EPA Says Its Climate Plan Will Help Natural Gas Beat Out Coal — So Why Does the Biggest Oil-and-Gas Lobby Hate It?

They fear their industry is the next target for strict rules.

WATFORD CITY, ND - JULY 30: Pumpjacks are seen in an aerial view in the early morning hours of July 30, 2013 near Watford City, North Dakota. North Dakota has seen a boom in oil production thanks to new drilling techniques including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. 
National Journal
Ben Geman
June 4, 2014, 12:08 p.m.

Nat­ur­al gas would be a win­ner in com­ing years un­der the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency’s plan to cut car­bon emis­sions from power plants, a pro­pos­al that would push elec­tri­city pro­duc­tion away from coal to­ward clean­er-burn­ing gas and re­new­ables.

But that doesn’t mean the Belt­way’s most power­ful oil-and-gas-in­dustry lob­by­ing group is go­ing to en­dorse the pro­pos­al, or even stay neut­ral. In­stead, the Amer­ic­an Pet­ro­leum In­sti­tute has come out guns blaz­ing, even though the rule is pro­jec­ted to boost de­mand for nat­ur­al gas for sev­er­al years (and the U.S. barely uses oil to make elec­tri­city any­more).

“The un­cer­tainty cre­ated will have a chilling ef­fect on en­ergy in­vest­ment that could cost jobs, raise elec­tri­city prices, and make en­ergy less re­li­able,” API Pres­id­ent Jack Ger­ard said.

But in con­trast to API, Amer­ica’s Nat­ur­al Gas Al­li­ance, a group that rep­res­ents large in­de­pend­ent gas pro­du­cers, offered an ag­nost­ic take that steered clear of any cri­ti­cism and notes that ANGA looks for­ward to work­ing with the ad­min­is­tra­tion on the rule as the “pro­cess moves for­ward.”

“As we con­sider EPA’s pro­pos­al with our mem­bers and with our power-gen­er­a­tion cus­tom­ers, we agree the rules should be flex­ible and fair, and we be­lieve they should re­cog­nize the abil­ity of nat­ur­al gas to play an in­creas­ing role in the de­liv­ery of re­li­able, safe, and clean power,” said ANGA Pres­id­ent Marty Durbin.

Con­cerns among re­fin­ing and pet­ro­chem­ic­al in­terests are likely among the ma­jor reas­ons why API, which rep­res­ents all fa­cets of the oil-and-gas in­dustry, is tak­ing such a strong po­s­i­tion.

Elec­tri­city is the “second-largest cost com­pon­ent for the re­fin­ing sec­tor and is also a ma­jor cost for pet­ro­chem­ic­al fa­cil­it­ies,” ac­cord­ing to Charles Dre­vna, head of a sep­ar­ate re­fin­ing in­dustry trade group — Amer­ic­an Fuel and Pet­ro­chem­ic­al Man­u­fac­tur­ers — that also op­poses the rule.

And bey­ond con­cerns about high­er power prices ex­pec­ted un­der EPA’s rule, in­dustry sources say the pet­ro­leum in­dustry has an­oth­er mo­tiv­a­tion to battle reg­u­la­tion of car­bon emis­sions un­der the Clean Air Act: They could be next.

For now, EPA has punted on an earli­er pledge to write car­bon emis­sions stand­ards for re­finer­ies, the na­tion’s second-largest source of in­dus­tri­al car­bon pol­lu­tion after power plants. But lob­by­ists are still bra­cing for that fight to hap­pen even­tu­ally.

“Cheer­ing [EPA] now be­cause they’ll of­fer a tem­por­ary boost to one product would look pretty silly in a few years when the same agency pro­poses a sim­il­ar re­stric­tion on re­finer­ies or even up­stream activ­it­ies,” said one gas-in­dustry source. (“Up­stream” refers to oil-and-gas ex­plor­a­tion and pro­duc­tion.)

“There are some com­pan­ies with­in the oil-and-gas in­dustry that are will­ing to at­tack coal, but most of them are not. In this par­tic­u­lar in­stance [EPA’s car­bon rule], I think the en­ergy in­dustry sees not just a lim­ited threat to one power source, but the be­gin­ning of a wave of re­stric­tions on green­house gases,” this source adds.

And more broadly, many fossil-fuel in­terests see EPA, in the main, as an ad­versary when its en­tire reg­u­lat­ory agenda is looked at in sum.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5007) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.