Could China's EVs Lead to Peak Oil Demand?

• China's decision on whether and when to ban cars burning gasoline and diesel could alter our view of how far we are from a peak in global oil demand.
• Even though the likely date of such a peak is highly uncertain, the idea of an impending peak could significantly affect investments and other decisions.

A few months ago the British government made headlines when it announced it would ban new gasoline and diesel cars, starting in 2040. That move, which apparently excludes hybrid cars, is further fallout from the 2015 Dieselgate emissions-cheating scandal.

Now it appears that China is preparing to issue a similar ban. With around 30% of global new-vehicle sales, China could upend the plans and economics of the world's fuel and automobile industries. However, it is less obvious that this would lead directly to the arrival of "peak demand" for oil, an idea that has largely displaced earlier thoughts of Peak Oil related to supply.

Some background is in order, because the two concepts are easy to confuse. Peak Oil, which gained considerable traction with investors and the public in the 2000s, was based on the undoubted fact that the quantity of oil in the earth's crust is finite, at least on a human time-scale. Its proponents argued that we were nearing a geological limit on oil production, and that quite soon oil companies and OPEC nations wouldn't be able to sustain their current production, let alone continue adding to it every year.

The presumption that such a peak was imminent has been pretty clearly refuted by the shale revolution, the first stages of which had already begun when Peak Oil was still fashionable. In fact, humanity has only extracted a small percentage of the world's oil resources. We continue to find both additional resources and new ways to extract more from previously identified resources. Global proved oil reserves--a measure of how much can be produced economically with current technology--have more than doubled since 1980, while production (and consumption) grew by 34%.

For that matter, many of the shale plays that today produce a total of more than 4 million barrels per day had been known for decades. Petroleum engineers just didn't see how to produce oil from them in commercial volumes and at a cost that could compete with other sources like oil fields in deep water.

The first mention I heard of "peak demand" was at an IHS investment conference in 2009, when supply-focused Peak Oil was still king. At the time, it was a novel idea, since only a year earlier, oil prices crested just short of $150 per barrel on the back of surging demand and, to some extent the expectation of Peak Oil, and were only tamed by the unfolding global financial crisis.

Peak demand proposes that consumption of petroleum and its products will reach its maximum extent within a few decades, and thereafter plateau or fall. Crucially, it doesn't depend on a single theory, but on a combination of factors that are easily observable, though still uncertain in their future progression: meaningful improvements in fuel economy, even for large vehicles; policies and regulations to decarbonize the global energy system in response to climate change; an apparent decoupling of GDP and energy consumption; and the rise of partially and fully electrified vehicles.

That brings us back to the implications of a ban on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars in China. Considering that China has accounted for roughly a third of the increase in global oil consumption since 2014, this has to be reckoned as one of the larger uncertainties about future oil demand. Even if we're only talking about the equivalent of a couple of million barrels per day of lost demand growth by 2030, OPEC's ongoing struggle to balance a market that has been oversupplied by less than that amount puts the potential impact for oil investment and economics into sharp relief.

China has every incentive to take this step. Its urban air pollution is on a scale that cities like London and L.A. haven't experienced since the 1950s or 1960s. The country's 2015 pledge to limit greenhouse gas emissions was a centerpiece, and arguably the sine qua non, of the Paris climate agreement. If that weren't enough, the country's dependence on oil imports is exploding in much the same way as the US's did in the early-to-mid 2000s.

Perhaps I'm cynical to think that the last point weighs most heavily on China's policy-makers, just as US energy debates hinged on energy security concerns until quite recently. China's oil demand continues to grow, with over 20 million new cars and trucks reaching its roads each year, and the vast majority of them still needing gasoline or diesel fuel. Meanwhile, its oil production is going sideways, at best, as its mature oil fields decline.

Moreover, despite the country's large unconventional oil resource potential there does not seem to be a shale light at the end of their tunnel, because most of the conditions that supported the shale revolution here don't apply within China's state-dominated system. What it does have is plenty of electricity, and multiple ways to generate a lot more.

Let's concede that China's grid electricity, on which most of those EVs would be running, is among the highest in the world in emissions of both CO2 and local air pollutants. Switching China's new cars from gasoline and diesel to electricity won't constitute a big environmental win, initially or perhaps ever. Even under the relatively generous assumptions used in a recent analysis on Bloomberg, it will take the average EV in China 7 years to repay its extra lifecycle carbon debt, unless the country's electricity mix becomes much greener.

That seems realistic but almost beside the point, if China's main aim is to shore up its worsening energy security. Nor should we ignore the industrial-policy angle in such a move. China set out to dominate the global solar equipment market and can claim success, at least based on sales. If EVs catch on as many expect, the ultimate global market for them would be a sizable multiple of last year's $116 billion figure for global solar investment, only part of which relates to solar cell and module manufacturing, where China leads.

So let's assume 100% EVs is a given in China from some point in the next two decades. Does that spell the end of global oil demand growth in roughly the same timeframe? A number of recent forecasts, including those from Shell and Statoil, reached that conclusion even before the news about China's future car market.

It's not hard to envision this point of view solidifying into conventional wisdom, with interesting implications. Among other things, it could result in further cuts to investment in oil exploration and production that various experts including the International Energy Agency already worry could lead to another big oil price spike--well before EVs take off in a big way. It could also reduce R&D and investment in improvements to the conventional cars that will account for the large majority of car fleets and new car sales for some time to come, with adverse consequences for emissions.

When I consider these forecasts I'm struck by how early we are in this particular transition. Global EV sales are still only around 1% of global car sales, and petroleum products account for all but a small sliver of the global transportation energy market. As fellow energy blogger Robert Rapier recently noted on Forbes, "China is a long way from reining in its oil consumption growth."

Meanwhile, the nascent competition between petroleum liquids and electricity in transportation will occur against the backdrop of a much more complex reshuffling of the entire global energy mix. The current stage of that larger transition involves the rejection of coal and its replacement by natural gas and intermittent renewable energy: wind and solar electricity.

An excellent article by John Kemp in Reuters last week placed the shift away from coal in the context of a long sequence of historical energy transitions. As he noted, "Each step in the grand energy transition has seen the dominant fuel replaced by one that is more convenient and useful." Although there are other, compelling rationales for a move in the direction of electric vehicles backed by wind and solar power, it is extremely difficult to see that combination today in the terms Mr. Kemp used.

Pairing EVs with vehicle autonomy might create a product that is indeed more convenient and useful than current ICE cars with their effectively unlimited range and short refueling times. Perhaps it will require packaging self-driving EVs into mobility-on-demand services to beat that standard. It remains to be seen whether such a package would be technically or commercially viable, since even Tesla's "Autopilot" feature is still a far cry from such level 4 or 5 autonomy.

And even if EVs win the battle for car consumers with sustained help from governments, electricity is still an energy carrier, not an energy source. Renewables may go a long way toward replacing coal in the next two decades, but dispensing with both coal's 28% contribution to global primary energy consumption and oil's 33% in such a short interval looks like a massive stretch. Before the transition to EVs is complete, we may see at least some of them running on electricity generated by gas turbines burning petroleum distillates such as kerosene. (The environmental impacts of such a linkage would be significantly lower than running a fleet of EVs on coal.)

So while China's likely ban on internal combustion engine cars certainly looks like a key step on the path to peak oil demand, it could just as easily force oil producers to find new markets. That happened over a century ago, when a much smaller oil industry saw kerosene lose out to electric lighting and was farsighted or lucky enough to shift its focus to fueling Mr. Ford's new automobiles.

Peak demand for oil definitely lies somewhere in our future, regardless of China's future vehicle choices.  However, as a long-time practitioner of scenario planning, my faith in precise forecasts extrapolated from current facts and trends is limited. Whether we are close to peak demand or, as with a global peak in oil supply, continue to push it farther off, will remain subject to uncertainties that won't be resolved for some time. Our best indication of either peak--demand or supply--will come when we have passed it. However, the idea of an impending peak has shown great potential to affect markets and decisions in the meantime.

Are Renewables Set to Displace Natural Gas?

• Bloomberg's renewable energy affiliate forecasts that wind and solar power will make major inroads into the market share of natural gas within a decade. 
• This might be a useful scenario to consider, but it is still likelier that coal, not gas, faces the biggest risk from the growth of renewables. 

A recent story on Bloomberg News, "What If Big Oil's Bet on Gas Is Wrong?", challenges the conventional wisdom that demand for natural gas will grow as it displaces coal and facilitates the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Instead, the forecast highlighted in the article envisions gas's global share of electricity dropping from 23% to 16% by 2040 as renewables shoot past it. So much for gas as the "bridge to the future" if that proves accurate.

Several points in the story leave room for doubt. For starters, this projection from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), the renewables-focused analytical arm of Bloomberg, would leave coal with a larger share of power generation than gas in 2040, when it has renewables reaching 50%. That might make sense in the European context on which their forecast seems to be based, but it flies against the US experience of coal losing 18 points of electricity market share since 2007 (from 48.5% to 30.4%), with two-thirds of that drop picked up by gas and one-third by expanding renewables. (See chart below.)

It's also worth noting that the US Energy Information Administration projected in February that natural gas would continue to gain market share, even in the absence of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, which is being withdrawn.

Natural gas prices have had a lot to do with the diverging outcomes experienced in Europe and the US, so far. As the shale boom ramped up, average US natural gas spot prices fell from nearly $9 per million BTUs (MMBTU) in 2008 to $3 or less since 2014.  Meanwhile, Europe remains tied to long-term pipeline supplies from Russia and LNG imports from North Africa and elsewhere. Wholesale gas price indexes in Europe reached $7-8 per MMBTU earlier this year.

But it's not clear that the factors that have kept gas expensive in Europe and protected coal, even as nuclear power was being phased out in Germany, will persist. The US now exports more liquefied natural gas (LNG) than it imports. US LNG exports to Europe may not push out much Russian gas, but along with expanding global LNG capacity they are forcing Gazprom, Russia's main gas producer and exporter, to become more competitive.

Then there's the issue of flexibility versus intermittency. Wind and solar power power are not flexible; without batteries or other storage they are at the mercy of daily, seasonal or random variation of sunlight and breezes, and in need of back-up from truly flexible sources. Large-scale hydroelectric capacity, which makes up 75% of today's global renewable generation and is capable of supplying either 24x7 "baseload" electricity or ramping up and down as needed, has provided much of the back-up for wind and solar in Europe, but is unlikely to grow rapidly in the future.

That means the bulk of the growth in renewables that BNEF sees from now to 2040 must come from extrapolating intermittent wind and solar power from their relatively modest combined 4.5% of the global electricity mix in 2015 to a share larger than coal still holds in the US. The costs of wind and solar technologies have fallen rapidly and are expected to continue to drop, while the integration of these sources into regional power grids at scales up to 20-30% has gone better than many expected. However, without cheap electricity storage on an unprecedented scale, their further market penetration seems likely to encounter increasing headwinds as their share increases.

BNEF may be relying on the same aggressive forecast of falling battery prices that underpinned its recent projection that electric vehicles (EVs) will account for more than half of all new cars by 2040. As the Financial Times noted this week, battery improvements depend on chemistry, not semiconductor electronics. Assuming their costs can continue to fall like those for solar cells looks questionable. Nor is cost--partly a function of temporary government incentives--the only aspect of performance that will determine how well EVs compete with steadily improving conventional cars and hybrids.

I also compared the BNEF gas forecast to the International Energy Agency's most recent World Energy Outlook, incorporating the national commitments in the Paris climate agreement. The IEA projected that renewables would reach 37% of global power generation by 2040, or roughly half the increase BNEF anticipates. The IEA also saw global gas demand growing by 50%, passing coal by 2040. That's a very different outcome than the one BNEF expects.

Despite my misgivings about its assumptions and conclusions, the BNEF forecast is a useful scenario for investors and energy companies to consider. With oil prices stuck in low gear and future oil demand highly uncertain, thanks to environmental regulation and electric and autonomous vehicle technologies, many large resource companies have increased their focus on natural gas. Some, like Shell and Total, invested to produce more gas than oil, predicated on gas's expected role as the lowest-emitting fossil fuel in a decarbonizing world. If that bet turned out to be wrong, many billions of dollars of asset value would be at risk.

However, it's hard to view that as the likeliest scenario. Consider a simple reality check: As renewable electricity generation grows to mainstream scale, it must displace something. Is that likelier to be relatively inflexible coal generation, with its high emissions of both greenhouse gases and local pollutants, or flexible, lower-emitting natural gas power generation that offers integration synergies with renewables? The US experience so far says that baseload facilities--coal and nuclear--are challenged much more by gas and renewables, than gas-fired power is by renewables plus coal.

The bottom line is that the world gets 80% of the energy we use from oil, gas and coal. Today's renewable energy technology isn't up to replacing all of these at the same time, without a much heavier lift from batteries than the latter seem capable of absent a real breakthrough. If the energy transition now underway is indeed being driven by emissions and cleaner air, then it's coal, not gas, that faces the biggest obstacles.

Lessons from the Coal Bust

Yesterday's Chapter 11 filing by the largest US coal mining company is the latest in a series of coal bankruptcies. While factors such as regulations and poorly timed acquisitions have played a role, this trend reflects the parallel technology revolutions playing out across the energy sector. Here are a few key lessons from the ongoing coal bust:

• There are many other ways to make electricity, and coal brings nothing unique to the party. In a growing number of markets it is no longer the cheapest form of generation, and it is certainly the one with the most environmental baggage, from source to combustion.
• Coal-fired power generation is in competition with alternatives that are already producing at scale, like nuclear and natural gas generation, or growing rapidly from a smaller base, like renewables. It may not compete with all of these in every market, but few markets lack at least one of these challengers.
• The costs of renewables and gas have fallen significantly in recent years, due to major technology gains. Coal has also benefited from some improvements in scale and end-use technology. Today's ultra supercritical coal plants are more efficient than coal plants of a generation ago, but they are more expensive to build, even without carbon capture (CCS). However, wind and solar power continue to grow cheaper and more efficient, while gas has benefited from resource-multiplying production technologies and advanced gas turbines that can exceed 60% efficiency and ramp up and down rapidly to accommodate the swings of intermittent renewables.
• Despite all of these threats, coal is not on the verge of being forced out of power generation, even in developed countries where all the above factors are at work. Replacing its enormous contribution to primary energy supply and electricity generation will be a very heavy lift, particularly where another major energy source like nuclear power is being phased out. Germany is the prime example of that.

Consider what it would take to replace the remainder of coal in the US power sector. Last year coal generated 33% of US electricity, down from nearly 45% in 2010. Gas picked up 70% of the drop in coal's power output, but that still left coal's contribution at 1,356 Terawatt-hours (TWh) or about 6x the grid contribution of all US wind and solar power last year. (A Terawatt is a billion kilowatts.)

Displacing coal completely from US electricity would require doubling the 2015 output of US gas-fired power generation and a roughly 36% increase in US natural gas production. By comparison, the US nuclear power fleet would have to more than double. If coal were to be replaced entirely by renewables, which in practice probably means gas pushing coal out of baseload power and renewables reducing gas-fired peak generation, the hill looks steep.

Last year the US added 7.3 GW of new solar installations and 8.6 GW of new wind turbines. Assuming they were mostly sited in locations with reasonable solar or wind resources, their combined annual output should be around 35 TWh. At that pace it would take another 36 years to make up what coal now generates. It's true that net annual wind and solar additions continue to grow at double-digit rates, but keeping that up may get harder as the best sites become saturated and earlier wind turbines and PV arrays reach the end of their useful lives in the meantime.

In other words, driving coal from here to zero seems possible but very difficult, even with an all-of-the-above strategy in a market without demand growth. And if electricity demand continues to grow, as it is globally, or resumed growing in the US and other developed countries to enable a big shift to electric vehicles, the prospect of retiring coal entirely recedes into the future.

Keystone XL Loses Another Round

The image that will stick with me from yesterday's failed attempt by Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to avoid a filibuster on her bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is that of her Senate colleague, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) standing next to a blown-up photo of choking smog, presumably in China. Inconveniently, the greenhouse gases at the heart of this debate are invisible and global in effect, rather than local like the pollution from unscrubbed coal plants half a world away. Senator Boxer's smog ploy epitomizes the confusion and misinformation surrounding this project.

That extends to the White House, where the President's recent arguments against the pipeline reflect beliefs, rather than facts, and stand in contrast to the findings of his own administration on the economic and environmental impact of the pipeline, or of oil exports, should some of Keystone's oil be sold into the global market from the Gulf Coast.

Yesterday's defeat is likely to be more final for Senator Landrieu than for the pipeline. She goes into next month's runoff election as a distinct underdog, based on recent polling. The pipeline, however, will likely get another opportunity in the new Congress early next year, when supporters are expected to have an easier time coming up with the 60 votes necessary to bring a bill to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. The project may even benefit from having avoided a Presidential veto now, since the fig-leaf of letting the review process run its course would have been more transparent this time than when the President rejected the pipeline in 2012.

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.

EPA's New CO2 Rules Create Opportunities for Natural Gas, for Now

• EPA's proposed rule for reducing CO2 emissions from power plants could increase natural gas demand in the utility sector by as much as 50%, at the expense of coal.
• Cutting emissions by regulation rather than legislation entails legal and political uncertainties that could hamper the investment necessary to meet EPA's targets.

Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency announced its proposal for regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from all currently operating US power plants. Unsurprisingly, initial assessments suggested it favors the renewable energy, energy efficiency and nuclear power industries--and especially natural gas--all at the expense of coal. However, the longer-term outcome is subject to significant uncertainties, because of the way this policy is being implemented.

EPA's proposed "Clean Power Plan" regulation would reduce CO2 emissions from the US electric power sector by 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, compared to 2005. Although it does not specify that the annual reduction of over 700 million metric tons of CO2--half of which had already been achieved by 2012--must all come from coal-burning power plants, such plants accounted for 75% of 2012 emissions from power generation.

It's worth recalling how we got here. In the last decade the US Congress made several attempts to enact comprehensive climate legislation, based on an economy-wide cap on CO2 and a system of trading emissions allowances: "cap and trade." In 2009 the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill, with its rather distorted version of cap and trade. It died in the US Senate, where the President's party briefly held a filibuster-proof supermajority.

The Clean Power Plan is the culmination of the administration's efforts to regulate the major CO2 sources in the US economy, in the absence of comprehensive climate legislation. Although Administrator McCarthy touted the flexibility of the plan in her enthusiastic rollout speech and suggested that its implementation might include state or regional cap and trade markets for emissions, the net result will look very different than an economy-wide approach.

For starters, there won't be a cap on overall emissions, but rather a set of state-level performance targets for emissions per megawatt-hour generated in 2020 and 2030. If electricity demand grew 29% by 2040, as recently forecast by the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy, the CO2 savings in the EPA plan might even be largely negated. EPA is banking on the widespread adoption of energy efficiency measures to avoid such an outcome.

Since we have many technologies for generating electricity, with varying emissions all the way down to nearly zero, many different future generating mixes could achieve the plan's goals, though not at equal cost or reliability. Ironically, since coal's share of power generation has declined from 50%  in 2005 to 39% as of last year, it could be done by replacing all the older coal-fired power plants in the US with state of the art plants using either ultra-supercritical pulverized coal combustion (USC ) or integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). 

That won't happen for a variety of reasons, not least of which is EPA's "New Source Performance Standards" published last November. That rule effectively requires new coal-fired power plants to emit around a third less CO2 than today's most efficient coal plant designs. That's only possibly if they capture and sequester (CCS) at least some of their emissions, a feature found in only a couple of power plants now under construction globally.

It's also questionable how the capital required to upgrade the entire US coal generating fleet could be raised. Returns on such facilities have fallen, due to competition from shale gas and from renewables like wind power with very low marginal costs--sometimes negative after factoring in tax credits. Some are interpreting EPA's aggressive CO2 target for 2020 and relatively milder 2030 step as an indication that the latter target could be made much more stringent, later.

So while coal is likely to remain an important  part of the US power mix in 2030, as the EPA's administrator noted, meeting these goals in the real world will likely entail a significant shift from coal to gas and renewable energy sources, while preserving roughly the current nuclear generating fleet, including those units now under construction.

If the entire burden of the shift fell to gas, it would entail increasing the utilization of existing natural gas combined cycle power plants (NGCC) and likely building new units in some states. In the documentation of its draft rules, EPA cited average 2012 NGCC utilization of 46%. Increasing utilization up to 75% would deliver over 600 million additional MWh from gas annually--a 56% increase over total 2013 gas-fired generation, exceeding the output of all US renewables last year--at an emissions reduction of around 340 million metric tons vs. coal. That would be just sufficient to meet the 30% emissions reduction target for the electricity demand and generating mix we had in 2013.

The incremental natural gas required to produce this extra power works out to about 4.4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year. That would increase gas consumption in the power sector by just over half, compared to 2013, and boost total US gas demand by 17%. To put that in perspective, US dry natural gas production has grown by 4.1 TCF/y since 2008.

EPA apparently anticipates power sector gas consumption increasing by just 1.2 TCF/y by 2020, and falling thereafter as end-use efficiency improves.  Fuel-switching is only one of the four Best System of Emission Reduction "building blocks" EPA envisions states using, including efficiency improvements at existing power plants, increased penetration of renewable generation, and demand-side efficiency measures. The ultimate mix will vary by state and be influenced by changes in gas, coal and power prices.

I mentioned uncertainties at the beginning of this post. Aside from the inevitable legal challenges to EPA's regulation of power plant CO2 under the 1990 Clean Air Act, its imposition by executive authority, rather than legislation, leaves future administrations free to strengthen, weaken, or even abandon this approach.

Since EPA's planned emission reductions from the power sector are large on a national scale (10% of total US 2005 emissions) but still small on a global scale (2% of 2013 world emissions) their long-term political sustainability may depend on the extent to which they succeed in prompting the large developing countries to follow suit in reducing their growing emissions.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

IEA's Roadmap for Low-Carbon Electrification in a "Golden Age" of Gas

• The IEA's latest Energy Technology Perspectives report provides a roadmap for the long transition to sustainable energy, as well as a report card on its progress.
• It also highlights the tension between the value of natural gas in decarbonizing the current energy mix, and longer-term expectations for phasing out its use.

Last month the International Energy Agency released its latest Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP), a technology roadmap extending out to mid-century, with a major focus on the increasing electrification of global energy against a backdrop of climate change. It may also shed some light on the options for achieving the emissions cuts in the US Environmental Protection Agency's proposed CO2 regulations for power plants.

This is turning out to a big season for climate-change-related reports. The ETP arrived just a week after the US National Climate Assessment, which followed the latest volume of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report on climate change. The ETP caught the attention of renewables-oriented news sites for its characterization of natural gas as, "a transitional fuel, not a low-carbon solution unless coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS)."

That might seem to contradict the general tone of IEA's earlier "Golden Age of Gas" scenario, though when that study was released in 2011 it, too, included caveats about the limitations of gas in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From that standpoint, the new ETP is no more negative about gas than the relatively rosy (for gas) Golden Age scenario was, and in fact sees gas supporting both "increasing integration of renewables and displacing coal-fired generation."

The IEA's press release for the ETP highlighted the growth of electricity as a major energy carrier, particularly in the developing world, increasing from 17% of final global energy consumption in 2011 to 23-26% by 2050. However, it also noted, "While this offers many opportunities, it does not solve all our problems; indeed it creates many new challenges."  Among other things, that alludes to the fact that while renewables such as wind and solar power have been growing rapidly, so has coal use, with the result that, as the ETP launch presentation put it, "the carbon intensity of (energy) supply is stuck."

The emissions benefits of electricity displacing oil from transportation and other fossil fuels from industrial, commercial and residential uses will be largely negated if power generation does not also shift towards lower-emitting sources such as nuclear, hydropower, geothermal, wind and solar power. The "2DS" scenario that received far more attention in the IEA's rollout than the ETP's other two scenarios, provides the prescription and justification for that transition. However, it's important to realize that the 2DS case is not a forecast or prediction; it's what scenario experts might call a "normative scenario"--one that the authors hope to encourage, rather than expect to occur.

2DS reflects the official stance of most member countries of the IEA and links to the low-emission "450" scenario in the agency's current World Energy Outlook. Both are predicated on creating a 50% chance of limiting the average global temperature increase due to climate change to 2°C (3.6°F), compared to pre-industrial conditions. That is generally thought to require keeping the atmospheric  CO2 concentration below 450 ppm (0.045%). In their launch presentation for this report, as in other recent reports, the IEA sounded the alarm that this goal may be slipping out of our grasp. April's monthly CO2 average exceeded 400 ppm for the first time since measurements began, and it is growing at around 2 ppm per year.

The IEA makes a good case that the rapid energy transition described in their 2DS scenario is feasible and economically beneficial, despite its $44 trillion price tag, providing substantial future savings in fuel costs, or more modest ones on the discounted cash flow basis on which most investments are premised. However, they are equally candid that reaching this goal will require significantly greater commitments and actions than countries have already made--or than I would assess to be politically feasible in the current global environment.

Renewables may be on-track, but many other aspects of the low-carbon transition aren't. That's especially true for new nuclear power, post-Fukushima, and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on which 2DS counts for 7% and 14%, respectively, of emissions reductions through 2050.

It's worth recalling that the main scenario in the World Energy Outlook was not "450", but rather the less-restrictive "New Policies" scenario, which appears to correspond to the middle "4DS" technology scenario of the ETP. (The WEO also includes a status quo "Current Policies" scenario.)  In that context we must not let the appealing outcomes envisioned in 2DS obscure the emissions-reducing benefits of natural gas in the world we are still likelier to inhabit, based on current trends, than the one we might desire.

Only under the rapid replacement of fossil fuels by renewables and nuclear power and CO2 sequestration assumed in the 2DS/ "450" scenarios would it be true that, "After 2025...emissions from gas-fired plants are higher than the average carbon intensity of the global electricity mix; natural gas loses its status as a low-carbon fuel." Presumably in the ETP's other two scenarios, that crossover would not happen until much later, if at all.

Gas is thus still a crucial bridge to a lower-carbon world, and it will not lose that status until we have made much more progress in reducing energy-related emissions than seems likely in the near future. While I certainly wouldn't bet against the continued growth of renewable energy, the slow progress of the other elements of decarbonization leaves a vital role for gas to help fuel the beneficial electrification of energy that the IEA has highlighted, for multiple decades.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Five Myths About the "Carbon Asset Bubble"

• The idea that efforts to mitigate climate change expose fossil fuel assets to the risk of a bubble-like collapse has attracted some high-profile supporters.
• However, the notion of a "carbon bubble" depends on questionable assumptions concerning our current knowledge of climate change, the rate of adoption of renewable energy technology, and how such assets are valued.

In their recent Wall St. Journal op-ed, Al Gore and one of his business partners characterized the current market for investments in oil, gas and coal as an asset bubble. They also offered investors some advice for quantifying and managing the risks associated with such a bubble. This is a timely topic, because I have been seeing references to this concept with increasing frequency in venues such as the Financial Times, as well as in the growing literature around sustainability investing.

Although bubbles are best seen in retrospect, investors should always be alert to the potential, particularly after our experience just a few years ago. In this case, however, I see good reasons to believe that the case for a “carbon asset bubble” has been overstated and applied too broadly. The following five myths represent particular vulnerabilities for this notion:

1. The Quantity of Carbon That Can Be Burned Is Known Precisely
Mr. Gore is careful to differentiate uncertainties from risks, which he distinguishes for their amenability to quantification. For quantifying the climate risk to carbon-heavy assets, he refers to the widely cited 2°C threshold for irreversible damage from climate change, and to the resulting “carbon budget” determined by the International Energy Agency (IEA). As Mr. Gore interprets it, “at least two-thirds of fossil fuel reserves will not be monetized if we are to stay below 2° of warming.” That would have serious consequences for investors in oil, gas and coal.

The IEA’s calculation of a carbon budget depends on a factor called “climate sensitivity.” This figure estimates the total temperature change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The discussion of climate sensitivity in the recently released Fifth Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sheds more light on this parameter, which turns out not to be known with certainty. Their Summary for Policymakers includes an expanded range of climate sensitivity estimates, compared to the IPCC’s 2007 assessment, of 1.5°-4.5°C with a likelihood defined as 66-100% probability. It also states, “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

The draft technical report that forms the basis for the Summary for Policy Makers provides more detail on this. It further assesses a probability of 1% or less that the climate sensitivity could be less than 1°C. That shouldn’t be surprising, since temperatures have already apparently risen by 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels. At the same time, the report indicates that recent observations of the climate — as distinct from the output of complex climate models — are consistent with “the lower part of the likely range.”

In other words, while continued increases in atmospheric CO2 resulting from increasing emissions are widely expected to result in warmer temperatures in the future, the extent of the warming from a given increase in CO2 can’t be determined precisely before the fact. For now, at least, the CO2 level necessary to reach a 2°C increase would be consistent with calculated carbon budgets both larger and smaller than the IEA’s estimate. That means that the basis of Mr. Gore’s suggested “material-risk factor” — as distinct from an uncertainty — is itself uncertain.

2. The Transition to Low-Carbon Energy Is Occurring Fast Enough to Threaten Today’s Investments in Fossil Fuels
There is no doubt that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power are growing at impressive rates. From 2010 though 2012 global solar installations grew by an average of 58% per year, while wind installations increased by 20% per year. Yet it’s also true that they make up a small fraction of today’s energy production, and that the risks for investors of extrapolating high growth rates indefinitely proved to be very significant in the past.

For further clarity on this, consider the IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook, the agency’s analysis of global energy trends, which was just released on November 12. The IEA projects global energy consumption to grow by 33% from 2011 to 2035 in its primary scenario, which reflects expanded environmental policies and incentives over those now in place. In that scenario, the global market share of fossil fuels is expected to fall from 82% to 76%, but with total fossil fuel consumption still growing by 24% over the period. Only in their “450″ scenario, based on similar assumptions to its carbon budget, would fossil fuel consumption fall by 2035, and then only by 11%.

Moreover, in its April 2013 report on “Tracking Clean Energy Progress,” the IEA warned, “The drive to clean up the world’s energy system has stalled.” This concern was based on their observation that from 1990 to 2010 the average carbon dioxide emitted to provide a given unit of energy in the global economy had “barely moved.” That’s hardly a finding to be celebrated, but it serves as an important reminder that while some renewable energy sources are growing rapidly, fossil fuel consumption is also growing, especially in the developing world — and from a much larger base.

The transition to lower-carbon energy sources is inevitable. However, it will take longer than many suppose, and it cannot be accomplished effectively with the technologies available today. That’s a view shared by observers with better environmental credentials than mine.

3. All Fossil Fuels Are Equally Vulnerable to a Bubble
As Mr. Gore correctly notes, “Not all carbon-intensive assets are created equal.” Unfortunately, that’s a distinction that some other supporters of the carbon asset bubble meme don’t seem to make, particularly with regard to oil and natural gas. The vulnerability of an investment in fossil fuel reserves or hardware to competition from renewable energy and decarbonization doesn’t just depend on the carbon intensity of the fuel type — its emissions per equivalent barrel or BTU — but also on its functions and unique attributes.

The best example of this might be a recent transaction involving the sale of a leading coal company’s mines. What’s behind this wasn’t just new EPA regulations making it much harder to build new coal-fired power plants in the US, but some fundamental, structural challenges facing coal. Power generation now accounts for 93% of US coal consumption, as non-power commercial and industrial demand has declined. This leaves coal producers increasingly reliant on a utility market that has many other--and cleaner--options for generating electricity. That’s particularly true as the production of natural gas, with lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per Megawatt-hour of generation, ramps up, both domestically and globally. Coal accounts for about half of the global fossil fuel reserves that Mr. Gore and others presume to be caught up in an asset bubble.

Compare that to oil, which at 29% of global fossil fuel reserves, adjusted for energy content, still has no full-scale, mass-market alternative in its primary market of transportation energy. Despite a decade-long expansion, biofuels account for just over 3% of US liquid fuels consumption, on an energy-equivalent basis. They’re also encountering significant logistical challenges and concerns about the degree to which their production competes with food. This has contributed to efforts in the EU to limit the share of crop-based biofuels to around 6% of transportation energy. Biofuels have additional potential to displace petroleum use, particularly as technologies for converting cellulosic biomass become commercial, but barring a prompt technology breakthrough they appear incapable of substituting for more than a fraction of global oil demand in the next two decades.

Electric vehicles offer more oil-substitution potential in the long run, though they are growing from an even smaller base than wind and solar energy. Their growth will also impose new burdens on the power grid and expand the challenge of displacing the highest-emitting electricity generation with low-carbon sources.

Meanwhile, natural gas, at 20% of global fossil fuel reserves, offers the largest-scale, economic-without-subsidies substitute for either coal or oil. In any case, it has the lowest priority for substitution by renewables on an emissions basis, and so should be least susceptible to a notional carbon bubble.

4. A Large Change in Future Fossil Fuel Demand Would Have a Large Impact on Share Prices
Although Mr. Gore’s article includes a good deal of investor-savvy terminology, it is entirely lacking in two of the most important factors in the valuation of any company engaged in discovering and producing hydrocarbons: discounted cash flow (DCF) and production decline rates. Unlike tech companies such as Facebook or even Tesla, the primary investor value proposition for which depends on rapid growth and far-future profitability, most oil and gas companies are typically valued based on risked DCF models in which near-term production and profits count much more than distant ones.

At a conservative discount rate of 5%, the unrisked cash flow from ten years hence counts only 61% as much as next year’s, while cash flow 20 years hence counts only 38% as much. Announced changes in near-term cash flow due to unexpected fluctuations in production or margins would normally be expected to have a much bigger impact on share prices than an uncertain change in demand a decade or more in the future.

This is compounded by the decline curves typical of many large hydrocarbon projects. If the first 3-5 years of a project account for more than half its undiscounted cash flows, it won’t be very sensitive to long-term uncertainties, nor would a company made up of the aggregation of many projects with this characteristic. This is even truer of shale gas and tight oil projects, which yield faster returns and decline more rapidly.

I can’t speak for Wall Street's oil and gas analysts, but I’d be surprised based on past experience in the industry if the risk of a 10% or greater drop in global demand for oil or gas in the 2030s would have much of an effect on their price targets for companies — certainly not enough to qualify as a bubble.

5. Fossil Fuel Share Prices Don’t Already Account for Climate Risks
The assertion of a carbon bubble in fossil fuel assets ultimately depends on investor ignorance of climate-response risks, presumably because companies haven’t quantified those risks for them. To the extent the latter condition is true, it represents an opportunity for companies seeking to capitalize on the boom in sustainability-based investing.

However, you needn’t be an adherent of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis for which Eugene Fama was named as a recipient of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics to realize that thanks to the Internet, average investors have access to most of the same information on this subject as Mr. Gore and his partners. Institutional investors, who make up the bulk of the shareholding for at least the larger energy firms, and the analysts who follow these companies have the resources to access even more information.

Nor is the idea of a carbon bubble exactly new. Mr. Gore didn't create it, and I’ve been following it for a couple of years, as it took over from waning interest in Peak Oil. It’s not an obscure risk, either, in the sense that sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps were in the lead-up to the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008. It’s becoming more mainstream every day, although the burden of proof that this risk is mispriced rests with those advocating this view.

Before concluding, a word of disclosure is in order. As you may gather from my bio, I spent many years working with and around fossil fuels, though my ongoing involvement in energy is much broader than that. As a result of that experience, my portfolio includes investments in companies with significant fossil fuel holdings. I strive for objectivity, but I can’t claim to be disinterested. However, neither can Mr. Gore. As a major investor in renewable energy and other technologies through the firm cited in the article and other roles, he has as much at stake in promoting the idea of a carbon bubble — and on a very different scale — as I might have in dispelling it.

The carbon bubble is an interesting hypothesis, even if I don’t yet find the arguments made in support of it convincing. Despite that, I see nothing wrong with investors wanting to track their carbon exposure, consider shadow carbon prices, or ensure they are properly diversified. However, the biggest risk I see that might eventually warrant considering divestment of fossil-fuel-related assets isn’t based on the merits of this analysis, but on the possibility of creating a self-fulfilling prophesy by means of drumming up social pressure on institutional investors. You might very well think that applies to this Wall St. Journal op-ed. I couldn’t possibly comment.

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

Study Sheds Light on the Environmental Impact of Shale Gas

• The view that methane leaks render shale gas "worse than coal" has been further undermined by the release of a new study based on actual measurements at hundreds of gas wells.
• Previous estimates of methane leakage relied on modeling or extrapolation from remote measurements. The University of Texas study addresses these shortcomings.

Since the late 1990s natural gas has been identified by both energy experts and environmentalists as a likely "bridge fuel" to facilitate the transition to cleaner energy sources. This view has recently been challenged by suggestions that methane leakage from natural gas systems--particularly from shale gas development--might be significant enough to negate the downstream climate benefits of switching to natural gas. The results of a new study from the University of Texas, sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and nine energy companies, should alleviate many of those concerns.

In order to understand why indications of potential natural gas leakage rates well above the previously assumed level of around 1% would cast doubt on the environmental benefits of gas, a brief primer on greenhouse gases (GHGs) is necessary. When present in the atmosphere, these gases contribute to global warming by trapping infrared radiation that would otherwise be emitted to space. Carbon dioxide is the primary GHG implicated in climate change. It currently makes up roughly 400 parts per million (ppm)--equivalent to 0.04%--of earth's atmosphere and is increasing by around 2 ppm per year.

The main constituent of natural gas is methane. Although atmospheric concentrations of methane are much lower than that of CO2, totaling less than 2 ppm, pound for pound it is a much stronger GHG. Its "global warming potential" is 25 times higher than CO2's over a 100-year time horizon, and even higher on a shorter time span. While most atmospheric methane has been traced to natural or agricultural sources, a large increase in atmospheric methane from natural gas production could overwhelm the undisputed downstream emissions benefits of gas in  electricity generation, compared to coal.

Several academic studies raised precisely this concern with regard to natural gas produced from shale by hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", starting with a widely-publicized paper from a professor at Cornell University in 2010. This work relied on estimates and limited data from early shale production to arrive at a conclusion that shale gas wells leak 3.6-7.9% of their cumulative output. A more recent series of studies from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado Boulder used airborne remote sensing techniques to calculate leakage rates similar to Professor Howarth's.

Other studies from groups as diverse as IHS CERA, Carnegie Mellon University, and Worldwatch Institute and Deutsche Bank addressed the same question but arrived at much lower leakage rates and impacts. And earlier this year the US Environmental Protection Agency reduced its previous estimate of overall natural gas leakage to a figure equivalent to 1.7%.

However, until now all scientific studies of this issue--on both sides--were based on limited data, or on indirect measurements obtained at a significant distance from actual production sites. They relied heavily on assumptions about what was happening at large numbers of gas wells, in the absence of direct observations at these sites.

That's what makes the UT study so significant; it is based on a wealth of data from actual, on-site measurements at "190 production sites throughout the US, with access provide by nine participating energy companies." That translates to roughly 500 shale gas wells in different stages of development and production. 

Overall, for the segment of the gas lifecycle they investigated, the UT team found methane emissions that were lower than EPA's latest estimates.  Emissions from "completion flowbacks" were  98% lower, partially offset by somewhat higher observed leaks from valves and other equipment. Although this study did not measure emissions from the entire gas lifecycle, including pipelines, it would be very hard to reconcile their observed average leakage rate of 0.4% of gross gas production with leakage estimates as high as those embraced by many of shale's critics.

Immediate criticisms of this study also missed several crucial points. First, without the industry involvement that they characterized as a "fatal flaw", access on this scale for direct measurements at production sites--surely the gold standard for emissions studies compared to estimates based on assumption-laden models--would have been difficult or impossible to obtain. More importantly, they also ignored the fact that the principal sources of methane emissions found by the UT team involved valves and equipment by no means unique to shale development, many of which should be amenable to hardware improvements or different technology choices.

While the UT team and their sponsors at EDF stated clearly that more work needs to be done to measure methane emissions from other parts of the gas value chain, the current paper convincingly dispels the notion that the emissions from shale gas development are inherently much higher than those for gas produced from vertical wells in conventional oil and gas reservoirs. Since shale gas already accounts for over a third of US natural gas production and is widely expected to dominate future production, that result has large implications for the environmental benefits of further fuel switching and other applications for natural gas.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

The President's Climate Plan Hinges on Natural Gas

• President Obama's plan for addressing US greenhouse gas emissions depends heavily on expanded fracking of US shale gas resources.
• Reducing power sector emissions will be expensive, unless implemented with maximum flexibility.
• The President's endorsement of climate adaptation was helpful, if overdue.

President Obama's much-anticipated speech on climate change emphasized measures affecting our production and use of energy, which accounts for 86% of US emissions of the greenhouse gases implicated in global warming.  In its recognition of the ongoing importance of fossil fuels to the economy and inclusion of climate adaptation, it probably represents the most balanced approach on this subject from this White House.  However, many of the components of this plan could prove costlier than other solutions that have been debated in recent years.

Some context is necessary.  In 2009 the US Congress, controlled by the President's party, took up comprehensive climate legislation centered on "cap-and-trade." In principle, that would have limited emissions while enabling emitters with high abatement costs to purchase offsets from others who could cut emissions less expensively. Unfortunately, the Waxman-Markey Bill's version of cap-and-trade was so distorted by handouts to favored constituencies that its effectiveness at reducing future emissions was highly questionable.  By the time it died in the Senate, it looked more like a piñata of revenue allocation than a serious effort to address climate change.

So depending on your perspective, the President's new climate plan is either a punishment for Congressional failure to pass a climate bill, or the unavoidable sequel to legislative stalemate. Its prescriptive approach to parceling out emissions cuts to different sectors, with a heavy focus on electricity generation, might prove effective at reducing some emissions but will certainly be more expensive than a broad, market-based approach.

The hallmark of the speech was the President's instruction to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop carbon emissions standards for both new and existing power plants.  This feature had been leaked in advance, and it was hailed by many environmentalists.  How much it will cost us depends on how EPA constructs the regulations necessary to put it into effect. 

If they approach the power plant carbon standard in a manner similar to the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) rules applied to each automaker's new car fleet, then the resulting flexibility could moderate both its cost and adverse consequences. Conversely, if they cap emissions at each individual power plant--analogous to specifying the mpg of each new car--we should expect a wave of power plant closures, including at some gas-fired plants necessary to manage peak loads and back up wind and solar power.  The implications for utility bills and electric reliability are significant, so the details will matter enormously.

The President has a point when he says that past predictions of economic harm associated with previous environmental regulations largely failed to materialize, due to the ingenuity of American businesses. However, I believe his dismissal of concerns about EPA regulation of CO2 emissions is overly cavalier, because it ignores two fundamental facts. 

First and foremost, energy-related CO2 has little in common with the pollutants the EPA has regulated in the past.  It results neither from small impurities in fuel, such as sulfur or mercury, nor as a minor byproduct of combustion with air, such as NOx.  Along with water and heat, CO2 is a primary and unavoidable outcome of all hydrocarbon combustion. We can't clean it up cheaply by purifying the fuel or adding a catalytic converter or scrubber to an exhaust pipe or smokestack.  We must either send it to the atmosphere, as we've done since the invention of fire, or chemically separate it from the exhaust, and then compress it and bury it underground, or react it chemically to produce new fuel or some other product.  So far, both of the latter options are expensive and energy-intensive.   There's simply no free lunch to be had in dealing with emissions from the fossil fuels without which, as the President admitted, "Our economy wouldn't run very well."

The other problem, familiar to my long-time readers, is scale.  President Obama said that his new plan would "double again our energy from wind and sun", as it doubled in the last four years. Unfortunately, that further doubling would only yield enough electricity to displace 9.5% of the electricity generated from coal last year, saving less than 3% of total US emissions. New nuclear power plants require many years to build, and those now under construction only offset the announced and plausible retirements of existing nuclear units.  Thus, any shortfall in electricity supply due to the retirement of additional coal plants must be made up mainly by natural gas, which a new report from the Breakthrough Institute calls the "Coal Killer". 

For the first time in a generation, it appears we have enough gas to take on such a challenge. Replacing half of 2012's coal-fired power generation would require a 50% increase in the quantity of gas sold to US generating plants last year, supported by another 20% increase in US dry gas production, to nearly 29 trillion cubic feet per year. That level of output would be consistent with the Energy Information Administration's current forecast for US production by the mid-2020's.  Of course the power sector would have to compete with other sectors that are also seeking more gas, including manufacturing and transportation, so the future price of natural gas--even with abundant shale sources--is uncertain.  The bottom line is that President Obama's plan for reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector depends mainly on raising US natural gas production through expanded hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits.

I should also briefly mention a few other aspects of the speech. The President wants to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy by having the federal government lead in their adoption.  This sounds like motherhood and apple pie, and there's no question that efficiency measures have a role to play in reducing both energy consumption and emissions.  However, they shouldn't be divorced from a broader perspective encompassing financial and operational efficiency.  I would wager that the federal government could cut its energy consumption from buildings just as quickly, and perhaps less expensively, by reducing its vast inventory of owned and leased buildings.

Federal adoption of renewable energy should also be guided by financial and operational considerations.  For example, it is desirable for the military to ensure that as many of its aircraft, ships and vehicles as possible are capable of using alternative fuels, and to certify new systems on such fuels. However, it would be counterproductive verging on irresponsible to prioritize the purchase of uncompetitively priced alternative fuels, when budget cuts and sequestration are grounding fighter squadrons and otherwise impairing readiness.  Funds are fungible, as CFOs are wont to say, and every extra dollar spent on renewable vs. ordinary jet fuel is a dollar that can't be spent on training or maintenance.  And investments in high-cost renewables could achieve more if diverted into support for innovation on improved energy technologies capable of competing without endless subsidies.

The President's remarks on the Keystone XL pipeline were consistently vague. Some supporters of the project were encouraged, while opponents could still conclude a rejection was inevitable.  From my perspective the only new element was his apparent dismissal of any objections on the basis of potential leaks and other local concerns from the final decision.

Finally, there's the issue of adaptation.  President Obama effectively acknowledged that if the climate models that underlie his plan are correct, we face additional warming and other consequences, no matter how much we reduce emissions. He proposes to "protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid."  This is overdue and ought to attract bipartisan support, irrespective of whether our elected representatives are convinced that human activities are responsible for the changes we see in the climate.  Too many people and too many assets have been placed in the path of natural disasters that could become more frequent or severe, if the globe continues to warm. Adaptation offers "no regrets" opportunities, though building more resilient infrastructure is only part of the appropriate response.  Expect to hear more about this subject in the weeks and months ahead.

The Executive Branch actions outlined in the President's speech constitute a Plan B for climate change.  They may yield emissions reductions, though likely at a higher cost than broader, more even-handed measures that have become politically unpalatable. However, in a persistently weak economy the resulting higher energy prices are also likely to threaten an emerging source of US competitive advantage. Instead of solving the politics of climate change, the President's plan could deepen the polarization that already exists on this issue.