October 8 Colorado Energy Cheat Sheet: Ozone rule and Colorado; ‘ban fracking’ resurfaces in Denver; ‘Fossil Fuel Free Week’ proves a challenge

Be sure to check out and like our Energy Cheat Sheet page on Facebook for daily, up-to-the minute updates that compliment our weekly “best of” on the I2I Energy Blog.

Let’s open with a great piece from Lachlan Markay at the Free Beacon on the ways proponents of the Environmental Protection Agency’s raft of new policies, especially the Clean Power Plan, went on the offensive before the regulation was even finalized:

Supporters of a controversial Environmental Protection Agency regulation commissioned Democratic pollsters to plot ways to attack the motives and credibility of the regulation’s critics, documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon reveal.

Aides to a dozen Democratic governors and the Democratic Party’s gubernatorial advocacy arm circulated talking points and political messaging memos on EPA’s new power plant regulations that laid out ways to “sow doubts about our opponents [sic] motives,” in the words of one of those memos.

The previously unreported documents, obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute through an open records request and shared exclusively with the Free Beacon, provide a window into the Democratic messaging machine’s approach to an issue that its own pollsters acknowledge is a hard sell among its target voter demographics.

Read the whole thing.

***

In what was certainly intended as a launching point for local national anti-energy, “ban fracking” advocates, last weekend’s confab in Denver–no doubt brought to us in no small part by fossil fuels–ramped up their efforts, as Energy In Depth’s Randy Hildreth writes:

National “ban fracking” groups descended on Denver this afternoon to protest oil and gas development as part of the “Stop the Frack Attack National Summit.”

For anyone still wondering if this was a Colorado effort, EID was on hand to note that when a speaker asked the crowd, “How many of you are from out of state?” attendees erupted into cheers. And while the group managed to draw roughly 100 participants, judging from the cheers of out of state folks, we’re guessing the showing was pretty sparse from Colorado (which, of course means they all got into planes and cars burning fossil fuels to get here).

Plenty of photos of the protestors at the link.

So what are they amping/ramping up?

Although Colorado-based environment groups such as Conservation Colorado didn’t participate; the demonstrations drew support from national groups, such as the Sierra Club, and impassioned “fractivist” residents. A group called Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development has declared the COGCC illegitimate and is developing ballot initiatives including a statewide fracking ban.

“Local control” just means “ban fracking” and all other oil and gas development, using a few local fractivists for cover, a pattern of political posturing since at least the 2013 off-year election cycle, when national anti-fracking groups enlisted or created local branches to push ballot measures at the municipal level.

***

Around Colorado:

“…groups do not believe grazing is compatible with the monument’s mission to protect ancient ruins…”

How big an economic driver is oil and gas development? Energy In Depth took a national look:

While these cities lie in different geological regions, they do have one thing in common: shale development. Oil and gas development in these cities was the biggest economic driver throughout 2014. For instance, take a look at the Greeley, Colorado metropolitan area, which encompasses Weld County, where a large percentage of shale development is taking place. It grew its GDP by 9.9 percent in 2014 and ranks fourth in the nation in terms of percent growth. According to a BizWest.com article:

“Greeley’s 2014 growth was dominated by the mining sector, which includes oil and gas extraction, growing by 24.6 percent from the previous year.”

***

Some early analysis on the EPA’s recently announced ozone rule, set at 70 ppb. Colorado’s unique geographical and topographical situation mean that even at a higher level (original discussions for the ozone rule included possibly lowering the target to 60 ppb from 75), the state will face plenty of difficulties, including some entirely out of the state’s control:

“We don’t expect that the non-attainment areas will expand geographically,” said Will Allison, the director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s air pollution control division.

But state officials do have concerns about the new standard’s impact on the state, and they will be talking to the EPA about issues unique to Colorado and other western states, such as the fact that the Rocky Mountains can act as a trap for air pollution flowing across the Pacific Ocean from Asia, Allison said.

The state’s high altitude and pattern of lightning storms also contribute to ozone levels — but there’s very little Colorado officials can do to interfere with Mother Nature.

Heritage Foundation–4 Reasons Congress Needs to Review the EPA’s Ozone Standard

Institute for Energy Research–EPA Finalizes Costly, Unnecessary Ozone Rule

In 2010, EPA reconsidered the 2008 standard and EPA’s delay means that implementation of the 2008 standard is now behind schedule. But instead of waiting until localities are complying with the 2008 regulation, EPA is imposing a newer, stricter standard that puts more counties out of attainment even though ozone levels are decreasing. Below is a map depicting the areas that are projected to be out of compliance under a 70 ppb standard.

ozone 70 ppb

National Association of Manufacturers–New Ozone Rule Will Inflict Pain on Manufacturers, Finalized Regulation Still Feels Like a Punch in the Gut

“Today, the Obama Administration finalized a rule that is overly burdensome, costly and misguided,” said Timmons. “For months, the Administration threatened to impose on manufacturers an even harsher rule, with even more devastating consequences. After an unprecedented level of outreach by manufacturers and other stakeholders, the worst-case scenario was avoided. However, make no mistake: The new ozone standard will inflict pain on companies that build things in America—and destroy job opportunities for American workers. Now it’s time for Congress to step up and take a stand for working families.”

According to the National Journal, the new ozone rule has pretty much ticked off everyone concerned, including those on the side of the current administration:

After a ban­ner second term that has seen the most ag­gress­ive ac­tion on cli­mate change from any ad­min­is­tra­tion, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion just opened up a new fault line with en­vir­on­ment­al­ists.

The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency today re­leased its new air-qual­ity stand­ards for ground-level ozone, lower­ing the al­low­able level from 75 parts per bil­lion to 70 ppb. That’s well short of what en­vir­on­ment­al­ists and pub­lic-health groups had been push­ing and a level they say wouldn’t do enough to pro­tect pub­lic health.

In­dustry groups and Re­pub­lic­ans, mean­while, are not likely to be any hap­pi­er—they have been long op­posed to any stand­ard lower than the status quo be­cause of the po­ten­tial cost of com­pli­ance.

The enviros are fuming.

***

The EPA’s shady procedural efforts appear to have killed natural resource development in Alaska, using hypotheticals and possibly in collusion with environmentalists, according to a new report, writes the Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch:

The EPA may have rigged the permitting process in the Alaskan copper mining project, possibly hand-in-hand with environmentalists, to defeat the Pebble Mine before it even had a chance, a new report by an independent investigator suggests.

“The statements and actions of EPA personnel observed during this review raise serious concerns as to whether EPA orchestrated the process to reach a predetermined outcome; had inappropriately close relationships with anti-mine advocates,” reads a report by former defense secretary William Cohen, who now runs his own consulting firm.

The Pebble Partnership hired Cohen to review the EPA’s decision not to allow the Pebble Mine to seek a permit for mining copper near Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Cohen’s report only looked at the process the EPA used to pre-emptively veto the Pebble Mine. He did not make any conclusions on the EPA’s legal authority to do so or whether or not the mine should even be built.

Cohen found that the EPA’s “unprecedented, preemptive” use of the Clean Water Act to kill the Pebble Mine relied on a hypothetical mining project that “may or may not accurately or fairly represent an actual project.”

The Wall Street Journal added:

“It is by now beyond dispute that the Environmental Protection Agency went rogue when it halted Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine project. And yet, there’s more.

The more comes via an independent report that criticizes the agency for its pre-emptive 2014 veto of Pebble, a proposal to create the country’s largest copper and gold mine in southwest Alaska. Under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers evaluates permit applications for new projects. The EPA has a secondary role of reviewing and potentially vetoing Corps approval. Here, the EPA issued a veto before [emphasis in original] either Pebble could file for permits or the Corps could take a look.”

***

Mountain States Legal Foundation’s William Perry Pendley on the latest private property battle vs. federal land managers–”The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday is scheduled to consider whether to take up a case from Utah that could determine whether federal land managers can steal a citizen’s private property.”

***

Native American energy production faces Democrat opposition:

House Democrats are expected to oppose legislation this week that would remove regulatory burdens for energy production on Native American land that tribes say have cost them tens of millions of dollars.

The Native American Energy Act would vest more regulatory authority over tribal energy production with the tribes themselves, rather federal regulators that have recently sought more stringent regulations on oil and gas production on federal land.

The bill passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee last month with just a single Democratic vote. Among its provisions is language that would exempt tribal land from new Interior Department regulations on hydraulic fracturing, an innovative oil and gas extraction technique commonly known as fracking.

***

Last but not least, the Western Energy Alliance’s “Fossil Fuel Free Week” concluded last week, and it was a tough challenge (if you’re reading this right now, you’ve failed:

Fossil Fuel Free Week, organized by Western Energy Alliance, has concluded and succeeded in getting people to think about the role of oil and natural gas in their daily lives. The campaign was designed in response to numerous anti-fossil fuel protests in recent months, such as the Keep It In The Ground Coalition, various anti-fracking rallies, demonstrations against Keystone XL and other pipelines and rail transport, the divestiture movement, and kayaktivists against arctic drilling.

The key lesson from the campaign is environmental groups, when directly challenged, fail to provide workable alternatives that replace the full spectrum of products provided by fossil fuels. Instead they respond by being predictably dismissive and offer vague visions for the future, as President Tim Wigley of the Alliance explains:

“As we’ve seen with recent protests, environmental groups incite anger amongst their supporters while dangling fossil fuels in effigy. Yet not accustomed to being poked fun of themselves, environmentalists reacted reflexively to the Challenge, offering weak observations by calling it ridiculous, snarky and a ploy. Well…yes!

Solar Power: economically and environmentally unsound

October 24, 2011 by Amy · Comments Off
Filed under: Archive, New Energy Economy 

This column appeared originally in Townhall Finance.

Solar energy is neither economically nor environmentally sound

By Amy Oliver Cooke and Michael Sandoval

We live in the state that is ground zero for absurd energy policy, also known as the New Energy Economy.

In a recent Denver Post house editorial, Colorado’s self-described “newspaper of record” was downright giddy about General Electric’s announcement that it will manufacture thin-filmed photovoltaic (PV) solar panels in Aurora and employ 355 people.

GE, which could have financed the whole project itself, came to Colorado because of government provided taxpayer-funded “incentives.” Ironically, the industrial behemoth just announced $3.2 billion in net earnings for the third quarter, a 57 percent increase over last year.

The new solar panel manufacturer fits perfectly with Colorado’s economically unrealistic New Energy Economy and its fantasies of clean, domestic energy sources.

Solar panel manufacturer profiles

So far, Colorado companies have been unable to meet the promises made by proponents of the New Energy Economy.

Ascent Solar, a Colorado company and maker of copper-indium-gallium-selenide (CIGS) thin-film PV cells, had qualified for the due diligence phase of the Department of Energy loan guarantee program like the one awarded to Abound (they were applying for $275 million). But continued losses—$85 million in the first half of 2011 alone—provoked a business model adjustment switch to portable solar solutions that saw the company reduce its staff by half and withdraw its loan application, only finding refuge in Asian investors in August to prevent collapse.

In 2009, Ascent’s projected growth included hundreds of additional jobs, with then-Governor Bill Ritter (D) and both of Colorado’s U.S. Senators attending the opening of its reconfigured plant just outside Denver.

“Thanks to companies such as Ascent Solar, all across Colorado, we’re creating a sustainable energy future, sustainable opportunities for new businesses, and sustainable jobs,” said Ritter at the time.

Abound Solar is Colorado’s homegrown Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) solar panel manufacturer. With more than $400 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and tax incentives, Abound employs roughly 350 people with plans for another 850 to 1000 employees in an Indiana facility sometime in 2012 or 2013.

GE’s entry into the Colorado market comes on the heels of its acquisition of Colorado-based PrimeStar Solar, culminating in plans to develop a $300 million project that promises those 355 jobs—at a cost of $28 million in municipal and state-based incentives.

What kind of solar panels will GE’s Colorado plant manufacture? Cadmium telluride, the same as Abound Solar, which the New York Times declared would put the loan guaranteed Abound—and by extension, taxpayers—“at risk.”

As we wrote previously, “Abound has a manufacturing capacity of 65 megawatts expanding to 850 megawatts – at some point. However, in 2010 it manufactured only 30 megawatts.” If it has the ability to produce more, then why doesn’t it? Perhaps it’s because the solar panel market is over-saturated, while demand and price have dropped dramatically.

Put aside the absurd economics for a moment, would all the taxpayer “investment” be money well spent if we could become “energy independent” while enjoying the benefits of “clean” renewable energy?

The myth of “energy independence”

All of these solar panel producers have something in common; they need raw materials, specifically rare earth minerals, to manufacture their products. The U.S. currently does little mining or processing of rare earths.

When the Denver Post fawned over the taxpayer-subsidized GE solar manufacturing plant coming to Colorado, it concluded with the typical appeal to “energy independence.”

But solar energy does not equate to “energy independence” because it relies upon other countries, namely China, for the necessary supply of rare earths. Late last year, the Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged the problem and published a report titled “Critical Materials Strategies” which focused on rare earths used in the production of various “clean” technologies.

Current global materials markets pose several challenges to the growing clean energy economy. Lead times with respect to new mining operations are long (from 2–10 years). Thus, the supply response to scarcity may be slow, limiting production of technologies that depend on such mining operations or causing sharp price increases. In addition, production of some materials is at present heavily concentrated in one or a small number of countries. (More than 95% of current production capacity for rare earth metals is currently in China.) Concentration of production in any supplier creates risks for global markets and creates geopolitical dynamics with the potential to affect other strategic interests of the United States.

So the country that is challenging the U.S. economically and is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt also controls the very materials needed to ensure our “energy independence.”

What’s funny is that the DOE suggests that the private market will respond, but it does not imply that an American-based market will respond. Rather the DOE suggests achieving “globally-diverse supplies” of rare earths. That hardly sounds like “energy independence.”

The Denver Post didn’t craft the argument that green energy will make us energy independent.  The newspaper is simply guilty of parroting what the leftist environmentalists have been trumpeting for years without challenge: we must break our dependence on “foreign oil” and embrace renewable energy.

Colorado State University’s Center for the New Energy Economy Director Bill Ritter advanced the argument last year as he was closing out his one term as Colorado Governor.

Over the past few years, we’ve established a clean-energy template that is creating thousands of new jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and generating innovative technologies for the future…The New Energy Economy in Colorado can serve as a pathway for all of America that will lead to greater economic, energy, and environmental security.

Which seems odd because Canada, our largest oil supplier, isn’t a hostile trading partner but China has proven it can be.  The global demand for rare earth minerals is projected to grow at eight percent annually, while China has kept the growth in supply near zero. Even worse, at times China has imposed embargoes on them to the West.

Popular Mechanics describes the danger of the Chinese monopoly on rare earths:

Mines in China supply nearly all of the world’s rare-earths metal, and the Chinese government uses its near monopoly as political leverage: It was accused of halting rare-earth exports to Japan during a territorial dispute last year, and also announced a restriction of worldwide rare-earth exports, which sent chills through markets and tech companies.

The same article explains that the U.S., Canada, Brazil and other countries have reserves and “used to produce a sizeable percentage of the world supply before shutting many mines because of environmental concerns.”

Some minerals such as Tellurium, one of the elements about which the DOE is concerned, are just plain rare. In fact, Tellurium is one of the rarest minerals found in the earth’s crust.

Rare earths are needed for more than just solar panels.  They are used for wind turbines and hybrid car batteries. And if our “energy independence” comes from renewables such as solar, they will have to compete with iPods, cell phones, computers, batteries, and more.

Popular Mechanics also explores the possibility of deep-sea mining for rare earths but ultimately concluded, “if you’re wondering where rare-earth components in computer chips and solar cells will come from for the next decade, the answer is clear—China.”

The myth that green energy is “clean” energy.

Manufacturing solar panels isn’t clean.

Two of the three solar companies profiled earlier, GE and Abound, already produce or plan to make Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) thin film photovoltaics (PV). CdTe is a compound formed from Cadmium and Tellurium. While Tellurium is rare, Cadmium is a highly toxic human carcinogen.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the compound CdTe is also a carcinogen.  Depending on the level of exposure, health effects range from kidney damage, fragile bones, lung damage, and death.

Because the U.S. doesn’t mine much of these elements here, U.S. manufacturers look elsewhere. Sadly, individual tragedy in China’s “cancer villages” reveals the dirty secret of “clean energy.

Yun Yaoshun’s two granddaughters died at the ages of 12 and 18, succumbing to kidney and stomach cancer even though these types of cancers rarely affect children. The World Health Organization has suggested that the high rate of such digestive cancers are due to the ingestion of polluted water.

The river where the children played stretches from the bottom of the Daboshan mine…Its waters are contaminated by cadmium, lead, indium and zinc and other metals.

Lake near the girls’ home that appeared in Intellasia.

Lake near the girls’ home that appeared in Intellasia.

Mining in China has turned towns and hamlets into “cancer villages.” Rivers run murky white to shades of orange. Fish and ducks are dead. And villagers bury friends and neighbors who die of cancer in their 30s and 40s reports Intellasia.

Another eye-opening news report on rare earth mining and processing from the Channel 4 in the United Kingdom claims, “it doesn’t look very green, rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals…workers have little or no protection.”

We still don’t know how large solar installations covering thousands of acres in the desert over long periods of time will affect the ecosystem.

To answer our earlier question, is the taxpayer “investment” in solar power worth the cost to achieve “energy independence” with “clean” power sources? It’s a trick question because solar is neither a domestic product nor a clean one.

The bottom line is that all energy sources come with some type of risk and to assume that solar panels are an economic and environmental panacea is wrong, despite what the Denver Post and other New Energy Economy cheerleaders would like us to believe.

If we are going to continue on the path of alternative energy, we should do so with out eyes wide open.

Amy Oliver Cooke is the founder of Mothers Against Debt (www. Mothersagainstdebt.com). She is also the director of the Colorado Transparency Project for the Independence Institute and writes on energy policy.  She can be reached at amy@i2i.org. Michael Sandoval is the Managing Editor of People’s Press Collective and a former political reporter for National Review Online.