CEA Executive Vice-President responds to Aaron from California’s question: “I’ve heard gasoline prices will be lower this year, but it’s still well over $4 here where I live. Is Congress going to address this problem with gas prices this year?”
Gadgets Top List for Home Electricity Use
Data out this week from EIA.gov’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey show a shift in home electricity use away from air conditioners and heaters to appliances and electronics. Makes sense if you think about about the alphabet soup of gadgets you have plugged in at home: iPhone, Cell Phone, PDA, DVRs, WiFi, MiFi, X-Box, Wii, not to mention the fancy new single serve coffee maker.
While energy used for space conditioning has declined, energy consumption for appliances and electronics continues to rise. Although some appliances that are subject to federal efficiency standards, such as refrigerators and clothes washers, have become more efficient, the increased number of devices that consume energy in homes has offset these efficiency gains. Non-weather related energy use for appliances, electronics, water heating, and lighting now accounts for 52% of total consumption, up from 42% in 1993. The majority of devices in the fastest growing category of residential end-uses are powered by electricity, increasing the total amount of primary energy needed to meet residential electricity demand.
Trends not only show a shift in what people are using electricity for, there is also an increase in the total amount electricity being consumer per household.
The average U.S. household consumed 11,320 kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity in 2009, of which the largest portion (7,526 kWh) was for appliances, electronics, lighting, and miscellaneous uses. On average, residents living in homes constructed in the 1980s consumed 77 million Btu of total energy at home. By comparison, those living in newer homes, built from 2000 to 2009, consumed 92 million Btu per household, which is 19% more.
CEA Releases Recommendations For A Balanced Energy Policy To Congress, Obama Administration
CEA has released “Recommendations for a Balanced Energy Policy,” a briefing book presented to the 113th Congress and the Obama Administration. The report outlines a series of over 50 recommendations that federal policymakers should support in order to ensure secure, abundant and affordable energy supplies for the American consumer. The report covers policies affecting natural resource development, electricity generation and transmission, energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, and energy education. With this new report, CEA has laid out a framework for policymakers that not only achieves energy self-sufficiency for the United States, but does so in a way that expands economic opportunity and ensures energy stability and affordability for consumers.
State Department Report on KXL Resets Debate
N.Y. Times: U.S. Report Sees No Environmental Bar to Keystone Pipeline (Source): WASHINGTON — The State Department issued a revised environmental impact statement for the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, which makes no recommendation about whether the project should be built but presents no conclusive environmental reason it should not be.
NPR: State Department Finds No Major Objections To Keystone XL Pipeline Proposal (Source)
Washington Post: Keystone XL pipeline would have little impact on climate change, State Department analysis says: The State Department released a draft environmental impact assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline Friday afternoon, suggesting the project would have little impact on climate change. (Source)
CBC News | Canada: Keystone XL won’t impact oilsands growth, U.S. State Dept. says (Source)
Breitbart: Environmentalists Fret over Obama Admin Keystone Report (Source)
Consumer Energy Alliance Executive Vice-President, Michael Whatley, celebrated the report, saying it “refutes” claims by opponents of Keystone; he urged the quick approval of a cross-border permit to get the project underway.
For months project opponents have tried to convince the public that moving forward with the pipeline would sacrifice our environment to the benefit of our economy. The draft SEIS from the State Department clearly refutes this false choice.
The document clearly shows the project will have minimal environmental impacts when TransCanada implements its proposed project Construction, Mitigation and Reclamation plan (CMRP) and refutes project opponents’ claims that the project will increase carbon emissions from oil sands development.
Washington Times: State Department report paves way for Keystone; environmental backlash grows (Source)
While environmental groups are trashing the study, pro-U.S. energy independence groups have found themselves in a new position: applauding the administration for what they view as a job well done.
“The document clearly shows the project will have minimal environmental impacts,” said Michael Whatley, executive vice president of the Consumer Energy Alliance, adding that the study is “one of the most thorough and pragmatic project reviews in our nation’s history.”
He also said the report “clearly refutes this false choice” put forth by environmentalists that either the White House will safeguard the environment or build the pipeline.
Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
U.S. Dept. of State Releases First Draft of KXL Report
U.S. Department of State released Friday a draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline. The draft document is a second look at TransCanada’s proposal after the State of Nebraska approved a more appropriate route for the new pipeline.
State Department Refutes Opponents Claim KXL Would Harm Environment
Following one of the most thorough and pragmatic project reviews in our nation’s history it’s time to move forward with the Keystone XL PipelineHOUSTON, TX: The draft SEIS issued Friday by the State Department is the first formal step in the agency’s review of TransCanada’s permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline.
CEA Executive Vice-President, Michael Whatley, issued the following statement upon reviewing the draft environmental impact statement:
“For months project opponents have tried to convince the public that moving forward with the pipeline would sacrifice our environment to the benefit of our economy. The draft SEIS from the State Department clearly refutes this false choice.
“The document clearly shows the project will have minimal environmental impacts when TransCanada implements its proposed project Construction, Mitigation and Reclamation plan (CMRP) and refutes project opponents’ claims that the project will increase carbon emissions from oil sands development.
“We urge the U.S. State Department to finalize its review and the Administration to quickly approve the cross-border permit which will allow this critical project to move forward, create thousands of high paying jobs and provide the United States with a much-needed economic boost.”
Whatley refers to a specific section of the draft report where the U.S. State Department refutes claims from environmental groups:
Approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the U.S. (Source)
Afternoon Energy: Government Role in Energy Production
CEA Executive Vice-President, Michael Whatley responds to a Facebook fan’s question of ‘Is there a plan to take governement out of energy production in the near future?’
State Department Refutes Opponents Claim KXL Would Harm Environment
Following one of the most thorough and pragmatic project reviews in our nation’s history it’s time to move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline
HOUSTON, TX: The draft SEIS issued Friday by the State Department is the first formal step in the agency’s review of TransCanada’s permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline.
CEA Executive Vice-President, Michael Whatley, issued the following statement upon reviewing the draft environmental impact statement:
“For months project opponents have tried to convince the public that moving forward with the pipeline would sacrifice our environment to the benefit of our economy. The draft SEIS from the State Department clearly refutes this false choice.”
“The document clearly shows the project will have minimal environmental impacts when TransCanada implements its proposed project Construction, Mitigation and Reclamation plan (CMRP) and refutes project opponents’ claims that the project will increase carbon emissions from oil sands development.”
“We urge the U.S. State Department to finalize its review and the Administration to quickly approve the cross-border permit which will allow this critical project to move forward, create thousands of high paying jobs and provide the United States with a much-needed economic boost.”
The Petroleum Bottleneck
Anyone who has sat in traffic understands the importance of good roads. A four-lane highway leaves plenty of room to drive, but merge down to two lanes and you have a rush hour bottleneck. Look at your gas gauge while idling and you become even more frustrated that you are paying a high price at the pump.
EIA.gov reported Monday “the average U.S. retail price for regular motor gasoline is up about 45 cents per gallon since the start of 2013, reaching $3.75 per gallon on February 18. The rise in gasoline prices is partly due to higher crude oil prices.”
Explaining High Prices
More oil is being produced but worldwide demand continues to climb due to pressure from fast rising Chinese and Indian markets. To the north, Canada is consistently producing more oil than can be physically transported to markets, resulting in a discount that has reached as much as $60 a barrel. Here at home, because of horizontal drilling and advancements in hydraulic fracturing, the United States is on pace to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer. With all this oil, why aren’t gasoline prices dropping?
Boom to Bottleneck
Oil from Western Canada trades at a dramatic discount compared to its overseas counterparts in the Middle East but a lack of infrastructure is keeping it from reaching American refineries and in turn the American motorist. Whether it is development in the Bakken formation in North Dakota or Canadian oil imported from Alberta, the roads to American refineries are jammed.
A recent report from the Energy Information Administration points out that several new pipeline projects need to be completed before there is a significant decrease in U.S. refinery utilization of higher cost light, sweet crude imports.
From EIA.gov: “During the next two years an additional 1,190,000 bbl/d of pipeline capacity for delivering crude oil from Canada and the midcontinent to Cushing is planned, but this is balanced by 1,150,000 bbl/d of planned pipeline capacity additions to deliver crude oil from Cushing to the Gulf Coast. In addition, about 830,000 bbl/d of new pipeline capacity is planned to move crude oil directly from the Permian Basin to the Gulf Coast, avoiding the congested Midwest. If this capacity is constructed and fully utilized, waterborne imports to the U.S. Gulf Coast, particularly of light sweet crude oil, could drop significantly.”
What the EIA report doesn’t discuss is the fact that the North American crude supplies that could move through these pipelines will be substantially cheaper than the waterborne imports that they will replace – which will place significant downward pressure on the price at the pump.
In an editorial endorsing Keystone XL construction, USA Today notes because of global competition and market access constraints, it is easier for Canada to ship their oil abroad than it is to sell it to the United States. Add a new lane for oil to travel south and you begin to ease the backup.
USA Today Editorial: “At a time of rising global competition for energy resources, the pipeline would bring reliable new oil supplies to a U.S. that still imports 40% of its crude, 7.6 million barrels a day last year. And 40% of those imports come from OPEC nations such as Venezuela, Iraq and Nigeria. Keystone is expected to supply 830,000 million barrels a day, a key step toward the long-sought goal of North American energy independence, which suddenly seems attainable.”
Build It
The United States needs to back its production boom with an infrastructure boom. The two must keep pace with each other or else oil will bottleneck by the barrel. Adding new capacity by completing the Keystone XL pipeline will help make North American energy self-sufficiency and lower gasoline prices, to borrow from USA Today: “attainable.”
KXL is Sensible Energy Policy
KXL is Sensible Energy Policy
By David Holt
President, Consumer Energy Alliance
The Keystone XL pipeline has unfortunately become the centerpiece of our nation’s overall conversation about the energy and environment nexus. Rather than a simple decision about a pipeline approval and the jobs and economic opportunity it brings, the final decision regarding Keystone XL will be one of the first big tests of the President’s second term. And the question still remains. Will the President side withlabor organizations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the journal Nature and nearly 70% of U.S. residents that support the Keystone XL pipeline? Or, will he side with ideologically driven organizations who are working to derail the pipeline in an effort keep fuel prices high, and “that carbon in the ground.”
With gas prices rising more than 50 cents in the past nine weeks, well ahead of the summer driving season, Americans and the President should seriously consider a project that will bring a reliable source of crude oil to U.S. markets. When crude oil makes up 80% of the price of a gallon of gas, a pipeline that delivers 700,000 barrels of oil a day can have a big impact – particularly when that oil is priced at a very significant discount the overseas oil that we are bringing in from the Middle East. In addition to running up to $50 per barrel cheaper than Middle Eastern crude, it is not subject to regional instability and comes from a friend and ally which shares our world view.
Activists claim that stopping the pipeline will keep Canada’s oil sands in the ground thereby decreasing additional carbon emissions. Here again the facts tell a different story. Take for example the following, the energy sector accounts for 6.8 percent of Canada’s GDP. Over the past three years Asian investments in the oil sands have exceeded $15 billion, a staggering sum. This prompted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to visit China last year where he discussed ways to expand trade with the Chinese for sources of Canadian energy. This makes sense, with billions invested the Chinese are just as eager to develop the oil sands as the Canadians. In fact, given all of this it becomes hard to envision how these two powerful nations would simply walk away from a project that is so clearly in their joint interest.
If these nations don’t walk away from the oil sands, which they likely won’t, a study conducted by Barr Engineering notes that shipping more Canadian oil to Asia, and shipping more oil from the Middle East to the United States, would increase greenhouse gas emissions because of the long sea voyages that would be required. This phenomenon would result in GHG emissions that are approximately twice as high as would be the case otherwise for crude transport. While the study was designed to quantify the impacts of a federal Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the phenomenon would apply to blocking the Keystone XL project as it would induce the same crude shuffling.. A restricted market that arbitrarily diverts Canadian crude to the Pacific rim and replaces it in the U.S. with oil from the Middle East.
Further, Canada contributes just 2 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, and the oil sands account for a bit more than 5 percent of this amount. Comparing this to China, a nation that emits 25% of all carbon spewed into the air across the globe, makes it clear why activists efforts will do little to change the global mix of carbon emissions. This one simple fact provides a lot of credence to a recent Washington Post editorial which declared: “Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import.”
The State Department is currently conducting its review of TransCanada’s application for a permit to build Keystone XL. We hope that they will do so expeditiously and that President Obama will give the project a green light. In addition to being the safest pipeline project ever proposed, it will create high-paying American jobs, provide a significant boost to our wobbly economy and help reduce prices at the pump.
Agriculture & Energy in Florida
CEA-Florida’s Kevin Doyle writes in the Tallahassee Democrat: Agriculture and energy share a strong connection:
When we look at the modern skyline and suburban development of so many Florida cities, it’s easy to forget that ours is also a substantially agricultural state. Agriculture plays an essential role in Florida’s vital energy future, and it is clearly time that its impact be factored into the development of long-term energy policies at both the state and national levels.
Everyone recognizes the importance of tourism to Florida’s economy, but many overlook that agriculture is a $100 billion industry here. With 25 percent to 30 percent of agricultural production costs tied directly to energy, and agricultural production so intertwined with our existence, we ignore this sector at our own peril.
Agriculture in Florida is not a mere relic of yesteryear — it’s as technologically advanced as any other industry. Thanks to innovation, our state is in the top one-third of the nation in net farm income, even though so much of our land is occupied by everything from cities and suburbs to retirement communities, theme parks and even golf courses.
