Climate Policy in a Post-Trump World

Jeff, at the rate California carbon emissions are dropping, AB32 goals for 2020 will be met just about ten years late.

Why on earth are you holding up our state, which is closing nuclear plants then replacing them with natural gas, which is now outsourcing 30% of its electricity to greenwash its generation, as a shining example?

California is the only economy that you can really look to when it comes to climate change policy.

If you were to look a bit harder, California’s emissions are virtually the same as they were five years ago. The state’s climate change policy is not accomplishing diddly-squat.

California’s emissions are virtually the same as they were five years ago. The state’s climate change policy is not accomplishing diddly-squat.

That’s the same kind of bait-and-switch that Bas/Bentvels pulls repeatedly regarding Germany.  He points to it meeting its Kyoto goals, never mentioning that this was almost entirely due to reunification-related cuts in E. Germany and denuclearization has essentially stalled progress on GHGs.

Liars gonna lie.

I think an interesting thing to watch is Trump on trade and how that will impact California. The state imports an increasing amount of renewable diesel from Singapore which has carbon intensities as much as 80% below gasoline/diesel. If it becomes much more difficult/expensive to import renewable diesel, LCFS credit prices should rise and possibly boost domestic biofuel production. Of course, everyone’s transportation costs will also increase under that scenario, which could have negative impacts on the broader economy.

GMo, you claim “renewable” diesel from Singapore “has carbon intensities as much as 80% below gasoline/diesel.”
Does your calculation include the carbon intensity of the hydrotreating process required to make it, or that of the bunker oil burned in the freighter which brought it 1/3 of the way around the world?

… or the carbon dumped when the rainforest is burned to make room for oil palm plantations, and again later when the peat-based soil dries out and catches fire?

Fair questions. Right now Neste (the Singapore fuel producer) sends tallow-based renewable diesel to California with a carbon intensity of 19.6 grams/MJ compared to diesel’s 94.7 grams/MJ. This includes the full lifecycle, including hydrotreating and transport.

See the lookup table: https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121409lcfs_lutables.pdf
The full analysis is here:https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/2a2b/apps/nes-asia-uco-bd-rpt-102314.pdf

There are definitely higher carbon pathways for renewable diesel (like palm oil), but those are not used in California. Obviously, this reshuffling is an issue which would not be an issue if other states and countries had stringent climate policies.

here’s one of the approved pathways for Tallow: https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/2a2b/apps/neste-aus-031513.pdf

Tallow.  Beef fat.  Do you have any idea how carbon-intensive the feedstock is, and just how little of it there is?  Unless someone proposes burning Chanel No. 5 as a “renewable fuel”, this is about the pinnacle of greenwashing.

Neste’s “renewable” production is only 2 million tons annually.  At ~165 kg/bbl, this is a mere 33,000 bbl/day.  The world consumes petroleum at a pace of more than 1000 barrels a SECOND.  Great, you took care of 30 seconds worth a day, just 86,370 seconds left to go!  </sarc>

Diesel from waste is a good thing, but touting it as any sort of “solution” is the worst sort of propaganda.

For renewable diesel from Neste, here’s one of the approved pathways for Tallow<

Tallow.  Beef fat.  Do you have any idea how carbon-intensive the feedstock is, and just how little of it there is?  Unless someone proposes burning Chanel No. 5 as a “renewable fuel”, this is about the pinnacle of greenwashing.

Neste’s “renewable” production is only 2 million tons annually.  At ~165 kg/bbl, this is a mere 33,000 bbl/day.  The world consumes petroleum at a pace of more than 1000 barrels a SECOND.  Great, you took care of 30 seconds worth a day, just 86,370 seconds left to go! </sarc>

Diesel from waste is a good thing, but touting it as any sort of “solution” is the worst sort of propaganda.

Jeff, approximately 180 input values in Neste’s submission for approval of pathway RNWD004, using the CA-GREET model, are listed as Confidential or Undisclosed. The company “Life Cycle Associates”, a pay-for-hire consulting company, has been permitted to modify CA-GREET, without any public disclosure of what modifications have been made.
Yet you feel confident in your conclusion the pathway offers “substantial reductions in GHG emissions compared to gasoline/diesel”. Why?

It doesn’t need to be *the* solution. There are no silver bullets.

So where does spewing the carbon to move tallow-derived hydrotreated fatty acids from Singapore to California fit into ANY realistic program to decarbonize our energy systems?

No one who thinks this was a good idea, or wrote policies which gave such hare-brained schemes preferences or grants, has any business acting on behalf of the public ever again.  We’d be much better served by throwing California’s governor and two sitting senators in prison and re-commissioning San Onofre.

No Jeff, I can’t “run GREET myself” because 1) I don’t have their inputs, and 2) you’re not using GREET, you’re using CA-GREET, California’s knockoff, one which has been modified by companies with skin in the game.

You’ve confirmed you have no idea whether we’re in pretty good shape or whether the “calculated carbon intensity value is consistent with expectations from similar pathways”. Your faith in staff at CARB is unfounded, when neither the inputs nor California’s model itself are available for public review. Would CARB stoop to that level? They already have (add an ‘h’ to the front of the URL below to visit the link; when I try to include it verbatim this website copies the entire front page to my post):

ttp://www.ev1.org

BTW, I’m a software developer, I’ve downloaded GREET, I know the model inside and out. I’ve attended a workshop at Argonne and made suggestions to its development team. Don’t be naive.

Jeff, I’m involved with Michael Shellenberger’s EnvironmentalProgress.org. I suggest you email them about the corrupt state of affairs in the California Public Utility Commission and the California Energy Commission, which are both hellbent on shutting down Diablo Canyon Power Plant as soon as possible. It’s for one reason and one reason only: to benefit fossil fuel development in our state (Jerry Brown’s sister Kathleen is on the Board of Directors at Sempra Energy, with $17 billion in revenue from the sale of natural gas and natural-gas-derived electricity).

Question: why doesn’t California use the “real” GREET for its analysis, one which is funded by DOE and transparent?

Jeff, thanks for the link to CA-GREET. It takes me to a download of DOE’s GREET:

“Software: GREET 1, Version 1.8b
Copyright © 1999 UChicago Argonne, LLC
Open Source Software License”

Well-to-wheels fuel lifecycle analysis, especially that of tallow from Australia hydrotreated in Singapore, has little to do with “CA grid, oil mix, etc.”. DOE GREET provides abundant options for configuring these parameters, and California’s grid mix is constantly changing. So we’re back to the question of how “CA-GREET” has been changed, and why.

Moreover, we not only don’t have their precise inputs, we don’t have any inputs for this specific pathway. SISO.

I don’t doubt you have strong convictions that the estimates are “conservative”, and faith in their “extensive review” (by CARB itself); that RD is “likely to provide substantial GHG benefits compared to conventional diesel”. But I feel the need to point out these are subjective assessments without basis in data.

Jeff – why are we comparing values for soybean RD to that from tallow? And why is CARB, in CA-GREET, using a national electricity mix from 2010 as its basis for CA-GREET energy input in 2016?

At this point, we’re engaging in energy navel-gazing: RD’s contribution to the fight against climate change is, and always will be, negligible (as Engineer-Poet points out above). I have devoted more time relating my concerns to the State of California than I care to remember – Jerry Brown and his CPUC/CEC mafia don’t want to hear it. The brusque response of California Energy Commission President Robert Weisenmiller, when confronted about preserving clean nuclear energy in California after a recent hearing:

“Legislature wants gas.”

Love or hate it, that’s the reality.

If I was looking for maximum carbon savings from surplus Australian beef tallow, I would bring it up to liquefaction temperature and burn it as a co-fuel in marine diesels along with bunker fuel.  This eliminates all carbon emissions in processing and further transport.

Another alternative is to co-fire liquefied, atomized tallow in fossil-fired steam power plants.  In most cases this would replace high-carbon coal joule-for-joule, rather than lower-carbon petroleum.

Hydroprocessing triglycerides to hydrocarbons + propane and shipping the former halfway around the world… why is ANYONE even talking about that?

Engineer Poet — I disagree that renewable diesel is simply a tool for propaganda. You’re right there’s not much produced right now, but that’s not a valid reason to object to it. There’s about 2 billion gallons a year of waste oil in the U.S, plus a heck of a lot of cellulosic material if we need it. The alternative fate of waste oil is to sit in the ground somewhere. Using it for transportation and displacing diesel seems like a pretty productive use of it to me!

There are plenty of ways to use waste fat (either vegetable or animal) which don’t require fancy processing.  Filtered and heated waste fryer oil works directly in diesel engines.  The carbon emitted in the hydrotreating and halfway-round-the-world transport, in order to meet the letter of some specification for “low-carbon fuel”, shows that the system has gone insane.

California’s not perfect, but it’s doing a lot better than every other region when it comes to addressing climate change.

Better at what, exactly? Better at reducing emissions? Affordability? Not so. Over the period 2007-2014, US CO2 emissions (energy) were down 10%, and the US in total has experienced similar population growth. California’s emissions as indicated by ARB are down 9%. US 2016 electricity rates for residential, commercial, industrial are 13, 11, and 7 cents/kWh respectively. California electricity rates are 19, 12, and 14 cents/kWh respectively.

References:
US CO2 emissions for energy
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

I’m not aware of any OEM that allows use of filtered waste oil without a void of warranty. Do you? What are the air quality impacts?

Also, can you back up your claim that hydrotreating is carbon intensive? I’m not aware of any studies that support that claim.

Better at reducing emissions, encouraging technology innovation, putting a price on carbon, and creating a framework for other regions and nations to build upon.

California has positively persecuted nuclear technology.  It has never put a price on carbon, because those in charge know that it would incentivize nuclear; instead, it has demanded “renewables” (narrowly defined) which specifically exclude nuclear.

It’s been fairly well-established that GHG emissions are a function of both population and the wealth

Which ignores the role of technology.  Hydro-heavy Quebec and nuclear-heavy Ontario and France have very low CO2 per kWh, much lower than “Green” Denmark and Germany.  Only nuclear scales.

Nonetheless, I’ve done a quick regression analysis using US Census Data for state population from 1990 through 2014

If you’re not counting all the emissions from industry pushed out of California by high prices and hostile policies, either to the rest of the USA or the Pacific rim, the regression is worthless.  Add balance of trade in goods and you might have a good start.

California has a price on carbon of about $13/ton across most sectors

The latest estimate of the social cost of CO2 is $220/ton.  $13/ton is a joke, less than 0.72¢/kWh for a gas plant emitting 550 gCO2/kWh and barely more than 1/3 of the previous estimate of social cost.  Further, Greens love things like nuclear fuel taxes which jack up the cost of nuclear power to steal back whatever advantage that emissions taxes give it.

I have seen what CARB has done for electric propulsion.  Several times when technologies like plug-ins got close to being economic under the rules, the rules were abruptly changed to put the goalposts out of reach again.  This does not happen by accident.

As for Nuclear support — that could be better.

It could hardly be worse.  Jerry Brown’s daughter sits on the board of either Sempra Energy or some closely-related company.  His family is literally in bed with the competition, and has colluded to shut down Diablo Canyon and transfer the costs to ratepayers.

This is an overly pessimistic estimate, as California is also likely to displace some of that with renewables.

So it represents a net increase in CO2 emissions even after offsets are applied.  It also represents increased sales for the natural gas industry.  But nothing to look at here, oh no!

I would suggest you take a more rigorous approach before making your claims

You mean, like a spreadsheet that only accounts for California vs. non-California when correlating emissions to policy?

Better at reducing emissions, encouraging technology innovation, putting a price on carbon, and creating a framework for other regions and nations to build upon

The first, reducing emissions, is indeed the goal, about which I drew the comparison. The others (framework, carbon price, etc) are not the goal but the means by which some propose to accomplish the goal. Without efficacy, these proposals are at best benign, and malignant if they come with either great cost or retard other mechanisms that are actually effective (e.g. nuclear power).

…It’s been fairly well-established that GHG emissions are a function of both population and the wealth (feel free to dig into the literature on kaya identities, etc.). As such, to make a fair comparison, you have to control for at minimum these two factors …

Those variables (and several others) would be indeed be relevant if the comparison at hand was year to year, or with California and some remote land where population growth and GDP growth were wildly different from California. The EIA for instance routinely correlates CO2 emissions changes with GDP, population, and other factors (See, e.g. Figures 10, 11 on the EIA carbon page) The emissions comparison I drew was CA to the US at large and if GDP and population changes are similar their effects are moot; certainly there’s no need to run the data on every state:

CA Population Growth, 2000-2014: 34 to 39 million, +15%
CA Real GDP Growth, 2000-2012: $1.47T to $1.75T, +20%
US Population Growth, 2000-2014: 282 to 321.4 million, +14%
US Real GDP Growth, 2000-2014: $11.2T to $13.4T, 20%

US emissions began to decline in 2007. Using EIA figures for both the US and CA (not ARB), the change in annual energy emissions over the period (2002-2014) was

US: -400 MMT CO2, -10%
CA: -45 MMT CO2, -11%

When looking at emissions from only the electric power sector, more dramatic differences emerge, as one would expect with the closure of SONGS. Comparing California and Virginia (my state):

Annual emissions from electricity generation, (2007-2014), % change:
CA: -7.4%
VA: -19%

Virginia enjoyed similar GDP & population growth, and has zero installed wind and little solar.

The data suggest the US at large can find a better model than California’s for emissions reductions, especially with regard to electricity generation.

I’ve done a quick regression analysis …. from 1990 through 2014…If California hadn’t been pursuing active climate policies, that is to say, if California were similar to the rest of the US, then emissions in 2014 would be about 620 MMTCO2e as opposed to the 360 MMT CO2e that EIA pegs them at.

Over what period? From 1990? If so why? That drowns out all real changes in US energy consumption in the last 7 years, in particular the switch from coal to gas and improvements in efficiency, and hides the loss of SONGS in California.

Since 2007 US energy emissions have declined, so if you find an increase in CA with US trends 2007-2014 applied, you have a sign error.

but identifying shuffling and leakage is non-trivial, and depends on how the policy is structured, and the price-correlations across industries and between states

.

Yes, very non-trivial, and so a factor to be resolved before hailing a one state carbon tax as an un-examined ‘good thing’

Electrification of the LDV fleet is coming, but only if California continues to create a protected market for technology learning and vetting…. California is leading the way…

Championing some California policy above all else in regard to LDVs is illogical, as it’s long-distance transportation, and myopic: see e.g. Kenworth’s T370 hybrid, or Utah’s Nikola Motor Company‘s semi-tractor unveiling Dec 1, or BMW’s 40-ton truck. With regard to passenger vehicles, hybrids, in particular the ~million Toyota Prius’s alone, have conserved far more petroleum per mile driven than all the EVs on the road. Going forward, the plug-in hybrids coming out of Detroit are more likely to decarbonize transportation than California’s all-electrics.

Even building out nuclear plants isn’t guaranteed to be a hit.

Cost is subject to the vagaries of the current regulator. But building out nuclear is guaranteed to decarbonize electricity generation. Its been done, repeatedly. Aside from nuclear and hydro sources, a clean grid has never even been approached.

Mark – Come on man. California is already relatively decarbonized compared to Virginia (or the US) so a 10% decline in the US/VA is not the same as a 10% decline in CA.

CA electric generation remains 54% natural gas, hardly decarbonized.

My point isn’t that California is a panacea, it’s that you’re comparing apples to oranges. The cost of abatement differs between states and trying to say “my state is better than your state” really isn’t productive. I live in DC btw.

I also don’t buy the argument that California should be condemned for its emissions leakage problem. The real question is why can’t the adjacent states improve their own polices so leakage isn’t an issue?

There are several states with 2050 climate goals and what’s interesting to watch is which policies work and which fall flat; and how can the effective policies be repeated in other jurisdictions.

Dude, EP – tallow is just one of many possible feedstocks. There are lot of others (Neste uses 8 different ones). You can also convert cellulosic to oil for hydrotreating. You seem like a conspiracy theorist. Try to use science please.

GMo, the only conspiracy is the one to maximize profit through misrepresentation – arguably, one in which we’re all co-conspirators.
If I were in Neste management, to maximize profit I would use the cheapest feedstock available – companies which don’t go bankrupt. Successful public policy relies on both science and pragmatism.

Fuel providers like Neste have too much to lose to vastly misrepresent their carbon intensities to CARB. I just don’t buy it. CARB caught VW and now they owe $14.7 billion. Sure, there are issues with shuffling of fuels, but what’s the solution? Other regions need to step up and get climate policies.

GMo, first of all, CARB didn’t “catch” VW doing anything. They were caught by five researchers at West Virginia University – and in fact, CARB had certified the vehicles as meeting emissions standards. So much for your oversight.

Second, CARB does not have the resources to inspect Neste’s tallow processing in Australia and Singapore. Let’s get real – Neste could provide any numbers they like. And, most certainly, they are. The public can’t check them, because their inputs are “Confidential”. They’re “Undisclosed”.

It’s a major risk for companies to completely cook their books in carbon accounting. I’m not buying that its as prevalent as you suggest.

GMo, your assertion was that California was already nearly “de-carbonized” and that therefore it could not be compared to other states like Virginia. The premise is wildly incorrect. California’s carbon intensity of the energy supply (2013) was 51 kg CO2/million BTU, Virginia’s is 53 kg-CO2/million BTU, with carbon intensity varying among all states from 35 to 80 kg-CO2/million BTU, median 55.

Virginia and California have similar results though Virginia has little hydroelectric and little wind resource, and Virginia has long relied on Appalachian coal. The explanation: Virginia’s electric generation is 26% nuclear compared to California’s 8% nuclear, and Virginia has replaced coal with gas, as opposed to replacing nuclear with gas.

EIA Table 7
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

I never claimed California is “nearly decarbonized.”

Mark, question for you… why is CO2/MMBTU the right measure for decarbonization? Why not energy intensity? Why not per capita emissions (California is 3rd lowest in the U.S. according to Fig 2 of the EIA link you provided by the way)?

Instead of using a single measure or a regression, though, I’d recommend a decomposition analysis as a way to compare two states/regions over time. There are lots of examples… here’s one from Gellar et al. (2006) discussing California. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421505003113

Fuel providers like Neste have too much to lose to vastly misrepresent their carbon intensities to CARB.

You mis-represent the issue.  The issue is that CARB’s policy re diesel from hydro-treated fats results in both more cost and more carbon emissions than other uses of the same feedstock.  This amounts to greenwashing.  CARB’s accounting rules allow this, which means they’re defective by design.

One of the effects is to keep California energy prices high, which encourages people (esp. the poor) to leave the state.  The irony of importing a massive population of peons to turn the state blue on the one hand, then try to get rid of them with tools including energy policy on the other, is not lost on me.

I agree that escalating costs and equity are EXTREMELY important when designing climate policies. However, we were arguing about emissions (and it appears we disagree on that one).

On costs/equity, I’d like to see some actual evidence beyond reports from API or WSPA. And of course you’d need to show those negative impacts outweigh positive impacts from climate mitigation and that negative impacts are not just short-run impacts.

I don’t like greenwashing either and I don’t like wasting taxpayer money, but I’m also not a fan of railing on public agencies without offering some solutions.