Category Archives: energy

Buy These Backup Electric Power Stations

Posted on by
Reply

California is moving against the fossil-fuel energy generation industry, along with making its gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles meet ever more extreme mileage and emission criteria in the State government’s effort to run ICE vehicles off the road and…encourage…Californians to buy battery-powered cars and trucks.

Now California’s captive, if not outright State-owned, utility PG&E is proposing a new electricity feed into its greed to supplement its wind and solar generated electricity.

Using electric cars to charge the power grid.
PG&E…sees “great potential” for EVs to act as power grid backup generators. “The grid needs those electric vehicles. We need to make it available, and it can be a huge resource[.]”

And

PG&E believes in a future where everyone is driving an electric vehicle (EV) and where that EV serves as a backup power option at home and more broadly as a resource for the grid[.]

And especially,

The company also said tapping electric cars eliminates “the need for non-renewable resources” like fossil fuels.

Is this the reason California’s governing politicians are pushing so hard for—almost to the point of requiring—Californians to buy all-electric vehicles? Those vehicles are, in fact, intended to be used as distributed power (re)generating stations?

A Bogus Beef is Swatted

Posted on by
Reply

When Congress passed and President Joe Biden (D) signed the recent debt ceiling bill, one of the items included was a requirement for construction on the Mountain Valley Pipeline to proceed to completion and for the pipeline to begin operation. In conjunction with that, the bill removed from lower courts their jurisdiction over questions  regarding the natural gas pipeline.

The Fourth Circuit, when “environmentalists” got their cases to it, blocked construction while it sorted out whether it could rule on the matter.

The Supreme Court has sorted the matter out for the Fourth Circuit, at least temporarily: the pipeline will be completed with no further delay; the Court has lifted the Circuit’s stay.

The “environmentalists'” beef was this, as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal:

stopping legal challenges before the Fourth Circuit violated the separation of powers clause of the Constitution, in effect giving Congress the power to decide the outcome of judicial proceedings.

This would be risible, were it not so cynical. No judicial proceeding is being predetermined by Congress. What has been specified, as allowed under our Constitution, is the jurisdiction of courts below the Supreme Court; in this case, that lower courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the MVP. Nor have the courts as a whole been denied jurisdiction; such cases still can come before the Supreme Court, should that Court choose to hear them.

BLM and Fairness to the Taxpayer

Posted on by
Reply

The Bureau of Land Management is moving finalize its two-yr-old effort to increase the minimum price oil and gas developers must pay to lease Federal land for oil and gas development by five times: from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. BLM also wants to increase the minimum bond those developers must pay from $10,000 to $150,000.

Those increases, on their faces, look like chump change, but those minima are for miniscule fields that are far too small even to think about drilling an exploratory well. Also included in the BLM’s move are these cost increases and production limitations:

  • reduce the primary term for new onshore leases from 10 years to five years, even though a significant percentage of leases require more than five years to start producing. For example, recent data shows that 37% of leases in New Mexico started production more than five years after authorization.
  • raise annual rental rates to $3/acre for the first two years, and then $5/acre, increasing costs by at least $123 million per year.
  • eliminate authority to grant royalty relief in difficult times or national emergency.
  • raise the minimum inspection fees each operator will pay annually to anywhere from $800-$11,300 per lease, varying by lease.

And this:

  • impose a new $10,000/mile annual fee for water depths greater than 500 feet; and $1,000/mile for water depths less than 500 feet. There are approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines in the offshore with about 12,600 miles in waters less than 400 feet and 13,700 miles in waters greater than 400 feet. Increased annual costs would total about $149 million.

The BLM claims that these increases aim[] to ensure fairness to the taxpayer.

That’s silly.

What would be fair to us taxpayers, and especially to those of us ordinary Americans on the bottom rungs of our economy who pay little or no taxes, would be to not do those increases—none of us will see a cent of those cost increases. We will, though, pay even more for our energy—home heating and cooling, fuel for our cars and for the shippers’ trucks. No, the money from those increases will go to the Biden administration’s special interests.

A Better Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) is reintroducing his energy project permitting reform bill in the Senate. He also re-cited the need for reform in his remarks introducing the bill.

In the United States, it often takes between five and ten years—sometimes longer—to get critical energy infrastructure projects approved, putting us years behind allies like Canada, Australia, and more recently the EU, who each have policies designed to complete permitting in three years or less[.]

Even though fixing this would help allegedly green energy projects, also, Manchin’s cronies in the Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate have been happy to sacrifice that in favor of letting those interminable delays kill so many domestic cheap hydrocarbon-based energy projects. It’ll be an up-the-cliff battle to get anything like this passed in the Party-dominated Senate.

Among the useful things in Manchin’s bill, though, is this:

The Building American Energy Security Act would establish maximum timelines for permitting reviews including a two-year process for major projects and a one-year process for smaller projects. It would provide legal avenues for project developers to take against the federal government if a permitting review is delayed beyond set timelines and would mandate a single inter-agency environmental review.

That’s good as far as it goes, but here’s a better enforcement mechanism, IMNSHO: the permits should be will-issue, and if no decision is reached by those deadlines, the project should be deemed fully permitted, with no further review and no appeal of the permit. Rejections must be public, specific, and detailed, and they can be appealed directly to Federal courts: the Energy and Interior Departments, EPA, any other government entity can appear only as defendants in an appeal; no appeal of a permit grant should be allowed.

A further criterion and an additional deadline: if any of the rejection criteria are not met, the project should be deemed fully permitted, with no further appeal. The rejecting authority should have gotten it right the first time.

If the initial court does not reach a final decision within six months, the project must be deemed fully permitted. Appeals must be finally resolved within three months of the appeal filing (which itself must occur, fully developed, within one week of the lower court’s ruling, or the opportunity to appeal must be forfeit), or the project must be deemed fully permitted. And: only one appeal of a permit grant must be allowed at each court level; naysayers cannot be allowed to drag things out with serial appeals.

Those last put a premium on the Federal courts moving cases apace, but it puts a bigger premium on the lawyers to prepare and move their cases without delays—and eliminates the deliberate stalls represented by cynical serial appeals.

A Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

But it’s a small step, and much more needs to be done. A bill has moved through the Texas legislature—it’s now on Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) desk—that would create a $200 annual registration fee for battery vehicles.

State Senator Robert Nichols (R), who sponsored the bill in the Senate:

As more of these vehicles drive on Texas roads, there are concerns about how they contribute to the funding of the roads which they use. Currently, Texas uses the gasoline/diesel fuel tax to fund transportation projects; however, with the growing use of EVs, the revenue from the fuel tax is decreasing, which diminishes our ability to fund road improvements for all drivers.

That’s a necessary step in maintaining funding for Texas’ roads and bridges, but it’s insufficient because wear and tear of our roads and bridges isn’t the only cost imposed on us by battery vehicles.

Battery vehicle owners also should be the only ones to pay for the environmental damage their vehicles inflict on Texas’ land. Battery vehicle batteries, at their end of life, cannot be recycled; they can only be “disposed of.” Major components of those batteries, like lithium, cobalt, and nickel are enormously toxic, requiring the dead batteries to be carefully disposed of, lest that environmental damage get widespread.

Serious environmental damage also occurs at the beginning of the battery production cycle, even if much of that start damage doesn’t occur in Texas: mining lithium, cobalt, and nickel, along with copper, is even more environmentally damaging than battery disposal, from the destruction caused by the mining itself to the highly toxic mining waste byproducts—tailings—that are thrown off by the mining.

Much, if not most, of the lithium, cobalt, and nickel mining, along with a significant fraction of the increase in copper mining, is done for the sake of these batteries. The only ones who should be paying these environmental costs are the battery car owners. No one else.

Battery car owners are getting off light under this fee.