Withdrawal Exposes Weakness of the Paris Climate Agreement

When President Trump announced last week that the US would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, he unleashed a flood of condemnation. Foreign leaders, US politicians, corporate executives, and environmental groups all roundly criticized the move. It also hasn't polled well.

As the initial reaction dies down, it's worth considering how this happened, what it means, and what might come next. The invaluable Axios news site has some noteworthy insights on the latter problem that I will get to shortly.

I am convinced it was a mistake to withdraw. In this I share the view of many current and former business leaders, including the Secretary of State, that the US was better off as a party to the deal and all the future negotiations it entails. Even if the goal was truly to renegotiate the agreement on more favorable terms, signaling withdrawal first seems counterproductive. However, I also see the consequences of our withdrawal in less catastrophic terms than most critics of the move.

As I noted not long after it was concluded, the Paris Agreement is by design much weaker than its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. Although the 2015 Paris deal was probably the strongest one that could have been negotiated at the time, it still represented a big compromise between developed and developing countries on who should reduce the bulk of future emissions and who should bear the responsibility for the consequences of past emissions. Its text is full of verbs like recognize, acknowledge, encourage, etc., and  the commitments it collected were essentially voluntary.

The agreement was also explicitly negotiated so as to maximize its chances of being enacted under the executive powers of the US president, without his having to refer the agreement to the US Senate for its concurrence. That implied it could be undone in the same way.

In other words, President Obama took a calculated risk that his successor(s) would choose to be bound by his Executive Order endorsing Paris. That was tantamount to a bet on his party winning the 2016 election, since most of the Republicans who had announced at the time were opposed to it, or the Clean Power Plan that was the linchpin of future US compliance with it.

Seeking Senate approval as a treaty would have been a much bigger lift--or required an even weaker agreement--but success would have provided significant political protection for the follow-on to the unratified Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps that explains why President Trump has chosen the much slower exit path--up to three years--provided within the Paris Agreement, rather than the quicker route of pulling out of the umbrella UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention was signed by President George H.W. Bush with the bipartisan advise and consent of the Senate in 1992.

Setting politics aside, it's also not obvious that US withdrawal from Paris will put our greenhouse gas emissions on a significantly different track than if we stayed in. Even the EPA's review and likely withdrawal of its previous Clean Power Plan, which underpinned the Obama administration's strategy for meeting the voluntary goal it submitted at Paris, may have only a minor impact on global emissions.

Federal climate policy has not been the main driver of recent emissions reductions in the US power sector. Cheap, abundant natural gas from shale and the rapid adoption of renewable energy under state "renewable portfolio standards", supported by federal tax credits that were extended again in 2015, have been the primary factors in overall US emissions falling by 11% since 2005. These trends look set to continue.

The bigger question is what happens globally with the US out of the Paris Agreement--assuming the administration does not reverse course again before it can issue the required formal notice to withdraw roughly 2 1/2 years from now. 

At least in the short term, I doubt much else will change. For the most part, the Nationally Determined Commitments delivered at Paris reflected what the signatories intended to do anyway. China's NDC is a perfect example. That country's ongoing air pollution crisis provides ample incentive to scale back on energy intensity and coal-fired power plants, which are the main source of its emissions. 

Increasing the role of renewable energy in its national energy mix perfectly suits China's ambitions in renewable energy technology. Exhibit A for that is a solar manufacturing sector that went from insignificance to more than 50% of the global supply of photovoltaic (PV) cells in under a decade, while China's domestic market accounted for 21% of global PV installations through 2015. 

The reactions to last week's announcement surely raised the stakes for other countries that might consider leaving. However, this action has also provided China and other high-emitting developing countries with an ironic mirror image of one of the main arguments on which the US government based its unwillingness to implement the Kyoto Protocol. 

What ought to matter more than any of the domestic and geopolitical maneuvering around the US exit is the actual impact on the global climate. Reporting on Axios, Amy Harder (formerly of the Wall St. Journal) portrayed this as a sort of emperor's clothes moment with a column entitled, "Climate change is here to stay, so deal with it." Monday's main Axios "stream" characterized her piece as a "truth bomb." 

As Harder put it, "The chances of reversing climate change are slim regardless of US involvement in the Paris agreement." That's consistent with recent assessments from the International Energy Agency and others. Citing the Bipartisan Policy Center and the UN, her column suggested a pivot to greater focus on adaptation, the hard and deeply unglamorous work of bolstering infrastructure and systems to withstand changes in the climate, including those that are already baked in. Attributing the source of changes in rainfall and sea level matters less than plugging the resulting physical gaps. That makes adaptation politically less toxic than cutting emissions, though still plenty challenging, fiscally. 

As I have been watching the fallout from last week's news, I keep coming back to comparisons to the Cold War that I made when the idea of pursuing climate policy through executive action was emerging in 2010. Like the Cold War, dealing with climate change requires a similarly enduring bipartisan coalition. Major policy swings every 4 or 8 years are just too costly and ineffective, due to the planning horizons involved.

NATO may be going through a difficult moment, but it is approaching its 70th year. After seeing its key weakness exposed, can anyone honestly look at the framework of the Paris Agreement and conclude that it is likely to last as long? Yet if climate change is as serious as many suggest, those are exactly the terms in which we should be thinking.

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.

US Energy Under Trump

• President-Elect Trump and his appointees plan a major policy and regulatory shift for energy, focusing more on economic benefits and less on environmental impacts.
• Obama-era regulations most at risk of roll-back are those justified mainly on climate concerns not shared by Mr. Trump and his team.
• Emissions are still likely to fall in the next four years as shale and renewable energy output grow. 

Next week's presidential inauguration will trigger the biggest policy and regulatory shift for the US energy industry in at least ten years. That's how long it has been since energy policy was set by a Republican president and Congress. Donald Trump is a different kind of Republican, though, and his goal does not seem to be a return to scarcity and high energy prices. What should we expect, instead?

To gauge how sharply the energy polices of the incoming Trump administration will diverge from those of the last eight years, we need to understand what motivates both leaders. The Obama administration's approach was driven by a deep, shared conviction that climate change is the most important challenge the US--and world--faces. The cost of energy and its impact on the economy became secondary concerns, subordinated by the belief that the added cost of climate policies would be offset in whole or part by the benefits of the green investment they unleashed--remember "green jobs"?

We saw this in President Obama's first year in office. Amid a deep recession he worked with Congress to attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions by means of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system, on which he had campaigned. The House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill (HR.2454), a veritable dog's breakfast of economic distortions. Yet despite a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009, Waxman-Markey and every subsequent cap-and-trade bill died there.

That failure set in motion the agenda that the Obama administration has pursued ever since, to achieve via regulations the emissions reductions it could not deliver through comprehensive climate legislation. Last year's publication of the EPA's final Clean Power Plan was a key component of an effort that seems set to continue until just before Inauguration Day.

The transformation of energy regulations under President Obama was dramatic enough that a transition to any Republican administration would be a big change. The transition now in prospect will be even more jarring. Mr. Trump's rhetoric and his choices for key administration positions point to a concerted effort to unravel as many of the Obama-era regulations affecting energy as possible. That isn't just based on philosophical differences over regulation and markets. For President-Elect Trump the economy and jobs are paramount, so the Obama energy regulations must look like an unjustifiable threat to the fossil fuel supplies that still meet 81% of the nation's energy needs.

Despite that, it is unlikely the new administration will go out of its way to target renewable energy or the tax credits that have driven its growth to date. Renewables are becoming increasingly popular with conservatives. However, because Mr. Trump sees climate change as, at best, a secondary issue that may not be amenable to human intervention, his administration's won't put renewables on a pedestal as the Obama administration has done.

The biggest challenge for renewable energy may come from tax reform intended to make US companies and factories more competitive globally and shrink the incentive for them to relocate to lower-tax countries. This appears to be a high priority for the new White House and Congress, and one on which they broadly agree. If corporate tax rates drop, the value of the tax credits renewables enjoy is likely to fall, too, making wind, solar and other such projects less attractive and less competitive.

It remains to be seen how many of the Obama energy regulations can be rolled back. The most recent regulations might be averted through legislation like the Midnight Rules Relief Act, or the REINS Act, both of which would update the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used 1990s law intended to limit what presidents could impose by last-minute executive actions. Other regulations may eventually stand or fall as the courts rule. The stakes are high, particularly for regulations affecting the production of oil and gas from shale by means of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

Energy independence was a touchstone of Mr. Trump's candidacy. Despite his campaign's focus on coal, it is fracking, as hydraulic fracturing is more commonly known, that holds the key to achieving that goal in the foreseeable future. It has been the main driver of the growth in US energy production since 2010.

The latest long-term forecast from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) puts energy independence within reach--in the sense of the US becoming a net exporter of energy--by 2026 or sooner. However, the recent flurry of regulations affecting such things as drilling on federal land, and putting large portions of US waters off-limits for offshore drilling would not have been part of that projection. As EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski remarked at a briefing on the forecast, "If you had policy that changed relative to hydraulic fracturing, it would make a big, big difference to everything that's in here."

That's a key point, because most past notions of energy independence assumed that energy prices would have to be very high to promote lots of efficiency and conservation and stimulate large amounts of expensive new supply. The shale revolution changed that.

However, the global context is also changing. OPEC is attempting to reassert its control over the oil market, with help from non-OPEC countries like Russia. Two years of low oil prices shrank global oil and gas investment budgets by around a trillion dollars, and the International Energy Agency has warned of coming oil price spikes as a result. Forestalling tighter US regulations on fracking and offshore drilling increases the chances that US supplies could grow by enough to balance shortfalls elsewhere and avert much higher prices at the gas pump.

Energy infrastructure is likely to be another focus of the new administration, because the economic and competitive benefits of abundant energy will be diluted if, for example, Marcellus and Utica shale gas or Bakken and Permian Basin shale oil have to be exported because domestic customers don't have access to them.

That suggests an early effort to reverse decisions by the current administration to block the construction of various pipelines, starting with the Keystone XL pipeline and more recently the Dakota Access Pipeline. That will force new confrontations with activists and environmental organizations that have raised their game to a new level in the last eight years.

Such opposition would likely intensify if the new administration sought to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement, which recently went into effect, or submitted it for review by the US Senate as a treaty. But it's not clear that a big change in direction would require leaving Paris.

The US commitments at Paris, like those of the other signatories, were voluntary and non-binding. For that matter, recent shifts in US energy consumption and especially electricity generation have put the US in a good position to meet its initial Paris goals with little or no additional effort, as noted by outgoing Energy Secretary Moniz. The Paris Agreement will only become a major point of contention if President Trump chooses to make it one.

In his list of the top energy stories of 2016, fellow blogger Robert Rapier rated the election of Donald Trump ahead of the OPEC deal and many other important events of the year, based on its likely impact on "every segment of the US energy industry." In retrospect that was equally true of Barack Obama's election in 2008. The shift we are about to experience on energy will be that much sharper, because President Obama and President-Elect Trump both set out to make big changes to the status quo for energy, in opposite directions. We shouldn't miss one important difference, however.

The course that Barack Obama's administration followed on energy was largely predictable from the start, because it was based on openly and deeply held beliefs about energy and the environment. Donald Trump's well-known preference for deals over dogma sets up the prospect of some big surprises, in addition to what we can already anticipate.

Energy and the 2016 Presidential Election

In less than a week, the most controversial and acrimonious presidential election in living memory will be over. Energy has largely been a second-tier issue in this contest, although the divergence in the candidates' views on this vital subject is stark. Fortunately, the energy consequences--planned and unintended--of the last two US presidential elections hold some useful lessons for considering the proposed energy policies of this year's two front-runners.

As we look back, please recall that for most of the 2008 campaign the average US price for unleaded regular gasoline was over $3.00 per gallon. Much of that summer it was at or above $4.00. Four years later, from Labor Day to Election Day of 2012, regular gasoline averaged $3.76 per gallon. The comparable figure for the last two months of the 2016 campaign is just under $2.25.

In 2008 energy independence was a hot issue. Then-Senator Obama ran on a platform that targeted reducing US oil imports by over 3 million barrels per day, mainly through improved fuel efficiency. In his view US oil resources were effectively tapped out--remember "3% of reserves and 25% of consumption"? The main role he envisioned for the US oil and gas industry was as a source of increased tax revenue. His primary focus was on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through large federal investments in green energy technology. He would soon deliver on that promise with the $31 billion renewable energy package included in the federal stimulus of 2009.

When he was running for reelection in 2012, President Obama had kinder words for conventional energy, particularly the large expansion of US natural gas supply due to shale gas. He even took credit for "boosting US domestic production of oil". That point provoked an extended argument in the second presidential debate that year. Importantly, when the President emphasized renewable energy, energy efficiency and emissions, it was within a broader framework of "all of the above" energy.

At the same time, following the failure of comprehensive energy and climate legislation in his first term, his administration has pursued major new regulations aimed at achieving its energy and environmental goals. However, some of the most sweeping of these, including the Clean Power Plan, have gotten hung up in the courts, while others have yet to be fully implemented.

In retrospect President Obama was lucky. The shale energy revolution wasn't on his radar in 2008 and received little or no help from his administration, but it has increased US energy production by more than 17%, net of coal's losses, since he took office. It has made a major dent in US oil imports and CO2 emissions.  In the process, it saved consumers hundreds of billions of dollars on their energy bills, reduced the US trade imbalance, generated large numbers of new jobs when it mattered most, and provided the primary means for reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to their lowest level since before Bill Clinton ran for President.

Meanwhile, the renewable energy revolution on which his 2008 campaign pinned most of its hopes is still a work in progress. The cost of non-hydro renewables, mainly wind and solar power, has fallen dramatically and their deployment has grown impressively, expanding by a combined 135% from 2008 to 2014, or 15% per year. Wind and solar power are reshaping US electricity markets and changing the economics of baseload power plants, including nuclear plants. However, these sources still generate just 8% of US electricity and accounted for less than 3% of total US energy production in 2015.

What can we learn from the experience of the last two presidential terms? We are certainly in the midst of a long-term transition from a high-carbon energy economy to one using lower-carbon fuels and low- or effectively zero-carbon electricity. However, the numbers tell us that with regard to implementation, if not technology, we are closer to the beginning of that transition than to its end. The next President can double renewables, and that would still leave us reliant on conventional energy and nuclear power for three-quarters of our electricity and 90% of our total energy needs.

Going from 3% of energy from new renewables to the levels needed to meet the emissions targets that the US took on at Paris last year represents an enormous technical and financial challenge. It won't happen without a healthy economy, supported by a diverse and flexible energy mix anchored by domestic oil and natural gas from public and private lands and waters.

Although the Obama administration has added numerous regulations affecting energy, it stopped short of derailing the shale revolution. As a result, it has benefited greatly from the increased flexibility and energy security shale is providing. President Obama adapted his approach to energy and came around to recognizing the need for an energy mix that balances new, green energy with the best conventional energy sources. That's the lens through which we should view the energy proposals of this year's candidates.

There's no question that Secretary Clinton would promote the continued growth of renewable energy and the wider application of energy efficiency. If anything, she seems to be even more focused on climate change and clean energy than Barrack Obama was in 2008. However, her campaign website portrays oil and gas mainly in negative terms, with a focus on cutting their consumption, along with the industry's tax benefits. While explicitly recognizing the role that increased US natural gas production has played in reducing emissions, her policies would directly target the primary source of that growth.

Shale gas now accounts for half of all US natural gas production, but Secretary Clinton is on record supporting much stricter regulations on "fracking", the common shorthand for the technological processes involved in producing oil and gas from shale: "By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place,” she said in a March debate with Senator Sanders.  

Reversing the recent growth of natural gas production from shale would lead to higher emissions during the next four to eight years. With less gas available, natural gas prices would rise, and the remaining coal-fired power plants would ramp back up to fill the gap, even as renewables continued to expand. That is happening in Germany today as that country turns away from nuclear power. In the US, without the contribution from natural gas and nuclear power plants, another of which just shut down permanently, our climate goals would be out of reach.

Recently, Secretary Clinton was also cited as wanting to expand the current administration's moratorium on coal development from public lands to encompass oil and gas. As shown in the chart below, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration, this production is already trending downward, overall. Imposing a moratorium on oil and gas development on public lands would accelerate that contraction, without new wells to offset the decline from mature fields.

If implemented as described, Secretary Clinton's policy toward shale energy would have an even more pronounced effect on US energy supplies than restricting development on federal land. With oil prices low, shale oil production has already fallen by 1.2 million barrels per day since output peaked in May 2015. The drop would have been much steeper had US producers not been able to focus their greatly reduced drilling activity on their most productive prospects.

US oil imports are increasing in tandem with falling shale oil production and rising demand. We still have 260 million cars, trucks and buses that require mainly petroleum-based fuels, while electric vehicles make up a tiny fraction of the US vehicle fleet. If shale oil drilling were further curtailed by new regulations, the shortfall would be made up from non-US sources and imports would grow even faster. The party that stands to gain the most from that is OPEC.

From what I have seen and read, Secretary Clinton's proposed energy policy would undermine the all-of-the-above energy mix necessary to maintain US economic growth and energy security as we transition to cleaner energy sources. It is disconnected from the lessons of the last eight years and should not be implemented in its present form.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump views the shale revolution and the resources it has unlocked very differently from Secretary Clinton. It has been harder to gauge where he stands on other aspects of energy. During the primaries, Mr. Trump's energy policy lacked much detail, as I noted at the time. He has since largely remedied that, though many of the points raised on the energy page of his campaign's website seem mainly intended to counter Secretary Clinton's positions.

Mr. Trump's energy vision and goals are posted on his website, and he has made several speeches on the subject, focused mainly on expanding US oil and gas production and making the US a dominant global player in the markets for these commodities. His main theme is sweeping deregulation and reform, including revoking the current administration's executive orders and regulations affecting infrastructure projects, resource development, and the role of coal in power generation.

He endorses an all-of-the-above approach, but there's still little mention of renewables, efficiency or nuclear power. In any case his support for renewables is not linked to man-made climate change, which he disputes. He is also on record opposing US adherence to the Paris Climate Agreement.

How do Mr. Trump's ideas on energy square with the lessons of the last eight years? It seems clear he would rather swim with, rather than against the tide of the shale revolution. It's less clear how much additional activity that would stimulate in the near term if oil and gas prices remain low, even if regulations could be cut as he proposes. As for renewable energy, there doesn't seem to be enough information to assess where it fits into his version of "all of the above".

It's important to keep in mind that energy is not an end in itself. Stepping back from the details, and at the risk of grossly oversimplifying some complex and thorny issues, the key difference I see between the two candidates in this area is that Mrs. Clinton's energy policies seem designed mainly to serve environmental goals, while Mr. Trump's energy policies seem aimed at mainly economic goals.

In that sense, the choice here looks as binary as on many other issues this year. Just don't interpret that conclusion or my analysis above as an endorsement of either candidate.

An Ill-conceived Tax Idea

Yesterday we learned that President Obama's final budget proposal includes a plan to raise money for transportation projects and other uses by imposing a per-barrel tax on US oil companies. Here are a few quick thoughts on this ill-conceived idea:

• As I understand it, the tax would be imposed on oil companies, exempting only those volumes exported from the US. The US oil industry is currently in its deepest slump since at least the 1980s. Having broken OPEC's control of prices and delivered massive savings to US consumers and businesses, it is now enduring OPEC's response: a global price war that has driven the price of oil below replacement cost levels. This is evidenced by the recent full-year losses posted by the "upstream" oil-production units of even the largest oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips, particularly in their US operations. The President has wanted to tax oil companies since his first day in office, but his timing here would only exacerbate these losses, putting what had been one of the healthiest parts of the US labor market under even more pressure.
• This tax would also increase OPEC's market leverage, providing a double hit on the cost of fuel for American consumers: We would pay more immediately, when the tax was imposed and companies passed on as much of it as they could, and then even more later when OPEC raised prices as competing US production became uneconomical.
• Focusing the tax on the raw material, crude oil, rather than on the products that actually go into transportation, as the current gasoline and diesel taxes do, is guaranteed to produce distortions and unintended consequences. For starters, exempting exports--a sop to global competitiveness?--would give producers a perverse incentive to send US oil overseas instead of refining it in the US. It would also shift consumption toward more expensive fuels like corn ethanol, which provides no net emissions benefits but has been shown to affect global food prices.
• Singling out oil, which is not the highest-emitting fossil fuel and for which we still lack scalable alternatives, will put all parts of the US economy that rely on oil as an input at a competitive disadvantage, globally, and undermine what had become a significant US edge in global markets. Petrochemicals, in particular, would be adversely affected. The President's staff is well aware that the distribution of lifecycle emissions from oil, and the structure of the industry and markets, make policies focused on consumption far more effective than those aimed at production. This is why his administration's first act in implementing the expanded interpretation of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases was to tighten vehicle fuel economy standards. Taxing the upstream industry does nothing for global emissions but makes US producers less competitive, ensuring a return to rising oil imports and deteriorating energy security.

As widely reported, the Congress will not enact a budget containing this provision. It is hard to gauge whether this proposal represents a serious attempt to inject new thinking into the debate on funding transportation upgrades, or is simply one last shot across the bow of the administration's least favorite industry before leaving office in 349 days. It's not unusual for the wheels to come off as a presidency winds down, and this particularly flaky and futile idea might just be an indicator of that.

Disclosure: My portfolio includes investments in one or more of the companies mentioned above.

The Keystone Rejection and the Shift Back toward OPEC

Although the International Energy Agency's latest warning of future energy security risks doesn't mention the Keystone XL pipeline, it provides important context for assessing President Obama's decision turning down that project's application. The IEA's newly issued global energy forecast indicates that if oil prices remain low until the end of the decade, it "would trigger energy-security concerns by heightening reliance on a small number of low-cost producers," a polite way of referring to OPEC. The Keystone verdict could help reinforce that shift.

I've devoted a lot of posts to different aspects of the Keystone issue. In a post last year on the State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, I pointed out the pipeline's relatively modest potential to affect climate change, with a range of incremental greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) equating to 0.02-0.4% of total US emissions. Even if the full lifecycle emissions of the oil sands crude it would have transported were included, they would still not have exceed around 0.3% of global CO2-equivalent emissions. For these and other reasons, I have consistently concluded that the decision would be made on political, rather than technical grounds, consistent with the symbolism the project has taken on with environmental activists during this administration.

Whether the Keystone rejection is attributable mainly to domestic political considerations or to positioning in advance of next month's Paris climate conference is a minor distinction. As the editors of the Washington Post put it, the distortion and politicization of the issue "was a national embarrassment, reflecting poorly on the United States’ capability to treat parties equitably under law and regulation." If the IEA's assessment of the trends underlying today's low oil prices is correct, we may come to regret last Friday's ruling for other reasons, too.

Recall that last year's oil-price collapse had two principal triggers: surging US oil production from shale deposits in Texas, North Dakota and several other states, and a decision by OPEC to forgo its historic role as balancers of the global oil market and instead to produce full out. The latter explains why oil remains below $50 per barrel, even though US shale output is now retreating.

Yet while shale production is expected to rebound once prices start to recover--whenever that might occur--the same cannot necessarily be said for conventional non-OPEC production from places like the North Sea and other high-cost, mature regions. Oil companies have canceled or deferred over $200 billion in exploration and production projects, while existing oil fields accounting for more than 10 times the output of US shale will continue to decline at rates of perhaps 5-10% per year.

The combination of all these factors sets the stage for a future oil market very different from what we've experienced in the past few decades. If OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia assume the role of baseload, rather than swing producers, the price of oil will be set by the last, most expensive barrels to be supplied. That would constitute a much more normal market than one that has been dominated by OPEC production quotas, but it would also lack the margin of 3-5 million barrels per day of "spare capacity" that OPEC has typically held in reserve. That is a recipe for increased risk and volatility ahead.

If this comes to pass, the result might not be an exact re-run of the oil crises of the 1970s. The global economy is much less reliant on oil than it was four decades ago, especially for electricity generation, which as the IEA points out will increasingly come from renewable sources. However, oil will remain indispensable for transportation for many years. In a global oil market again dominated by OPEC, additional pipeline-based supplies from a reliable neighbor like Canada would be highly desirable, and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the Congress just voted to shrink in order to raise a couple of billion dollars of revenue, could become a lot more valuable.

The decision to reject TransCanada's application for the Keystone XL pipeline was ostensibly made on long-term considerations related to climate change, but it reflects a short-sighted view of energy markets. In that light, the President's conclusion that Keystone "would not serve the national interests of the United States" seems very likely to be revisited by a future US president.

Energy and the New Congress: Beyond Keystone

• The Keystone XL pipeline is likely to get another opportunity for approval once the new Congress is sworn in next January.
• However, it will not be the most important part of a new Congressional energy agenda, and it might not even be the most urgent.

Voters in the US mid-term election earlier this month might be forgiven for assuming that its result assures quick approval of the Keystone XL pipeline (KXL), notwithstanding the drama over a Keystone bill in the "lame duck "session last week. The pipeline has been under review by the Executive Branch for six years, yet despite its symbolic importance to both sides of the debate, and an apparent majority in both houses of the newly elected Congress favoring its construction, its future remains uncertain. Nor is KXL necessarily the most urgent or important energy issue that the new Congress is expected to take up.

It's worth recalling that the Senators who just lost their seats  were elected in the aftermath of the oil-price shock of 2007-8, amid great concern about increasing US dependence on imported oil and natural gas. They took office in 2009 with a President whose main energy policies focused on addressing global warming, with energy security inescapably linked to climate change. Largely as a result of the shale revolution, the new class of Senators will begin their jobs in an entirely different energy environment. That will have a bearing on both the priorities and approach of the new Congressional leadership.

The energy agenda for the two years of the 114th Congress will most likely include not just the status of KXL, but also restrictions on US crude oil exports, reform or repeal of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the extension of renewable energy tax credits for solar power (expiring at the end of 2016) and wind power (already expired),  regulation of greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act of 1990, expanded oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters, and a stalled piece of energy efficiency legislation that might be the least controversial energy bill, on its merits, that either chamber has considered in years. Support for nuclear power and the disposition of nuclear waste could get another look, too.

Tax incentives for both renewable and conventional energy may also be swept up in efforts to reform the US corporate and individual tax systems, a high priority for some incoming committee chairmen. The least likely measures to be considered, however, are comprehensive energy legislation along the lines of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 or climate legislation similar to the Waxman-Markey bill of 2009 that subsequently died in the Senate.

It is also possible that the 113th Congress could clear some of its backlog of energy measures before handing off to the new Congress in January. The dynamics of the lame duck session will be different from the pre-election period, and the outgoing leadership could be motivated to strike deals on measures such as the restoration of the wind power tax credit (PTC) within a larger package of expiring tax measures called the "extenders bill."

Aside from KXL, perhaps the most pressing energy matter for the new Congress is to address is the question of US oil exports, which are restricted under 1970s-era laws and regulations. The urgency of debating oil exports is twofold: One company has already indicated its intention to export condensate, which is treated as crude oil under current regulations, without government approval. And with oil prices having fallen by 20-25% since summer, oil exports and related shipping regulations could provide a crucial relief valve as US producers of light tight oil (LTO) from shale deposits seek to reduce their costs and find higher-priced markets.  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is slated to chair the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, and this is one of her big issues.

However, the cooperation Sen. Murkowski will receive from the other party in getting export legislation to the Senate floor could depend on the result of December's runoff in Louisiana.  If Mary Landrieu, current chair of Energy & Natural Resources, falls to Representative Bill Cassidy (R-LA), her replacement as ranking member for the minority on that committee is expected to be Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Senator Cantwell appears to be more skeptical about oil exports, as well as on other issues the oil and gas industry might hope would advance next year. 

For that matter, while gaining approval of KXL and reining in the EPA are clearly part of the incoming Republican agenda for energy, other issues cut across party lines in ways that make their outcomes less easily predictable. For example, proponents of reforming or repealing the RFS may have as much difficulty getting traction in the 114th Congress as in the 113th. Geography, rather than party affiliation, seems like a better predictor of whether new Senators like Joni Ernst (R-IA) or Mike Rounds (R-SD) would support or oppose changing the rules for biofuels. That could apply to the wind tax credit, too.  Even an oil export bill might similarly split both parties.

That brings us back to Keystone XL. The election result put both chambers of Congress on the same page on this issue for the first time and has apparently increased support for KXL to the crucial 60-vote threshold. That would be sufficient to obtain "cloture" and prevent a filibuster, though not to overturn a presidential veto.

Before Senator Landrieu's bill came up short last week, the President's real position on KXL began to emerge from the opacity he maintained through two elections. Nor does the fallout from his recent actions on other issues bode well for striking a deal with the new Congress on Keystone, short of it being attached to some essential piece of legislation like the budget or defense authorizations. Other parts of the likely Congressional energy agenda could fall into the same gap, and I'm less optimistic than I was after November 4th about opportunities for cooperation on energy between the White House and a unified Congress. 

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

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.

How Good Is The New Emissions Deal with China?

• President Obama's emissions deal with China sets an ambitious target for US CO2 cuts while leaving substantial headroom for emissions growth in China. 
• It will likely compound his problems, domestically, but could have significant influence on upcoming international climate negotiations.

Only an event like Tuesday's agreement between President Obama and his Chinese counterpart to limit greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the two countries could top the unexpected scramble in the US Senate to pass a Keystone XL pipeline bill as the big energy story of the week. The significance of the climate deal is open to interpretation, from both international and US political perspectives. Before exploring those, we should examine its consequences.

The White House announced that in exchange for the US agreeing to reduce "net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025", China would undertake to cap its GHG emissions by "around 2030." It also announced plans to step up a number of cooperative efforts with China in this area, including joint R&D and a jointly funded public/private carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project in China. What does all this mean in terms of US emissions?

We need to start with the 2012 baseline in which net US emissions were already nearly 11% below 2005 levels. The current Annual Energy Outlook of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), assuming the laws and regulations in force at the time it was produced, projects that US energy-related CO2 emissions will increase by 236 million metric tons (MT) by 2025, compared to 2012, leaving us at roughly 7% under 2005. Emissions from transportation would shrink, while those from industry would rise as the US economy grows by an expected 2.4% per year.

As I understand it that EIA forecast doesn't include the emissions that the EPA's "Clean Power Plan" for existing power plants would be expected to save if fully implemented. EPA targets reducing CO2 emissions from the US electricity sector--accounting for 39% of net emissions in 2005--by 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, compared to 2005. That would shave around 460 million MT from the EIA figure for 2025, getting us to nearly 15% below 2005. The additional savings to reach 26% below 2005 are thus in the neighborhood of 700 million MT per year by 2025. To put that in perspective, it's equivalent to the 2012 CO2 emissions from combustion in the entire US industrial sector, and exceeds total emissions of methane from all sectors, including agriculture, oil & gas, and landfills.

So unless I've done my sums wrong, or misinterpreted the government's data, the US/China deal commits to reducing US emissions by as much again as we've cut since 2005--largely as a result of a weaker economy and the shale gas revolution--after banking the expected savings from the 2011 fuel economy regulations, energy efficiency programs and renewable energy incentives, and an EPA plan for the power sector that is certain to run into strong opposition in the new Congress. That seems pretty ambitious to me, although it falls short of the 40% reduction recently agreed by the EU for 2030.

It's harder to assess what China's side of the deal means in practical terms. Its 2012 emissions were estimated at nearly 10 billion MT/yr, having grown by 8%/yr since 2004 and by 6%/yr since 2009. At that rate, even if its emissions peaked in 2030, they could double before starting to decline. If China's emissions growth declined to just 2% per year, consistent with the lower rates of growth in coal consumption observed recently, by 2030 it could still add nearly 4 billion MT/yr--equivalent to the current emissions of the entire EU, and 5 times the incremental US cuts to which President Obama just agreed. The most recent projection of China's emissions from the EIA had them growing by 5 billion MT by 2030 but essentially plateauing thereafter.

This falls substantially short of what would be required to keep global emissions within the range that climate models predict would limit average global temperature increases to 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, it goes well beyond China's previous commitment on emissions intensity at Copenhagen in 2009.

Now consider how this deal looks from the standpoint of US politics. Voters just resoundingly handed undivided control of the legislative branch of government to the President's opposition. Republican office-holders and those who just voted for them are likely to regard it as an unwelcome commitment of the US by a lame-duck President to a promise that only his successors could fulfill. In the process, it hands China and other countries a point with which to prod future US administrations should they fall short of its goals. In exchange, he got President Xi Jinping to admit that China can't emit CO2 limitlessly, but can still do more or less what it may have been planning, anyway. It's hard to see this making things easier in Congress for the President's existing environmental agenda.

The deal looks better from the perspective of international environmental and climate policy circles in the lead-up to the Paris climate conference, "COP21", at the end of 2015. One lesson from the Kyoto Protocol is that to be meaningful a global climate agreement must have a strong commitment from the world's largest emitters of CO2 and other GHGs. China and the US are the two biggest emitters, and the EU at #3 is effectively pre-committed. Together these three blocs account for over half of all emissions today. Having them on-side at the start raises the chances of reaching a  big agreement.

As others have observed, this deal makes it harder to argue against a global CO2 agreement based on China's relative inaction, while increasing pressure on other developing countries to agree to limit their own emissions. It also signals that despite political weakness at home, the White House will likely push for aggressive targets at COP21, setting up further conflict with Congress in the next election year. Finally, its timing is early enough to influence the negotiations but not so early as to permit close scrutiny of Chinese or US follow-through on its goals before the Paris talks begin.

Interpreting the State Department's Latest Assessment of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Earlier today, I participated in a webchat hosted by The Energy Collective on the subject of the emissions and market impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL). It was prompted by last week's release of the State Department's "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" (SEIS) on the project. I encourage you to view the Youtube video of the event, but I thought I should also share some of what I learned in the course of preparing for the webchat, along with a few thoughts there wasn't time to discuss online.

The full SEIS runs around 2,000 pages. I focused on the 38-page Executive Summary and referred to the relevant sections of the longer document when I needed more detail. In particular, I wanted to understand how the authors of the report had assessed the project's impact on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), including how they went about trying to gauge how the market would behave with and without the controversial northern leg of the pipeline, linking the Alberta oil sands developments to the main US oil storage and trading hub in Cushing, OK. (The southern segment of the pipeline, from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, is already in operation, because it didn't require a permit to cross an international border.)

President Obama's stated criterion--I still believe he will make the final call--is ensuring the project does not "significantly exacerbate the climate problem." In terms of emissions, the SEIS analysis shows a range of incremental lifecycle GHG impact of 1.3-27.4 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year. For a project this size, that falls below what I'd consider a reasonable threshold for "significantly". It's equivalent to 0.02-0.4% of total US emissions. On the low end that's on par with US emissions from making glass--not generally considered an important emitter.

Yet even if you don't accept State's conclusion that at expected oil prices over the next few decades the oil that would be carried by KXL would be produced with or without the pipeline, the total direct emissions of 147-168 million tons/yr would still only constitute 0.3% of global emissions of around 50 billion tons. As Jesse Jenkins of the Energy Collective pointed out in the webchat, the emissions of any project would look small compared to global emissions. That's precisely the point, when opponents have characterized them as "game over" for the world's climate.

The key to the conclusions in the SEIS is that these barrels will find a market somewhere, and in the process they will back out some other crude oil. As a result, they would have a minimal impact on the global oil price, and so would be unlikely to increase demand, which is what determines how much oil is refined globally. It's also the case that the alternative crude oils the incremental oil sands production would displace aren't much lower in lifecycle emissions, e.g., heavy Venezuelan or Middle East crudes.

Meanwhile, the report indicates that alternative dispositions would involve either longer or more energy-intensive transportation, including rail and/or tanker, entailing around a million tons per year in higher emissions, along with more spillage than expected from KXL. On that basis, it's hard to read this report as anything other than an endorsement of the view that the pipeline would have a minimal net impact, relative to the likely outcomes that would follow if it is not built.

One of the main points we didn't have much time to discuss in the webchat concerned the role of the SEIS in the decision that the administration must eventually make about the project's permit. I thought the most insightful recent comment on this came from President Obama's first Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. He sees Keystone as a mainly a political choice. I agree. However, I wonder if the political considerations have started to shift.

Until recently, it seemed that the balance of political costs and benefits favored continuing to delay the decision as long as possible, by whatever means came to hand. That was certainly the case in 2012, with the White House at stake. An approval then might have pleased independent voters, but it would also have deterred an important segment of the President's political base. This year, with control of the US Senate--and thus the administration's agenda in its final two years--potentially up for grabs, the costs might be rising. At least four Democratic Senators in states that voted for Governor Romney in 2012 (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina) have made recent statements in support of the permit for KXL. An October surprise on Keystone might come too late to help them.

Nothing in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report altered my previous view that President Obama should approve the permit for KXL. Yet because it was written after the Lac-Megantic rail disaster, I thought its figures on the potential for more rail accidents and fatalities if the pipeline isn't built added a compelling argument. Oil by rail is a new reality of the North American energy economy; KXL won't change that fact, one way or the other. However, the addition of up to 1,000 more rail cars of crude oil per day, passing through many more communities than the pipeline would, is a sobering reality to weigh against opposition that I heard another participant in today's webchat suggest was at least partly symbolic.

Will the Keystone XL Decision Be Based on Incorrect Assumptions?

• Some of the facts about the Keystone XL pipeline project that President Obama cited in an interview last month turned out to be wrong. That's significant, if he is the ultimate decision-maker on this question.
• Whatever his assessment of the pros and cons of the project, the politics of Keystone are trumping the facts, indicating the decision is likely to be deferred as long as possible. 

When President Obama commented on the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline project in an interview in the New York Times last month, the Washington Post suggested that his remarks “give opponents reason for hope.” Although he confirmed that the White House’s main objective criterion for making this decision was still the pipeline’s greenhouse gas impact, the President also speculated about the project’s job-creation potential and the ultimate destination of the crude oil it would carry. This appeared to endorse arguments raised by opponents of the project. These issues deserve more than the dismissive treatment they received in the interview.

With regard to the number of direct construction jobs that the northern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) might create, I don’t know whether the right number is the 2,000 the President cited or the tens of thousands estimated in an earlier State Department study. However, fact checking by both PolitiFact and AP concluded he was wrong.

In any case, this administration lacks credibility on counting such jobs. Consider the White House's metric of “jobs created or saved” for assessing the impact of the 2009 stimulus, or the routine touting of projects with “green jobs” potential, not just in terms of their direct employment gains, but also their indirect job creation estimated via generous multiplier effects. Either indirect jobs are always relevant, in which case KXL would create far more jobs across the economy than the President seems willing to admit, or they also aren’t relevant to justifying clean energy and other, more favored infrastructure projects.

The more interesting issue Mr. Obama brought up relates to the disposition of the oil-sands crude that the KXL would ultimately carry from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. For starters, this isn’t relevant for whatever volume of North Dakota production the pipeline might also carry, since current rules prohibit its export to anywhere except Canada. Of the pipeline’s planned capacity of 830,000 barrels per day, some would be used to ship US crude to US destinations, some would carry Canadian  oil destined for US refineries in the mid-continent, while an unspecified remainder would arrive at the Gulf Coast.  However large the latter figure might be, it’s doubtful that much of it would ever leave these shores. To understand why, you need to consider the quantity of US oil imports of similar quality currently coming into the Gulf.

Overall, Gulf Coast crude oil imports have fallen by around a third since 2007, but they still amount to around 4 million barrels per day – 5x the total capacity of the KXL. Unsurprisingly, much of the crude imported into the Gulf is either sour or heavy, since the refineries in the region have invested billions of dollars in the hardware required to process such crudes, which are typically cheaper than lighter, sweeter grades. A quick glance at the countries of origin of the import mix confirms this, with suppliers such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iraq dominating recent imports. Imports from Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria have been slashed by surging production of light, sweet crude in Texas and other states.

In the interview, President Obama said, “So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States.” For him to be right about that, we must believe that the current importers of around 2.7 million barrels per day of generally similar crude from South America and the Middle East would ignore the arrival in their market of new supplies from Canada and continue to buy from existing suppliers, and that those other suppliers would be able to continue to charge the same prices as before, despite significant new competition. Although I wouldn’t argue that oil sands crude would never be exported from the Gulf, imagining that most of it would simply sail right by the closest and largest global refining center equipped to handle this type of crude oil reflects a remarkably superficial view of how oil markets actually work.

The Keystone XL decision process clearly encompasses both factual and political considerations.  On the facts alone and the criteria set by the administration, the pipeline would eventually have to be approved, since even in the worst realistic case its impact on global greenhouse gases would be minimal--on the order of 0.4% of global emissions--while it offers clear benefits including reliability of supply. The protracted delays in approving this project provide all the evidence needed to confirm that political considerations outweigh the facts. Deciding now in favor of either side offers limited political benefits but carries huge risks; continuing to leave the issue in suspense has paid dividends at little apparent political cost.

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