close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120108012531/http://knowledgeproblem.com:80/



h1

Congressman Markey worries about U.S. natural gas exports

January 6, 2012

Michael Giberson

Congressman Ed Markey recently sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu inquiring into the possibility that natural gas exports may be harmful to the public interest (see press release, copy of letter). Markey’s concern is that exports will tend to push U.S. gas prices (currently around $3 or $4 per mmbtu) to international levels (in the $10 to $12 range), and higher prices would be harmful to industrial, commercial, and residential consumers of gas in the United States. The direction of his thinking is that, perhaps, the Department of Energy may want to deny LNG export licenses in an effort to keep natural gas resources in the U.S. economy.

Markey’s inquiry demonstrates a firm grasp on the basics of supply and demand, but is weaker on the economics of comparative advantage. In addition, his interest in potential LNG exports seems a bit selective, because the U.S. exports a lot of other things as well.

In 2010, Massachusetts exported over $26 billion worth of goods including optics, industrial machinery, electric machinery and pharmaceutical products. I wonder whether Congressman Markey is similarly concerned about how these exports are raising costs for U.S. producers and consumers? Alternatively, I’d like to hear his explanation of why these exports are okay, but other exports are not in the public interest.

h1

Coal company to EPA: Regulate me, please

January 6, 2012

Michael Giberson

It looks like a “man bites dog” headline in the New York Times: “A Coal-Fired Plant That Is Eager for U.S. Rules.”

As operators of coal-fired power plants around the country welcome a court-ordered delay on tighter pollution rules, the owner of a retrofitted plant here says that the rules cannot come too soon.

The company, Constellation Energy, says it is an issue of fairness. A little more than two years ago, it completed an $885 million installation that has vastly reduced emissions from two giant coal-burning units at its Brandon Shores plant here, within view of the city’s downtown office towers.

But the slightest effort at reading between the lines reveals that profits, not fairness, are motivating Constellation’s embrace of federal environmental regulations. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

The story is pretty simple, and most of the pieces are explained in Matthew Wald’s Times article:

  • A few years ago the state of Maryland passed stricter environmental rules that induced Constellation to spend $885 million on additional pollution control equipment;
  • That spending puts Constellation at a disadvantage relative to other coal-fired power plants competing in the regional power market;
  • The federal rule wouldn’t impose additional costs on Constellation, but would impose costs on its competitors; some competitors will shut down older plants rather than retrofit;
  • A federal regulation will produce slightly higher power prices but no additional costs for Constellation;
  • In short, profits.

It also doesn’t hurt that about 75 percent of the Constellation generation fleet is fueled by something other than coal. So file this regulatory economics story under “raising rivals costs,” not under “bootlegger gets religion.”

h1

Claims by lobbyists that deserve to be laughed at

January 6, 2012

BERJAYA

Michael Giberson

Sometimes politicians and lobbyists make claims that deserve to be laughed at in the most public way possible.

Here is an example from the ethanol lobby, via The Hill‘s Congress Blog:

US ethanol makes history by sacrificing a subsidy

By Bob Dinneen, president and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association – 01/05/12 11:26 AM ET

With growing concerns about gridlock in Washington and greed on Wall Street, Americans are wondering whether anyone with a stake in public policies is willing to sacrifice their short-term advantage for a greater good.

Well, someone just did.

Without any opposition from the biofuels sector, the tax credit for ethanol blenders (the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit – VEETC) expired on January 1.

In fact, American ethanol may well be the first industry in history that willingly gave up a tax incentive. Facing up to the fiscal crisis in this country, industry advocates have engaged in discussions with the Administration, Congress and our own constituents in an effort to frame forward-looking policies that balance the needs for deficit reduction and the development of clean-burning, American-made motor fuels.

Incentives should help emerging industries to develop and grow, not to be forever subsidized by the nation’s taxpayers. The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit — which actually accrued to biofuels blenders, not producers – has helped the renewal fuels industry to stand on its own two feet. So now it is time for this subsidy to be phased out.

But make no mistake: While this subsidy has gone away, American ethanol is here to stay. From the economy to the environment and energy security, ethanol is an American success story.

With more than 200 biorefineries in nearly 30 states, American ethanol directly employs more than 70,000 workers in plants, on farms and at construction companies and suppliers, while indirectly supporting an additional 330,000 jobs. In the midst of more than 8 percent unemployment, the ethanol industry provides high-skill, high-wage jobs that can’t be outsourced, with more than 99% offering healthcare and other benefits. The industry contributes $53 billion to the Gross Domestic Product, raises household incomes by $16 billion and pays $7 billion in federal taxes and $4 billion in state taxes.

Nor are ethanol’s benefits limited to the rural communities where the industry provides jobs for workers, markets for farmers, customers for businesses, and tax dollars for the local schools and police and fire departments. In 2010, the use of 13 billion gallons of ethanol reduced the need for oil imports by 445 million barrels, making our nation less dependent on increasingly unstable regimes in the Middle East. On the environmental front, ethanol use reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent, compared to gasoline. At the nation’s gas pumps, blending ethanol with gasoline saved American families an average of $0.89 per gallon in 2010, according to a study conducted by economists at Iowa State University and the University of Wisconsin.

By helping to reduce the federal budget deficit and the nation’s dependency on imported oil, the US ethanol industry is doing its part to address America’s challenges. Meanwhile, the well-established and highly profitable oil industry is still receiving huge subsidies and refusing to give up any.

Having benefited from federal subsidies for the past century, Big Oil rakes in federal tax breaks and other advantages totaling from $3.6 to $4.5 billion a year. Indeed, the Environmental Law Institute recently reported that, from 2002 to 2008, federal subsidies to fossil fuels such as oil and coal totaled approximately $72 billion, compared to only $29 billion in incentives for renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels.

When it comes to crafting policies that promote fiscal responsibility and energy sustainability, the US ethanol industry has proven that it is willing to come to the table.

But every energy policy must be on the table.

From coal to hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal energy, virtually every source of energy has been subsidized in its early years. But there is no reason for established industries, such as Big Oil, to enjoy eternal subsidies for almost a century.

What’s needed, instead, are timely, targeted, and temporary subsidies so that new energy sources  can be developed, commercialized and allowed to compete on a level playing field with established energy sources. That is why the biofuels industry is seeking opportunities to accelerate the development of new ethanol feedstocks, such as switch grass, wood wastes and even garbage, while modernizing the nation’s fueling infrastructure through blender pumps.

Now that the ethanol blenders’ tax credit has become history, let’s make history by incentivizing America’s energy future, not providing perpetual subsidies for fossil fuels.

 ** Bob Dinneen is the president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the national trade association of the US ethanol industry. **

You be the judge: A great moment in the history of U.S. public policy, or laughable nonsense?

Well, to be fair, not everything Dinneen says is laughable nonsense, for example he truthfully points out that the tax credit for ethanol blenders expired on January 1. Most of the rest of it is hilariously weak.

Note the related post from a few days ago: “Ethanol industry allows its politicians to permit expiration of its tax credit and tariff.”

h1

The “first feel-good sustainability story of 2012,” so long as you ignore the costs

January 5, 2012

Michael Giberson

Consider the claim in the headline, “How One Man’s Roof Paid for His Car.” Here’s the introduction:

It’s the first feel-good sustainability story of 2012. A man in Orlando, Florida installed solar panels on the roof of his home, sold the excess power back to the grid, and then used that money to make a down payment on a new Chevy Volt, the plug-in car that gets 60 miles to the gallon.

Now those solar panels are charging his new car.

The nut of the story is that over the last two years the Orlando homeowner netted $5,600 in power sales to his local utility due to the oversized solar power system installed on his roof and in his backyard, and he recently made a similarly-sized down payment on a Chevy Volt.

If we were to assume that the solar panels fell like manna from the skies and were installed by angels refusing payment for their services, it still just isn’t the case that the solar system paid for the car. One indication: it took two years to accumulate $5,600, an average of about $117 per month, and actual monthly car payments for a Volt are likely north of $400. Maybe the homeowner is (reasonably) figuring in foregone electric power bills, but that value is not reported.

The story appearing at StateImpact Texas was based on a newspaper article appearing in the Orlando Sentinel under the more modest headline of “Sun Powers Orlando Man’s Electric Car.” The Sentinel article describes the homeowner’s own investment in the solar power system as “hundreds of thousands of dollars” and mentions “tax breaks and rebates” provided by taxpayers and ratepayers without quantifying them.

Let’s look at it this way: If I poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the ocean and caused other taxpayers and ratepayers to pour tens of thousands of dollars into the ocean, and then the waves washed a few hundred dollars back each month, the claim that “the ocean paid for my car” would seem a little silly.

The Sentinel reported the owner’s own estimate of the payback period at an astounding “50 years or more.” (Astounding because, as the NPR story discussed yesterday indicates, the projected lifespan of the system is much closer to 20 or 25 years.)

h1

Cheap natural gas undermining solar dreams

January 5, 2012

Michael Giberson

NPR reports from Pennsylvania how low natural gas prices have helped put the damper on some solar power dreams:

Barbara Scott had 21 solar panels installed last March on her house in Media, Pa. Scott’s family was the first in the community, and she was prepared to evangelize, “We can have open houses and write newsletter articles and promote the idea of solar,” she said. But that was before the economics changed.

With government rebates and tax incentives, Scott says, her family spent $21,000 to install the system. She figured it would take eight years to recoup that investment.

But that eight year (private) payback period turned out to be too optimistic. First, too many other Pennsylvanians also invested in solar, which caused the price of solar power credits to drop sharply.  Scott figures the change added seven more years to the payback period. Second, the price of electric power is lower than it would have been because of low natural gas prices. Scott adds another two years to the payback period for that effect.

With a new total of a seventeen-year payback period, Scott observed: ”We’re up to 17 years, which is, essentially, the life of the system. And we haven’t even considered what happens if the system breaks or what it’s going to cost to take the system off the roof and dispose of it. “

As noted, this is a private payback estimate, it only reflects the homeowners expenses and net electric bill reductions. Omitted from the calculation are the taxpayer- or ratepayer-funded subsidies (likely large) and external benefits of the system (likely modest but could be significant). Furthermore, these sort of casual payback calculations frequently omit consideration of opportunity costs (i.e. the time value of money or foregone interest income.)

But isn’t it sort of interesting that the story builds around the effects of low natural gas prices as a culprit even though the effect is relatively modest compared to the much larger solar credit price effect resulting from too many other Pennsylvanians getting into the subsidized solar game?

h1

Ethanol industry allows its politicians to permit expiration of its tax credit and tariff

January 3, 2012

Michael Giberson

The Des Moines Register has one version of the story - the agribusiness industry decided it could do without the subsidy since the renewable fuels mandate seemed securely in place:

So established is corn-fed ethanol that the industry allowed the expiration of the 45 cents-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol production, as well as the 54-cent fee on ethanol imports, to lapse at the end of this year, preferring to fall back on defense of the Renewable Fuel Standard set in the 2007 law.

The New York Times describes the story somewhat differently. In the Times version, the end of the subsidy and tariff was a victory for environmentalists and fiscal conservatives over agribusiness. The story includes approving remarks from both the Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), from both Friends of the Earth policy analyst Michal L. Rosenoer and Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow Marlo Lewis.

The Register headline appears to predict ethanol industry growth, “EPA: Ethanol production expected to grow in 2012,” with the first sentence indicating “an increase of about 1.25 billion gallons from this year.” But the expected growth is actually just the increase in the mandate, as the story in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader makes clear: “The federal government has set its target for biofuels production in 2012, increasing by 1.25 billion gallons the amount of ethanol and biofuels that must be blended into the fuel supply.”

The Register story also notes the self-imagined munificence of the ethanol lobby:

“We may be the only industry in U.S. history that voluntarily let a subsidy expire,” said Matthew A. Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group for ethanol producers. “The marketplace has evolved. The tax incentive is less necessary now than it was just two years ago. Ethanol is 10 percent of the nation’s gasoline supply.”

To me it sounds like the doctor telling me “now that the tapeworm is well established they’ve decided to remove several of the leeches.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see the end of the tax credit and tariff. But it is a little galling to see the ethanol industry package this story as a little gift they are giving to taxpayers and consumers.

h1

New York Attorney General proposes to prohibit use of business-related reasoning in gasoline wholesaling

January 2, 2012

Michael Giberson

It sounds kind of funny to say the New York Attorney General wants to prohibit business-related reasoning in gasoline wholesaling. After all, gasoline wholesaling is a business activity and generally business-related reasoning would be entirely appropriate. It sounds like asking a court not to act on law-related reasoning or asking a politician not to think politically. But read the report put out by the AG’s office, “Report on New York Gasoline Prices,” and see what it says on pages 37-39.

At issue is “zone pricing,” a practice by which wholesalers charge differing prices to retailers in different locations, usually based on an estimate of what the market will bear. A New York state law passed in 2008 tried to ban zone pricing for gasoline, but it didn’t seem to have much effect. The report noted, “Certain areas of the state that had relatively high retail prices before the law took effect in 2008, such as the South Fork of Long Island and northern Westchester, still tend to have relatively high prices.”

The problem, according to the AG’s report, is that the anti-zone pricing law prohibits only arbitrary price differences between different locations. (See New York’s General Business Law § 399-ee at 1 (m): “Zone pricing means the arbitrary price differences within the relevant geographic market.”) The report notes that wholesalers admit charging different prices to retailers in different locations, but say the price differences are not arbitrary because they are “based on business-related market and economic conditions such as operating costs, degree of competition, the specific location of a station, and other factors.”

The report says “the inclusion of the word ‘arbitrary’ in the definition of zone pricing renders the prohibition toothless.” The AG’s solution is to propose deletion of the word from the definition. Where the law now merely prohibits certain arbitrary price differences, the AG wishes to prohibit price differences. If the state legislature agrees, the law would then prohibit the use of all kinds of normal business-related reasoning in New York’s wholesale gasoline business.

The state legislature ought not to accept the AG’s recommendation, but rather ought to toss out the zone pricing ban.

As the AG’s report itself indicates, there is no evidence of any consumer harm from zone pricing. With zone pricing affluent consumers may pay a little higher price for gasoline than lower- and middle-class consumers, but there is no reason to expect consumer prices are higher on average due to zone pricing.  (As I put it back in November 2008, “anti-zone pricing legislation is essentially consumer protection for affluent customers unwilling to spend their time shopping around for lower prices”). The toothless zone pricing ban is apparently causing no harm either, so doing nothing would simply leave an empty law on the books.

On the other hand, prohibiting the charging of reasonable price differences by gasoline wholesalers in New York would serve to screw up the whole state’s wholesale gasoline market in an effort to keep customers in affluent areas from paying a few more pennies per gallon of gasoline. Seems like a too high price to pay.

 

[NOTE: The report also includes the AG's report on gasoline price movements in the state during 2011 and a discussion of price gouging. These other issues may be discussed here later this week.]

h1

Holiday wishes for you

December 25, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I offer you my best holiday wishes. What I wish for you, indeed for all of us, in this holiday season and into 2012 and beyond, is a life rich in liberty, toleration, peace, and good will.

And, in the spirit of my friend Sarah’s wise invocation for us to light our candles to beat back the dark that surrounds us now, I offer you this candle. Happy holidays.

BERJAYA

 

h1

Holiday music encore

December 23, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

As a quick follow-up on my earlier post on music, harmony, and social cooperation, here’s a lovely video of Stile Antico singing Palestrina’s Assumpta est Maria:

And, since we attended the Chicago Symphony’s Welcome Yule concert last night and it was lovely, here’s a snippet of Handel’s Messiah, from the choir of New College, Oxford:

And here’s Cantata V from Bach’s Christmas Oratorio to round out the Renaissance-Baroque experience:

I hope music brings you joy this season, and in all seasons!

h1

Music, harmony, and social cooperation

December 23, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I am a big fan of English renaissance choral music, particularly sacred polyphony from Tallis and Byrd (and stretching back to Taverner, but he’s not as distinctively polyphonic). One of the best ensembles performing such music is Stile Antico, a group of 13 British singers who do an outstanding job with this music, and whose recordings I have recommended here before. Especially at this time of year, their music really resonates and adds joy and beauty to life.

A couple of weeks ago we got to hear Stile Antico perform live in Milwaukee: Thomas Tallis’ Puer Natus Est mass interspersed with pieces from Byrd, White, and Taverner. The music was gorgeous, the voices delightful, and the artists charming and gracious.

But what really struck me was their method of decentralized coordination. Typically when we think of musical performance beyond, say, a chamber quintet, coordination involves hierarchy in the form of a conductor, to “keep everyone on the same page”. The larger the number of performers doing different things, the harder to coordinate, and therefore the greater need for a conductor … right?

Not so in this case. 13 singers, each with a particular part, bringing a distinctive element to the work. But in some ways the music is simultaneously so lush and yet so spare that if their timing is off, the beauty of the result is diminished. 13 singers with no conductor, and they coordinate by taking their visual and verbal cues from each other in a dynamic and evolutionary manner. This is a vivid example of decentralized coordination.

Of course the goal is harmony (in the general sense). If each individual acts and reacts to the actions of the other individuals in a way that produces a harmonious outcome, that’s beauty. And it’s an emergent outcome; each has his or her own score and acts accordingly, adapting to the actions of the others in a way that creates emergent harmony.

The music metaphor illustrates achieving emergent order through decentralized coordination, and it’s a metaphor for social cooperation too. Adam Smith employs the harmony metaphor for social cooperation in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he invokes harmony as a desirable outcome of social interaction repeatedly (and refers to the music metaphor directly in the last reference). Note the emphasis on harmony as distinct from uniformity — each individual brings personal, private, heterogeneous features to social interaction (whether musical or economic), and they are not the same, not uniform. Each has an incentive, a desire to coordinate, to harmonize; in music it’s finding the complementary notes, in social systems it’s grounded in our innate desire for sympathy and mutual sympathy, according to Smith. Each individual brings something different to the party/performance/market.  The most beautiful and sublime outcomes emerge when each acts on its individual traits with a view toward creating harmony and sympathy. And it does not necessarily require the top-down imposition of control or system-wide hierarchy, but can be achieved through decentralized coordination.

Of course there are limits to applying the music metaphor to institutional design and social cooperation, such as the scale/number of actors. But it reminds us of the possibility of cooperation and harmony through decentralized coordination, without the need for imposed system-level control.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers