, which would come at the expense of our enormous oil imports, not from suppressing the domestic production and access to Canadian production that underpin our energy security.
As for energy markets, unlike the heavy-handed regulations buried in the miscellaneous provisions of Waxman-Markey, ACELA would increase the transparency of oil & gas trading by expanding the Energy Information Agency's data and analytical coverage and bolstering industry reporting requirements. And in another provision, the bill would commission a long-overdue assessment of the critical connections between energy and water that I mentioned in last Tuesday's posting.
The bill also emphasizes job creation, both explicitly and implicitly. Its provisions for renewable energy, efficiency, and electricity transmission and grid improvement would promote the same kinds of green jobs claimed by the supporters of Waxman-Markey. At the same time, its oil & gas provisions would stimulate jobs of the kind highlighted by a new labor-industry partnership between the American Petroleum Institute and 15 labor unions. The US oil & gas industry employs 1.8 million people directly and another 4 million or so indirectly. Both figures could grow further with expanded access to US resources, and these jobs typically pay well over the national average.
The gaps and conflicts between the House and Senate bills look too big to overcome through reconciliation, which would in any case require the Senate first to pass either its own energy bill or a version of Waxman-Markey. I spent some time on the phone yesterday with contacts on Senate staffs to try to understand the likely process. Several paths appear possible, with the simplest involving the use of Rule 14 to bring Waxman-Markey directly to the Senate floor. The controversy around the bill and its narrow margin of victory in the House suggest a low likelihood of success for this route. Another avenue would involve moving the House bill into the Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Boxer (D-CA) and modifying it extensively. That would create the opportunity to include or substitute the measures in the ACELA bill for those in Waxman-Markey. However, that might still not avoid the fate of last year's Boxer-Warner-Lieberman cap & trade bill, which fell significantly short on the cloture vote required to bring it to a full vote of the Senate. The composition of the Senate has changed significantly since last June, yet it remains to be seen whether supporters of cap & trade have gained enough votes to carry the day.
|
The full text of the Senate energy bill isn't yet available, nor has it been assigned an "S-number", by which it can be tracked. In reviewing the summary of ACELA on the committee website, I was struck by a marked contrast in its approach, compared to the House bill. ACELA is the product of a deliberately bi-partisan process, and the results of the horse-trading that went into it seem more cohesive and less jarring than the non-cap-and-trade portions of Waxman-Markey. ACELA's renewable electricity standard--which really ought to be a low-emission electricity standard--would start at 3% of electricity sales and ramp up to 15% by 2021. Importantly, the bill emphasizes energy efficiency, particularly for buildings, which would account for most of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions it would promote.
It also includes several provisions that echo themes I've advocated in a number of previous blog postings, such as updating the strategy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and opening up more of the Gulf of Mexico for offshore drilling. That would provide prompt access to identified hydrocarbon resources such as Destin Dome and take in a healthy portion of the currently-understood resource potential of those areas that had been kept off-limits by the expired offshore drilling moratoria. In addition, the bill would expand our knowledge of our offshore energy resources, conventional and renewable, through a detailed inventory including seismic exploration. If we're going to have a meaningful national debate concerning the expansion of access for oil & gas drilling, a better understanding of what's actually there is a critical prerequisite. If that seems contrary to the goal of reducing our emissions, consider that the main CO2 cuts from the hydrocarbon sector will result from reduced consumption, which would come at the expense of our enormous oil imports, not from suppressing the domestic production and access to Canadian production that underpin our energy security.
As for energy markets, unlike the heavy-handed regulations buried in the miscellaneous provisions of Waxman-Markey, ACELA would increase the transparency of oil & gas trading by expanding the Energy Information Agency's data and analytical coverage and bolstering industry reporting requirements. And in another provision, the bill would commission a long-overdue assessment of the critical connections between energy and water that I mentioned in last Tuesday's posting.
The bill also emphasizes job creation, both explicitly and implicitly. Its provisions for renewable energy, efficiency, and electricity transmission and grid improvement would promote the same kinds of green jobs claimed by the supporters of Waxman-Markey. At the same time, its oil & gas provisions would stimulate jobs of the kind highlighted by a new labor-industry partnership between the American Petroleum Institute and 15 labor unions. The US oil & gas industry employs 1.8 million people directly and another 4 million or so indirectly. Both figures could grow further with expanded access to US resources, and these jobs typically pay well over the national average.
The gaps and conflicts between the House and Senate bills look too big to overcome through reconciliation, which would in any case require the Senate first to pass either its own energy bill or a version of Waxman-Markey. I spent some time on the phone yesterday with contacts on Senate staffs to try to understand the likely process. Several paths appear possible, with the simplest involving the use of Rule 14 to bring Waxman-Markey directly to the Senate floor. The controversy around the bill and its narrow margin of victory in the House suggest a low likelihood of success for this route. Another avenue would involve moving the House bill into the Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Boxer (D-CA) and modifying it extensively. That would create the opportunity to include or substitute the measures in the ACELA bill for those in Waxman-Markey. However, that might still not avoid the fate of last year's Boxer-Warner-Lieberman cap & trade bill, which fell significantly short on the cloture vote required to bring it to a full vote of the Senate. The composition of the Senate has changed significantly since last June, yet it remains to be seen whether supporters of cap & trade have gained enough votes to carry the day.
My strong preference would be for the Senate to graft a clean version of cap & trade onto Senator Bingaman's energy bill, jettisoning the distortions that Waxman-Markey acquired in the process of lining up enough House votes to ensure passage. Some of those distortions neatly cleaved the natural business coalition against the bill by lavishing so many free emissions allowances on the utility sector, but in the process severely undermined the bill's potential for achieving prompt and significant emissions reductions. They effectively gave a temporary Get Out of Jail Free card to the sector of the economy that is responsible for the single largest share of our emissions, yet possesses the best options for substituting cleaner natural gas for its highest-emitting energy sources. The legislative fusion I'm suggesting could put a price and a cap on CO2 emissions, while ensuring adequate supplies of nuclear power and North American fossil fuels to manage the long-term transition to a lower-emitting economy.
Labels: cap-and-trade, emissions, greenhouse gas, offshore drilling, renewable portfolio standard, spr, waxman-markey
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Gasoline Stimulus
US gasoline prices have attracted a fair amount of attention recently, as they climbed from a national average of just over $2.00 per gallon in mid-April to $2.69 last week. Much of that increase came just before Memorial Day, which historically signals the start of the driving season and higher consumption. Some regions have even begun to see prices at $3.00 or higher. As the news media has reported on this trend, I've heard more than one reporter comment that the recent price hikes have erased the effective economic stimulus that lower gasoline prices provided earlier this year. That didn't sound quite right, considering how much higher prices were last summer, but it wasn't until I looked at the actual data that I realized the stimulus has actually grown in the last month or so, not shrunk. However, unless oil prices are headed for an even bigger collapse than they experienced last fall, this stimulus must be short-lived. It will probably end entirely by November.
The aspect of economic stimulus I'm considering here results from the year-on-year comparison of average US gasoline prices. As the graph below shows, since slumping oil prices drove the pump price of gasoline below its level of a year earlier, starting last October, US unleaded regular has averaged $1.25/gal. cheaper than in the same week a year earlier. Even with gasoline demand down by around 3%, that equated to an injection of roughly $170 billion after-tax dollars per year into consumers' pockets. Despite the recent increase in prices at the pump, that year-on-year gap has grown, averaging $1.41/gal. since Memorial Day. For the average household, which owns two-plus cars and drives nearly 25,000 miles per year, that has reduced monthly expense budgets by around $120, compared to 2008. This has surely come in handy, as unemployment grew and we all waited for the federal government's $787 billion stimulus to ramp up.
|
The aspect of economic stimulus I'm considering here results from the year-on-year comparison of average US gasoline prices. As the graph below shows, since slumping oil prices drove the pump price of gasoline below its level of a year earlier, starting last October, US unleaded regular has averaged $1.25/gal. cheaper than in the same week a year earlier. Even with gasoline demand down by around 3%, that equated to an injection of roughly $170 billion after-tax dollars per year into consumers' pockets. Despite the recent increase in prices at the pump, that year-on-year gap has grown, averaging $1.41/gal. since Memorial Day. For the average household, which owns two-plus cars and drives nearly 25,000 miles per year, that has reduced monthly expense budgets by around $120, compared to 2008. This has surely come in handy, as unemployment grew and we all waited for the federal government's $787 billion stimulus to ramp up.
Unfortunately, by the same definition I've used above this gasoline stimulus has a time limit, because it is essentially a mirror image of last year's pricing trends. The effect is widening just now, as we approach the anniversary of the all-time peak of oil prices of $145 per barrel on July 14, and the all-time high US gasoline price of $4.11/gal. that accompanied it. However, once we pass that point the normal seasonal weakening of the gasoline market would be hard-pressed to echo the slide that took oil prices all the way down to a more than four-year low under $34 by year-end 2008. While gas prices should retreat closer to $2/gal. again by fall, they're unlikely to go lower, ending the 2009 vs. 2008 pump-price gap.
As the economy recovers, we should expect prices to trend back up, independent of the eventual increase we can expect from the climate bill the House of Representatives passed last Friday--assuming the Senate ultimately passes a bill similar enough to the House version of cap & trade to be reconciled and become law. That means that future fuel prices are likelier to be a drag on the economy than a boost. Anyone putting off a road trip this summer due to "high gas prices" should perform a quick reality check on whether they are ever again likely to be much lower at this time of year.
Labels: cap-and-trade, gasoline prices, stimulus
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To Cap and Trade
How much of an unappetizing jumble can you put into a dog's breakfast, before the dog refuses to eat it? That is the question that the authors of the Waxman-Markey "climate bill" appear intent on testing, before it goes to an expected vote of the entire House of Representatives tomorrow. Aside from addressing truly momentous, economy-altering matters--a cap & trade system for greenhouse gas emissions and a national renewable electricity standard to promote green power even more than cap & trade would, anyway--this bill includes more than its share of tenuously-related add-ons, some of which might be nearly as significant as the provisions that have garnered the headlines. Nor has last week's Congressional Budget Office analysis settled all the questions about the bill's likely cost to the public, except to raise suspicions that if it truly amounted to only $175 per household per year, there wouldn't be so much fuss about it.
Let's start with those costs, before we come back to the miscellaneous provisions that begin on page 808 of 1092. The CBO examined the cap & trade provisions of Waxman-Markey and its issuance of free emissions permits to various sectors and groups. They then allocated the costs among all American households by quintile of income. That's an important detail, because of the bill's provisions for rebates and other assistance to lower-income families, the lowest-earning of which would actually come out ahead in their analysis. For the rest of us, I believe the key figures to focus on are not the estimated $235-340 per year "net cost", but the range of $555-1,380 per year in expected "gross costs" before "direct relief to households"--which if you read the bill doesn't look very direct at all. It consists mainly of those free emissions permit allocations that go to utilities and various other industries and groups, not consumers.
The other aspect of the CBO analysis to focus on is its assumptions, explicit and implicit. The key explicit one is the emissions permit price of $28/ton of CO2 from which these costs were derived. While it's certainly possible that permit prices might be that low in 2020--the equivalent of $0.25 on a gallon of gasoline or roughly $0.03/kWh on coal-fired electricity--in the long run they would likely rise much higher, in order to cover the cost of deeper, more difficult reductions in industrial and transportation emissions. The CBO's big, implicit assumption relates to the impact of cap & trade on the economy as a whole, which footnote 3 indicates is excluded, along with the impact of the bill's many other provisions. If cap & trade slows growth, as seems very likely, incomes would be lower and jobs less plentiful than otherwise--even if "green jobs" grew--and other taxes would need to increase to service the debt and cover growing entitlement costs. When you factor in these uncertainties, the probability that cap & trade would cost American families no more than a couple of hundred bucks a year looks low.
The other day I described the severe mismatch between actual US emissions and the sectors chosen in Waxman-Markey to receive the lion's share of free emission permits. The bill would also establish an "Emission Allowance Rebate Program" to help energy-intensive industries engaged in international trade. Remarkably, however, it states, "The petroleum refining sector shall not be an eligible industrial sector." So US refineries, which under this bill would be responsible for both their own emissions and those from the subsequent use of their products--in our cars, for example--could not seek relief for the permit costs associated with products they export to the Caribbean and other markets, while other industries could. That would hamper not only refinery profitability, but also their ability to produce a suitable mix of products for domestic consumption. Last year US refineries exported 1.8 million barrels per day of products to balance their operations and meet stringent US fuel specifications. Raising the cost of those exports would ultimately result in fewer US refineries and more petroleum product imports. That would make US fuel prices more volatile, while increasing the average Waxman-Markey premium at the pump, over and above the direct cost of emissions permits.
Now let's consider what else has been included in this bill. Among the surprises I found in its last few hundred pages was another $4 billion of funding for the cash-for-clunkers program I discussed last Friday, along with its extension until next April 1st. Another provision would give the Secretary of Transportation broad powers under an "Open Fuel Standard" to require auto makers to produce large volumes of flexible fuel vehicles--a key enabler for increasing the country's biofuel production above the amount that can safely be blended into ordinary gasoline. According to yesterday's Washington Post, it would also establish and fund a new multi-billion-dollar federal agency, the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, in apparent competition with the Department of Energy.
Moving further afield, Waxman-Markey would also impose sweeping new rules on energy commodity markets to allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives and swaps and limit speculation. The CFTC would decide what constituted a "bona fide hedge" and what didn't, setting limits on how many contracts a non-hedging entity could hold--not just in the US but also on foreign exchanges dealing with US-based commodities. It would also control energy commodity speculation by index funds. And while these measures at least have a connection to energy, that certainly does not hold for Section 355, which would place strict limits on who could buy a credit default swap, and under what circumstances.
I hope you haven't concluded from the above that I am a wide-eyed idealist who is easily shocked by the way the world really works. This is not a case of liking an idea only in its most abstract form. Although I have long supported cap & trade as the best approach for reducing emissions, I always expected a certain amount of horse-trading to get there--and note that the Senate has yet to weigh in on this bill. Unfortunately, the central cap & trade provisions of Waxman-Markey have been sufficiently distorted to cast serious doubt on their likely efficacy in managing our actual emissions, while issues as important as the regulation of energy markets and credit default swaps surely warrant separate legislation that would expose these proposals to the scrutiny and transparency they deserve. This might be the way laws are made these days, but the insertion of a grab-bag of disparate provisions into a bill of this magnitude represents an act of legislative mischief. In the context of the similar process that shaped last year's version of cap & trade, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill, I have begun to wonder if it's even possible for cap & trade to be implemented effectively under our political system, or whether a simpler carbon tax might be less prone to this sort of excessive creativity.
|
Let's start with those costs, before we come back to the miscellaneous provisions that begin on page 808 of 1092. The CBO examined the cap & trade provisions of Waxman-Markey and its issuance of free emissions permits to various sectors and groups. They then allocated the costs among all American households by quintile of income. That's an important detail, because of the bill's provisions for rebates and other assistance to lower-income families, the lowest-earning of which would actually come out ahead in their analysis. For the rest of us, I believe the key figures to focus on are not the estimated $235-340 per year "net cost", but the range of $555-1,380 per year in expected "gross costs" before "direct relief to households"--which if you read the bill doesn't look very direct at all. It consists mainly of those free emissions permit allocations that go to utilities and various other industries and groups, not consumers.
The other aspect of the CBO analysis to focus on is its assumptions, explicit and implicit. The key explicit one is the emissions permit price of $28/ton of CO2 from which these costs were derived. While it's certainly possible that permit prices might be that low in 2020--the equivalent of $0.25 on a gallon of gasoline or roughly $0.03/kWh on coal-fired electricity--in the long run they would likely rise much higher, in order to cover the cost of deeper, more difficult reductions in industrial and transportation emissions. The CBO's big, implicit assumption relates to the impact of cap & trade on the economy as a whole, which footnote 3 indicates is excluded, along with the impact of the bill's many other provisions. If cap & trade slows growth, as seems very likely, incomes would be lower and jobs less plentiful than otherwise--even if "green jobs" grew--and other taxes would need to increase to service the debt and cover growing entitlement costs. When you factor in these uncertainties, the probability that cap & trade would cost American families no more than a couple of hundred bucks a year looks low.
The other day I described the severe mismatch between actual US emissions and the sectors chosen in Waxman-Markey to receive the lion's share of free emission permits. The bill would also establish an "Emission Allowance Rebate Program" to help energy-intensive industries engaged in international trade. Remarkably, however, it states, "The petroleum refining sector shall not be an eligible industrial sector." So US refineries, which under this bill would be responsible for both their own emissions and those from the subsequent use of their products--in our cars, for example--could not seek relief for the permit costs associated with products they export to the Caribbean and other markets, while other industries could. That would hamper not only refinery profitability, but also their ability to produce a suitable mix of products for domestic consumption. Last year US refineries exported 1.8 million barrels per day of products to balance their operations and meet stringent US fuel specifications. Raising the cost of those exports would ultimately result in fewer US refineries and more petroleum product imports. That would make US fuel prices more volatile, while increasing the average Waxman-Markey premium at the pump, over and above the direct cost of emissions permits.
Now let's consider what else has been included in this bill. Among the surprises I found in its last few hundred pages was another $4 billion of funding for the cash-for-clunkers program I discussed last Friday, along with its extension until next April 1st. Another provision would give the Secretary of Transportation broad powers under an "Open Fuel Standard" to require auto makers to produce large volumes of flexible fuel vehicles--a key enabler for increasing the country's biofuel production above the amount that can safely be blended into ordinary gasoline. According to yesterday's Washington Post, it would also establish and fund a new multi-billion-dollar federal agency, the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, in apparent competition with the Department of Energy.
Moving further afield, Waxman-Markey would also impose sweeping new rules on energy commodity markets to allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate derivatives and swaps and limit speculation. The CFTC would decide what constituted a "bona fide hedge" and what didn't, setting limits on how many contracts a non-hedging entity could hold--not just in the US but also on foreign exchanges dealing with US-based commodities. It would also control energy commodity speculation by index funds. And while these measures at least have a connection to energy, that certainly does not hold for Section 355, which would place strict limits on who could buy a credit default swap, and under what circumstances.
I hope you haven't concluded from the above that I am a wide-eyed idealist who is easily shocked by the way the world really works. This is not a case of liking an idea only in its most abstract form. Although I have long supported cap & trade as the best approach for reducing emissions, I always expected a certain amount of horse-trading to get there--and note that the Senate has yet to weigh in on this bill. Unfortunately, the central cap & trade provisions of Waxman-Markey have been sufficiently distorted to cast serious doubt on their likely efficacy in managing our actual emissions, while issues as important as the regulation of energy markets and credit default swaps surely warrant separate legislation that would expose these proposals to the scrutiny and transparency they deserve. This might be the way laws are made these days, but the insertion of a grab-bag of disparate provisions into a bill of this magnitude represents an act of legislative mischief. In the context of the similar process that shaped last year's version of cap & trade, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill, I have begun to wonder if it's even possible for cap & trade to be implemented effectively under our political system, or whether a simpler carbon tax might be less prone to this sort of excessive creativity.
Labels: cap-and-trade, carbon tax, emissions, emissions trading, greenhouse gas, speculation, waxman-markey
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sustainable Energy
I just ran a quick search on Google Trends to check my hunch that the phrase "sustainable energy" has become a lot more common, lately. That seems to be the case, at least based on the volume of news references tracked by Google. While I would regard a greater focus on sustainability as a positive development, I'm much less comfortable with its indiscriminate use as a synonym for "renewable". It's dangerously simplistic to think that the only parameters of sustainability that matter for a given energy technology are the extent of the energy supply it taps and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its use. However understandable that might be in light of concerns about climate change and energy security, the complexities it obscures could ultimately prove just as limiting, in their own way, as the depletion of finite reserves of fossil fuels or the response of the global climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Sustainable energy means different things to different people, as even a Wikipedia definition that points mainly to standard renewables admits. All too often, though, these definitions focus on the consumption of fossil energy sources and their accompanying emissions, while ignoring the use of other scarce resources, particularly water. In a recent posting I highlighted the high water consumption associated with the production of corn ethanol, a fuel widely regarded as more or less infinitely renewable, and thus much more sustainable than the oil it is intended to displace. Ironically, petroleum production and refining on average consume far less water per gallon or BTU of marketed fuel than most biofuels. The production of biofuels from non-food sources requiring little or no irrigation would alter that comparison, but still might not close this gap.
Biofuels aren't the only components of our energy mix that use lots of water. Electricity generation also consumes huge quantities, though much of it is returned downstream without degradation. Most thermal power plants use water for cooling and steam generation. That includes both fossil and nuclear power plants. Some renewable energy sources are also subject to this constraint, including solar thermal power, as noted in a recent Washington Post article. Enhanced geothermal power, which has great potential as a low-emission energy source, requires the injection of large volumes of water underground to create artificial hydrothermal reservoirs, and to transfer heat to the surface for power generation. In fact, at least 80% of the electricity generated in the US last year involved the use of water to some degree, a dependency that attracted critical attention during the Southeast drought in 2007.
Water is hardly the only input that should be considered in a broader view of sustainable energy. The consumption of rare earths and scarce metals in the production of thin-film solar panels, advanced batteries, wind turbine generators, and other aspects of the developing green-energy economy is starting to worry some experts. While I haven't delved into it in much detail, I'd be surprised if these factors proved limiting in the near term. After all, the technologies in question have only been around for a few years, so there hasn't been much time for the sources of these exotic ingredients to ramp up to support their growing demand. This scaling issue cuts both ways, however. For example, if solar energy is to expand from its present contribution of less than 1% of renewable power generated here last year to, say, 10% of our total power supply, the use of an ingredient in proportions as small as a hundred grams per kilowatt of capacity would translate into a cumulative requirement for tens of thousands of tons. If the substance in question was the Tellurium used in Cadmium-telluride solar cells, its global output would have to expand by at least 10X within a decade or two. That might not be possible, or at least economically feasible.
The point here is not to suggest that we're stuck in some depressing dynamic in which we encounter bottlenecks and unintended consequences in every direction we turn, as we seek alternatives to conventional energy. Instead, we need to remember that oil, gas and coal aren't the only finite substances in the earth's crust. We must consider all our energy options in terms of trade-offs, and not just with regard to the aesthetics of wind farms and solar panels in our back yards vs. oil derricks and central power plants in someone else's. The choices we are making demand a thorough look at their lifecycle impacts, including all the inputs and outputs along the way. That won't be easy, and it clearly will not be convenient for those sectors that have benefited from an overly narrow view of this issue, such as the interests that are supporting legislation to block the EPA from factoring in the effect of global land-use changes in the agency's lifecycle assessment of corn ethanol.
This broader view of sustainable energy is another reason to moderate our faddish focus on all things renewable, as I noted recently when I argued that we need a low-emission electricity standard, instead of a renewable electricity standard. Tackling climate change effectively will require clear goals that address outcomes, rather than preconceived notions about pathways. And when it comes to energy security, we need a framework that recognizes that oil in tankers is not the only energy-sector import that bears watching.
|
Sustainable energy means different things to different people, as even a Wikipedia definition that points mainly to standard renewables admits. All too often, though, these definitions focus on the consumption of fossil energy sources and their accompanying emissions, while ignoring the use of other scarce resources, particularly water. In a recent posting I highlighted the high water consumption associated with the production of corn ethanol, a fuel widely regarded as more or less infinitely renewable, and thus much more sustainable than the oil it is intended to displace. Ironically, petroleum production and refining on average consume far less water per gallon or BTU of marketed fuel than most biofuels. The production of biofuels from non-food sources requiring little or no irrigation would alter that comparison, but still might not close this gap.
Biofuels aren't the only components of our energy mix that use lots of water. Electricity generation also consumes huge quantities, though much of it is returned downstream without degradation. Most thermal power plants use water for cooling and steam generation. That includes both fossil and nuclear power plants. Some renewable energy sources are also subject to this constraint, including solar thermal power, as noted in a recent Washington Post article. Enhanced geothermal power, which has great potential as a low-emission energy source, requires the injection of large volumes of water underground to create artificial hydrothermal reservoirs, and to transfer heat to the surface for power generation. In fact, at least 80% of the electricity generated in the US last year involved the use of water to some degree, a dependency that attracted critical attention during the Southeast drought in 2007.
Water is hardly the only input that should be considered in a broader view of sustainable energy. The consumption of rare earths and scarce metals in the production of thin-film solar panels, advanced batteries, wind turbine generators, and other aspects of the developing green-energy economy is starting to worry some experts. While I haven't delved into it in much detail, I'd be surprised if these factors proved limiting in the near term. After all, the technologies in question have only been around for a few years, so there hasn't been much time for the sources of these exotic ingredients to ramp up to support their growing demand. This scaling issue cuts both ways, however. For example, if solar energy is to expand from its present contribution of less than 1% of renewable power generated here last year to, say, 10% of our total power supply, the use of an ingredient in proportions as small as a hundred grams per kilowatt of capacity would translate into a cumulative requirement for tens of thousands of tons. If the substance in question was the Tellurium used in Cadmium-telluride solar cells, its global output would have to expand by at least 10X within a decade or two. That might not be possible, or at least economically feasible.
The point here is not to suggest that we're stuck in some depressing dynamic in which we encounter bottlenecks and unintended consequences in every direction we turn, as we seek alternatives to conventional energy. Instead, we need to remember that oil, gas and coal aren't the only finite substances in the earth's crust. We must consider all our energy options in terms of trade-offs, and not just with regard to the aesthetics of wind farms and solar panels in our back yards vs. oil derricks and central power plants in someone else's. The choices we are making demand a thorough look at their lifecycle impacts, including all the inputs and outputs along the way. That won't be easy, and it clearly will not be convenient for those sectors that have benefited from an overly narrow view of this issue, such as the interests that are supporting legislation to block the EPA from factoring in the effect of global land-use changes in the agency's lifecycle assessment of corn ethanol.
This broader view of sustainable energy is another reason to moderate our faddish focus on all things renewable, as I noted recently when I argued that we need a low-emission electricity standard, instead of a renewable electricity standard. Tackling climate change effectively will require clear goals that address outcomes, rather than preconceived notions about pathways. And when it comes to energy security, we need a framework that recognizes that oil in tankers is not the only energy-sector import that bears watching.
Labels: ethanol, renewable energy, solar power, sustainability, sustainable energy
Friday, June 19, 2009
Cash for Guzzlers Enacted
Yesterday the Senate passed this year's war funding bill, to which had been added the "cash for gas guzzlers" provisions that I described in early May. The bill should be signed by President Obama shortly and become law, just in time to help car dealers--including some who are losing their GM or Chrysler franchises--clear out the backlog of new cars that has accumulated during this protracted period of slow sales. The final version of this measure importantly requires that the "clunkers" traded in be scrapped, so that they don't end up consuming fuel and emitting pollutants somewhere else. While it is overly generous to new pickups and SUVs that would use only slightly less fuel than their predecessors, its minimum threshold of a 4 mpg improvement for passenger cars, or 10 mpg to qualify for the full $4,500 benefit, should still result in meaningful levels of avoided fuel consumption, while helping to compensate for the expiration of tax credits for many popular hybrid vehicles.
Every excursion I make into the details of energy-related legislation feels like a civics lesson. Cash-for-guzzlers took a lot of flak during its comparatively brief trip through the Congress, with the Wall St. Journal referring to it as "Cash from Lunkheads" and two prominent Senators penning an op-ed criticizing it roundly as "Handouts for Hummers". It probably couldn't have passed as a separate bill, and it just squeaked into the war funding bill in the Senate. It took a bit of scouting to track down its details, which appear as Title XIII of HR-2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009", carrying the vague description of "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program". While it clearly could have been better, from my perspective it's hardly the worst piece of energy legislation to come out of this Congress, considering that for the average motorist moving up from an 18 mpg car to one getting at least 28 mpg would save as much gas as a 50 mpg Prius consumes in total. Here are the basic rules, as I read them:
|
Every excursion I make into the details of energy-related legislation feels like a civics lesson. Cash-for-guzzlers took a lot of flak during its comparatively brief trip through the Congress, with the Wall St. Journal referring to it as "Cash from Lunkheads" and two prominent Senators penning an op-ed criticizing it roundly as "Handouts for Hummers". It probably couldn't have passed as a separate bill, and it just squeaked into the war funding bill in the Senate. It took a bit of scouting to track down its details, which appear as Title XIII of HR-2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009", carrying the vague description of "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program". While it clearly could have been better, from my perspective it's hardly the worst piece of energy legislation to come out of this Congress, considering that for the average motorist moving up from an 18 mpg car to one getting at least 28 mpg would save as much gas as a 50 mpg Prius consumes in total. Here are the basic rules, as I read them:
- The car traded in must be no more than 25 years old, in drivable condition and certified at 18 mpg or less in EPA "combined fuel economy". (15 mpg for a typical SUV/light truck.)
- It must have been insured and registered to the owner for at least one year prior to trade-in.
- It must be shredded or crushed, though not before the auto recycler sells off any desirable parts.
- The new vehicle must get at least 22 mpg (15 mpg SUV/light truck) and
- at least 4 mpg more than the trade-in (1 mpg SUV/light truck) to qualify for a $3,500 tax-free voucher, or
- at least 10 mpg more (2 mpg SUV/light truck) to qualify for the maximum $4,500 tax-free voucher.
- It can't cost over $45,000.
If you are in any doubt as to whether your present ride qualifies as a guzzler, the Detroit News has provided this handy search tool.
Whatever its merits as energy policy, in some respects the cash-for-guzzlers program looks like a clever insurance policy for the government's investment in GM and Chrysler, which will only achieve its intended goals if these companies can survive the recession and live on to produce the efficient cars the administration targeted with its new CAFE standard. That requires selling millions more of the current models, which only conform to the current, lower standard of 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 23.1 mpg for SUVs and light trucks. And while the legislation doesn't require qualifying new cars to be American or even American-made--that would have run afoul of WTO rules--the Detroit 3 stand to benefit disproportionately, given the generous benefits for the large vehicles that dominate their current mix. The program only runs from July 1 through November 1, 2009 and is funded at $1 billion, enough for around 250,000 cars. If you intend to take advantage of it, I wouldn't wait too long.
Labels: efficiency, energy policy, fuel economy
