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
Add to Briefcase
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.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.