NERA
---
primary for: WHO PAID FOR STUDY THAT 86'D PARIS? cOc AND accf KOCH $
CITED BY TRUMP PARIS
spanish study?
ntbcw NBER
cash for economists?
ALFORD
---
cop28 ff mention, i say fail saudi cop prez cjina push for FF gone so world will rely on them; stuart v; net zero soviet style ceNtral plan 3x renewable insane, ; al gore blame mental health crisis one of main reasons ynd ppl look at agw; 8 yo OCT sue epa indoctrination k to college baseless feAR EARTH WILL END UNLESS UN COMES UP W/ DOCUMENT; TOO HOT HOMEWORK DAY GRETA
no lnx vid
Top power grid watchdog warns fossil fuel shutdowns could destabilize future reliability
Assessment 'paints another grim picture of our nation’s energy future,' power industry group says
By Thomas Catenacci FOX Business
Phasing out fossil fuels is an ‘insane goal’: Marc Morano
Climate Depot executive editor Marc Morano discusses worldwide calls to phase out fossil fuels and Al Gore blaming the mental health crisis on climate change.
A lead watchdog group that oversees and monitors the U.S. power grid issued a warning Wednesday that the nation may soon face considerable reliability issues due to premature retirements of existing fossil fuel power sources.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) — a nonprofit organization that makes periodic recommendations to boost reliability — published its annual Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA) report which concluded that large swaths of the U.S. face either an elevated or high risk of capacity shortfalls. NERC noted that premature retirements, or power plant shutdowns that occur before replacement power comes online, are a leading factor in determining future reliability issues.
"The electric power industry continues to face challenges in the future. A rapidly changing resource mix, a threat landscape, extreme weather, inverter-based resources," John Moura, NERC's director of reliability assessment and performance analysis, told reporters Wednesday on a media call.
"But really focusing in on reliability, managing the pace of a rapidly-changing resource mix, which includes not only making sure you don't retire prematurely, but also that we're building enough resources and making sure they're dispatchable really continues to be our greatest reliability risk in the future," Moura added.
US GRID OPERATORS WARN BIDEN'S POWER PLANT CRACKDOWN COULD TRIGGER 'SIGNIFICANT POWER SHORTAGES'
California windmills and power lines
A view of windmills and power lines in Tracy, California, on Aug. 17, 2022. (Reuters/Carlos Barria / Reuters Photos)
The LTRA report highlighted how the region managed by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which oversees much of the Midwest, faces some of the highest grid risks as a result of coal generation retirements that are projected to outpace new green energy development at certain points in the future.
"Demand is forecast to increase and that's happening faster than their transitioning — their resource mix is growing. They have plans to retire about five gigawatts of coal-fired generation and replace that with natural gas-fired resources, also solar and some batteries," said Mark Olson, NERC's manager of reliability assessments. "But what we see is there are periods where, during this transition, they have capacity shortfalls."
In addition, the West, including California, and the Northeast, including New York, are regions facing elevated risk, while the remainder of the East Coast is facing normal risk heading into 2024.
BIDEN ADMINISTRATION RIGGED INTERNAL ANALYSIS, SOFTENING BLOW OF POWER PLANT REGULATIONS: REPORT
The report, meanwhile, comes as the Biden administration and several states continue to push for an aggressive transition from fossil fuel power generation to green energy sources like wind and solar.
In May, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled regulations targeting fossil fuel-fired power plant emissions, which grid operators have warned could exacerbate future reliability problems. In its announcement, the federal agency said the plan "would avoid" 617 million metric tons of carbon pollution through 2042 via new standards forcing plants to either utilize carbon capture technology or shut down.
Emissions spew from a large stack at the coal-fired Brandon Shores Power Plant in Baltimore on March 9, 2018.
According to the agency's analysis, the proposal would force U.S. electric generation derived by coal plants without carbon capture to decline 67% by 2030 and 100% by 2035, while coal plants with carbon capture will increase 29% and 13%, respectively, the analysis also showed.
WHITE HOUSE ECO COUNCIL AT ODDS OVER TECHNOLOGY CENTRAL TO BIDEN'S GREEN GOALS
"We commend NERC for its work to maintain a reliable supply of electricity," Michelle Bloodworth, the president and CEO of coal trade group America's Power, said Wednesday in a statement. "Unfortunately, NERC’s latest assessment is deeply troubling because it indicates that, despite several years of warnings about the possibility of electricity shortages in many parts of the country, the risk of electricity shortages has grown worse."
"This is largely due to coal retirements, EPA policies, and dangerous subsidies for unreliable sources of energy," she continued. "We again urge Congress and federal and state policymakers to act immediately on these continued warnings."
Michael Regan
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 3. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images / Getty Images)
And Jim Matheson, the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 900 local electric cooperatives nationwide, added that the report Wednesday was the latest to paint a "grim picture" for the future of the nation's power grid.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"NERC’s latest assessment paints another grim picture of our nation’s energy future as demand for electricity soars and the supply of always-available generation declines," Matheson said in a statement.
"Nine states saw rolling blackouts last December as the demand for electricity exceeded available supply," he said. "And proposals like the EPA’s power plant rule will greatly compound the problem. Absent a major shift in state and federal energy policy, this is the reality we will face for years to come."
---
---
also ref
also seth borenstein
wASHINGTON (AP) —Announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, President Donald Trump misplaced the blame for what ails the coal industry and laid a shaky factual foundation for his decision.A look at some of the claims in a Rose Garden speech and an accompanying fact sheet about the deal to curtail emissions responsible for global warming:
WHITE HOUSE: The Paris climate accord “would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power.”
THE FACTS: The U.S. coal industry was in decline long before the Paris accord was signed in 2015. The primary cause has been competition from cleaner-burning natural gas, which has been made cheaper and more abundant by hydraulic fracturing. Electric utilities have been replacing coal plants with gas-fired facilities because they are more efficient and less expensive to operate.
---
TRUMP: Claims “absolutely tremendous economic progress since Election Day,” adding “more than a million private-sector jobs.”
THE FACTS: That’s basically right, but he earns no credit for jobs created in the months before he became president. To rack up that number, the president had to reach back to October. Even then, private-sector job creation from October through April (171,000 private-sector jobs a month) lags just slightly behind the pace of job creation for the previous six months (172,000), entirely under President Barack Obama.
---
TRUMP: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
THE FACTS: That may be so, but Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, is not Trump country. It voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in November, favoring her by a margin of 56 percent to Trump’s 40 percent. The city has a climate action plan committing to boost the use of renewable energy. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, has been an outspoken supporter of the Paris accord, and tweeted after Trump’s announcement that “as the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future.”
---
WHITE HOUSE: “According to a study byNERA Consulting, meeting the Obama administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades. By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs — including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs.”
THE FACTS: This study was paid for by two groups that have long opposed environmental regulation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation. Both get financial backing from those who profit from the continued burning of fossil fuels. The latter group has received money from foundations controlled by the Koch brothers, whose company owns refineries and more than 4,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines.
The study makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businesses from building and operating renewable energy projects.
Academic studies have found that increased environmental regulation doesn’t actually have much impact on employment. Jobs lost at polluting companies tend to be offset by new jobs in green technology.
---
WHITE HOUSE, citing a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “If all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible,” curbing temperature rise by “less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.”
:{:{THE FACTS: The co-founder of the MIT program on climate change says the administration is citing an outdated report, taken out of context. Jake Jacoby said the actual global impact of meeting targets under the Paris accord would be to curb rising temperatures by 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.}:
“They found a number that made the point they want to make,” Jacoby said. “It’s kind of a debate trick.”
One degree may not sound like much, but Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute in Germany, says, “Every tenth of a degree increases the number of unprecedented extreme weather events considerably.”}:
---
Annotated White House talking points:[audio]
==
also ref
150 pp
https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf
---
https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/
also ref
no lnx
Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris accord on climate change. All but two countries signed the agreement. But Trump said the deal puts the United States at a disadvantage.
"The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," Trump said June 1, 2017, "but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States."
The Paris accord had several ambitious goals. Signatories agreed to do their part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep the world’s temperature to just 1.5 degrees Celsius above what it was before industrial production took root.
Each country set its own targets, with reductions to begin in 2020. By mid century, the goal would be zero greenhouse gas emissions.
President Barack Obama had pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Wealthy nations agreed to provide $100 billion a year to help developing countries move away from fossil fuels and use more renewable power supplies.
We reviewed a number of claims Trump made during his White House speech. (We’ll be updating this article.)
Trump: The Paris Agreement would result in "lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production."
Trump cited a number of negative statistics about the predicted economic impact from the climate deal, including a $3 trillion drop in gross domestic product, 6.5 million industrial sector jobs lost and 86 percent reduction in coal production, all by 2040.
Take these statistics with a grain of salt.
All of these statistics come from a March 2017 study, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting, that estimates the potential impact of hypothetical regulatory actions necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The study makes assumptions that gave several economics and environmental professors pause when reacting to the NERA study for ClimateFeedback.org.
Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham said the NERA model tends to result in higher costs than other economic models. The study assumes certain hypothetical regulations, but "one could easily model other actions with much lower costs," and it also ignores the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like avoiding the negative effects of climate change.
Additional professors pointed out that the study assumes:
• that other countries don’t make emission reductions in line with the Paris Agreement, therefore leading American companies to relocate;
• that industries are static and don’t change to adapt to the regulations, and;
• that there would be no increase in clean electricity generation compared to the baseline scenario.
In other words, the NERA model makes assumptions that generate an extreme result.
"The NERA model provides useful information, but it is important for it to be taken in context of model results from other models and not cherry-picked as was done here," Gillingham said.
The Paris Agreement would result in "lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production."
In a speech – Thursday, June 1, 2017
Trump: "China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement."
Under the Paris agreement, each country publicly declares how much it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and what it will do to get there. So in that sense, the agreement doesn’t allow or disallow specific actions, like building plants.
Regardless, China has actually taken steps to stop building coal plants. In January, China stopped construction of 103 new coal-fired plants. The move sidelined scores of projects where work had already begun and put 120 gigawatts of capacity on hold.
Between the effects of an economic slowdown and an effort to move toward less-polluting sources, China has cut its use of coal three years in a row.
The key benchmark under the Paris agreement is the overall reduction in emissions. Climate Action Tracker, a project of three research groups, reported in May that "China’s carbon dioxide emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement commitment."
China has promised that by 2030, it would reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by 60–65 percent below 2005 levels, and increase the share of non-fossil energy to around 20 percent.
Still, the Climate Action Tracker assessment comes with a warning.
Researchers said that China’s goals are "not ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2°C, let alone the 1.5°C limit in the Paris Agreement, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort than China."
Donald Trump
President
"China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement."
In a speech – Thursday, June 1, 2017
SHARE READ MORE
Trump: "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount."
Trump’s statement about the amount of temperature reduction expected under the treaty is broadly accurate but needs some additional context.
According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.
The Paris deal was expected to reduce global temperatures by building on the earlier 2009 Copenhagen Accord, imposing deeper carbon emission cuts on signatories and bringing new countries like China into an international climate pact.
Yet as the Paris Agreement was under negotiation, Reilly co-authored an MIT report that criticized the deal for not making steep enough cuts in emissions to reach the Paris agreement’s ambitious goal of capping this century’s temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius.
"Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun," Reilly said in October 2015, when the MIT study was published. "We are making progress, but if 2 C stabilization is our goal, it’s not nearly enough."
However, Reilly said that tackling climate problems depends on taking a series of incremental steps to reduce carbon emissions, and noted that pulling out of the Paris agreement would require even bigger reductions in the future.
Donald Trump
President
"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that; this much -- Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount."
In a speech – Thursday, June 1, 2017
Trump: China "can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us."
Trump claimed that under the agreement, China — the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases — can increase emissions for more than a decade but prevented the United States from doing so.
"They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us," Trump said.
This doesn’t accurately describe the agreement. All parties to the Paris Agreement communicate what’s known as their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution toward the goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.
China’s intentions include maxing out carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, if not sooner, and to increase to about 20 percent its proportion of non-fossil fuels, such as renewables. The United States’ intentions include reducing emissions by 26 to 28 percent below its 2005 level in 2025.
These intentions draw from a November 2014 China-U.S. agreement on climate change, before the Paris deal came into effect.
Back in 2014, now Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., claimed that the bilateral deal left China off the hook for 16 years. That wasn’t accurate, either.
The agreement outlined intentions, it was not binding, and China was already planning to cut down on its emissions. Experts then told us that while theoretically China could meet its emissions target simply by shutting down major plants on Dec. 31, 2029, it would be risky to wait that long rather than slowly working toward the goal. China also pledged a 20 percent increase in non-fossil-fuel use, and that’s something that would take years to carry out, experts said. We rated McConnell’s claim Mostly False.
Trump: "At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand. But at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts."
Trump has consistently argued that the United States economy can grow at 3 percent or 4 percent a year, but that’s not a realistic expectation.
While that level of growth was common between 1948 and 2005, it hasn’t happened since -- and economists we checked with recently were skeptical that it could happen with any consistency in the near future.
So that makes Trump’s concerns about growth-related brownouts and blackouts seem unwarranted.
Economic growth, economists say, stems from two major factors: population growth and improvements in productivity. But neither of these factors are well positioned to drive 3 percent or 4 percent growth, they say.
The working-age population isn’t growing as fast as it used to due to lower birth rates. And Trump himself wants to curb the other way population can grow -- through immigration.
Meanwhile, productivity growth is equally out of reach of policymakers. "You can create bubbles to prop up GDP growth for a few years, such as the 2005 to 2008 housing bubble, but to boost productivity growth materially and durably, you need to make important changes over long numbers of years," said Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody’s. "You also need transformative technological innovation, which is not predictable."
Trump: "India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it. India can double their coal production. We're supposed to get rid of ours."
India does have plans to nearly double its coal production, and the agreement does not prevent that. But the Paris Agreement does not even mention the word coal, nor does it do anything to put a global moratorium on coal.
Each signatory has set its own goals and has to report on its progress.
A 2015 report by the Economic Times, a financial daily from India, discussed a plan of Coal India Limited, a state-owned coal mining company, to double its coal production by 2020.
The story goes on to give the caveat that the doubling of production is subject to land acquisition and environment clearance, all of which is yet to happen.
Coal India produces around 84 percent of India's overall coal production, and its decision to double coal production would technically mean India is planning to almost double its coal production.
"The environment is non-negotiable and we are extremely careful about it," Anil Swarup, the top bureaucrat in the coal ministry, told Reuters in 2015. "(But) our dependence on coal will continue. There are no other alternatives available."
But is India allowed to double coal production by 2020?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change says the Paris Agreement requires all parties to put forward their best efforts through "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead.
This means all parties will have to regularly report on their emissions and implementation efforts.
India, in ratifying the agreement on October 2, 2016, said it would follow a path of low carbon commitment in tandem with its national laws and development agenda, including eradication of poverty. India also committed to reduce emissions 33 to 35 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.
What it effectively means is that the agreement allows the nations who signed the Paris Agreement to set their own reduction targets to help achieve the overall target of reducing the rise in global warming below 2 degree Celsius.
Trump: "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America's interests."
Invoking the city of Pittsburgh, Pa., has a certain irony, because the city voted overwhelmingly for Trump's rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Clinton won almost 60 percent of the vote in Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh. The percentage was even higher in many precincts within the city of Pittsburgh itself. (Allegheny County includes a range of suburbs in addition to the city.)
That said, the picture changes if you look at the surrounding counties, particularly Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland counties. These areas -- which are heavily blue-collar, disproportionately rural, especially reliant on energy extraction, and historically Democratic -- went particularly strongly for Trump in 2016. Hillary Clinton managed to win only about 30 to 40 percent of the vote there.
Trump's success in counties like these helped him flip Pennsylvania to the Republican column and win the presidency. But across the country, cities such as Pittsburgh with a more urban, educated population went heavily for Clinton.
A final note on Manila
Trump opened his speech saying his team was tracking the terrorist attack in Manila, the capital city of the Philippines. The most recent reports say that the gun fire that took place at a resort came from a lone man aiming to rob gamblers.
Our Sources
Linked in the story.
---
---
feb 2018
https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobils-climate-disinformation-campaign-is-still-alive-and-well/
In a recent blog post, ExxonMobil executive Suzanne McCarronreiterated her company’s claim that it fully accepts the reality of climate change and that it wants to do something about it....“I want to use this opportunity to be 100 percent clear about where we stand on climate change,” she wrote. “We believe the risk of climate change is real and we are committed to being part of the solution. So why is the company still a part of—in fact, a major part of—the problem?An exchange between Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt during a recent is a case in point, providing a window into how ExxonMobil’s undue influence continues to block climate action.
During the January 30 hearing, which was held by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Sen. Cory Booker inadvertently provoked Inhofe by raising the issue of environmental justice.The New Jersey Democrat cited the threat climate change-induced flooding poses to three dozen Superfund sites in his state and asked Pruitt if he was “taking into account the environmental burdens disproportionately impacting communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities.”
Inhofe seized the opportunity to contradict Booker, claiming that minority and low-income communities are disproportionately harmed by environmental protections, specifically citing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have dramatically reduced carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants if Pruitt hadn’t repealed it.
Booker, Inhofe said, was implying that Pruitt was trying to “punish” vulnerable Americans. “I wanted to just remind you,” Inhofe told the committee, “that we had a guy I remember so well, Harry Alford. He was the president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He provided some of the most powerful testimony that I have ever heard when it comes to the effects of the Clean Power Plan and some of the other regulations … on black and Hispanic poverty, including job losses and increased energy costs.
“[Alford] was very emphatic as to who was paying the price on these,” the Oklahoma Republican continued, “and I think sometimes that the previous administration forgot that there are already people out there who are paying all they can pay just to try to eat and keep their house warm.”
ExxonMobil’s Echo Chamber
Inhofe’s source for his assertion? A discredited, ExxonMobil-funded study by an Exxon-funded advocacy group that was based on discredited studies by other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Inhofe rested his argument on previous congressional testimony by Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a shoestring, mom-and-pop operation that is unapologetic about taking fossil fuel industry money. “Of course we do and it is only natural,” Alford wrote on NBCC’s website. “The legacy of Blacks in this nation has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel…. [F]ossil fuels have been our economic friend.”
One of NBCC’s closest economic friends is ExxonMobil, which has donated more than $1.14 million to the group since 2001.
What did the company get for that money?
In 2015, NBCC commissioned a report that claimed the Clean Power Plan would “inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities.”
In fact, unchecked climate change would more than likely hurt those communities most, and investments in energy efficiency under the plan would ultimately lower electricity bills across the country.
How did NBCC arrive at its upside-down assessment? The Union of Concerned Scientists took a close look at the report and found it was based on several flawed fossil fuel industry-friendly studies. Two of those bogus studies were produced by ExxonMobil grantees: the Heritage Foundation, which received $340,000 from ExxonMobil between 2007 and 2013, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which received $3 million between 2014 and 2016.
The Chamber study, which came out just days before the EPA released a draft of the Clean Power Plan, was debunked not only by the EPA, but also by PolitiFact.com and The Washington Post. Among its many faults, the Chamber study—which was co-sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute—wildly inflated the cost of the plan and failed to consider the benefits of cutting carbon emissions.
ExxonMobil Spreads its Money Around
But there’s more than just the fact that ExxonMobil financed deliberately flawed studies to try to derail the Clean Power Plan. The company also is a major supporter of a number of Senate EPW Committee members, including Inhofe, who are adamant climate science deniers.
Inhofe has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, which has donated $1.85 million to his campaign war chest over his long career in Congress, more than twice than any other industry.Three oil and gas companies are among the senator’s top 10 corporate contributors: Koch Industries, Devon Energy and …ExxonMobil.
Six of the other 10 Republicans on the EPW Committee also are on ExxonMobil’s donation list, including Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the current committee chairman. Roughly half of the $119,500 ExxonMobil contributed to the seven senators over the last decade went to Barrasso and Inhofe, the committee’s previous chairman.
Then there’s ExxonMobil’s link to Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general before President Trump tapped him to run the EPA. From 2012 through 2013, he chaired the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA)and afterward served on the organization’s executive committee. From 2014 through 2016, ExxonMobil gave RAGA $160,000 in three annual installments.
Just a few weeks after the company made its 2016 donation of $50,000,Pruitt and then-RAGA Chairman Luther Strange, at the time Alabama’s attorney general, co-authored a National Review column attacking a coalition of state attorneys general investigating ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for misleading investorsand the general public about climate change. Parroting ExxonMobil’s argument, Pruitt and Strange charged that the coalition was violating the company’s first amendment right to free speech.
“The debate” over climate change, they wrote “is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”
Inhofe Upstaged
In this case, Inhofe’s counterfactual comment didn’t make it into the ensuing media coverage. Along with nearly everything else that was said during the two-and-a-half hour marathon, it was eclipsed by a bombshell dropped by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat revealed that during a February 2016 radio interview, Pruitt said Trump would be “more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama, and that’s saying a lot.” Whitehouse read Pruitt’s remark aloud and asked him if he recalled making it.
“I don’t,” Pruitt responded, “and I don’t echo that today at all.”
“I guess not,” Whitehouse replied.
Not surprisingly, that embarrassing nugget was the story. There was no way that Inhofe’s rambling, ExxonMobil-sponsored falsehood could compete in the media with red meat like that. But overshadowed or not, Inhofe provided yet another incontrovertible piece of evidence that—despite ExxonMobil’s statements to the contrary—the company is still very much engaged behind the scenes in trying to stymie any government attempt to seriously address climate change.
Posted in: Climate Change, Energy, Science and Democracy, Scientific Integrity
Tags: disinformation
---
see franta weaponizing
---
ref franta weaponiz see below
aBSTRACT
The role of particular scientists in opposing policies to slow and halt global warming has been extensively documented. The role of economists, however, has received less attention. Here, I trace the history of an influential group of economic consultants hired by the petroleum industry from the 1990s to the 2010s to estimate the costs of various proposed climate policies. The economists used models that inflated predicted costs while ignoring policy benefits, and their results were often portrayed to the public as independent rather than industry-sponsored. Their work played a key role in undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives in the US over a span of decades, including carbon pricing and participation in international climate agreements. This study illustrates how the fossil fuel industry has funded biased economic analyses to oppose climate policy and highlights the need for greater attention on the role of economists and economic paradigms, doctrines, and models in climate policy delay.
1 Introduction
What bothers me is that our analysis just talked about the costs; we didn’t talk about the whole problem of global warming. There are also consequences to doing nothing about climate change. In fact, it looks more and more like there are serious potential consequences of doing nothing.
I believe we conducted sound economic analyses of the costs of reducing emissions … but I regret not being in a position where I could tell what I feel is the whole story.
- Economic consultant Paul Bernstein1
Numerous industries under regulatory threat have used the language of science to defend their commercial interests. The tobacco industry, under Operation Whitecoat, cultivated and funded a worldwide network of scientists to act as spokespeople and convince the public that the harms of cigarettes remained unproved (U.S. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2006). The lead industry supported Harvard professor Joseph Aub to perform research ignoring the effects of lead on children (Markowitz and Rosner 2002). Chemical companies routinely hire scientific consulting firms such as Exponent, ChemRisk, Ramboll, and Gradient to produce studies disputing the hazards of products for lawmaking and litigation (Michaels 2020).
For some industries, science represents both a danger and an opportunity. Scientists make potent spokespeople, and rhetorical positions ostensibly backed by science are powerful, while misalignments between industry pronouncements and the scientific community can spell trouble. An early handbook written for regulated industries even has among its top recommendations, ‘Coopt the Experts’ (Owen and Braeutigam 1978). The handbook explains (p. 7):
“Regulatory policy is increasingly made with the participation of experts, especially academics. A regulated firm or industry should be prepared whenever possible to coopt these experts. This is most effectively done by identifying the leading experts in each relevant field and hiring them as consultants or advisors, or giving them research grants and the like. This activity requires a modicum of finesse; it must not be too blatant, for the experts themselves must not recognize that they have lost their objectivity and freedom of action. At a minimum, a program of this kind reduces the threat that the leading experts will be available to testify or write against the interests of the regulated firms. AT&T has made a major investment, for instance, in very high grade economic talent over the past decade. It is not entirely accidental that this group of economists has produced a formidable new theory of multiproduct natural monopoly that may serve as a powerful argument in favor of barriers to entry and the exclusion of competitors in AT&T markets.”
Economists, as the above quote indicates, are particularly relevant to industry efforts to influence regulation. In the context of climate change politics, much as been written about the use of scientists, often supported by fossil fuel or other antiregulatory interests, as spokespeople for policy delay (Oreskes and Conway 2011). Yet less attention has been paid to the role of economists.
By the early 1980s, at least some economists were already counteracting calls for policies that would help prevent and minimize global warming. In 1983, the US National Academy of Sciences published Changing Climate, a report presenting an overview of contemporary climate science and policy thinking (National Research Council 1983). The portions by scientists, for the most part, warned that continued fossil fuel use would have dire consequences. Oceanographer Roger Revelle discussed the potential disintegration of the West Antarctic Sheet, warning that such a development would ‘flood all existing port facilities and other low-lying coastal structures, extensive sections of the heavily farmed and densely populated river deltas of the world … and large areas of many of the world’s major cities’ (p. 442).
The economists, in contrast, counseled against policy action, suggesting that global warming might not be that bad. Thomas Schelling of Harvard University argued that migration and adaptation would be preferable to reducing fossil fuel emissions. ‘It would be wrong to commit ourselves to the principle,’ he wrote, ‘that if fossil fuels and carbon dioxide are where the problem arises, that must also be where the solution lies’ (p. 449). William Nordhaus of Yale University agreed, writing that although a fossil fuel tax would reduce emissions, ‘[t]he strategies suggested … by Schelling … climate modification or simply adaptation to a high CO2 and high temperature world – are likely to be more economical ways of adjusting’ (p. 151). Yet neither economist provided a detailed analysis to support his conclusions.
The report’s summary, written by physicist William Nierenberg, adopted the economists’ position, stating (p. 61–62):
[I]t could be that emissions will be low, or that concentrations will rise slowly, or that climatic effects will be small, or that environmental and societal impacts will be mild … It is probably wiser not to act aggressively to ‘solve the CO2 problem’ right now, when we really do not know the future consequences or context of CO2 increase. In trying to consider the world of 50 or 100 years from now, we cannot be sure that we can tell the difference between solutions and problems.
While the scientists’ warnings were supported by decades of research, the economists’ reassurances were closer to hopeful guesses. Although it was possible that global warming would be less severe than expected, by the same logic it could also be worse. Coastal flooding worldwide would presumably pose a serious problem in any century, and without an understanding of the damage global warming would cause, it was impossible for the economists to know whether adaptation or prevention would be more economical. Yet the economists’ arguments, though speculative, were given credibility by the National Academies report, which was used by the Reagan administration to promote further coal use (Oreskes and Conway 2011, p. 182).
Scientists had been warning of global warming increasingly since the 1950s (Franta 2018), and by the early 1980s, even Exxon privately acknowledged that prompt action would be required to avoid severe damage (Knisely 1979). Despite the scientific consensus, the Changing Climate report demonstrated how economic rhetoric could be used to delay policy action, reflecting a broader trend since the 1970s of industries deploying economic arguments against regulatory efforts (Waterhouse 2014). The year after the report was published, its chairman, William Nierenberg, co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute, which went on to oppose climate policy for decades through a combination of science denial and anti-regulatory economic talking points (Oreskes and Conway 2011).
Thus, as pressure grew in the late 1980s to prevent severe global warming, it may not be surprising that the fossil fuel industry turned to economists to help influence public policy. Important among these economists were those at Charles River Associates, a US-based consulting firm that played a key role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of climate policies over the following years, including US carbon pricing proposals and international climate agreements. These economic consultants helped convince the public and policymakers that climate policy would be costly, global warming would be relatively unimportant, and there would be little harm in delaying action. Their work was paid for by the fossil fuel industry, a fact often concealed from the public, and their methodologies were incomplete in favor of the industry. Yet their results were only occasionally challenged and eventually formed a significant part of conventional economic thinking.2 The history of Charles River Associates illustrates how the fossil fuel industry has used biased economic analyses to weaken and defeat climate policy and highlights the need for greater attention on the role of economists and economic paradigms, doctrines, and models in climate policy delay.
2. Carbon pricing in the 1990s
1988 was a key year in the history of global warming politics. Climate scientist James Hansen testified to Congress that anthropogenic global warming was likely underway, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Canadian government sponsored a conference in Toronto calling for worldwide carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced by 20% by 2005 (Bodansky 2001). As Europe and Japan considered carbon taxes to meet the goals of the Toronto conference, the US petroleum industry and Bush administration insisted that climate science was uncertain and that controlling emissions would destroy the economy (Platt’s Oilgram News 1988). Reinforcing the economic argument, in 1991 Bush’s Department of Energy released a report stating that the envisioned 20% reduction in emissions would require a large carbon tax of 500 USD per ton (Bradley et al. 1991). Rather than emissions cuts, the report promoted the administration’s National Energy Strategy, which would allow emissions to grow until at least 2015 and called for the focus to be taken off of the fossil fuel sector....
To support his claims, the president cited a report paid for by the American Council for Capital Formation and authored by Montgomery, Bernstein, and others, who were now working at another consulting firm, NERA Economic Consulting (Bernstein et al. 2017).
5. Discussion
Charles River Associates played a key role in weakening, defeating, and delaying US climate policy for decades. The group’s industry-funded reports provided economic talking points used by fossil fuel companies and the broader climate change counter-movement, often in combination with science denial, to oppose restrictions on carbon emissions (Brulle 2014, Jones et al. 2018). Separate from impact, however, were Charles River Associates’ reports accurate?
Following the tenets of neoclassical economics, Montgomery, Bernstein, and their coauthors assumed that the economy without climate policy was performing optimally, so that any limit on greenhouse gas emissions would hurt economic growth. Reflecting on the group's work, Bernstein explains that this assumption was attractive to the API. ‘Given the model’s view of the world, it’s clear that if you put on a constraint, then you’re going to require people to do something they’re not doing now, so it’s going to come at a cost,’ he says.7 ‘So, in this case, if you put on a greenhouse gas limit, there’s going to be a cost to it.’ Bernstein reflects, ‘I think the API knew that if they had Charles River Associates run these models, it would produce the results the API wanted, namely that it would show a cost to this policy.’
Crucially, the group's models ignored policy benefits, such as avoided global warming or improvements in air quality. Bernstein explains, ‘The models we had did not look at the benefit side. The only benefit we looked at was the reduction in emissions, but we didn’t quantify that in terms of dollars.’ With this limitation, Bernstein today offers an important caveat: ‘We could talk about cost effectiveness, but we couldn’t actually weigh the costs and the benefits. I think it served the API’s purpose.’
Although details of the economists’ models remain proprietary, the reports that are publicly available illustrate their general methodology. When estimating the costs of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, for example, Montgomery, Bernstein, and Rutherford estimated that without climate policy, emissions would grow by about 60% in OECD countries by 2030 (Bernstein et al. 1997). They then considered two climate policy emission paths: one in which carbon emissions would decline to 1990 levels by the year 2010 and remain there until 2030; and another in which emissions would be reduced even further to 10% below 1990 levels by 2010 and remain there until 2030. The difference in annual emissions between the no-policy, high carbon path and either of the two lower-emissions paths represented the emissions to be reduced each year.
Rather than replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources, Charles River Associates assumed that emissions would be reduced primarily by reducing overall energy use. Then, the economists estimated the energy price increase that would be required to suppress energy use by the required amount each year. To accomplish this, the economists used a neoclassical general equilibrium model describing the global economy with three inputs – labor, capital, and energy – which could substitute for each other at costs given by elasticities of substitution, which quantitatively connected price changes to consumption changes. A required reduction in energy use, along with elasticities of substitution, yielded an overall cost, which could be divided by the carbon emissions avoided to estimate an implied carbon price. The model estimated an implied carbon price of 200 USD–$350 per ton in 2010, which would rise to 430 USD–$580 per ton in 2030 as the difference between the no-policy and lower-carbon paths grew. The economists translated these costs to GDP and job losses and negative impacts on international trade.
In reality, of course, fossil fuels are not the only source of energy, so emissions reductions do not necessarily imply reductions in energy use. The economists modeled this, albeit crudely, using a maximum implied carbon price. Once the price reached this limit, the economists assumed that a zero-emission energy source would be used for additional energy needs, leaving the carbon price stationary. To set this maximum carbon price, the economists assumed it would correspond to an energy source that would be six times more expensive than fossil fuel, forever. If clean energy became cheaper than expected, then the economists assumed it would still be four times more expensive than fossil fuel, forever.
The overall approach inevitably yielded high cost estimates. First was the assumption on faith that unregulated markets produce optimal growth, so that any policy intervention would come at a cost. Second was the illogical assumption that carbon emissions would be reduced not by replacing fossil fuels with cleaner sources of energy but instead by suppressing overall energy use. Third was the use of elasticities of substitution empirically based on contemporary technologies, products, behaviors, and policies, which were subject to change over time and potentially of little relevance over the modeling period (through the 21st century). Finally, the economists ignored technological change, assuming that cleaner sources of energy would forever be prohibitively expensive.
Even with correct cost estimates, the economists would have needed also to estimate the economic benefits of reduced fossil fuel use in order to assess whether climate policies were economically beneficial overall. Bernstein today acknowledges that their models should not have been used to make absolute cost assessments or oppose climate policy altogether. Instead, he notes, the models should have been used to compare the relative costs of policies designed to produce the same climate outcome. This has left Bernstein, who has become increasingly concerned about global warming and the use of his work to delay policy action, less than satisfied:
I would rather have a chance to tell the whole story. I think that there are costs to climate policies, but I also think there are efficient ways to implement them. Let’s not say that we shouldn’t do anything. That’s where I have a big problem: when our reports were used to say that we found some job losses, so we should do nothing. It’s a message often spread by the industries that stand to lose.
Bernstein, who deserves credit for shedding light on this issue, notes that Charles River Associates’ work was not entirely outside the mainstream. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, another consulting firm hired by the petroleum industry, also predicted high costs for climate policies (WEFA 1997, 1998). Perhaps most significantly, Bernstein observes that Charles River Associates’ work was similar to work done by other modeling groups such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is also funded by fossil fuel companies, and that both Charles River Associates and the Joint Program participated in Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum, which again is funded by fossil fuel companies.8
6. Conclusion
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has hired economic consultants to help weaken and delay US and international climate policy. Among them, the economic consultants of Charles River Associates played a key role, helping to undermine carbon pricing, international climate agreements, and other climate policies from the early 1990s onward. The work of these economists was often portrayed to the public as independent, when in fact it was funded by the fossil fuel industry, and their models were incomplete and biased in favor of continued fossil fuel use. Yet their conclusions often passed without challenge and eventually came to represent a significant part of conventional economic wisdom.
Research on the climate change counter-movement has traditionally focused on documenting the promotion of disinformation regarding climate science (Brulle 2014, Franta 2021). While such disinformation has played a crucial role in delaying effective climate policy, the fossil fuel industry and broader climate change counter-movement have also made frequent use of economic arguments to justify inaction. At the same time, the fossil fuel industry has made substantial investments in influential climate economics programs across the US. Further attention is needed on the role of economists and particular economic paradigms, doctrines, and models within climate politics and the perpetuation of fossil fuels.
---
---
https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/fueling-dissent/
no lnx many? twt
FUELING DISSENT
How the oil industry set out to undercut clean air
After casting doubt on climate change for decades, industry consultants have turned their attention to air pollution
Illustration by Robert Fresson
by Jie Jenny Zou
Tom Dart of Guardian US contributed reporting
December 12, 2017
SAN ANTONIO, Texas ― On sunny days, when his classmates at St. John Bosco Elementary School run out to play, Gabriel Rosales heads to the school nurse for a dose of Albuterol. The fine mist opens his airways, relaxing the muscles in his chest. Without it, recess could leave the 9-year-old gasping for breath. He gets a second dose at the end of the day before heading home.
Over the past year, Gabriel’sasthma has worsened. Visits to the emergency room, shortened trips to the park, and reliance on inhalers have become his new norm. “It got to the point where I couldn’t even leave him with anybody,” said his father, Gabe, who works as a consultant to the National Association of Public Employees, a workers’ advocacy group, and a seasonal field director of the Bexar County Democratic Party. “One time he almost looked blue.”
Gabriel’s health is deteriorating alongside air quality in San Antonio, where oil and gas development, a hotter climate and a growing population have combined to spell misery for a city that once boasted clean air compared to other Texas metropolitan areas. Part of the problem lies southeast of the city in the Eagle Ford Shale, a 400-mile-long hub of hydraulic fracturing that unleashes microscopic particles and smog-causing,ground-level ozone.
The state’s environmental regulator — the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality — hasn’t made things better.In fact, it’s followed in the footsteps of Big Oil’s biggest lobby, theAmerican Petroleum Institute,which has forestalled progress onozone for decades. Using consultants also hired byAPI,the commission has spent millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to undercut scientific evidence linking particulate matter and ozone with bronchitis, asthma and premature death.
Read more about API's history of climate denial and its ties to the White House ]
Air quality is the new frontier for climate-change skeptics long tied to API. The institute has fueled uncertainty on climate by producing what critics call misleading scientific and economic studies. Now, by attempting to discredit established research on ozone and fine particles, API and its cadre of doubters are trying to undermine the Clean Air Act — the landmark U.S. law credited with saving millions of lives. Working in concert with other free-market groups, they’re taking their message to Capitol Hill. API officials did not grant interview requests from the Center for Public Integrity.
Residents of San Antonio’s low-income, mostly Latino neighborhoods — like Hillcrest, where Gabriel Rosales lives — bear the brunt of poor air quality even if they aren’t in ozone hot spots, said Mario Bravo, an outreach specialist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “They have less access to health care,” Bravo said. “They have less access to transportation to get to the health-care providers.”
‘A lot like climate’
In June, two peer-reviewed studies trumpeted a conclusion at odds with years of solid science: fine-particle pollution long linked to premature death and chronic illness isn’t as dangerous as health advocates contend. If true, the findings would call into question health benefits claimed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has set ever-tightening air-quality standards.
There was a catch, however. The articles — which were published within a week of one another — appeared in Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, two journals favored by industry consultants alleged to promote pay-for-play science.And both studies were funded by API, a trade group that has spent $40 million since 2013 to lobby Congress on topics ranging from taxes to global warming.
“Our study is published...air quality does not kill. $600 million of EPA junk science up in smoke,” climate-change skeptic and Donald Trump acolyte Steve Milloy tweeted in June, linking to the Regulatory Toxicology article. During a congressional luncheon a month later, the former coal executive took credit for conceiving the study before turning it over to friend, S. Stanley Young, and two other statisticians, who authored the final article. No mention of Milloy’s involvement is made in the publication.
Read more about how Big Oil is trying to sow skepticism of science among judges ]
Some of the same data were used in the Critical Reviews article published by Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr., which also disputed the link between fine particles and mortality. Cox, a biostatistician from Colorado, started consulting for API in 1988. Cox disclosed that his paper “benefitted from close proofreading and copy-editing suggestions from API” but denied in an interview that his findings were influenced.In November, he was named the next chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, drawing criticism from groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The science on particle pollution, much like the science on global warming, is exhaustive and widely accepted, with thousands of studies pointing to serious health implications. The World Health Organization notes that particulate matter “affects more people than any other pollutant,” with effects observed at even “very low concentrations.” The particles — found in automotive and industrial exhaust and smaller than one-fifth of the width of a strand of hair — form a toxic mix with ozone that lodges deep in the lungs. Unlike Cox, most researchers are no longer fixated on whether this form of pollution is fundamentally dangerous; they worry instead about whether it can cause — not just exacerbate — chronic illness.
Attacking the science is one way of undermining the Clean Air Act, said John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which advocates for more protective air-quality standards. The Clean Air Act is routinely hailed as one of the most cost-effective federal laws,even by business groups. In 2015, the EPA estimated that the law will have saved the U.S. economy $2 trillion by 2020 while costing $65 billion to implement.About 85 percent of the act’s benefits come from reducing fine-particle pollution,which raises the risk of early death. Opponents of the law “deny that air pollution is deadly … or even harmful in order to try to pretend that no benefits are delivered,” Walke said.
Steve Milloy
Milloy’s July luncheon at the Rayburn House Office Building — billed as a “congressional staff and media briefing” — was little more than a plug for his latest book, “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” which condemns the “echo chamber of deceptive science” on ozone and fine particles. The event was hosted by Myron Ebell, who chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, a climate-skeptics’ group that began as an alliance of free-market think tanks. “It’s a lot like climate,” Milloy told the audience. “This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”
“It’s a lot like climate... This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”
Reached for comment, Milloy said the study is not an attack on the Clean Air Act but part of his 20-year effort to expose the EPA’s “garbage-in, garbage-out” air pollution research. He denied having any formal ties to API. “I am very, very disappointed in the American Petroleum Institute and all the oil companies for not defending their products, for leaving the science to people like me,” he said.
Young, who authored the study, stood behind its findings and disputed the idea that industry funding presents ethical conflicts. His study data are publicly available, he said, but the EPA isn’t as transparent. Ebell agreed, accusing the agency of using “junk science” to justify air-quality and greenhouse-gas regulation.
Despite their misgivings about the EPA, all three men have become tethered to the agency. Earlier this year, Ebell oversaw the EPA transition for Trump, leading a group that included Milloy. Young was named to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board in October.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., co-founder of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, complained that such appointments have become all too common. “These people were fringe fanatics and industry stooges fighting on behalf of the industry a propaganda war against science,” he said.
Milloy and Ebell were listed among the authors of a $2 million plan to amplify uncertainty in climate science — as revealed in a 1998 API memo leaked to The New York Times. Both say the memo grew out of an API brainstorming session that never resulted in concrete action, with Milloy calling it “just a big joke.”
Years before, API had refuted the very concept of global warming under President Charles DiBona, who joined the institute shortly after a stint as energy policy advisor to Richard Nixon in the 1970s. White House communications show that DiBona regularly met with then-API President Frank Ikard, a close friend of Nixon’s, before becoming Ikard’s deputy in 1974.
“You heard that a scientific consensus now exists,” DiBona said during API’s annual meeting in 1996. “This claim is beyond misleading; it is dead wrong.” He borrowed an analogy from MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, who likened climate models to Ouija boards. By 2003, a group of scientists funded by API had turned out the first of several studies characterizing the warming trend as a natural phenomenon.
The same year, however, the United Nations was holding its ninth conference on climate change — focusing on how to mitigate warming. In 2001, an international consortium of scientists had delivered its third report on the trend, reaffirming findings that climate change was real and manmade.
Reached by phone recently, DiBona declined to answer any questions about the organization he led for 18 years. Months after retiring from API in 1997, DiBona joined the board of Halliburton, an oilfield-service company then headed by future vice president Dick Cheney. DiBona is now an API honorary lifetime director and an advisory chairman for a mining investment company based in the Cayman Islands.
In recent years, fringe views espoused by API have found a receptive audience in U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), whose climate-denial credentials rival those of Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Since Smith became chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in 2013, the panel has handed out dozens of subpoenas — many to scientists at regulatory agencies and environmental groups — aiming to debunk climate research.
Smith — whose district includes San Antonio — has opened the committee’s hearing rooms to Cooler Heads Coalition events such as Milloy’s book promotion and briefings that urged the United States to drop out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In February, he reissued a controversial subpoena to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is investigating ExxonMobil’s historical knowledge on climate change. Since he joined Congress in 1989, Smith’s top campaign donors have been from the oil and gas sector, which gave him at least $764,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Smith did not respond to requests for comment.
In 2016, Influence Map, a nonprofit environmental research group, estimated that ExxonMobil had spent about $27 million on “climate obstruction” lobbying and advertising campaigns. That amount was dwarfed by the $65 million API spent on similar efforts, the group found. ExxonMobil is one of the oldest and largest API members.
‘Tired, old industry argument’
In July, the House passed a bill targeting what its proponents called “job-killing regulations” — namely, bedrock air-quality standards. Its lead author was Rep. Pete Olson, a Republican from the ozone-plagued Houston area. All but four of the 229 “aye” votes were cast by Republicans, Lamar Smith among them.
Under Olson’s bill, states would have until 2025 to meet the EPA’s latest ozone limit, which was supposed to take effect in October. The agency, which is legally required to update air standards to keep pace with evolving science, would be obligated to review rules for pollutants once a decade, as opposed to once every five years.
The 2017 bill is the latest iteration of a proposal Olson first floated in 2015, seeking to delay regulation of ozone. The same day his bill passed, 144 trade groups, including regional offshoots of API, pledged their support in a letter to Congress. Oil and gas interests have been Olson’s top political contributors, donating more than $1 million to his campaigns since 2007. A Senate version of the bill has not come up for a vote.
In an email, Olson’s office wrote that the congressman “believes the Clean Air Act is critically important” but has “fundamental concerns” about Texas’ ability to meet tighter standards. Pollution control, the email said, “can be done rationally and with an eye on our economy.”
By law, the EPA is not allowed to consider cost when setting ozone standards, but that hasn’t stopped API and other industry groups from injecting economics into the policy debate. Much like scientists for hire, economists have provided API with grist to challenge regulations. Armed with seemingly authoritative studies from firms such as NERA Economic Consulting, the institute has recast issues such as action on climate change as reckless moves that could tank the U.S. economy. NERA, whose clients include API collaborators such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council, was co-founded by Irwin Stelzer, an economist who works at the Hudson Institute, a free-market think tank.
Such studies, like the NERA report Trump cited when he announced the U.S. exit from the Paris climate agreement earlier this year, can be “extremely misleading,” often tallying every conceivable cost and ignoring every possible benefit, saidBen Franta, a Stanford University researcher investigating API’s climate activities. Because data underlying these reports are proprietary, Franta said, in many cases they can neither be verified or debunked. What’s left are unsupported arguments: “New ozone rules could be the most expensive ever,” reads an API webpage linking to dozens of NERA findings.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has taken a tack similar to API’s. Since 2013, the TCEQ has paid NERA more than $870,000 for economic research on ozone — a topic the firm studied earlier for API. More than $2.2 million in taxpayer funds have also been spent on contracts with Gradient — a consultancy previously hired by API to question the benefits of a stricter ozone limit. The TCEQ declined to comment on this story but on its website describes its mission as protecting the “state’s public health and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development.”
Anne E. Smith, a managing director at NERA, did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment. She was among several industry-friendly voices at a 2015 TCEQ ozone workshop in Austin led by Michael Honeycutt, the agency’s director of toxicology. Other speakers included Gradient scientists, the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, industry toxicologist Michael Dourson and air researcher Robert Phalen, known for saying the air “is a little too clean for optimum health.”
The group’s findings were later referenced by Honeycutt at a House Science Committeehearing, where he argued against a tighter EPA ozone standard. Honeycutt said the risks posed by the pollutant were “small” and any change could discourage people from “outdoor exercise.”
Speakers at the Austin workshop have risen to prominence in the Trump administration. This fall, Honeycutt, Anne Smith, Dourson and Phalen were all named to key EPA science positions as either advisers or staff. Their fringe views on ozone — championed by API — have alarmed public-health advocates and run counter to the EPA’s own findings. The agency strengthened its ozone standard in 2015 after reviewing more than 1,000 new studies.
Economics has long figured into API’s strategy to derail ozone rules. In 1971, the newly formed EPA set the ozone standard at 80 parts per billion, but in 1979 took an unexpected U-turn and weakened it to 120 ppb — angering industry and environmentalists alike. The latter called the reversal scientifically indefensible and accused the EPA of prioritizing economics over health. API promptly sued the EPA, with President DiBona claiming the relaxed standards would still cost “billions of dollars without significantly improving the quality of the environment or the health of the public.”
Spurred by lawsuits from the American Lung Association that compelled it to update air standards based on the latest science, the EPA reverted to its original 80 ppb ozone limit in 1997. The cap is now at 70 ppb, though even that number may not be protective enough, as some research has found health effects at 60 ppb.
Nonetheless, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — a former Oklahoma attorney general with deep ties to oil and gas — tried to keep the 70 ppb standard from taking effect. He backed off on the delay after 16 state attorneys [teAm BLUE] general sued the agency in August. In a lawsuit filed this month, however, environmental groups accused the EPA of failing to enforce the rule.
Pruitt had put forth what Dr. Greg Diette — a lung specialist at Johns Hopkins University who has testified in favor of tighter ozone standards — calls “a tired, old industry argument. They say, ‘It’s going to put us out of business,’ and it doesn’t,” Diette said. “All this stuff always comes down to who has to pay.”
But not all costs are economic. High ozone days are the hardest for Diette’s patients. “It can be terrifying — it’s the sensation of not being able to breathe,” he said. “Some feel as if they're going to pass out. Some feel as if they're going to die.”
Asthmatics can do little more than hide indoors in an air-conditioned environment. The only other option, Diette said, is to move.
Relocating isn’t possible for the Rosales family of San Antonio, who are uninsured and struggling to keep up with the cost of Gabriel’s medications. The air he breathes is expected to degrade further as oil prices rebound and drilling picks up in the Eagle Ford.
---
---
ucs negin 10 21
...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Since 2014, ExxonMobil has given more than $5 million on top of its annual dues to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a major player in blocking action on climate change for decades. A few years after becoming an ExxonMobil grantee, the Chamber gained some unwanted notoriety by financing a widely debunked report that then-President Trump cited as a primary rationale for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. NERA
In 2019, however, the Chamber appeared to flip 180 degrees, declaring on its website, "Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option." The assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change is inaccurate, given that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, but the statement did represent a quantum leap from when the association spuriously maintained in comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that "a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans."
That said, the Chamber vowed in an August 24 press release to "do everything [it] can to prevent" the proposed $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill—which would slash carbon emissions from the electric power and transportation sectors—"from becoming law." And in a section on its website addressing climate change, the Chamber calls for "the increased use of natural gas" to make "further progress."
Increase the use of natural gas?! That runs counter to what climate science says about the need to swiftly decarbonize the energy sector, essentially trading one major carbon pollution source—coal—for another—methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. Moreover, according to a December 2019 study in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the boom in natural gas use over the last decade alone have now surpassed the emissions avoided by closing coal-fired power plants.
---
ref NERA
paris cop 21
Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations On the
Industrial Sector
Prepared for:
American Council for Capital Formation Center for
Policy Research
Report Sponsors inst 21st c energy COC
March 2017
https://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf
Paul Bernstein, Ph.D., Associate Director W. David Montgomery, Ph.D., Affiliated Consultant Bharat Ramkrishnan, Senior Analyst Sugandha D. Tuladhar, Ph.D., Associate Director
---
---
wiki
Alfred Edward Kahn (October 17, 1917 – December 27, 2010) was an American professor, an expert in regulation and deregulation, and an important influence in the deregulation of the airline and energy industries.[1] Commonly known as the "Father of Airline Deregulation,"[2] he chaired the Civil Aeronautics Board during the period when it ended its regulation of the airline industry, paving the way for low-cost airlines, from People Express to Southwest Airlines.
He was the Robert Julius ThorneProfessor Emeritus of Political Economy at Cornell University.
Biography
Kahn was born in Paterson, New Jersey, on Oct. 17, 1917, to parents Jacob and Bertha Kahn. His father, a Russian Jewish immigrant, worked in a silk mill.[3] Kahn graduated from high school at 15 and New York University at 18, summa cum laude (highest average in his graduating class). He earned his doctorate in economics from Yale University in 1942 after graduate study at NYU and the University of Missouri.
Before World War II, he also worked for policy research organizations and government agencies in Washington, including the BrookingsInstitution and the antitrust division of theU.S. Justice Department.[4] After serving in the United States Army, he became Chairman of the Department of Economics at Ripon College.
He moved to Cornell University in 1947, where he served as chairman emeritus of the Department of Economics (a position he held for the rest of his life), as a member of the Board of Trustees of the University and as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 1974, he became chairman of the New York Public Service Commission, and later served asChairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, Advisory to the President on Inflation underJimmy Carter, and Chairman of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, Carter's "inflation czar," until 1980.[5]
While serving under Carter, Kahn became known for his blunt and sometimes politically damaging comments. Convinced that certain administration policies would lead to a depression, but having been chided for using the term, he began saying that the economy would "become a banana." After banana producers objected, he changed his euphemism to "kumquat".[6] He explained inflation in one press conference by saying "Inflation occurs when everyone is trying to take a piece of the pie, but there isn't enough pie to go around." While President Carter tried to downplay the significance of certain economic figures, Kahn called them "a catastrophe."At one point, a frustrated Kahn offered his resignation, but Carter refused. Kahn joked, "I don't know why the president doesn't fire me. Actually, I do. There's no one else foolish enough to take this job."
He served on many private boards on commissions addressing regulated and deregulating industries such as electricity, telecommunications, and transportation. He also received numerous awards for his work in economics, regulation, and deregulation. A seminar room in the Lincoln Hall Music Library of Cornell University is named in his honor. He also maintained a long relationship with NERA Economic Consulting (formerly National Economic Research Associates). In 1982, he was elected to the Common Cause National Governing Board.
In addition to his professorship at Cornell, Kahn sang baritone in university productions of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas from 1964 until retiring from the stage in 2000; he did a particularly fine turn as the Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe in the early 1970s. He was badly injured in a 2003 car crash and endowed the New York hospital that saved him with funds to set up a camera traffic-surveillance system so emergency-room doctors could view the accidents that injured their patients.
Kahn remained completely convinced that deregulating the airlines was a success. When a friend complained that increased numbers of passengers on flights resulted in him sitting next to "a filthy hippie" on a plane, he replied, "Since I haven't heard from the hippie, I can assume the distaste wasn't reciprocated." In 2008, the nonagenarian Kahn gave a speech to the Global Airport International Summit in Boston where he said, "The industry in the last 30 years gave the public something it had not received before: high quality, space, and low cost. It catered to a variety of demands and abilities today so that we had an enormous spread of fares. It offered the people upgrades such as business class and frequent flyer miles." Admitting that he was no expert on airplanes or the fine details of the industry, Kahn once said "I can't tell one plane from the other. To me, they're all just marginal costs with wings."
Kahn was the father-in-law of Daniel Mark Fogel, president of the University of Vermont.[7]
Professor Kahn died of cancer in Ithaca, NY at the age of 93, on December 27, 2010.[8]
Work in deregulation
Kahn's strong advocacy of deregulation stemmed largely from his understanding as an economist of marginal-cost theory. In his time at the New York Public Service Commission he was instrumental in using marginal costs to help price electricity and telecommunications services; this was novel at the time but is routinely performed today.[citation ^needed]
While serving as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), which regulated commercial airline fares, in 1977-1978, Kahn (a self-described "good liberal Democrat")[9] oversaw the deregulation of commercial air fares.As one analyst put it, Kahn "set to work with . . . otherprogressives" including Senator Edward Kennedy, future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, and consumer advocate Ralph Naderto "dismantle anti-consumer cartels that had been sustained by government regulation."[9] At the same time the CAB was disbanded, as deregulation of commercial air fares made the agency no longer necessary. This is one of the very few examples of a regulatory agency deregulating itself out of existence.[
He has consistently argued that, where feasible, complete deregulation is preferable to partial deregulation. "The verdict of the great majority of economists would, I believe, be that deregulation has been a success –- bearing in mind, as always, the central argument ... that society's choices are always between or among imperfect systems, but that, wherever it seems likely to be effective, even very imperfect competition is preferable to regulation .... Recent experience clearly suggests, instead, that the mixed system may be the worst of both possible worlds."[10]
In an interview with USA Today,[11] he said he wished he could have deregulated the telecommunications industry.
He has served as an expert witness in many regulatory matters, particularly in issues regarding flat rate pricing for telecommunications, marginal costing in both telecommunications and electricity, and net neutrality. After his death, The Economist wrote:
And though, being an economist, he could not help muttering about the imperfection of societies and systems and the absurdity of predictions-- and though, being an inveterate puncturer of himself, he would demand a paternity test if anyone called him the father of the deregulated world--his adventures with airlines led on to the freeing of the trucking, telecoms and power industries, and heralded the Thatcherite and Reaganite revolutions.[12]
Published works
Kahn was the author of numerous books, including The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions, Lessons from Deregulation: Telecommunications and Airlines After the Crunch, Whom the Gods Would Destroy, or How Not to Deregulate,[13] Letting Go: Deregulating the Process of Deregulation, and Great Britain in the World Economy. Kahn also authored many articles, and was for many years a commentator on PBS’s The Nightly Business Report.
Besides his love for numbers, Kahn also loved words, and "hated to see them misused." Even after his death, he was acknowledged as "a champion of plain English...an economist who could do without 'herein' and 'therein'."[14]
==
net neutral expert testimony
Alfred E. Kahn
- Robert Julius Thorne Professor of Political Economy, Emeritus, at Cornell University and special consultant to National Economic Research Associates (NERA). a Bell funded group)
- Testifies on behalf of Verizon, SBC, Qwest in multiple states, such as New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland.
- http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:APTm00h71aQJ:www.wutc.wa.gov/rms2.nsf/0/CB77BA
- F6B87B52B088256E830074A999/%24file/UT-023003%2BExhibit%2BTJT-2%2BVerizon%2B042704.pdf+Alfred+E.+Kahn+Verizon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
---
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/01/tobacco-fossil-fuels-tracing-roots-trump-s-claims-paris-climate-deal
To understand why President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the global Paris climate agreement, we might start by looking at the sources he relied on to justify his decision.
But we’re not going to start there, but we will end there.
Instead, let’s go back to the early 1990s. The tobacco industry was facing multiple bans on advertising its products in countries around the world.
So the tobacco industry took ownership of a study that reviewed a bunch of other studies about the claimed impacts of tobacco advertising on actual tobacco consumption.
In short, the study, handed to Phillip Morris International, concluded there was no real link between tobacco advertising and smoking levels. Studies that had found a link were probably flawed, the report claimed.
The reports, the letters, and the memos back and forth, are all buried away in the Tobacco Industry Documents Archive at the University of California – San Francisco.
Clearly, the report would help the tobacco industry to argue there was no need to regulate the advertising of its products, because that advertising didn’t make a difference to smoking levels one way or the other.
National Economic Research Associates
The company that carried out that tobacco study was National Economic Research Associates.
Why is this relevant to Donald Trump and his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement?
When Trump spoke of the “onerous energy restrictions” he claimed the Paris deal placed on the United States, he cited figures from a report by the very same National Economic Research Associates (NERA).
According to the NERA study, the Paris agreement would cut coal and gas production, and “cost” America 2.7 million jobs.
Fossil Fuel Interests
Two groups, namely the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the U.S Chamber of Commerce, sponsored the NERA report (incidentally, a New York Times investigation described the chamber as Big Tobacco’s Staunch Friend in Washington, due to its advocacy for the industry).
NERA has also produced reports supporting the LNG industry and the coal industry.
The ACCF has, over the years, accepted funds from a string of major corporations and industry groups, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and foundations linked to the billionaire petrochemical brothers Charles and David Koch.
As a fact check by the Associated Press on the part of Trump’s speech citing the NERA study published points out:
“The study makes worst-case assumptions that may inflate the costof meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord while largely ignoring the economic benefits to U.S. businessesfrom building and operating renewable energy projects.
Academic studies have found that increased environmental regulation doesn’t actually have much impact on employment. Jobs lost at polluting companies tend to be offset by new jobs in green technology.”
A separate team of economists and scientists has also checked the claims made in the NERA report, which has previously been cited by failed Republican Presidential candidate (and climate science denier) Ted Cruz. They come to similarly unflattering conclusions to the AP fact check.
So in the end, we have President Trump relying on a questionable report paid for by groups with a clear vested interest in undermining the Paris agreement.
Cigarette, Anyone?
When reporters were being briefed in the hours before Trump walked out to the White House Rose Garden, it wasTrump’s energy aide Mike Catanzaromaking the calls.
As DeSmog’s Steve Horn has pointed out, Catanzaro is a former fossil fuel and energy lobbyist with a history of attacking climate science.
He also spent time working with Senator James Inhofe– the Republican who claims global warming is the greatest hoax ever. Catanzaro is just one of a parade of former industry lobbyists now in top positions in the Trump administration.
The Paris climate deal, struck in late 2015, was rightly declared a historic moment.
No doubt too, Trump’s declaration that he will join Nicaragua and Syria outside the deal will also be seen as historic.
It was a decision to delay action to regulate an industry, based on tired old propaganda techniques and the self-serving analysis of a polluting industry under attack.
Cigarette, anyone?
==
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/fact-checking-the-energy-claims-in-trumps-paris-agreement-speech.html
Donald Trump on Thursday said pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement would protect American workers from devastating economic impacts.
CNBC fact-checked some of the reasons the president presented for why the United States should abandon the international accord, which aims to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
The Paris Agreement would force the United States to put its abundant energy reserves under lock and key.
That statement contradicts the latest long-term forecast by the U.S. Department of Energy.
U.S. energy production will continue to grow through 2040 in a scenario where Obama-era energy regulations are implemented, the department's Energy Information Administration projected in January.
Natural gas would surge and account for 40 percent of U.S. energy production. Oil output would continue to grow but level off in 2025 as drillers move into less-productive areas. Renewable energy generation would grow as it becomes cheaper and state and federal subsidies continue to support solar and wind energy.
In that scenario, EIA would see coal production falling because of lower exports and Obama-era regulations that discourage new coal-fired plants — rules that Trump is currently trying to kill. The agency also sees nuclear power generation declining "modestly" as new facilities and upgrades offset plant retirements.
The Paris Agreement blocks the development of 'clean coal' in the United States.
When people refer to "clean coal," they typically mean technology that captures carbon emissions from coal-fired plants, which are either stored underground or sold for use in industrial processes.
This technology is very young and used in few commercial operations because it's extremely expensive. Tougher emissions standards — such as those encouraged by the Paris Agreement — would typically create an incentive to invest in the technology. Lax standards would dissuade investment.
Trump often uses the term "clean coal," but it's uncertain whether he's referring to so-called carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology.
The United States is not allowed to build coal plants under the Paris Agreement, but other countries can.
There is nothing in the commitments made by the Obama administration that spells out what type of power plants the United States can and cannot build. Instead, the United States has simply vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
It is true that some climate change initiatives and energy regulations created by the Obama administration expedited the retirement of coal-fired plants, especially old and inefficient ones.
However, the United States could attempt to reach its Paris Agreement goals by investing in clean coal technology that would allow plants to reduce emissions. But again, that technology is still emerging and likely wouldn't be able to immediately contribute to the country's targets.
The Paris Agreement lets China do whatever it wants for the next 13 years.
China has committed to reaching peak carbon emissions levels by 2030, but will try to reach that point sooner — and there is evidence Beijing is making progress.
China's CO2 emissions may have already peaked, a full decade ahead of its Paris Agreement commitment, thanks in large part to falling coal consumption, according to the Climate Action Tracker, a scientific analysis produced by three research organizations.
To be sure, more than 110 gigawatts of coal-fired plants are under construction in China, but the country's coal use likely peaked in 2013, according to the International Energy Agency.
"Utilisation rates of coal-fired power plants in China are falling rapidly, as new plants enter an electricity system in which renewables have expanded fast and demand has slowed markedly," IEA wrote in its 2016 World Energy Outlook.
Complying with U.S. commitments to the Paris Agreement could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 and shave trillions off the economy.
The economic impact of climate change initiatives is a subject of debate, but it's worth considering where Trump is getting his information.
The statistics Trump used in his speech came from a report on the economic impacts of greenhouse gas regulations prepared for the American Council for Capital Formation, a conservative think tank whose board includes prominent Republicans and representatives from industry trade groups.
The report, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting, does not take into account potential benefits from emissions reductions or future technology that could influence costs over the long term.
CEOs of some of the largest U.S.-based companies say the Paris Agreement gives them a level playing field to compete with foreign rivals and would grow the economy and create jobs by encouraging investment in new technology. Oil and gas producers like Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell also support it.
==
NERA Economic Consulting Report on Clean Power Plan | Union of ...
www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/.../nera-economic-consulting-report-clean-power-pl...
2.
New Study, Same Old . . . Tricks: Coal Industry Uses Bogus ... - NRDC
https://www.nrdc.org/.../new-study-same-old-tricks-coal-industry-uses-bogus-accounti...
1.
nera economic consulting Archives - Energy and Policy Institute
www.energyandpolicy.org/tag/nera-economic-consulting/
1.
[PDF]
On August 3, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan. NERA Economic ...
www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/.../FAQS-NERA-FINAL-CPP-Nov-7.pdf
2.
Fact-checking Donald Trump's statement withdrawing from the Paris ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/
1.
NERA Economic Consulting (www.nera.com)is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For half a century, NERA’s economists have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities and the world’s leading law firms and corporations. We bring academic rigor, objectivity, and real world industry experience to bear on issues arising from competition, regulation, public policy, strategy, finance, and litigation.
NERA’s clients value our ability to apply and communicate state-of-the-art approaches clearly and convincingly, our commitment to deliver unbiased findings, and our reputation for quality and independence. Our clients rely on the integrity and skills of our unparalleled team of economists and other experts backed by the resources and reliability of one of the world’s largest economic consultancies. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves clients from more than 25 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Specialties
Antitrust & Competition, Bankruptcy, Labor & Employment, Energy, Environment & Climate Change, Health Care & Life Sciences, Intellectual Property, Arbitration, Securities & Finance, Transfer Pricing, Auctions, Communications, Media, & Internet, Surveys, Mass Torts
Website
http://www.nera.com
Industry
Management Consulting
Type
Public Company
Company Size
501-1000 employees
Founded
1961
See more
NERA Economic Consulting employees
Dr. Glenn George
Thesis advisor Prof. F. M. Scherer. Academic advisor Ashton B. Carter (former U.S. Secretary of Defense). Coursework under Stephen Breyer (current U.S. Supreme Court Justice).
Activities and Societies: Focus on regulatory theory and practice.
Dr. Glenn R. George is a seasoned global executive in the energy, infrastructure, and natural resources sectors. He is currently a Managing Director in NERA’s Energy, Environment and Network Industries Practice, where he provides expert testimony and advises global clients on the economics of electric power, oil/gas, water, transportation, and related markets as they evolve in response to political, regulatory, and technological change. Drawing on his extraordinarily broad background, he applies deep expertise in energy policy, regulation, technology, construction, and infrastructure finance, to business challenges and disputes facing energy companies, their regulators, and investors. He splits his time among NYC, Philadelphia, and DC.
He has three decades of experience in the global natural resources sector as an engineer, entrepreneur, investment banker, economic consultant, regulator, and strategist. His advisory work addresses strategic, transactional, business transformational, and regulatory issues, while his dispute-related work involves expert testimony in complex commercial litigation and international arbitration, especially concerning construction, sale, valuation, licensing, and operation of power plants, oil/gas facilities, T&D systems, and other infrastructure. His areas of specialization include market design, regulatory strategy, valuation, asset securitization,risk assessment, energy efficiency, renewables,nuclear, and damage quantum calculation. He has testified as an expert in discounted cash flow and construction delay analysis, especially in cross-border contexts. He is a sought-after analyst, speaker, consultant, and expert witness.
:{:{}:
He holds an engineering degree and an MBA (both with distinction) from Cornell, a PhD (with a focus on energy economics and regulatory policy) from Harvard, and is a registered PE. In 2011, he was awarded the American Nuclear Society Presidential Citation for his response to the Fukushima accident.
}:
:{:{}:
}:
Dr. Glenn George
Managing Director
Vrinda Mittal
Grant Saggers
Dr. Laura-Lucia Richter
Yashaswini Singh
Lawrence Wu
Kristi Glazer
Sharon Brown-Hruska
Ava Chang
Siwen Cai
The Brattle Group Analysis Group
Charles River Associates
RBB Economics Frontier Economics Oxera Consulting LLP
Careers
NERA Economic Consulting
Interested in NERA Economic Consulting?
4 jobs posted
Recent Updates
NERA Economic Consulting How have competition economics and analysis influenced recent competition cases before the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), and the European Commission? NERA Associate Director Grant Saggers will discuss this at the Competition Law in the Financial Services Sector Conference in London on 30 May.
Competition Law in the Financial Services Sector Conference
nera.com
NERA Associate Director Grant Saggers will speak at the Competition Law in the Financial Services Sector Conference in London on 30 May 2017. Mr. Saggers will discuss how competition economics and analysis have decisively influenced recent competition...
Like (12)
CommentShare
9 days ago
Dr. Craig Malam, Aakash Sahai +10
Add a comment...
NERA Economic Consulting Economic principles and assessments can aid a tribunal in deciding on the merits of a claim and economists can perform robust damages calculations by drawing on proven methodologies from economics and business practices. NERA Senior Consultant Willis Geffert and Principal Bastian Gottschling explain more in their article “An Economic Assessment of Contracts in International Arbitration.”
An Economic Assessment of Contracts in International Arbitration
nera.com
NERA Senior Consultant Willis Geffert and Principal Bastian Gottschling authored a chapter examining economics and damages issues in international arbitration in the recently published book, The Use of Economics in International Trade and Investment...
Like (10)
Christian Dippon, Jose Luis Soto +8
Add a comment...
NERA Economic Consulting NERA Managing Director Dr. Jeff D. Makholm will participate in the panel session, “The New Market Conditions in Latin America’s Energy Space,” at the 8th annual Latin Lawyer Oil & Gas Conference in Mexico City on 18 May. The panel will discuss new legislation that encourages private investment in energy markets and the impact it will have on Latin America’s energy space. https://lnkd.in/djZDS2N
Latin Lawyer Oil & Gas Conference
nera.com
NERA Managing Director Dr. Jeff D. Makholm will participate in the panel session, “ The New Market Conditions in Latin America’s Energy Space,” at the 8 th annual Latin Lawyer Oil & Gas Conference. Dr. Makholm will join Alejandro Faya Rodriguez, a...
Like (8)
CommentShare
18 days ago
Maximilian Holst, Irene Benito Rodríguez +6
Add a comment...
NERA Economic Consulting At a recent Cost of Capital Conference that included representatives from the UK Civil Aviation Authority, Ofcom, Ofgem, and Ofwat, Managing Director Dr. Richard Hern discussed the likely impact of the ultra-low interest rate environment and of increasing beta risk on companies’ expected CoE allowances.
The Cost of Equity for Utilities – An International Perspective
nera.com
Getting the cost of equity (CoE) right is one of the key tasks of the regulatory process; setting it too low threatens utilities’ ability to attract capital, yet regulators have to balance this risk with preserving customer interest and keeping bills...
Like (7)
CommentShare
21 days ago
Anne-Marie Markey, Jeanne Lubek +5
Add a comment...
NERA Economic Consulting NERA Senior Consultant Clara Segurola will participate in a panel session on getting the most out of your damages expert ininternational arbitration at an evening seminar hosted by ArbitralWomen and the Young Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), 9 May 2017 in London.
ArbitralWomen-Young Institute for Transnational Arbitration
nera.com
NERA Senior Consultant Clara Segurola will participate in the panel session, “Damages in International Arbitration: Getting the Most Out of Your Expert,” at an evening seminar hosted by Arbitral Women and the Young Institute for Transnational...
Like (6)
CommentShare
1 month ago
Stephanie Koukoullis, Christian Dippon +4
Add a comment...
NERA Economic Consulting NERA Director Dr. Sharon Brown-Hruska will participate in the “Key 2017 Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” Panel at the Financial Markets Association’s 26th Annual Securities Compliance Seminar. She will discuss the importance of robust economic analyses of proposed rules and regulations, the retrospective review of the Dodd Frank Act,and how changes in enforcement priorities at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will likely impact compliance and litigation in the coming year.
Key 2017 Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives
nera.com
Ft. Lauderdale 26 April 2017 - 28 April 2017 Hosted By: Financial Markets Association NERA Director Dr. Sharon Brown-Hruska will participate in the “Key 2017 Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives” Panel at the Financial Markets Association’s 26 th...
==
oh wilbur, always digit or ltr off: BERA NERA
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/02/531192058/despite-pressure-from-some-ceos-u-s-withdraws-from-climate-pact
bs report
http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf
Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations On the
Industrial Sector
Prepared for:
American Council for Capital Formation Center for
Policy Research
Report Sponsors
March 2017
NERA Economic Consulting
i
Project Team
Paul Bernstein, Ph.D., Associate Director
W. David Montgomery, Ph.D., Affiliated Consultant
Bharat Ramkrishnan, Senior Analyst
Sugandha D. Tuladhar, Ph.D., Associate Director
The findings contained in this report may contain projections based on current data and historical
trends. Any such predictions are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. In particular, actual
results could be impacted by future events that cannot be predicted or controlled, including,
without limitation, changes in business strategies, the development of future products and
services, changes in market and industry conditions, the outcome of contingencies, changes in
management, and changes in law or regulations. Neither ACCF CPR nor NERA accept
responsibility for actual results or future events.
The authors would like to acknowledge George David Banks and Pinar Cebi Wilber, Ph.D. from
the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and Stephen Eule and
Dan Byers from the Institute for 21st Century Energy at the U.S. Chambers of Commerce for
helping with the study design and providing feedback. In addition, we appreciate discussions
with theAmerican Forest and Paper Association,American Iron and Steel Association,
ClearPath Foundation, and Portland Cement Association during the course of the study.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views
of NERA Economic Consulting or any other NERA consultants.
...
http://www.**sourcewatch.**org/index.php?title=National_Economic_Research_Associates
Contents
- 1 2011 Report: EPA Regulations to cost $18 billion
- 2 2012 report: Mercury rules would cost billions
- 3 Articles and resources
2011 Report: EPA Regulations to cost $18 billion
In June 2011, a coal industry front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) released a report stating that clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.[2][3]
ACCCE paid for National Economic Research Associates Inc. to conduct the report, which a Bloomberg report described "as part of a campaign to delay compliance deadlines in the pending rules." The report estimated that regulations cutting emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides would lead to the “premature” retirements of coal-fired power plants that can generate 47.8 gigawatts of electricity, about 15 percent of coal’s U.S. production capacity.
Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the energy subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has said he plans to introduce a bill to give utilities more time to comply with the rules. New maximum levels for nitrogen oxides, a component of smog, and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, are scheduled to take effect in 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agency is under a court order to produce a final mercury rule in November 2011. Utilities would have as long as four years to meet the mercury standard.[4]
2012 report: Mercury rules would cost billions
NERA's 2012 report, "An Economic Impact Analysis of EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule," concluded that the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and eliminate 180,000-215,000 jobs.
Articles and resources
References
1.
- NERA, "About NERA", NERA website, accessed June 2011.
- American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, "New Analysis Finds EPA’s Power Plant Regulations Would Increase Electricity Costs; Lose Jobs", Media Release, June 8, 2011.
- National Economic Research Associates, "Proposed CATR + MACT", American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, June 2011.
- Jim Snyder, "EPA Air Rules to Cost Almost $18 Billion a Year, Coal Industry Group Says" Bloomberg, June 7, 2011.
Related SourceWatch articles
External resources
External articles
==
offic bs
http://www.nera.com/
On 10 April 1961, Dr. Jules Joskow and Dr. Irwin Stelzer found a new kind of company. The two noted economists, advised by Dr. Alfred E. Kahn (one of the country's foremost economists and future "father of airline deregulation"), create National Economic Research Associates, the first consulting firm dedicated to methodically applying rigorous microeconomic thought to litigation and regulatory matters.
==
https://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/19/revealed-reuters-ids-nera-economic-consulting-third-party-contractor-doe-lng-export-study
2012 desmog
Reuters has revealed the identity of the mysterious third party contractor tasked to publish the economic impact study onLNG (liquefied natural gas) exports on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE). Its name:NERA Economic Consulting.
“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE's report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”
That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electrcity sector would amount to some**1.5 million lost jobsover the next four years.
NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}::{ Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News.
According to NERA's website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA's 1961 foundation.
In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.
A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.
These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James **Inhofe**(R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama's mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.”
With a track record like this, it's best to view whatever report the Obama Administration's DOE (aka NERA) produces on the economic impact of LNG exports, set to come out by the end of the year, with extreme skepticism if not downright hostili
---
Alford Touted Recent NBCC Study To Claim EPA Plan Will Harm Hispanics And Blacks.In his op-eds, Alford extensively cites "a new study commissioned by my organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce," :{and summarizes the results by saying the Clean Power Plan "will leave minority communities with disproportionately fewer jobs, lower incomes and higher poverty than whites." NBCC, accessed :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[6/25/15:{; The Des Moines Register, }:6/23/15]
What The Newspapers Failed To Disclose: NBCC Has Received $1 Million From ExxonMobil Foundation. :{In each newspaper that ran an op-ed, Alford was identified only as "the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce." While NBCC does not list its funders or corporate members on its website, the ExxonMobil Foundation's annual reports show that the oil giant has provided funding for NBCC each year since 2003. The ExxonMobil Foundation gave NBCC $75,000 in 2014, $125,000 in 2013, and a total of $1 million since 2003. ExxonMobil is one of the world's largest producers of industrial carbon emissions and has a vested interest in opposing limits on carbon pollution as a way of addressing climate change. ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[2014;2013:{; ExxonSecrets.org, accessed }:6/25/15:{; Union of Concerned Scientists, accessed }:6/25/15:{]}:
NBCC Study Relied On Thoroughly Debunked Studies Tied To Fossil Fuel Industry
Union Of Concerned Scientists: NBCC Study Relies On Studies Published Before Release Of CPP Or Funded By Industry Opponents.As theUnion of Concerned Scientists(UCS) has noted, the NBCC study "explicitly says" that it depends on "the findings of seven other studies." According to UCS, those seven studies include (emphasis original):
- Three studies that came out before the EPA published the draft CPP, meaning they don't actually study the CPP as proposed--even though that's the supposed focus of the NBCC/MISI analysis
- One that was just (self-described) "preliminary analysis" from the United Mine Workers of America, a group you'd be hard-pressed to characterize as an unbiased voice in this debate
- Three other studies funded by other fossil fuel interests who oppose the Clean Power Plan UCS, [6/12/15]
NBCC Study Relied On Debunked Industry-Linked Studies By U.S. Chamber Of Commerce And NERA Economic Consulting. The NBCC study, which was prepared by Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI), states on page 21: "To estimate the likely effects of the EPA related regulations on low income groups and minorities, we used the findings of studies conducted in recent years of the impacts of carbon restrictions on the U.S. economy, jobs, and energy markets."
Among the studies the NBCC "utilized" were two fossil fuel industry-linked studies that have been thoroughly debunked by media fact-checkers:An IHS study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a study by NERA Economic Consulting. :{The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors includes officials from ConocoPhillips, Alliance Resource Partners, CONSOL Energy, and Southern Company, and many of Chamber's largest donors are fossil fuel companies. The NERA study was commissioned by fossil fuel interests that include theAmerican Coalition for Clean Coal Energy (ACCCE), the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the National Mining Association. NBCC, :(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:[June 2015:{; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, }:5/28/14:{; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors, accessed}:6/25/15:{; Center for Public Integrity, }:1/16/14:{; NERA Economic Consulting, }:October 2014:{]}:
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Study Was Deemed "False" By Media Fact-Checkers. PolitiFact noted that the Chamber acknowledged its "estimates are not based on the [EPA] goals as announced," and determined that the IHS/Chamber numbers were "false." The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog similarly noted that the Chamber had admitted its figures "do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written," and awarded "four Pinocchios" to Republican officials who cited the IHS/Chamber study to criticize the EPA. Politifact, [**6/2/14; The Washington Post, 6/3/14]
TheWashington Post's Fact Checker: It Is "Misleading" To Cite The NERA Study's Figures.When Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) cited the NERA study to claim that the Clean Power Plan "will result in double-digit electricity prices in 43 states," The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog responded that Inhofe's claim was "misleading" because the study's numbers "are on the high end of a range of cost impacts, which are mere projections at this point." The Fact Checker noted that supporters of the Clean Power Plan say the NERA study "inflates the cost of energy efficiency programs" and "ignores long-term benefits of energy efficiency programs that ultimately could drive actual energy bills down." It concluded: "A lot of the costs can be driven down by state, local and regional policymakers, and some of them already are working with the EPA to figure out cost-effective plans." *The Washington Post*, [**3/13/15]
UCS: NERA "Falsely Inflates Costs."The Union of Concerned Scientists stated that the NERA study "falsely inflates the cost" of the Clean Power Plan by "denying energy efficiency's proven ability to save consumers money." UCS went on to explain that the NERA study uses "a 2012 study that has been repeatedly discredited" to justify its inflated cost estimates. Union of Concerned Scientists, [**11/14/14]
NBCC Study Also Relied On Climate Science Denial To Dismiss The Social Cost Of Carbon
NBCC Study Also Cited Paper Claiming Benefits Of Carbon Pollution Far Outweigh Costs.Page 92 of the NBCC study states that MISI derived its estimates of the Clean Power Plan's "impacts on incomes and jobs" by using "the proprietary MISI model," which is based on a January 2014 MISI paper prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity titled, "The Social Costs of Carbon? No, the Social Benefits of Carbon."
That paper, which asserted that "CO2 is the basis of life on Earth" and has "enabled the high quality of life currently taken for granted," sought to challenge the social cost of carbon (SCC), :{which measures the economic damages associated with increased carbon dioxide emissions and was used by the EPA to estimate the Clean Power Plan's climate-related benefits. While the EPA -- with input from economic experts and other federal agencies -- has estimated that the SCC is approximately $40 per metric ton of carbon pollution, the MISI/ACCCE paper claimed that "the current benefits [of CO2] clearly outweigh any hypothesized costs by, literally, orders of magnitude: The benefit-cost (B-C) ratios range up to more than 200-to-1." NBCC, :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:[June 2015:{; MISI/ACCCE, }:January 2014:{; EPA Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon, }:November 2013:{]}:
:{UCS: MISI/ACCCE Paper On Social Cost Of Carbon Is "Fossil Fuel Fiction."In a fact sheet titled, "Climate Science vs. Fossil Fuel Fiction," the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that, contrary to the claims in the MISI/ACCCE paper, which were echoed by Peabody Energy, "numerous economists and scientists agree that over the long term the costs of carbon pollution clearly outweigh the benefits of continuing to ramp up emissions." :{Union of Concerned Scientists,:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}: [March 2015]}:
==