Exports Raise the Bar for US Strategic Petroleum Releases

I've seen a number of Tweets suggesting that the US will release oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) sometime in the next month or two, perhaps in tandem with other member countries of the International Energy Agency.  Although circumstances might provide several possible rationales for such a release, including the implementation of tougher sanctions on Iran's oil sector and the possibility that Hurricane Isaac will disrupt some production in the Gulf Coast, it's hard to avoid a political interpretation, as well.  As we head into a close Presidential election, gas prices are rising again, and that's never good for an incumbent.  Selling oil from the SPR is one of the few levers available that might affect short-term energy prices.  However, much has changed since the Clinton administration released 30 million barrels (via exchange) in the lead-up to the 2000 election.  In particular, the country's switch from net importer to net exporter of petroleum products implies that a release in response to events other than a physical disruption in oil supplies could result in some of the benefit of such a release being exported, as well.

When it comes to uses of the SPR, I'm a purist, probably because I can recall sitting in gas lines and participating involuntarily in the bizarre "odd-even" rationing-by-license-plate scheme introduced during the oil crisis following the Iranian Revolution.  The SPR was designed to provide a backstop for our vital energy supplies in a true physical emergency, not as a tool for price manipulation.  I've also suggested for some time that the SPR is overdue for a comprehensive reassessment of its structure.  Our energy situation has changed significantly since the mid-1970s, when the present SPR was established, and we are in the midst of the biggest changes in US energy supply and demand patterns in decades.  We ought to invest the time and money required to bring this institution into the 21st century.  Earlier this year, I also suggested an alternative mechanism for leveraging SPR inventories without depleting them. These are tasks for after the election, whoever wins.  For now, we have what we have, and we should think carefully about the implications of using it in situations less compelling than a war in the Persian Gulf or an unanticipated disruption in North American or global supplies.

One of the changes that must be taken into account is our recent shift in refined product exports, about which I've written previously.  US refineries are capitalizing on the expansion of domestic oil production in a period of weak US demand to continue to operate at high utilization rates and export the resulting surplus output to growing economies in Latin America and elsewhere.  This is generally a good thing, because it helps preserve capacity that might otherwise no longer be available when our own economy eventually resumes healthier growth. It also sustains employment we would sorely miss in a terrible job market.  Furthermore, we have benefited greatly in reliability and flexibility from participating on both sides of the global market in refined products. Still, although I view our petroleum product exports as generally positive--just as I do Boeing's exports of jetliners--I wouldn't advocate using petroleum stockpiles purchased with tax dollars to drive down oil prices to give these refiners an even bigger export advantage.  Yet because of its temporary nature, in contrast to new pipelines or new production, that's exactly where at least some of the benefit of SPR oil released in the absence of a serious supply crisis would go now. 

That doesn't mean I regard rising oil or gasoline prices as harmless to the economy. Consumers are facing the highest pump prices heading into Labor Day weekend since 2008, and that could have a ripple effect throughout the economy.  But even if one ignores the longstanding bi-partisan principle that the SPR is intended only as a crisis-management tool, its effectiveness at moderating oil-price volatility is limited.  Last year's coordinated SPR release, prompted by the Libyan revolution, had little persistent effect on either oil or gasoline prices. A release now is likely to be no more effective when US refineries are already running above 90% utilization and the current 4-week averages show 3.6% of US gasoline production and 23% of diesel output being exported. None of these statistics suggest refiners are experiencing difficulties in obtaining feedstocks, other than on price.  Putting SPR oil into such a market might boost refiners' margins for a while, but it's doubtful it would do much for the product prices that matter to consumers. 

There are sharp differences between President Obama and Governor Romney, not least on energy policy. We're sure to hear more about energy from both campaigns in the weeks ahead, and I plan to analyze their positions closer to election day.  However, one factor this election doesn't need is a release of oil from the SPR that appears to be aimed at dampening gasoline prices that often decline after Labor Day without intervention, rather than being justified by a tangible threat to US oil supplies, and that fails to take into account the added complexity of net product exports. That wouldn't serve the interests of voters, taxpayers or consumers, and it would come at the expense of a little bit of our collective energy security. 

Last Hurrah for the Wind Power Tax Credit?

Ahead of Thursday's meeting of the Senate Finance Committee, a bipartisan deal has apparently omitted the expiring production tax credit (PTC) for wind power from a package of "tax extenders"--various expiring federal tax provisions, including the annual "patch" for the Alternative Minimum Tax.  This development might surprise some of the industry's supporters, but the politics of wind have changed since I last examined this issue in February.  A measure that once enjoyed solid bi-partisan support is now caught between two presidential campaigns that hold diametrically opposed views on its fate. 

A quick review of the PTC seems in order.  This tax credit, which covers a variety of technologies but with wind as the main beneficiary, dates back to 1992--interrupted by several past expirations but then revived in essentially its present form. That's significant, because during the same 20 years in which the PTC has been escalating annually with inflation--from 1.5 ¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to the present level of 2.2 ¢/kWh--the cost of wind turbines and their output has fallen significantly. In the same period, US installed wind capacity grew from 1,680 MW to nearly 49,000 MW as of the first quarter of 2012.  So in effect, we're subsidizing today's relatively mature onshore wind technology by a larger proportion than we did when it was in its infancy. That makes no sense, especially in the current environment.

The US wind industry has received substantial government support in recent years.  When the long-standing tax credit against corporate profits proved to be much less beneficial during the financial crisis, the administration gave wind developers a better option within the stimulus: a 30% investment tax credit that could be claimed as up-front cash grants, instead of having to wait until power was generated and sold over the normal 10 year period of the PTC.  From 2009-11 the wind industry received a cumulative $7.7 B, in addition to ongoing tax credits on older projects, manufacturing tax credits for new wind turbine factories, and loan guarantees for selected wind farms.  And even with new turbine installations in 2012 running well below their record rate of 10,000 MW in 2009, the wind projects that qualify for the PTC this year could receive a total of $4.5 B over the next decade. 

Many people seem to want to equate the tax breaks that wind and other renewable energy technologies receive with the controversial tax benefits for the oil and gas industry, without realizing how unfavorable that comparison truly is for renewables.  Subsidies for technologies such as wind are much higher per unit of energy produced, consistent with their intended purpose of bridging the competitive gap vs. conventional energy.  Yet since the total output of new renewables is still relatively small, the disparity in total subsidies is much larger than it appears.  One way to illustrate that is that if the oil and natural gas produced in the US received tax credits at the same rate per equivalent kWh as wind power, then the annual oil and gas tax preferences that the Congress and President Obama have been sparring over for the last three years wouldn't be $4.8 B per year, but around $100 B per year. 

As the Reuters article makes clear, there will be other opportunities for the PTC to be reinserted in the extenders bill or other legislation.  However, by persistently arguing for extending the existing credit without modification, the wind industry and its supporters may be misreading the public's appetite for such generous subsidies in a period of protracted economic weakness, notwithstanding the recent Iowa poll.  Despite its rapid recent growth wind still contributes less than 4% of the nation's electricity and just 1% of our total energy consumption, and the green jobs angle is wearing thin. Last year's expiration of the ethanol blenders credit set a precedent for ending another large, generous subsidy before its beneficiaries agreed they were done with it. If congressional Republicans line up behind their party's standard bearer on this issue, the wind industry will have missed its opportunity for a graduated, multi-year phaseout of the PTC, instead of stepping off a cliff in 2013.

Candidates & Energy: Romney

My push to review all the major candidates before next week's Super Tuesday moves on to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the winner of the Michigan Republican Primary and the Nevada and Wyoming Caucuses. The latest poll in Florida shows him in a statistical dead heat with John McCain, going into tomorrow's primary in that state. While he seems to share the general concern of all the candidates about energy insecurity, his views on climate change separate him from Senator McCain, and from all of the Democratic candidates. And while he clearly views energy policy as a major national priority, advocating action on a broad range of options, he speaks about the details more tentatively than most of his competitors.

The format of the energy page of Governor Romney's campaign website reflects his experience in management consulting and strategy. It leads with a video of the Governor outlining his ideas on energy. The site includes a concise statement of the energy security challenge, along with a graph of the growing gap between US oil consumption and domestic production. It lays out a vision of policy leadership, supported by four succinct, high-level strategies, with a bit of detail under each. "Increase Focus On Energy Security" looks like a filler, so it really boils down to three key ideas: more R&D, more nuclear power, and more domestic energy production. Mr. Romney would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more of the offshore for drilling, and he's the first candidate I've seen to identify natural gas as a key concern and opportunity. It lacks the masses of detail available on the Obama or Clinton websites, but it's all pretty straightforward, with no radical departures from the status quo.

Discerning Governor Romney's position on climate change took a little more digging. Although he affirms that climate change is occurring, he stops short of apportioning responsibility between nature and humanity. More worrying, he frequently conflates climate change and energy security in a way that goes beyond any of the other candidates I've studied. He appears to believe that any progress on energy security will inevitably help the environment, including turning coal into liquid fuels. Although he mentions the potential of sequestering the CO2 emissions from coal liquefaction plants, it's not clear that he regards that as an absolute precondition for their deployment. Moreover, the idea of a price floor for liquefied coal, mentioned in the video on the campaign site, ignores our experience with the 1980s Synthetic Fuels Corporation; there are better ways to encourage technology than writing blank checks on the Treasury. Ultimately, his climate strategy appears to rely entirely on technology and incentives, without either a carbon cap or carbon tax.

While I applaud the Governor's candor on how long it would take the US to become energy independent, many of his comments on energy reflect a tentativeness and casualness about details that don't match his reputation for exhaustive analysis. Perhaps that should be reassuring. Anyone who hasn't been immersed in the details of energy for a long time ought to be cautious about appearing overly certain concerning matters that even the experts debate. At the same time, though, he has a habit of attributing ideas to others in a way that suggests they could easily be jettisoned later. He could also stand to make a clearer distinction between energy security and climate change and correct some of the misunderstandings that he has conveyed, such as the notion that we must look to France for the technology to build new nuclear power plants or reprocess nuclear waste.

As things stand now, the 2008 presidential election will hinge on the economy--with energy widely viewed as a main contributing factor--and on the perception of change. If Governor Romney became the standard-bearer of his party, he would have to convince voters that his energy plan is at least as detailed and coherent as those of the current Democratic front-runners, while also differentiating it from the policies that have led to the current situation. For many Americans, the time for "no regrets" strategies on energy and the environment has passed.