Is the US Ready for a Carbon Tax?

• While the Trump administration seeks to undo CO2 regulations, a group of former Republican officials has proposed a new, market-based emissions plan.
• This "carbon tax" looks simpler than EPA's Clean Power Plan or previous cap-and-trade legislation, but not simpler than the pre-Obama status quo.

The idea of taxing the carbon content of energy--and presumably the goods and services produced with it--is back in the news. A group of Republican "wise men" has floated it as an alternative to the regulation-based approach to emissions that the Obama administration pursued after its preferred "cap & trade" legislation died in the Congress.

Reduced to its basics, a carbon tax is a focused version of a consumption tax, based on usage rather than income or valuation. The level of the tax would be set by law, either as a fixed amount per ton of emissions or at an initial rate with preset future increases. What can't be known with certainty in advance is just how much a given level of carbon tax would reduce actual emissions.

This contrasts with the method of setting a price on carbon preferred by many other economists and environmental groups, called "cap & trade." In this approach, the government sets a cap, or maximum level, on emissions for a designated sector or the economy as a whole, while parties subject to the cap are allowed to trade emission allowances and credits with each other under that cap. Thus policy makers set the level of emission reductions, and allow the market to find the resulting price on carbon. In principal, that ought to be more efficient than the simpler carbon tax, because market forces should drive participants with low costs of cutting emissions to make the deepest reductions and then sell their excess cuts to others, for less than it would cost the latter to reduce by that amount.

From the late 1990s until 2009 or '10 I was convinced that cap & trade was the better approach to pricing emissions. However, the experience of watching the US Congress attempt to design a cap-and-trade system for the US economy cured my certainty. As I have described at length, the inclination of legislators to help favored companies, industries and sectors, combined with the extraordinary temptations created by the sheer scale of the revenue such a system would channel through the government's hands, revealed practical problems that look insurmountable in the real world, at least under our political system.

In fairness, cap-and-trade is currently used to promote emissions reductions in various jurisdictions, including California, the mainly northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and the European Union. From what I have observed, all of them have experienced technical difficulties involving the allocation of free allowances, inadequate liquidity, and other issues. The biggest practical problem is that the carbon prices these systems have tended to deliver might be characterized as the opposite of a Goldilocks price; i.e., they are typically high enough to generate substantial revenue, creating strong constituencies for their continuation, but too low to influence behavior very much.

For example, California's emissions credits currently trade at around $13 per metric ton of CO2, equivalent to $0.10 per gallon of gasoline containing ethanol. Would an extra $1 per fill-up make much of a difference in how much you drive, which car to buy when you replace your current car, or whether to sell your car (or forgo buying one) and take public transportation?

Moreover, California's emissions have been essentially flat since the state implemented cap-and-trade in 2012. However, since 2002 the state's electric utilities--historically the highest emitting sector--have operated and invested under a Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring them to increase the share of renewable energy in their generation mix to 20% by 2010, 33% by 2020, and now 50% by 2030. I suspect that accounts for most of the 7% drop in emissions since 2002, while the impact of a carbon price equivalent to 0.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) is likely lost in the noise. Of course a carbon tax would create its own political and practical complications.

First, consider how a carbon tax would affect different energy sources. As with cap & trade, a carbon tax should have its biggest impact on the highest-emitting forms of energy. In practice that would compound the current disadvantages for coal compared to abundant, low-priced natural gas and rapidly growing, essentially zero-emitting renewables like wind and solar power. At least on the surface, that seems at odds with the stated goal of the Trump administration to attempt to rescue the US coal industry and the communities that depend on it.

Like cap & trade, a carbon tax would also require a significant amount of new bookkeeping to track the path of "embedded emissions"--the CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted at each step of a product or service's supply chain--through the economy. Some of this is already done voluntarily by companies participating in various sustainability reporting efforts, but it would be new for many others. The EPA, Department of Energy, and numerous non-governmental agencies have done much work to quantify such emissions, but a carbon tax would require a level of rigor and audit trail consistent with the creation of what amounts to a shadow currency within the economy.

A carbon tax also raises similar questions of how to spend the resulting revenue that have bedeviled cap & trade. At the current US emissions and assuming few sources were exempted, the proposed $40 per metric ton initial carbon tax would raise around $275 billion per year. That's 8% of this year's federal budget. It doesn't take a cynic to guess that the first inclination of any Congress enacting such a tax would be to hang onto this money to fund new programs, reduce the federal deficit, or some combination, rather than returning it to taxpayers as former Secretaries Baker and Schultz and the economists who back them suggest.

Their proposal would require that the proceeds of the carbon tax be rebated to essentially the same people who would be paying it at the gas pump or in their gas and electric bills. This sounds similar to the "Cap and Dividend" approach to cap & trade proposed by Senators Cantwell (D) and Collins (R) a few years ago. Their bill had the great advantage of simplicity, requiring just a fraction of the 1,427 pages of the 2009 Waxman-Markey cap & trade bill, the main purpose of which seemed to be to redistribute vast sums of money outside the tax code. But like W-M, it went absolutely nowhere.

Like it or not, that's my best guess of the fate of the current carbon tax idea, too. The biggest challenge facing a carbon tax today is that it would not be running as a simpler, more market-oriented alternative to prescriptive legislation or complex EPA regulations. After all, the administration's intention appears to be to eliminate the EPA's main emissions-reduction regulation, the Clean Power Plan, not to replace it.

And although the new US Secretary of State, Mr. Tillerson, is on record numerous times in support of a carbon tax, that position seems to have been put forward mainly in preference to cap & trade, rather than on its own merits in the absence of any other strict climate policy.

A carbon tax would raise the effective price of energy commodities in which we appear to have a global competitive advantage, at least for now. The current proposal may rebate the carbon tax on exports, but most economic activity starts and ends within this country. And as noted in the NY Times op-ed by Dr. Feldstein and the other economists backing this measure, the revenue recycling to consumers would be on an equal basis, rather than proportional to usage, so there would be winners and losers as with any redistributive taxation. Lower-income Americans driving older cars seem likelier to come out on the short end of that than wealthier consumers driving new cars that meet rising fuel economy standards.

Ultimately, we must ask why President Trump or his team would want to impose a new tax on US consumers and businesses to address a problem that has probably just become an even lower priority for them than it was. Notwithstanding Mr. Trump's demonstrated unpredictability, the simplest answer seems to be that he wouldn't.

OPEC Agrees to Agree

• Yesterday's reported OPEC deal left many details unresolved, so oil prices remain under $50, at least for now.
• Time has given OPEC greater leverage to make effective production cuts, and ample incentive to do so. Will that be enough to close the deal come November?

Yesterday's news that OPEC's members have agreed on the outlines of a deal to reduce output is a fine reason to end my long, unplanned hiatus between blog posts. This morning's news commentary seems focused mainly on the difficulties OPEC faces in sorting out the details by its next official meeting at the end of November. Fair enough, but we shouldn't miss the fact that what came out of the informal meeting in Algiers is qualitatively different from anything OPEC has announced since their meeting in October 2014, which pushed the oil price collapse into high gear.

It's worth taking a moment to review how we got to this point. After oil prices recovered from their last big dive during the financial crisis of 2008-9, the global oil market--best represented during this period by the price of UK Brent crude--settled into a range of roughly $70-90 per barrel. The events of the "Arab Spring" in 2011, including the revolution in Libya, pushed prices well over $100, where they remained until fall 2014.

By early 2010 US shale, or more accurately "tight oil", production was beginning to ramp up. Total US crude oil output (excluding gas liquids) had fallen steadily from 9 million barrels per day (MBD) in 1985 to a plateau around 5 MBD in the mid-to-late 2000s. Most experts thought we would be lucky if it stayed that high in the long term. So the 4 MBD of production from tight oil that came onstream by late 2014, pushing total US production back to 9 MBD, was largely unexpected.

The market impact of the first couple of million barrels per day from US shale was muted by events in the Middle East. In addition to the ongoing instability from the Arab Spring, tighter sanctions on Iran had taken another million-plus barrels per day out of exports. Prices remained high, providing a strong incentive for more tight oil drilling, which from 2013 to 2015 yielded the biggest increase in the history of US oil production.

In thinking about what OPEC might achieve with the modest cuts they are apparently discussing, it's crucial to understand that while US tight oil at its peak in 2015 was no more than 5% of the global oil market, it had a massive effect on prices, because the price of oil is set by the last barrels in or out of the market. Inventories matter, too, but less from the standpoint of their absolute levels, than how fast they are growing or shrinking.

Simply put, the unanticipated growth of US shale swamped the market but is now an established part of supply. In late 2014 OPEC's members likely concluded that, given the upward path shale was then on, they couldn't cut their output by enough to keep prices high without simply making more room for shale, so they were better off keeping things uncomfortable for the competition by standing pat. In fact, they doubled down on that by increasing output after October 2014, mainly from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf producers.

Two years of low oil prices have changed the landscape in ways that I doubt OPEC's members expected. US shale contracted but didn't die. If anything, the efficiencies that shale producers found have made many of them competitive at current prices and big beneficiaries of any future price increase. The latest rig counts from Baker Hughes show a small but steady increase in drilling activity over the last several months. However, what has collapsed with little indication of revival is investment in large-scale, non-shale oil projects from non-OPEC countries.

According to analysis from Wood Mackenzie, global oil investment--actual and planned--is down by over $1 trillion for the period 2015-20. Because of the development time lag for big oil projects, that means that a potentially serious supply gap is being created a few years down the road. Remember that non-OPEC, non-shale production makes up over half of global oil output. French oil company Total has estimated the potential shortfall at 5-10 MBD by 2020, or 5-10% of global supply.

This outcome is a mixed bag for OPEC. To whatever extent its decision to increase, rather than cut output in late 2014 was a "war on shale", that has failed at the cost of many hundreds of billions of dollars of foregone revenue. The collateral damage to the global industry, particularly in places like the North Sea, has been dramatic, even if it won't become obvious until the pipeline of projects started in the $100 years dries up sometime soon. OPEC will surely be blamed for any future price spike, but the likelihood that any cut they make now would be back-filled by non-OPEC production is much less than it was in 2014 or '15.

OPEC faces a conundrum. The market remains over-supplied in the near term, and inventories are at historic levels. Failing to reach agreement in November would not greatly hamper US shale. However, it would prolong their own pain and continue to enlarge the potential supply gap and price spike that is being stored up for an uncertain future that now also includes electric vehicles and possible carbon taxes, the incentive for both of which will expand significantly if oil prices spike again.

What's a cartel to do? We will see much speculation about that during the next two months. My guess is that the need to shore up the national budgets of OPEC's member countries, which are going deeper into debt by the day, along with a desire to avoid a price spike that would merely hasten the transition to non-hyrocarbon energy, will lead to an agreement in November to make at least cosmetic cuts in production. Stay tuned.

A New Angle on Carbon Capture

In my last couple of posts I looked at the difficulty of meeting ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) without help from the lower-emitting portions of our current energy mix. Last week ExxonMobil announced that it is pursuing a new pathway for capturing carbon from power plant exhaust. That could help revive another important strategy for large-scale emissions reduction from our existing energy sources.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has fallen out of favor, lately, mainly due to the high cost and technical challenges of the early prototypes for large-scale implementation of the technology. Not only are the initial investment costs of today's CCS hardware still very high, but it is also inherently expensive to operate. That's because of the high energy consumption of the process, resulting in a "parasitic" load on the host power plant that reduces its net output by up to 20%, making the remaining output much more expensive. That creates a large deterrent in any market that doesn't provide either direct subsidies for carbon removal, or a high carbon tax or price for traded emissions offsets.

Another reason that CCS has received less attention recently is that the costs of renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power have kept falling. To some they now look cheap enough, especially with further cost improvements extrapolated, to enable us to reach our emissions goals mainly through wider deployment of solar modules and wind turbines.

Even if that were technically feasible, like most other energy industry experts I have met I am convinced that the deep emissions cuts desired for mid-century will require implementing or retro-fitting CCS onto the fleet of coal and gas-fired power plants that will likely still be in service decades from now. CCS underpins several of the emissions stabilization wedges pioneered by Princeton engineering professor Rob Socolow and his colleagues ten years ago.

What makes the approach that ExxonMobil and FuelCell Energy, Inc. have described so attractive is that, instead of being a drain on power generation, capturing CO2 via fuel cells would actually add significantly to a facility's reliable power output. It would increase revenue, rather than curtailing it.

The clever bit, and its potential advantage over current carbon-capture technology, is that CO2 capture in a carbonate fuel cell occurs as a byproduct of the power generation step. That means that it doesn't require a big, expensive, power-hungry process unit, the only function of which is to strip CO2 from flue gas and concentrate it for subsequent shipment and storage.

These fuel cells would still require natural gas for fuel, and they would produce CO2 emissions in the process of generating electricity, though at a lower rate than the coal or gas-fired plant with which they would be partnered. However, both their direct emissions and the CO2 extracted from the power plant exhaust would come out in a highly purified form suitable for geological sequestration and stay out of the atmosphere.

That brings up an important advantage of this approach over various schemes to capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Although the article on the Exxon/Fuel Cell Energy development in MIT Technology Review  described the CO2 concentration in power plant flue gas (5%-15%) as "low", that is still hundreds of times higher than its concentration in air.

400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere may be worrying from a climate perspective, but it is still just 0.04% of air that remains mostly nitrogen and oxygen. And the lower the concentration, the harder--and normally more expensive--it is to extract. (Green plants can do this trick cheaply thanks to billions of years of evolution combined with cost-free sunlight.)

The press release makes it very clear that this new carbon-capture technology has so far only been demonstrated in the lab. Scaling it up will require additional work, and success is uncertain. Many other promising innovations, including a host of cellulosic biofuel technologies, have failed to scale. However, its potential applications are compelling enough to justify a lot of patience and persistence. I wish them luck.

EPA's CO2 Rule and the Back Door to Cap & Trade

• Significant differences in EPA's proposed state CO2 targets for the power sector are reviving interest in cap & trade as a way to reduce compliance costs.
• This compounds the EPA plan's controversy and raises serious concerns about how the resulting revenue would be used.

Earlier this month the US Environmental Protection Agency released for comment its proposal for regulating the CO2 emissions from existing power plants. It follows EPA’s emissions rule for new power plants published late last year but takes a different, more expansive approach.  If implemented, the “Clean Power Plan” would reduce US emissions in the utility sector by around 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.

One of its most surprising features is that instead of setting emissions standards for each type of power plant or mandating a single, across-the-board emissions-reduction percentage, it imposes distinct emissions targets on each state. Based on analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, some states could actually increase emissions, while others would be required to make deep cuts. The resulting disparities have apparently triggered new interest in state and regional emissions trading as a means of managing the rule’s cost.

Although emissions trading has become more controversial in recent years, it proved its worth in holding down the cost of implementing previous environmental regulations, such as the effort to reduce sulfur pollution associated with acid rain. It works by enabling facilities or companies with lower-than-average abatement costs to profit from maximizing their reductions and then selling their excess reductions to others with higher costs. The desired overall reductions are thus achieved at a lower cost to the economy than if each company or facility were required to reduce its emissions by the same amount.

Although the Clean Power Plan doesn’t require that states establish such emissions trading markets, its lengthy preamble includes a discussion of existing state greenhouse gas “cap-and-trade” markets in California and the Northeast. It also points out that measures to comply with the new rule may generate benefits in the markets for conventional pollutants, including those for the recent cross-state pollution rule. Administrator McCarthy also mentioned the benefits of multi-state markets in her speech announcing the new rule.

A patchwork of cap and trade markets across the US, including the addition of new states to mechanisms like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), might help mitigate some of the cost of complying with 50 different CO2 targets. However, it would still be a far cry from the kind of economy-wide, comprehensive CO2 cap-and-trade system once contemplated by the US Congress.

Cap and trade was an idea that had gained significant momentum and even begun to appear inevitable, prior to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. To supporters, it looked like a better way to limit and eventually cut greenhouse gas emissions than through command-and-control regulations. And the price it would establish for emissions would be based on the cost of achieving a desired level of reductions, rather than being set arbitrarily, as a carbon tax would be, without any guarantee of actual emissions reductions. Opponents viewed it as an unnecessary or unnecessarily complicated drag on the economy and a tax by another name, coining the pejorative term “cap-and-tax”.

Although early US cap-and-trade bills were bipartisan, including one co-sponsored by Senator McCain, the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee, the debate over cap and trade took on an increasingly partisan tone in a period of widening polarization on most major issues. The Waxman-Markey climate bill, with cap and trade as a major provision, was narrowly passed when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives in 2009, but various Senate versions failed to attract sufficient support, even when Democrats held a filibuster-proof supermajority in that body. The chances of enacting cap and trade legislation effectively died when a Republican won the vacant Senate seat for Massachusetts in January 2010. However, viewing this as a purely partisan divide is simplistic, at best.

Aside from opposition by key Senate Democrats, including one whose campaign included a vivid demonstration of his stand against Waxman-Markey, the versions of “cap and trade” debated in 2009 and 2010 bore little resemblance to the original idea. Waxman-Markey was a 1400-page monstrosity, laden with extraneous provisions and pork. Its embedded allocation of free allowances strongly favored the same electricity sector now being targeted by EPA’s Clean Power Plan, at the expense of transportation energy, for which low-carbon options remain fewer and more costly. It would have created a de facto gasoline tax, while yielding fewer net emissions reductions than a system with a level playing field. Subsequent bills, such as the Kerry-Lieberman bill in 2010, took this a step farther, removing transportation fuels from cap and trade and effectively taxing them at a rate based on the price of emissions credits.

Along the way, national CO2 cap-and-trade legislation evolved from a fairly straightforward way to harness market forces to deliver the cheapest emissions cuts available, to a mechanism for raising and redistributing large sums of money outside the tax code. In some cases that would have been done directly, such as in the gratifyingly brief Cantwell-Collins “cap-and-dividend” bill, or as indirectly and inefficiently as in Waxman-Markey. It’s no wonder the whole idea became toxic at the federal level.

Although emissions trading for greenhouse gas reduction came up short in the US Congress, it took hold elsewhere. The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) is an outgrowth of the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions trading mechanism, which was included largely at the urging of the US delegation to the Kyoto climate conference in 1997. The ETS is focused on the industrial and power sectors and covers 43% of EU emissions. It has experienced significant ups and downs over the sale and allocation of emissions credits.

Cap and trade also emerged as a preferred approach for some US states seeking to reduce their emissions. California’s emissions market was established via a provision of the 2006 Climate Solutions Act (A.B. 32), and RGGI currently facilitates trading among 9 mostly northeastern states. The relatively low prices of emissions allowances in these systems–particularly in RGGI, which has traded in the range of $3-$5/ton of CO2–suggests that they may still be capturing low-hanging fruit in the early phases of steadily declining emissions caps. Their effectiveness at facilitating future low-cost emissions cuts is hard to gauge, because they also don’t exist in a vacuum.

Except for Vermont, all of the states involved have renewable electricity mandates that by their nature deliver more prescriptive emissions cuts. These markets have also been implemented in a generally weak US economy, which has constrained energy demand, and against the backdrop of the shale revolution, which has yielded significant non-mandated emissions reductions. Nor have these state and regional approaches to cap and trade entirely avoided the debates over how to spend their substantial proceeds that plagued federal cap-and-trade legislation.

For many years my view of cap and trade was that if we needed to put a price on GHG emissions, this was a better, more efficient option than an arbitrary carbon tax, or other top-down method. My experience analyzing more recent “cap-and-trade” legislation left me with serious doubts about our ability to implement a fair and effective national cap-and-trade market for CO2 and other greenhouse gases within the current political environment. Whether on a unified basis or in aggregate across many smaller systems, the enormous sums it could eventually generate are simply too tempting to expect our legislators and government agencies to administer even-handedly.

Whatever its potential benefits and pitfalls, I can’t help seeing cap and trade as a distraction in the context of the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan. Even at its most efficient, cap and trade couldn’t render painless the wide disparities of a plan that would require Arizona to cut emissions per megawatt-hour by more than half, and states like Texas and Oklahoma to cut by 36-38%, while Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana and even California cut by less than a quarter–and under some scenarios might even increase their overall emissions. Cap and trade would merely be a footnote on the scale of transformation the EPA’s plan envisions for the US electricity sector.

A different version of this posting was previously published on Energy Trends Insider.

Secretary Chu Advised on "Prudent Development" of Oil and Gas

A news item concerning last week's release of the National Petroleum Council's "Prudent Development" report referred to a recommendation supporting a national tax on carbon. That caught my attention. Given the NPC's makeup, a consensus on such a controversial issue would be surprising. The actual text of the report proved somewhat less dramatic on the climate policy front, but no less worthwhile for its comprehensive assessment of the abundance of North American hydrocarbon resources, as well as the development approach "necessary for public trust, protection of health, safety and the environment, and access to resources." The report doesn't just focus on macro concerns about climate change and other environmental issues, but also on timely details such as the methane emissions, water and land-use impacts involved in shale gas production and other resource development.

For those not familiar with the NPC, the organization is charged with advising the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to oil and gas, though in practice it looks at a much broader array of energy issues. In 2007 I helped with the renewable energy analysis in the group's previous study, entitled "Hard Truths." The current study is one of two requested of the NPC by Secretary Chu; the other will look at future transportation fuels and is due out in the first half of next year. What makes these reports unusual is that they incorporate the views of academics, government officials, non-governmental organizations, and the legal and financial sectors, along with those of the energy industry. In the current study, just under half the participants represented oil and gas companies, while the Emissions and Carbon Regulation Subgroup included members from the National Resources Defense Council and US EPA, and the Environment and Regulatory Subgroup was chaired by someone from the Environmental Defense Fund. I think we'd all benefit from more such "strange bedfellows" collaborations.

The report's specific recommendation on carbon pricing as a mechanism for addressing greenhouse gas emissions appears in the Executive Summary and originates in an entire chapter on "Carbon and Other Emissions in the End-Use Sectors." Although it's much more generic than the Fuelfix article indicated, it's still noteworthy. It deals with the need to internalize emissions costs into fuel and technology choices, with a carbon tax mentioned as just one option among a range of measures for establishing an explicit or implicit price on carbon. It states,

"As Congress, the Administration, and relevant agencies consider energy policies, they should recognize that the most effective and efficient method to further reduce GHG emissions would be a mechanism for putting a price on carbon emissions that is national, economy-wide, market-based, visible, predictable, transparent, applicable to all sources of emissions, and part of an effective global framework."

It goes on to address non-market mechanisms such as performance standards and clean energy standards, and how a policy on carbon should be phased in. While individual oil and gas companies have supported cap and trade or a carbon tax either individually or within multi-industry groups, I can't recall such a broad cross-section of this industry going along with the idea of carbon pricing, even in this non-specific manner.

The timing of this is interesting. It's hard to envision a comprehensive climate bill passing the Congress between now and the November 2012 election, or even being introduced on anything other than a symbolic basis. The pork-laden monstrosity of the Waxman-Markey bill succeeded only in making cap and trade toxic, and I can't imagine a worse environment for introducing any kind of new tax--a price on carbon is clearly a tax--even if the concept behind cap and trade has a solid bipartisan pedigree. Short of the miraculous materialization of a carbon tax as a compromise revenue solution from the deficit-fighting Supercommittee, carbon pricing in the US looks dead until 2013 and possibly well beyond. I'm also starting to see more comments along the lines of this one from the blog of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggesting that policies promoting innovation might be a lot more important in addressing climate change than any level of carbon pricing that could realistically be implemented here.

So whether you regard this recommendation by the NPC as an attempt to restart a stalled debate on carbon pricing, or merely a tardy entry in a formerly crowded field, I think it also signals that the energy industry isn't oblivious to the fact that its emissions--including the lion's share associated with end-user consumption of their products--must eventually be dealt with. Chances are, that will await a return to economic health and stability, when US consumers, voters and taxpayers might be expected to prove more willing to incur the sacrifices this will entail. The report also includes a good perspective on the considerable North American resource upside that could be unleashed with different policies than the ones now in place, and that might just hasten the arrival of more favorable economic conditions for carbon policy.

Chicago's Climate Exchange Shuts Down

I see that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) will be winding down its CO2 trading operations by the end of the year and laying off staff. This is only surprising considering that the parent company of the CCX was acquired just this summer by the Intercontinental Exchange, though mainly for its successful European emissions trading market. In case you were wondering how long the odds against enacting cap & trade legislation in the US have become, the demise of the CCX is a signpost you can't ignore. If the symbolism of a popular Democratic governor using the Waxman-Markey climate bill for target practice during his recent successful bid for the US Senate wasn't clear enough, it looks like his bullet may have also hit the CCX.

I recall a meeting with one of the founders of CCX at Texaco's corporate headquarters in New York prior to my leaving the company at the end of 2001. At that time, Texaco's management was coming around to the idea that sooner or later emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would carry a price, for the first time in human history. Cap & trade offered a proven way to discover that price, based on the pioneering experience of US markets for sulfur dioxide, a cause of acid rain, and nitrogen oxides. The principles of emissions trading had been embedded in the Kyoto Protocol, largely thanks to the efforts of the US delegation, and European countries were setting up the precursors of the EU Emissions Trading System to manage mandatory carbon reductions. Such developments still appeared to be somewhere over the horizon in the US, which never ratified Kyoto, but they seemed likely to find their way here, eventually. One of the main selling points of the CCX, which was based on voluntary emission reduction commitments by member companies, was that it would provide valuable early experience in a formal market for emissions reductions, giving participants a leg up when such trading was required by law. This argument didn't persuade my former employer, but a number of other companies signed up.

If this scenario now seems like a quaint strand of alternate history--a "what if?" that never materialized--that perspective is quite recent. The prospects for CCX and wider emissions trading looked reasonable for a long time. The value of the CCX contract peaked in mid-2008, when it had become apparent that the ultimate presidential nominees of both major US political parties would be candidates who supported cap & trade, with the Republican even having previously co-authored Senate legislation on the subject. After a severe dip during the worst of the financial crisis, the contract recovered to around $2/ton after the new administration took office, but then swooned again as the Waxman-Markey bill, with its heavily skewed version of cap & trade, neared passage. As the likelihood of parallel Senate action on climate legislation receded, it never really recovered.

In its editorial on the termination of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the Wall Street Journal suggested that the market has delivered its verdict and the idea of national-level cap & trade is now dead in the US. Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't signal an end to all CO2 trading here. Aside from the state and regional programs to which the Journal alluded, companies with global operations subject to emissions caps in other countries will still be active participants in non-US emissions markets, and firms that remain committed to voluntary reductions in the US may continue to trade with each other, via brokers, or with over-the-counter market makers.

For that matter, I can't help wondering whether cap & trade is truly as dead as a Monty Python parrot or just resting. I'm reluctant to let go of an idea I've supported for a long time, but I also still see significant advantages for cap & trade over other means of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Although the idea of carbon pricing may have gone out of fashion in the US, major tax reform for the purpose of deficit reduction could make it much more difficult to provide the monetary incentives for renewable energy technologies that we do today. Without those subsidies or a price on CO2, renewables will have a hard time competing with fossil fuels. And if our only other choices for emissions reduction were mandates or the command-and-control approach for which the EPA is now gearing up, then cap & trade and the emissions trading that makes it work might no longer look quite so appalling to their critics. In that case, the companies that participated in the CCX during the last seven years might not have wasted their time, after all.

FYI, I'll be participating in a webinar on the sustainability aspects of natural gas next Monday at The Energy Collective . To sign up follow this link. In the meantime, I wish my US readers a very enjoyable Thanksgiving. New postings will resume next week.

Energy Implications of Tax Reform

I've been thinking about the implications for energy of a major deficit reduction effort along the lines suggested by the co-chairs of the President's fiscal responsibility and reform commission. Our present approach to providing incentives for various energy sources and technologies, new and old, is embedded in a tax code and taxation philosophy that might not survive the upheaval required to bring the US deficit and resulting federal debt back into a manageable range. This goes far beyond the comparatively minor question of extending expiring grants and tax credits that I discussed the other day; under the most stringent of the proposals from Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, such things wouldn't even exist. It's not clear how the Administration or Congress would promote favored energy technologies and strategies without these well-established but costly tools.

Start with renewable energy. We currently promote renewable fuels and electricity generation with a combination of mandates--policies such as the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and state Renewable Portfolio Standards--and subsidy payments. Until last year's stimulus bill established the Treasury renewable energy grants, for which eligibility is due to expire in a few weeks, most of those subsidy payments have come in the form of reductions in federal taxes, via either an investment tax credit (ITC) based on the cost of a project or a production tax credit (PTC) for actual energy generated. Both of these measures, which have had a checkered history of expirations and extensions, fall into the broad category of "tax expenditures". The Zero Option proposed by Messrs. Bowles and Simpson would permanently eliminate over $1 trillion of such tax expenditures, in exchange for much lower tax rates.

Even if the renewable energy tax credits were reloaded into a streamlined tax code under the "Wyden-Gregg-style" reform presented as Option 2 from the co-chairs, the value of those credits would be reduced--or at least rendered harder to extract--because the corporate tax rate would be reduced from the current 35% to 26%. That means that a higher proportion of companies would likely not pay large enough taxes to take full advantage of the renewable energy tax credits--or have as much appetite for others' credits via "tax equity" swaps. Compounding that, the likelihood of enacting cash grants to get around this restriction would probably be much lower in an environment in which entire herds of sacred cows were being slaughtered in the cause of averting a looming national deficit and debt crisis.

In the absence of such tax credits, renewable energy developers and manufacturers would be forced to rely even more on state-level mandates or a proposed federal renewable electricity standard. The first test of such a mandates-only approach might come in a few weeks, if the ethanol blenders' credit is allowed to expire, while the annual RFS mandate continues to ratchet up. Or companies might simply conclude that without generous tax subsidies for renewable energy deployment here, their best opportunities would be found in markets that are growing much faster than ours, based on actual energy demand, rather than better incentives. Developing Asia comes to mind. That shift might not be the worst outcome, in terms of both the US trade deficit and global emissions reductions.

Conventional energy firms wouldn't escape unscathed, either. They stand to lose significant tax expenditures as well, in the form of oil & gas depletion allowances, the Section 199 manufacturing deduction, and other benefits. However, the oil and gas industry has been paying an effective corporate tax rate above 40% even after all these credits and deductions. A drop to 26% might more than offset the loss of the other benefits, while more importantly bridging the competitive gap between US firms and foreign competitors that operate under lower tax rates and a territorial tax system, rather than being taxed on worldwide earnings, as US companies are today. Bowles/Simpson also proposed increasing the federal gasoline tax by 15¢ per gallon to restore the Highway Trust Fund to solvency. That's a worthy goal, but as I've pointed out previously the Highway fund faces complex challenges as the US car fleet becomes steadily more fuel efficient and increasingly moves away from liquid fuels taxed at the pump. Raising the gas tax is a stop-gap measure, at best, on the way to a different means of collecting road taxes.

With regard to climate policy, tax reform that eliminated tax credits or reduced their value would also tend to nudge the debate back in the direction of putting an explicit price on carbon, either via cap & trade or with an outright tax. Might that prospect suddenly look more attractive as an adjunct to a fairer and simpler income tax system, than it seemed when it would have come as a further complication to an already enormously convoluted tax system that is widely viewed as unfair by both liberals and conservatives? My guess is not, without something else that motivates us to tackle climate change on a much more urgent basis.

Now let's come back to reality. The proposals of the commission's co-chairs have already received a frosty reception or outright hostility from both sides of the aisle, and they haven't yet gotten the buy-in of the rest of their team; the final report requires the consent of 14 of the 18 members. Their ideas must also compete with a growing number of deficit-reduction alternatives, including a widely-reported plan from another bi-partisan group, plus at least one solo proposal from another member of the President's commission. The chances are low for any of these proposals to gain enough traction to be enacted without first being significantly watered down. However, it is starting to look just as risky to assume that the present tax system--and its cornucopia of energy incentives--will continue unchanged indefinitely. A quick glance at the US debt clock ought to make that abundantly clear.

Is Gasoline Too Cheap?

It's an article of faith among many observers of the oil industry that gasoline is too cheap in the US. Environmentalists and economists point to various externalities that aren't included in the price consumers pay, while carmakers and alternative energy developers need a (much) higher price to make advanced vehicle technologies and substitute fuels competitive without subsidies. When someone asks, "Too low compared to what?" the response usually draws a comparison to prices in Europe and elsewhere. Yet while perusing a clever historical price comparison tool on the Energy Information Agency's website, I was struck by how high today's gas prices are, when adjusted for inflation, compared to those that prevailed for most of my life--other than during energy crises. That's surely a factor in current weak US gasoline demand, which has been running slightly below last year's, and a full 3% less than the record levels of 2007.

In the course of searching for a standard table of historical gasoline prices, I recently ran across a handy new feature (or merely one I hadn't seen before) of the EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook report. It allows the public to compare the nominal and real prices for crude oil, gasoline and other fuels, and electricity, over a flexible interval adjusted with a slider control. The first thing I noticed was that although today's price for West Texas Intermediate crude oil of $76 per barrel seems pretty low compared to its $145/bbl high in July 2008, it's actually higher than the inflation-adjusted price for most of the period from 1973-2006, with the exception of the aftermath of the second 1970s oil shock. Now, the Consumer Price Index might not be the most appropriate measure of inflation for crude oil, as I've described in some detail before, but it is perfectly reasonable to apply it to gasoline prices.

On that basis, this week's national average of $2.72 per gallon--$0.17/gal. more than one year ago--is higher than the $0.53/gal. average (equivalent to $2.32/gal. today) for 1974, following the Arab Oil Embargo that helped trigger a severe global recession. It's higher than the $1.17/gal. average ($2.37/gal.) for 1985, before a flood of new production from the North Slope, North Sea and elsewhere broke OPEC's pricing power for more than a decade. It's even higher the $1.35/gal ($2.20) that we paid in the final lead-up to the first Gulf War in late 1990. In fact, it's almost a full dollar higher than the $1.75/gal. inflation-adjusted average for 1986-2005.

When gas prices dipped below $2.00/gal. in late 2008 and early 2009, that provided a significant stimulus to an economy suffering from the combination of a recession and financial crisis. At today's level, however, not only are gas prices not stimulating the economy, but they must be a significant drag on it. Our consumer psychology may be anchored for the time being on $4 as the gauge of what constitutes a high gas price, but compared to the prices that were in effect when our current patterns of mobility and employment were set and the vast majority of the US vehicle fleet was purchased, $2.70 seems more than sufficiently high to inflict economic pain.

Don't get me wrong. I understand full well that a realistic assessment of the cost of greenhouse gas emissions would add at least another $0.10-0.20/gal. to gas prices, and that the current level of US motor fuel taxes is inadequate to pay for the proper maintenance of our highway infrastructure, let alone all the other transportation priorities we'd like to pursue. Other economies have adjusted to much higher gas prices, though these do not prevent the European Union from being a larger net oil importer, in aggregate, than the US is. If OPEC can keep crude oil above $70/bbl when global demand is slack, it's anyone's guess how high it will go when the global economy is actually growing strongly, again. Yet while higher gas prices may well be in our future for many reasons, we should recognize that today's prices remain at oil-crisis levels, and the view of them as "too low" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

What's the Alternative to KGL?

Although I haven't yet seen the latest discussion draft of the "tri-partisan" energy and climate proposal of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman (KGL), I've been thinking about its rumored provisions for a while. These apparently include a cap & trade system for the electricity sector, eventually expanding to include most industries, and a "carbon fee" on petroleum fuels that would be linked to the cap & trade market, along with measures to increase domestic energy production from a wide range of sources, including oil. It occurs to me that the most important question about the resulting legislation may not concern its actual contents, but what we ought to compare it to.

For all the remaining uncertainty about the risks of climate change, which this week's Economist details, the US regulatory baseline for it has already moved beyond doing nothing. Having issued its Endangerment Finding, the EPA is gearing up to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. Almost any other approach to these emissions would be preferable, since regulating point sources ignores the fundamental differences between CO2 and the traditional pollutants like the oxides of nitrogen or sulfur they've been dealing with for decades. If we fail to capitalize on the helpful reality that all GHG emissions anywhere are essentially equivalent in their effect on the climate, we likely won't tackle the cheapest reductions first, and that could cost us a fortune. Yet even without some form of national greenhouse gas legislation or regulations, these emissions are already being regulated at the state level through efforts such as California's A.B. 32 and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In that context, whatever one's assessment of the underlying science, we all have a stake in Congress passing the most practical and cost-effective greenhouse gas legislation possible. Sadly, the blatant favoritism and profligate spending of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last spring disqualify it on both of these criteria.

One of the biggest challenges for KGL is ensuring that their bill doesn't end up as a bloated monstrosity like Waxman-Markey. You don't need 1,000 or more pages to define a cap & trade regime or a carbon tax, or to set up "cap & dividend", under which most of the money collected from selling emissions permits would flow back to taxpayers. (That approach has its own problems.) You do need hundreds or thousands of pages, however, to accommodate all the pork and giveaways that seem to be necessary to get any major legislation passed these days, one vote at a time. Careful scrutiny of the text of the Waxman-Markey bill suggests that there is not a majority of this Congress--or perhaps of any actual Congress we're likely to get--that sees the necessity of crafting a clear response to climate change as trumping the need to score goodies for their districts and favorite causes or constituencies. Messrs. K, G and L have their work cut out for them, finding enough support for their proposal through its primary provisions, rather than accreting dozens or hundreds of tit-for-tat favors.

Perhaps the key to a successful bi/tri-partisan bill could be found in its approach to the uses of the enormous revenues it would generate. The healthcare bill that passed the House last weekend only achieved deficit neutrality by taking a huge bite out of the revenues and savings that might otherwise have gone to bringing Medicare or Social Security back into balance, and that's not a partisan talking point. If we are indeed facing an entitlements crisis on the scale that many expect, and some form of consumption tax is on the horizon as the only viable revenue alternative to a return to the bad old days of confiscatory taxation on upper-income Americans who already pay 86% of all the federal income tax collected, then energy might be a good place to start. A fee of 25 cents per gallon--roughly equivalent to $25/ton of CO2 emitted--on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel would collect on the order of a half-trillion dollars over 10 years.

If KGL do go down the path of a carbon fee on petroleum, the biggest mistake they could make would be to follow the advice of the economists and experts who advise collecting it as far "upstream" as possible. Taxing refineries is a sure recipe for offshoring one of the few remaining basic manufacturing industries in this country that has managed to remain globally competitive, even if it has fallen on hard times recently. Likewise, taxing US oil & gas exploration and production would make them uncompetitive with foreign sources free from such burdens. Instead, since most of the emissions from the petroleum value chain occur during consumption, rather than production, the best place to apply a carbon fee--can't call it a tax--is at the gas pump. This would subject domestic and imported fuels to the same cost without having to go through gyrations to manage "leakage", only to find out later that they violate international trade rules. Best of all, the government already has the mechanism in place to collect such a fee without adding another expensive bureaucracy: Simply tack it onto the federal fuel excise tax and post the amount on every fuel dispenser whenever it changes.

In a perfect world, we'd establish a price on carbon using a simple and transparent cap & trade mechanism and return every penny collected to the public, in order to minimize the burden on the economy while shifting it in the direction of greater energy efficiency and lower emissions. In the last several years it has become abundantly clear that we don't live in that world, if we ever did. I still favor cap & trade as an efficient mechanism for price discovery, but not if its implementation comes with as much baggage as Waxman-Markey carried. I will eagerly await the details of the KGL proposal to see whether they can navigate the narrow gap between an effective, efficient approach to GHG management and the political forces seeking to feast on the bonanza it represents.

US Refineries Under Cap & Trade

A new study confirms my previous suspicions that the allocation of free emission allowances in the Waxman-Markey climate bill would disproportionately disadvantage the US oil sector, with serious consequences for our energy security. In particular, it quantifies the impact on the refining sector, which was chosen by the bill's authors as the focal point for collecting the "tax" on all carbon emissions from the use of petroleum products. In the view of EnSys Energy Systems, Inc., based on their model of global downstream petroleum markets, US refineries would run much less crude oil and be able to invest much less in modernization. As a result, US imports of refined products would grow significantly, despite lower overall consumption, and employment in the US refining sector would fall, while the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from domestic refineries would be largely offset by increases abroad. Such an outcome would benefit neither the global climate nor US national security.

When I examined the preliminary version of Waxman-Markey in early June, I concluded that because it doled out so many free emission allowances to the electricity sector, its main effect for at least the first two decades would be to function as a tax on the petroleum sector, though without the clarity and transparency of a gasoline tax. Those allocations didn't change materially during negotiations, with the final House bill offering roughly 2% of emission allowances to refineries that would be saddled with the responsibility for between 33% and 44% of all US GHG emissions, depending on how you slice them. Compare that to the electricity sector, which accounts for 39% of emissions but would get at least 35% of the free allowances.

Rather than going through the details of the EnSys study, which was commissioned by API, I'd like to approach this by considering how an evenly-distributed cap & trade system (or carbon tax) should reasonably be expected to affect the oil industry, which after all accounts for a major share of US emissions. You'd hardly expect it to get off scot-free. However, it's a fact that most emissions in the petroleum value chain occur when refined fuel is burned, rather than during production (extraction) or refining. The Ensys study puts the refining contribution at less than 10% of all emissions from well to wheels. Although refiners ought to see their operating costs rise under cap & trade, giving them further incentives to increase their already impressive efficiency of roughly 90% (energy out vs. energy in), the impact should properly be relatively modest. The bulk of the impact from cap & trade should manifest in the form of higher end-user prices for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, putting commensurate pressure on consumers to use less. The outcome of that reduction would fall on the marginal suppliers of refined products to the US market: foreign refiners that sent us over 3 million barrels per day last year. EnSys concludes that Waxman-Markey would have entirely the opposite result, enriching foreign refiners at the expense of the employees and owners of US facilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the EnSys study were greeted with the customary skepticism of a finding that supports the interests of the constituency that paid for it. API and its member companies have much at stake in this debate. But if you doubt the likelihood of the scenario it describes, you need only review the regulatory history of the US refining industry and the long-term trend of our refined product imports, which have increased at double the rate of our crude oil imports. Between 1993 and 2007--before the recession axed them--net US refined product imports (after subtracting out exports) grew by a compound average rate of roughly 6% per year, compared to an average increase of 3% per year for net crude imports over the same period. This coincided with increasingly strict regulations on permits for new facilities and on refinery emissions of criteria pollutants, along with ever-tougher rules on gasoline and diesel fuel specifications, culminating in the current reformulated gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel specs. With the exception of a couple of years of stellar margins late in that interval, returns on refinery investments were very poor, and the major oil companies were steadily shedding refining capacity as a bad bet. Today, even the independent refining companies that created profitable businesses by purchasing these assets at a fraction of their replacement cost are suffering from low profits.

If anything, the economic impact on the US refining industry from regulating carbon emissions could be even worse than this recent history, since it hinges on the basic chemistry of combustion itself, rather than the removal of impurities that constitute only a small percentage of their feedstock inputs, even for the highest-sulfur crudes. That could happen even with an even-handed approach to cap & trade or a carbon tax, but it would be a certainty under a system that appears designed mainly to shield utilities and their customers at the expense of the entire existing transportation fuel system. The principal means of reducing GHGs from the latter is through cuts in consumption, not more efficient refining, and even our recent low level of product imports offers the opportunity to cut our emissions from petroleum products by roughly 7% with a minimal effect on US refineries. Instead, Waxman-Markey would effectively offshore many of those refineries--and their emissions. In a world transfixed by market failures, that would constitute a regulatory failure of the first magnitude.

How Much Per Gallon?

A book I recently received from a publisher makes an interesting contrast with last Friday's posting on how many cars our current oil production might eventually support. Its title of "$20 Per Gallon" demands attention, though the book proves to be less of an argument for how we might get there than for what things might be like if--the author would say when--we did. Rather than providing detailed arguments for the imminent arrival of Peak Oil, Mr. Steiner essentially accepts that premise and builds on it to offer a set of scenarios describing life in the US at gasoline prices escalating steadily in $2 increments between $4 and $20 per gallon. It makes for an entertaining and sobering set of "what ifs?" Unfortunately, despite a brief author's note dated from February of this year, the book is something of a victim of the collapse of oil prices late last year. While its premise might have been accepted eagerly and unquestioningly last summer, the world looks a bit different today. The challenges he describes appear somewhat less urgent, particularly after oil's recent surge past $70 per barrel was cut short when it turned out that all that talk of "green shoots" might have been a bit premature.

In a sense "$20 Per Gallon" seems like two books, one quite interesting and the other seriously flawed, at least as a document about our energy future. The interesting part lies in the author's exploration of what successively higher energy prices might mean for different aspects of the US economy and lifestyle. True to its subtitle, it's hardly a tale of uniform woe, unless you have the misfortune of working in one of the sectors he concludes is doomed, including anything connected to commercial air travel as we now know it. He points out the environmental, health and safety benefits that might ensue from our responses to progressively dearer petroleum-derived products. Many of these benefits sound quite appealing, though I would propose that they are neither as inevitable nor as neatly tied to oil use as Mr. Steiner suggests. The book is also filled with anecdotes accumulated from his travels researching its subject. I particularly liked his description of the airplane graveyard and his rides in various energy-efficient UPS trucks. If you come to this book already convinced that we are on the precipice of Peak Oil, I suspect you would find most of this not just entertaining, but riveting.

The book is less likely to appeal to anyone who is skeptical about the inevitability of Mr. Steiner's scenario assumptions. Start with his structural choice of using gasoline prices as a proxy for underlying oil prices, despite the fact that petroleum product markets experience supply and demand fluctuations that differ--sometimes markedly--from oil's. This choice also ignores the enormous influence of taxes and other government policies on gas prices. You don't need $300/bbl oil to reach $8 gasoline, as European drivers can attest. Last week the price of the average gallon of gas in the US fell to $2.46/gal., compared to the equivalent of $6.40/gal. in the UK and $6.77/gal. in Germany. The difference is almost entirely due to taxes. Despite this, daily life in those countries is not so far beyond the pale of recent American experience as to frighten small children. The implications of a world of high fuel prices resulting from the combination of moderate oil prices and high taxation look quite different from those arising from oil prices above last summer's peak of $145/bbl.

There's an even bigger issue lurking under the surface, and it relates to the author's conviction that in the long run oil prices can only go higher--much higher--due to Peak Oil. There's at least some truth to that, and I've posted periodically on the enormous difficulties involved in attempting to increase oil production in the face of constraints on access to resources--internationally and domestically--along with high interest rates, scarce capital, chronic project delays, and the inexorable depletion of mature oil fields. But oil prices are determined by more than supply, and while he eagerly describes all of the ways in which we would have to adjust our habits to a world of higher and higher gasoline prices, I don't get the sense that Mr. Steiner has considered the ways in which these responses would tend to retard the steady price advances he describes. We have only to look at the impact that a demand reduction of less than 4% since late 2007 has had on oil prices in the last 12 months. That responsiveness to lower demand is as inherent in a commodity with a steeply-sloped short-run supply curve as were the high prices that accompanied the steadily increasing demand we saw earlier. This behavior reflects two sides of the same coin.

The complexities of the various feedback mechanisms involved would also make some of the positive outcomes that Mr. Steiner sees more uncertain. Consider the drop in traffic fatalities that he posits as a consequence of higher gas prices. While you would generally expect people to drive less if gasoline were much more expensive, that response would probably be less pronounced in the long run than in the short run, because of the other ways in which consumers would react. $4 gasoline is painful if your current automobile gets 20 mpg. However, once you've traded it in on a 50 mpg hybrid, your cost per mile--and thus your monthly fuel bill--is lower even at $6/gal. than it was before at $3.

In addition to these concerns, I noticed a few basic errors and misleading comparisons along the way. Compared to the above, they are nit-picks, but anyone who reads the book ought to bear them in mind. First, Mr. Steiner suggests a pretty dramatic impact from high gasoline prices on all the plastics we consume, without delving deeply enough to determine that most of the ethylene- and propylene-derivative plastics in North America--including Saran Wrap--aren't sourced from oil but from the liquids produced with natural gas. That's a crucial distinction, with vast new gas resources available and with the prices of oil and gas having diverged rather dramatically, at least for now. He also makes several numerical comparisons between the response to last year's oil price spike and the aftermath of the oil crisis of the 1970s without taking into account the 42% increase in US population since 1974.

I have to believe that Mr. Steiner would have written a somewhat different book, had he begun the project this year rather than last. I don't doubt that some of the outcomes he describes are waiting on the sidelines until the economy climbs out of its current trough, even if oil prices don't quite reach the stratospheric heights he expects. For example, it wouldn't take the oil-price equivalent of $8/gal. to trigger a radical restructuring of the airline business, after what's it's been through. At the same time, though, I doubt we've seen the last oil price cycle, and the relationship between the prices of oil and alternative energy sources remains complex and dynamic. In some respects proposals such as cap & trade or a carbon tax are intended to evoke some of the same responses that Mr. Steiner imagines, but on a gradual basis and without having to pay an external supplier for the privilege of motivating us. I suggest reading "$20 Per Barrel" in that spirit, rather than as a firm prediction of the inevitable future of our oil-based world.

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.

The Non-Tax Tax

When President Obama campaigned in 2007 and 2008, cap & trade was the centerpiece of his strategy on climate change. The latest iteration of cap & trade legislation is being developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, within the broader Waxman-Markey Bill. After numerous hearings and comments, the revised bill is expected to be released later this week and put to a committee vote by Memorial Day. In the process, its approach to cap & trade has apparently evolved from an assumption that 100% of the emissions permits would be auctioned, to the current expectation that a large fraction of them would be allocated for some period at no cost to current emitters, particularly in the electric power sector. In some quarters, the potential impact of this change on the federal deficit is being viewed with alarm and treated as tantamount to a tax cut--never mind that the tax being reduced does not yet exist. For that matter, many politicians can't even agree on whether cap & trade constitutes a tax. I'm sympathetic, because while it has many of the same effects and features of a tax, it differs in at least one important respect: the revenue it raises is incidental to achieving its primary purpose.

One key feature of taxation shared by cap & trade is its potential to transfer large sums of money from taxpayers to the government. In that respect, cap & trade fits many people's definition of a tax. Since it would fall heaviest on consumers and productive industries, both of which are reeling from the effects of the current recession, I've argued for deferring its collection until economic growth has resumed. Even then, the more of its proceeds are recycled back to taxpayers in the form of relief on other taxes or simple rebates, the better the chances that it would not undermine a fragile recovery. Granting free allowances to current emitters--a form of temporary grandfathering--merely reduces the amount that would need to be recycled, as well as the risk that large portions would be diverted to other purposes. Although conventional wisdom has it that a similar allocation to the power sector and other industries in the first phase of the European Emissions Trading Scheme resulted in a windfall for utilities, the same result is far from certain here, because the structure of our power sector is different. But whether the value of these permits is captured by industry, government, or no one at all is ultimately immaterial to the real purpose of cap & trade, which is to put a tangible price on the marginal unit of carbon emitted. That's what will alter investment decisions and consumer behavior.

This is where cap & trade differs most from its first cousin, the simple carbon tax. A carbon tax would apply the same price--set by the government--to every ton of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Since the US emitted 7.2 billion tons of GHG in 2007, the most recent year for which we have data, a carbon tax wouldn't have to be very high to raise a lot of money--but it also couldn't be so low that it didn't influence behavior. A tax of $20/metric ton of CO2-equivalent would add on average about $0.22 per gallon of gasoline and $0.012/kWh of electricity, while raising nearly $150 billion per year. If it took $100/ton to achieve the desired emissions reductions, that revenue could swell to over $700 billion per year--almost enough to close the budget gap, but also enough to be a serious drag on the economy. Cap & trade could deliver the same marginal cost of carbon, but with a significantly smaller net burden on the economy, by allocating a portion of the allowances at no cost.

The key to making that work would be to ensure that the total number of allowances auctioned and allocated each year created a shortage in the market; that's why you do this, anyway, as a means of shrinking emissions year after year. That shortage is what gives the allowances their value. If you issued exactly as many allowances as the tons of GHG we expected to emit next year, their value would be zero. But you also need to make sure that you don't grandfather so many emissions that no one needs to buy or sell allowances. If everyone can meet the target themselves, allowances would become worthless. So the trick is to give out just enough free allowances--reducing this allocation annually--to avoid creating a shock analogous to an oil price spike, but not so many to any participant or sector that they can opt out of trading and deprive the aftermarket of the liquidity it needs to function properly.

The problem today is that we already have a federal budget built upon the assumption of a certain level of revenue ($646 billion over the next 10 years) from the auctioning of emissions permits from a new system, the enactment of which remains uncertain. Once that revenue is in the budget, even if it has never been collected before, anything that reduces it risks throwing the whole edifice into disarray. This bit of aggressive planning has empowered two powerful constituencies: those who see cap & trade as a massive, and thus undesirable new tax, and those who see any weakening of it as a threat to fiscal stability. I will be watching with great interest as these groups grapple with cap & trade in the weeks ahead.

Cap & Trade: No Free Lunch

One thing I still miss about living in the New York metro area is receiving the Times on my front doorstep every morning. So instead of pouncing on Tom Friedman's latest column the morning it's published, I often don't see it for a couple of days, until I run across it on the Internet. The net effect is to raise the bar for Friedman remarks on which I feel compelled to comment, because they're usually superseded by other, more interesting topics on which to blog. Unfortunately, the theme of Mr. Friedman's column of last Saturday is likely to be with us for some time, working its way insidiously into our assessment of energy and climate policy. Cutting through its convoluted logic, it suggests that we can significantly increase the price of energy to send a signal concerning greenhouse gas emissions but somehow end up spending less on energy and becoming richer in the process. While I continue to support the basic idea of a cap & trade system for managing our emissions, touting it to the public as a free lunch seems likely to set us up for a future backlash not unlike the one the financial industry is now experiencing, after we learned that the cheap credit we've enjoyed came with a steep hidden price.

In his script for a hypothetical speech by President Obama, Mr. Friedman sets out his thesis this way: "Yes, the cost of gasoline or kilowatt hours will rise in the short term. But in the long term, your actual bills and expenses will go down because your car, appliances and factory will become steadily more productive and give you more power for less energy." This exaggeration of the basic principle that higher energy prices stimulate greater energy efficiency incorporates several basic fallacies, the most important of which is that while higher prices affect all consumers and businesses more or less immediately--some businesses may have hedged their energy purchases for a time--their capital stock of energy-consuming devices turns over slowly. It also ignores the diminishing returns to higher fuel economy. Someone buying a new, more efficient car might offset most or all of the fuel price increase via higher fuel economy, but the other 93% of car owners are stuck with higher bills for at least another year. The only means by which the remainder of the population can manage this higher expense is through reduced consumption, if not of energy then of other goods and services. We saw that effect on steroids last year, and we are still living with the hangover from it. But even the consumer who bought the frugal car might be worse off, if it cost much more than the model he would have bought otherwise. In effect, he traded some wealth for lower expenses.

The impact on businesses looks similar. While business investment is hardly a zero-sum game, higher investment in energy efficiency would come at least in part at the expense of other kinds of investment, perhaps in new computer equipment or staff hiring or training. Higher prices on energy thus promote improvements in energy productivity at the expense of other kinds of productivity. Although this certainly reduces expenses, it would take some time to reduce them in absolute, rather than merely relative terms, and without increasing top-line revenue. That might sound equivalent in terms of its impact on profits, but it often isn't. Expense improvements tend to get competed away in the marketplace, and are thus often not sustainable sources of earnings. So while business investment in energy efficiency might ultimately shield consumers from higher prices for finished goods and services, it seems unlikely to do much for corporate profits or stock valuations.

Mr. Friedman's assertion ultimately rests on an energy analogy to the experience of the electronics industry. If there is a Moore's Law for energy, it has yet to be discerned, let alone quantified. In the early phases of any new technology, "experience curve" effects can emulate Moore's Law-style improvements for a while. Then, as cumulative output grows the rate of change slows dramatically. Last year's DOE study on the feasibility of obtaining 20% of our electricity generation from wind energy included some interesting observations on cost. While the cost of new wind power fell dramatically between the 1980s and 2000, in classic experience-curve fashion, that decline appears to have bottomed out in 2002 and actually reversed somewhat since then. Moreover, when wind capacity is pushed further along its supply curve, the cost of incremental capacity is expected to go up, as prime wind locations are exhausted and new development is forced into more expensive regimes, in coastal waters or further from markets. Creating a bigger market for energy efficiency won't necessarily drive the cost of efficiency dramatically lower than it is now, or will be once the wave of efficiency investments triggered by $100 oil and $10 natural gas rolls through.

Like Mr. Friedman, I believe we should put a price on emissions of greenhouse gases--if not this year then fairly soon--in order to promote efficiency and the adoption of cleaner technologies over time. However, we shouldn't imagine this will be easy or cheap, let alone something that will create mountains of new wealth out of, literally, thin air. Haven't we all just been through something like that, to our regret? We can't suddenly start collecting fees on behalf of an environmental service--storing our waste carbon in the atmosphere--that has been free since the dawn of time and expect that this won't impose a burden on someone. More precisely, it represents a different kind of wealth transfer than the one we all complained about last year--sending our money to OPEC--in which those who use energy (most of which is still derived from fossil fuels) will send money to those who use less of it and to those who are developing new ways of producing and using it with fewer emissions--and of course to those administering these programs. That should benefit investors in green technology, but someone else will get the bill.