Now that shelter in place orders are being extended in certain areas, it is important to be as energy efficient in our homes as possible. As we previously reported our favorite energy saving tips, other publications have expanded on those tips.
“It is no secret that our phones and computers are most people’s only link to the outside world right now, so start small with a couple of hours a day without electronics, adopt no-tech days or practice phone-free Sundays.”
Read more – Inhabitat
Consumer Energy Alliance’s New Mexico State Director, Victora Gonzales speaks to why New Mexico residents should avoid “energywiende.” An energy initiative born in Germany, that many states are trying to adopt. Despite the fact it was dubbed as the “world’s dumbest energy policy.”
“If New Mexico families and businesses want ineffective energy policies that don’t reduce emissions as promised and spectacularly raise energy costs, with the added potential of rolling blackouts as a bonus, then Germany is the model to follow.
But if they want affordable prices, reliable energy and lower emissions, then they need to contemplate a more sensible transition that learns from the mistakes Germany made in its rush to change its energy mix.”
Read more – Albuquerque Journal
The price of a barrel of U.S. oil fell to a record low and even plunged briefly into negative territory.
The shocking drop sparked a wave of interesting price comparisons on Twitter with one user saying it was cheaper than a bottle of Coca-Cola:
While another noted that, the barrel actually costs more than the oil:
Usually, everyone likes low oil prices because it means cheaper gas at the pump. Low prices normally mean we spend more money and charge up the economy, but we have a little problem right now – no one can travel too far, and we have fewer places to spend our money now that COVID-19 has the majority of the nation locked down.
However, record low prices are not a good thing because it means hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and less investment in oil and gas production, so our ability to meet a rebound in demand will be compromised. And, we’ll end up with much higher prices when the pendulum swings the other direction.
So why did this record plunge happen? Didn’t we have that great deal with OPEC and its allies to cut production?
Yes – but the route from the well to gas pumps is a long one, so the supply-demand response time is a matter of weeks and months, not days.
First, a quick point about what the news media means when it refers to “oil prices.” They’re talking about two global price benchmark contracts – the U.S. one, West Texas Intermediate or WTI, and the British one, Brent crude.
What happened today happened to WTI, precisely because we have a problem – America’s oil storage is almost full.
That’s because crude oil futures traders deal in contracts for physical delivery. In the case of WTI, that means a futures contract is a deal to take physical delivery of a specified number of WTI crude barrels at Cushing, Oklahoma at a future date.
But traders almost never actually take delivery. Instead, at the end of the monthly contract, they kick the barrel down the road by swapping the old contract for the next month’s delivery contract.
The catch this time is that there’s no one to buy this month’s contracts because they’ve got no place to put it.
Think of it like this: If you had just filled up your car, and someone offered to fill your tank for 50 cents, you’d want to buy that gas but would have to say no because – well – you’ve got nowhere to put it. No is all that traders heard today when they were trying to offload their April contracts.
We all heard about the OPEC-Russia deal to curtail oil supplies that President Trump helped broker, but the effects of that will take some time to offset the clog in the system the COVID-19 shutdown caused. That’s why the U.S. government took the unique step of turning the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the oil industry’s version of self-storage.
However, once the storage crunch eases, prices will probably climb back up.
The Brent futures contract is still around $27 a barrel, a sign that Europe’s COVID-19 lockdowns are easing, meaning more economic activity, travel and oil demand. And the U.S. futures contract for June is over $20, so that means prices should come back to a more realistic level.
Until then, we suggest keeping your day job and just enjoying the memes on Twitter until prices rebound.
Consumer Energy Alliance South Carolina State Director, Katon Dawson shares his thoughts on South Carolina’s energy history, and its future.
“We could go on and on, but the truth is clear: we are diversifying our energy portfolio while producing the cleanest energy on the planet during a time of record production — and this plainly demonstrates how energy production that fuels economic growth can and should happen alongside sound environmental stewardship.”
Read more – The State
This week, the Trump Administration recently announced that we will be Opening Up America Again, and each Governor is in charge of their own state and how they would like to proceed. The anticipated stimulus checks rolled out this week and people had mixed feelings about them. Feelings that weren’t mixed – those who were saddened by the cancellation of the longtime San Diego event – Comic Con. While these headlines and more kept us informed all week, we put together some of our favorites that you may not have seen. They are of course in the energy sector, and if you missed last week’s top 5 energy stories you can find them right here.
As with any typical study, variations in a given amount of time will happen; however, the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent inventory on the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are showing long term reductions. This is great news for our environmental goals. Here is the news release, direct from the EPA.
Across the U.S. we are facing both a pandemic and an economic crisis, but that is not stopping Shell from reaching its climate goal. In fact, the company went so far as to increase those goals this week saying that they are aiming to cut the carbon emissions 30 percent by 2035 and 65 percent by 2050. This is a big increase from their last goal which aimed for 20 and 50 percent, respectively. The Financial Times digs into those numbers here.
Existing federal law already allows the Department of Energy (DOE) to set aside up to one billion barrels for emergencies. However, the Administration is considering asking oil producers to leave some of the production in the ground to help alleviate the stress of the glut following the latest OPEC+ meeting. Bloomberg (via Yahoo Finance) drills into the details here.
At one of the largest power plants in the country, thousands of workers have had to come together in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic to refuel one of Arizona’s nuclear reactors that provides power to almost four million people in the Southwest. This effort signifies the challenges to the energy industry to meet the public’s power needs while also ensuring the safety of its employees. WIRED gives all the details on How to Refuel a Nuclear Power Plant during a Pandemic.
Reportedly, renewable industry employees lost more than 106,000 jobs last month. This number is projected to rise as we watch the spread of COVID-19 wreak havoc on the entirety of our economy. Utility Dive divulges more on this story here.
Chris Ventura, CEA-Midwest Director applauds legislation proposed by Rep. Shane Mekeland of Clear Lake, Minnesota that supports natural gas.
“Now that we are facing potential economic disruption and hardship on a scale not seen since the Great Depression because of the Coronavirus pandemic, the idea that some would attempt to ban an affordable, reliable fuel is irresponsible, if not insensitive to the plight of the least fortunate Minnesotans.”
Read more – Citizen-Tribune
During legislative sessions across the Southeast, activist groups and organizations made repeated calls for an absolute mandate to remove coal ash from storage ponds.
In Georgia, for example, high-profile protests and rallies were held at the Capitol Building that garnered significant media attention, raising concerns about how coal ash, – byproduct of coal-fired power generation, could affect their drinking water.
Residents are right to be concerned, but they need facts and the truth about coal ash, which they unfortunately aren’t getting from activists who prefer fear-mongering over transparency.
Activists who want to force Georgians and other states into the most expensive option, possibly costing billions of dollars, are making claims of water-quality problems and say they have testing to prove it. Yet they refuse to release their test results or submit them to a third party for validation.
Why avoid science and transparency? That’s how pressure groups act when they want things done their way without scrutiny.
In this case, they want to force an expensive, arbitrary and potentially risky plan to dig up the coal ash ponds and haul the contents off to landfills elsewhere, which then has to be allowed into someone else’s community. Even worse, these demands run counter to the human health protections and strict environmental regulations the Obama Administration enacted just five years ago.
In 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up national rules to monitor and clean up coal ash ponds if necessary. Notably, the EPA also ruled that coal ash is non-hazardous as it can be safely and beneficially reused in numerous construction and road projects.
The Obama-era EPA took into account extensive peer-reviewed scientific studies and decided on a range of safe, viable options for dealing with ash ponds: close in place, beneficial ash usage, and close by removal and disposal into landfills.
But the EPA’s state counterpart, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) demonstrated leadership by making the rules even more stringent. Georgia, in fact, is a national leader, having become only the second state in the nation to have its plan approved by EPA, just a few months ago.
Closure in place means the ponds are cleaned up and sealed with an impermeable top layer to keep ash from spreading, and companies are obligated to monitor water over the long term. The removal option requires the total excavation of the ash, which is then trucked off to a new location – a process that can take decades. It also overlooks the economic potential of beneficially reusing or recycling the ash and removing it from the environment. Further, it runs the risk of a road accident en route, not to mention the near-endless nuisance of substantial truck traffic.
Not only that, there are only six landfills in Georgia that can legally take coal ash, so other communities will have to be found who are willing and able to take it – no easy task.
Georgia Power examined the specific conditions at its ponds, and chose the close in place method. Its ponds are well away from water bodies and have no signs of groundwater contamination at the facility’s property boundary. The utility is spending tens of millions of dollars now to remove water, partially excavate and cap a number of their coal ash ponds to comply with the stringent state and federal rules.
One rule worth calling attention to is the Georgia EPD’s requirement that utilities submit a groundwater monitoring plan for approval, supply monthly data, and make the results publicly available for all to see.
Georgia Power is going one step further than that, by having a third-party, independent engineering firm oversee the site, as well as independent well drilling, sampling and analysis.
Compare that transparency to those of activists who say these enhanced safeguards aren’t enough. Their demands have a cost they’d rather you didn’t know about – a costlier excavation mandate means a costlier electricity price.
That’s what’s happening in North Carolina. The state is requiring one utility to excavate and relocate its coal ash, adding an estimated $4-5 billion to a project that already costs $5.6 billion. Never mind that removing the material could take up to 30 years, while faster and safer options are available. They are also struggling to find communities that will willingly accept all that ash.
Each coal ash pond is different and so is the remedy to fix it – that’s why we can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex issue.
We all want and need clean water, and the citizens of Georgia deserve facts and transparency before they are forced into a costly, ill-advised mandate that will drive up electricity costs for families, seniors, and those struggling to make ends meet.
Authored by CEA-Georgia Director Michael Reilly
Americans spend hundreds of dollars on groceries per month – in fact, the average household ranges from a low of $314 a month in Atlanta to as much as $516 a month in Seattle. Whether you use paper, plastic or reusable bags when you shop, you’ll need more than a few bags to transport vegetables, meats, dairy products, and other goods from stores to your home each time you make the trip for groceries.
Whether used for groceries, trash, or for hauling household and other items, it is estimated that 380 billion plastic bags, sacks and wraps are consumed in the U.S. each year, according the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This fact has led states like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Oregon and Vermont to significantly reduce or ban single-use plastic. Some state legislatures have considered a number of measures to reduce the prevalence of plastic bags at grocery stores and other businesses, while others are focusing on bans, implementing recycling programs or imposing fees to discourage their use altogether.
With only a 5-cent per bag fee in some areas, or the adjustment of bringing your own bag(s), many of us generally supported the shift, especially if it’s in the name of environmental stewardship.
And then the coronavirus hit, and the importance of single use plastic bags become apparent.
In the past, health officials were able to trace the spread of norovirus back to reusable shopping bags. Now, fearing the spread of the coronavirus on reusable bags, lawmakers across the nation have taken steps to get plastic bags back into stores and ban reusable bags – at least temporarily.
Four years after becoming the first municipality in Massachusetts to ban the use of plastic bags, Cambridge, the home of Harvard University, became the first to issue an emergency order temporarily forbidding the use of reusable bags at retail stores, reflecting a growing fear they could be spreading the coronavirus. Backed by scientific studies, others are following suit. Now the scientific evidence in support of disposable bags is being reported in the news.
Thankfully, people are now beginning to understand why certain products are designed for just one use, much of which centers around promoting health and hygiene. Groups like the American Chemistry Council (ACC) have worked to educate consumers about why banning single use products restricts our access to everyday products like bandages, medical necessities, contact lenses, diapers and the vast majority of our food packaging.
The essential element for making these plastic products and their anti-microbial properties is natural gas, and while we’re awash in it at the moment, making sure it is affordable and accessible in the future is critical. This is especially true as we consider re-invigorate U.S. manufacturing and supply chain industry in the aftermath of the coronavirus. While we tend to think of natural gas as a fuel source for heating our homes, it is also vital to so many other things as you can see. And, should become even more vital in the near-future.
This means that the tie between sound energy policy and our health is as clear as the plastic we’re producing to keep us safe during the coronavirus outbreak.
Perhaps if plastic is preventing the spread of coronavirus and saving lives, maybe we shouldn’t be restricting it, or the natural gas we produce to make these products – as some misguided activists and politicians have stated.
At the end of the day, it is not the type of plastic bag you choose to use, it’s how you use it that ultimately makes a difference. That’s because it takes much less energy to manufacture a single-use bag, which can be used over and over again. Just because it’s called “single-use” and it may not be as fashionable doesn’t mean it can’t be used over and over. If you are done using it – recycle it!
The alternatives are reusable non-woven polypropylene plastic bags, which are harder to make than a typical single-use bag. There are also cloth bags, which happen to be the most labor and energy intensive bag to make. Despite the fact they’re labeled “reusable,” it is estimated that cloth bags need to be used at least 131 times to make up for the high-impact to produce them.
So, what it really boils down to is how often you use these bags, and how you dispose of them. Reuse, reduce and – RECYCLE – all of them. It is important to do our part to stay educated on products we use, their impacts (both good and bad,) and what we can do to play our part towards our nation’s environmental goals. Then, when we have unprecedented issues arise, like coronavirus, we’ll be prepared and ready!
As always, finding middle ground solutions are something we should always strive to make, even on reusable bags.
The Trump Administration took a stance on boosting oil and gas prices in a counter move to manipulation from Saudi Arabia and Russia. CEA President, David Holt shares his opinion.
“American leaders are ordinarily right to let the free market set prices. But our emergence as the world’s top oil and gas producer has increased our self-reliance, brought affordability home and altered the global energy landscape to the point that other countries committed economic self-harm to try to crush our energy industry.
That kind of economic warfare demands a U.S. government response.”
Read more – USA Today
Washington, D.C. – Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) praised the Supreme Court for instructing New Jersey regulators to respond to the issues raised in the PennEast Pipeline Company’s petition for judicial review.
Last month, CEA submitted a “friend of the court” amicus brief to urge the Supreme Court to grant the petition and expressed concern that a decision made by the Third Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would block energy infrastructure projects and threaten the future of America’s energy reliability and supply. The nation’s leading consumer energy advocate also shared concerns that this action could increase costs of energy for consumers across the Northeast and create significant economic hardship – causing disproportionate harm to those on low and fixed incomes, as well as individuals, families and businesses with thin margins.
CEA President David Holt said:
“On behalf of working families, seniors and small businesses across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, we are pleased the Supreme Court directed the state of New Jersey to address the very significant issues raised in PennEast’s petition for further judicial review. Not only would this project provide over $1.6 billion in much-needed economic activity, but if it was in service an independent economic analysis found that consumers would have saved over $400 million in lower energy costs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.”
“Energy and its derivative products that are delivered by pipelines help make-up just about everything that touches our lives on a daily basis and helps power every American industry. During this time of increased economic turmoil caused by the COVID-19 virus, we must recognize the importance of energy as a must-have ingredient for a robust and growing economy – perhaps the most important ingredient.”
“It’s time to put aside the political posturing and procedural roadblocks, especially during these challenging times as our neighbors and communities across the country struggle with mounting bills and hardship in response to Covid-19. We need to say yes to pipelines for getting energy to consumers to power and heat their homes, save money and help to get our skilled trades back to work.”
“CEA is proud to share our support and offer a friend of the court brief in support of this project. We can’t keep creating new novel legal theories to intentionally stop the development of energy infrastructure our country desperately needs right now.”
###
About Consumer Energy Alliance
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is the leading consumer advocate for energy, bringing together families, farmers, small businesses, distributors, producers and manufacturers to support America’s environmentally sustainable energy future. With more than 550,000 members nationwide, our mission is to help ensure stable prices and energy security for households and businesses across the country. CEA works daily to encourage people across the nation to seek sensible, realistic and environmentally responsible solutions to meeting our energy needs. Learn more at ConsumerEnergyAlliance.org.
Contact:
Bryson Hull
P: 202-657-2855
bhull@consumerenergyalliance.org
