Back to Basics

With gas prices continuing to climb,there is an ever-increasing quest for ways to find a culprit that can carry the blame. More and more, the finger pointing is focused on the overseas sale of US petroleum product—with the belief being that selling American resources to the highest bidder increases the price of gasoline at the pump. This idea has made strange bedfellows of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA).

Addressing gas prices,O’Reilly claims:“They are much higher because the oil companies are shipping their products overseas.” Representative Markey (of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade fame) has “introduced legislation that would end the exportation of oil extracted from taxpayer-owned lands, and the exportation of refined fuels like gasoline produced from America’s oil.” Markey’s bill is called the “Keep America’s Oil Here Act.”

The idea has gained traction. It sounds good. Letters to the editor have popped up echoing the sentiments—with one even proposing “a massive letter-writing campaign to Congress insisting it creates a law that prevents the export of our gasoline and fuel oil.”

I was alerted to the trend by “Chip” who wrote the following in response to one of my columns:“So why is no one suggesting a tax on domestically produced oil, natural gas, or coal being taxed if sold overseas. With all of our natural energy resources, why let it count for so little if global demand will dictate that we pay the same general rates for oil, coal, and gas as anywhere else…”

Whether we have a bill like Markey’s that mandates that resources extracted from federal lands be sold in the US or a tax as Chip suggested, the idea that selling domestically produced resources overseas is driving up prices is being propagated from someone, somewhere and is accepted as fact.

With the Obama re-election campaign being staked on raising taxes, it may well be coming straight from the White House. Markey’s “Keep America’s Oil Here Act” tells us that the Democrats have bought into the theme of discouraging exports of US product—whether through regulation or tariff.

Wherever this “protectionism” idea is coming from, it is wrong on many counts. While keeping American oil here sounds like it would lower prices, it will not impact the price and could hurt the overall economy.

In essence, we are keeping American product here as, at present,we use far more than comes out of the ground domestically. Yes, it is true that some of the barrels of oil that come from Texas or North Dakota or the Gulf of Mexico may be sold as gasoline to Argentina or Peru, but we use far more in the US than we extract. Once in the refinery, the barrels of oil may well be merged and the refined product that comes out may, in fact, be interracial—with the gallon of gas’ lineage being a combination of Africa, Brazil, the Middle East, Mexico, Canada, and the US. Since we need the crude oil from some of the very same countries to which we sell the refined product,such as gasoline, is it wise to start adding a tariff to what they buy from us and incite a possible trade war? Here in the US we get many,many products from other countries and adding barriers to trade is likely to hurt the bigger picture.

I don’t need to use a lot of space telling you why high gas prices are bad for America, but I contend that they are good for an election. Until the current precipitous price increases, energy seemed absent from the overall debate. Now the GOP candidates are all talking about how they would maximize American resources to bring down the price of gas and, rightly so, putting President Obama on the defense.

Press Secretary Jay Carney has recently repeated that there is nothing the White House can do. President Obama uses the high prices as an excuse to keep throwing good money after bad to develop “alternatives” like the now fabled Solyndra and this week’s Abound Solar announced lay-offs and delays—even though solar energy, if it ever became viable, has virtually nothing to do with transportation. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is now having to defend his comment in response to a question regarding whether or not the Administration’s goal is to lower gasoline prices: “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.”

While it might appear that the White House was broadsided by the energy conversation, President Obama is very well aware of the importance of energy in the 2012 election cycle.

Back in November when President Obama announced he’d delay the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for more than a year, until after the elections, Republicans were outraged. The pipeline represents up to 20,000 direct jobs and untold thousands of follow-on jobs in hotels, restaurants, retail, and more. In an attempt to force the issue, Republicans inserted a Keystone decision into December’s payroll tax-cut extension bill. Weeks before an end-of-February answer was needed, President Obama handed the Republicans the makings of a campaign commercial. He claims to support job creation, yet here, with no government funds involved, were thousands of jobs—and he killed the project! Does he really care about out-of-work Americans and the economic boost those jobs would provide?

The answer lies in the location of those thousands of jobs: red states (those that typically vote Republican). The Keystone XL pipeline travels exclusively through red states; states the President is not likely to win no matter how many jobs his policies could create in the region. Supporting the pipeline and the 6,000-20,000 jobs it represents (pipeline opponents claim the 20,000 number is inflated, saying 6,000 jobs is more realistic) would not help his re-election efforts. He could kill Keystone, make his environmental base happy, and not lose an electoral vote.

Then, days later, January 24, in the State of the Union address (SOTU), President Obama angered that very same green base by ignoring their key cause—global warming and its supposed solution: green energy—and touted the benefits of natural gas. America’s natural gas abundance is a result of high-pressure extraction—a practice known as “fracking” (short for hydraulic-fracturing). Two states rich in this shale gas have turned poor farmers into overnight millionaires: Pennsylvania and Ohio—both are blue states (typically voting Democrat). Go against natural gas extraction in these two important states and President Obama could lose the entire election. Here, alienating the environmental base is worth the gamble.

Additionally, these two blue states have been trending red. The last gubernatorial election saw a Republican win in each state—replacing a Democrat.

We are in an economic war—and it is bigger than Republicans and Democrats battling over tax increases and spending cuts. It is global.

The stock market has gone up and down, based on news of Europe’s financial solutions one day, and demise the next. Their success or failure impacts the global economy—including the United States.

The various troubled countries: Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain are often referred to as the PIIGS. While there are myriad reasons for their difficulties, one not discussed on the nightly news is their lack of natural resources. By comparison, the BRIC countries—those with growing economies: Brazil, Russia, India, and China, are rich with resources, which they maximize.

America has an abundance of natural resources, yet our policies keep them locked up. We can’t drill in the Gulf. ANWAR is off limits. Mining is nearly impossible due to regulations. “Endangered species” threaten existing supplies.

Meanwhile resource discoveries are being made and developed the world over.

Last week, Repsol announced a new discovery in Argentina—estimated to be more than 900 million barrels of oil. The oil shale find is reported to be Repsol’s largest ever. Argentina’s potential has attracted investment from both majors and independents. Argentina’s rising energy consumption and higher prices make Repsol’s success especially welcome, representing a potential windfall for the country. Argentina is not crying.

On October 20, a “giant” gas discovery was announced off the coast of Mozambique. It is reported that the results of the exploration well “exceed pre-drill expectations and confirm the Rovuma Basin as a world-class natural gas province.” Then, one week later, word came out that the find was 50% greater than originally estimated with up to 22.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. Estimates are expected to increase. Infrastructure, including LNG facilities, will have to be built to support the recent exploration successes with the natural gas expected to be brought to the market in 2018.

The day before the original Mozambique “giant” discovery announcement, it was reported that companies such as ExxonMobil would invest $100 billion to develop and upgrade oil fields in Iraq. The investment is expected to up Iraq’s oil production to at least 6.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2017—making Iraq one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil.

Also, on October 19, reports came out saying that the North Sea Statoil discovery is bigger than originally estimated with a potential of 2.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent—which would make it the third-largest find ever made on the Norwegian shelf. Production is expected to begin by 2018.

One day earlier, October 18, service provider Odebrecht announced plans to triple its revenues over the next three years. In support of Brazil’s vast deepwater oilfields, the company is spending $5 billion in equipment, from drilling ships and floating oil platforms to pipeline-laying vessels. Odebrecht says: “This year we should [have] revenues of about $500 million and we are going to double that next year, and be at $1.5 billion by 2013.”

This, all in the past couple of weeks.

In late-December 2010, 16 trillion cubic feet of gas was found off the cost of Israel in what is being called the Leviathan Field.

Weeks after the infamous BP oil spill in late-April 2010, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the agency that managed leasing and regulation, was split up into three parts. Addressing the reorganization, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said: “We will be able to strengthen oversight of the companies that develop our nation’s energy resources.” He addressed a perceived conflict of interest between departments due to the leasing and regulatory functions being in one agency—one brings in revenue and one regulates (and perhaps punishes) the businesses generating the income.

His mid-May 2010 actions bring his new Secretarial Order to reorganize a different agency into question.

On October 26, 2011, Secretary Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3315 that will consolidate the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The Order states that “fee collections” and “regulation, inspection and enforcement, and state program oversight” will now be integrated—the very tasks split out within the MMS reorganization.

Because this new order seems in direct contradiction to the 2010 SO 3299, it raises suspicion as to the true purpose of the agency reorganization—especially since the impacted industry is the administration’s favorite villain—coal.

SO 3315 was announced to the surprise of most in the industry and to those in OSM. Charlie Boddy, a mining and government relations consultant with more than 40 years in the industry and former VP of government relations with Usibelli Coal Mine Inc., said when he first heard the announcement, he thought it was a joke. “It is,” he said, “without a doubt, the most bizarre proposal to come out of the Obama Administration.”

The fact that there was no consultation with the stakeholders, states, or Congress raises additional concerns. If there was a desire to work with the industry, the general belief is that they would have been involved. The order’s surprise element can’t mean good things for coal mining.

On November 4, as a part of a hearing on an investigation into a re-write of the 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) stated: “In addition, we will also discuss the recent Secretarial Order requiring the merger of the Office of Surface Mining with the Bureau of Land Management. A proposal I am deeply concerned about impacting the ability of the nation’s ability to access our vast coal resources. Furthermore there are clear statutory limitations prohibiting the OSM from leasing or promoting coal, which is a key responsibility of the BLM.”

Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, issued the following statement: “I have serious concerns about this Secretarial Order to suddenly and dramatically alter the management of coal mining and the multiple-use of Western BLM lands. The Obama Administration has not made secret its desire to put an end to America’s coal-mining industry, and this appears to be one more step in that direction.”

Because of the “bombshell” nature of the announcement, the administration’s attitude toward the coal industry, the totally different missions of the OSM and the BLM, and the fact that they operate under different specific provisions and acts of Congress, the proposed merger can only be considered suspect.

Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country and is one of the worst in foreclosures. “In my district,” Nevada Assemblyman Hansen reports, “one in seventeen houses is in foreclosure. One in eight is vacant. The people are economically desperate. Meanwhile we have an industry that would love to open up mines and create jobs with an average salary of $80,000. Unfortunately we also have a government that takes ten years to permit a mine.”

No wonder 77% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

“Couldn’t we streamline the process or eliminate some steps?” asks Nevada State Senator Settelmeyer. He points out that the high gold and silver prices present a huge opportunity but he’s afraid that if we do not strike while the iron is hot, gold prices may fall before the mining projects get approved and get into production. “We have the resources and people need the jobs.”

In 1900 silver and gold were found in Tonopah, Nevada. Within weeks of the discovery, there was digging and within a year the mine was fully operational. In 1900 dollars, the mine brought in $125 million. Today, it would be multi-billions of dollars.

The Comstock Lode was discovered in 1859 and during its six year run an estimated $50 million of ore was removed. The discovery was largely responsible for Nevada becoming a state and it is credited with helping the Union’s finances as it backed the paper money—assisting the Union’s ultimate victory in the civil war. If Comstock was burdened with today’s regulatory environment, the war would have been over long before an ounce of silver was legally extracted and the outcome could have been different.

Mining has played an important role in the development of the western United States—providing jobs and revenues. It should be doing the same now. In Nevada’s mining towns, the unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country: 5-7%—according to Tim Crowley President of the Nevada Mining Association who says there are hundreds of mining jobs available in Nevada. Skills from the hard hit construction industry can be transferred to mining.

General Moly plans to hire 450 people by the end of the year. There are major copper operations in permitting. Companies are looking at mining rare earths and lithium—both of which are essential for cell phones, batteries, computers, and wind turbines and solar panels.

Imagine the jobs and new wealth that could be created if mining was encouraged. Senator Settelmeyer says, “It is hard enough for companies to get through the regulatory process and get a permit. On top of that there is frivolous environmental litigation that lengthens the process—cutting off vital resources and delaying jobs.”

Last week environmental groups hailed a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a law prohibiting roads on nearly 50 million acres of national forest. Lawyers for the Colorado and Wyoming Mining Associations contend that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule violated the law. Previous conflicting federal court rulings have both upheld and overturned the road-building ban.

Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Environmental Group’s U.S.

We all know about Solyndra. We are learning about Fisker, the start-up electric car company, which received a $529 million loan from the Department of Energy. Touted by Vice President Biden as “a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs,” the cars are being manufactured in Finland. These are big stories being covered by the major media outlets. And these are only two such stories out there.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about two smaller stories from little states where shenanigans, at the least, and possible outright corruption, at the worst, were engaged in attempting to push through supposed green-energy projects. While researching those, another shady story surfaced: Rhode Island’s Block Island Wind Farm Project.

Back in 2004, in a different political and economic world, the RI General Assembly passed a Renewable Energy Standard that states: “fossil fuel prices are extremely variable and created economic hardships for employers and families, and increased use of renewable energy can both lower and stabilize energy cost.” The ratepayers of RI were sold a bill of goods that renewable energy can lower energy costs.

Republican Governor Donald Carcieri wanted to make RI the first state in the country with an offshore wind farm. In 2008, he pushed the Block Island Wind Farm project. It may give him a longed-for legacy—but it will not “lower energy costs.” The RI Public Utility Commission rejected the project as “commercially not reasonable.”

Undaunted, Carcieri and the General Assembly, in a late-night session, rushed to change the law, mandating that the PUC reconsider its rejection—a decision that would ultimately guarantee the project’s approval.

Within the plan, hatched by then-Governor Carcieri’s administration, is a guaranteed 3.5% price escalation for Deepwater Wind Inc., the New Jersey-based company developing the project—pricing starts at 24.4 cents/kwh, which will become 47 cents/kwh in 20 years. However, earlier this year, because of a drop in natural gas prices—the source fuel for most of RI’s electricity generation—the RI PUC approved a rate decrease from 9.4 cents/kwh to 6.9. Wind power rates nearly quadruple current prices logically should have sunk the Block Island project.

Nevertheless, it has continued forward.

The project’s viability was based on a politically motivated Power Purchase Agreement. After the PUC did ultimately approve the PPA, three groups appealed the decision to the Supreme Court: two businesses based on economic damage and irrational decision making, a conservation group who’d initially supported the project but became concerned about inappropriate process and backroom dealing, and the Attorney General who believed the project was bad for consumers.

The 2010 election brought about changes.

The new AG, Peter Kilmartin, was in the legislature at the time of the dead-of-night rule change that allowed the Deepwater Wind project to go forward. He’d voted for it. No surprise, as the new AG, he dismissed the former AG’s appeal.

Former Carcieri chief of staff Jeffrey Grybowski is now chief administrative officer for Deepwater Wind.

The Supreme Court heard the remaining two appeals despite a conflict of interest. Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg’s husband, Robert, had received $100k as a lobbyist for Deepwater Wind. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court upheld the approval of the PPA.

But more rule changes are in order.

In the last few weeks a battle has been going on behind the scenes involving the sites who publish my work and those who wish to silence me and smother public debate.

The debate between the Center for Biological Diversity and me stems from an issue gaining increasing attention. Most recently, on September 28, according to an Associated Press article, the EPA cut corners. Referencing a report from the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general, the article states the “EPA should have followed a more extensive review process.” Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr said: “It is clear that EPA did not follow all the required steps.” Earlier this month, the Washington Examiner revealed a similar scandal: U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger “ripped” two Fish and Wildlife scientists for their “biological opinion” that was “arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.” Likewise, I drew attention to science behind the proposed endangered species listing for the Sand Dune Lizard. The CBD took offense. Instead of defending the science, exposing the techniques of professional environmentalism, they have opted to attack me and post videos of my presentations on their website.

How’d we get here?

American environmental law is upside down. It focuses on the bottom of The National Environmental Policy Act, not the top, not the entirety.  At the top of the Act’s “purpose” paragraph, it clearly states: “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.” In other words, the public policy underlying NEPA favors protecting the balance between humans and the environment.

Since NEPA’s passage in 1969, opportunistic foundation elites realized the law offered them a chance to gain control and power over federal agencies and huge areas of American land. They realized that if they used the bottom part of the law, that requires environmental impact statements and invite lawsuits, they could find willing recipients to take their money and do their bidding. Among the first were the Environmental Defense Fund (assets $151,858,743) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (assets $232,304,192). Over time, these foundations helped create enough groups, such as Earthjustice (total assets $39,270,926), The Sierra Club (revenue $84,753,217), and the Center for Biological Diversity (revenue $7,446,541*) to give them free reign in federal agencies and in the courts—appointing themselves as the arbiters of the environment. The foundations created a multi-billion dollar industry that can cripple private industry.

These environmental groups now flood agencies with complicated opinions and data. An article in Nature News quotes Gary Frazer, assistant director for endangered species at the Fish and Wildlife Service: “What we have had in recent years is a very large volume of petitions that overwhelmed our capabilities. We missed deadlines. And we got sued.”

Intimidated by the mass of technicality, over time courts have abdicated their duty to judge the science that came from agencies—empowering environmental groups, destroying industry, and killing jobs. The “productive” part of NEPA has fallen by the wayside. The fact that “man” is even part of the act has been forgotten.

We all know that each president has his own unique pet projects. He talks about them in the campaign, and we expect him to act on them once in office. Even the first ladies have their favorites, which also influence policy.

We should not be surprised than that President Obama has directed billions of dollars to green-energy projects, such as Solyndra, and that he continues to push though measures that punish petroleum—believing he can make winners and losers.

But directing policy based on waves of popularity—rather than fact, makes as much sense as taxing or providing federal funding to Barbie Dolls.

Remember a decade or so ago, there was public attention drawn to eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia? Specialty clinics sprang up to treat the young women who were engaged in unhealthy habits. Barbie dolls got criticized because it was said the unnatural body shapes contributed to young girls’ unrealistic expectations regarding how they should look. Barbie fell from favor—though she still sells. Along came Cabbage Patch Dolls with their chubby cheeks and fat fingers. Bulimia and anorexia may still be a problem—but we do not hear much about them anymore. Today, the First Lady’s cause is obesity. Using the President’s model of punishing one energy source while showering the other with funding—perhaps we need to offer stimulus to Mattel so they can make more Barbies, lower their price, and use advertising to sway public opinion toward Barbie again. Meanwhile, we should heap penalties on their sales of Cabbage Patch Dolls. It would presumably save money in healthcare, because we’d make being thin desirable again.

Obviously a Cabbage Patch tax or a Barbie stimulus is silly. But so is what President Obama is doing with America’s energy.

On the very same week that the Obama administration is rushing to send stimulus out the door for questionable renewable energy projects that must be funded by the end of the month, he is also trying to sell Congress on singling out the oil-and-gas industry—penalizing them just because he doesn’t like them.

If we put a penalty on Cabbage Patch Dolls and mandated that people buy Barbie it would be silly—but that is all. When we subsidize expensive renewables and add costs to the lower-priced oil and gas—we punish all Americans, as everyone needs transportation. Plus, higher energy costs impact the price of everything else.

Just as Barbie and Cabbage Patch doll sales will be determined by the free market, the same should be true for our energy sources. If consumers want to pay more for renewable energy, that should be their choice. But it should have to compete fair and square. Both renewable energy and the traditional oil and gasshould receive the same deductions for business expenses and, especially in this economy, neither should be getting federal funding like the $7 billion a year in ethanol subsidies.

With Solyndra and the stimulus-fund-disbursement deadline in the news, we all know about renewable energy’s favored status. But hidden in the talk of taxing billionaires is punishment for the energy that fuels America—just because President Obama doesn’t like it.

Americans for Tax Reform has assembled a quick summary of all 14 tax hikes in the so-called “jobs plan.” More than 70 percent of them target the oil and gas industry.

Recent polling indicates that seventy-six percent (76%) of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track. Clearly, something needs to be done to turn the train around and head in a different direction.

First we need to know where we’ve been headed and then make a conscious decision to do a 180.

Three recent news stories—all under-reported—offer a snapshot of the wrong direction.

The Julia Field

Exxon is in a legal battle with the US government. The company has a new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico in what is called the Julia Field. Exxon reports an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil—worth potential royalties to the government of $10.95 billion. The discovery is believed to be the largest in the Gulf of Mexico. (Note: we are not out of oil; we keep finding more.)

In its exploration, Exxon is known for moving slowly and studying all the options before committing billions of dollars—using the best technology and science to utilize the shareholders’ risk capital. This is good. Deep-water exploration is difficult and complex. It needs to be done right.

However, apparently, the process was so lengthy, it butted up against the end of the lease period. Exxon applied for a routine extension. It was denied. A series of appeals have taken place. Finally, the Interior Department’s Office of Hearings and Appeals ruled against Exxon. Now, potential jobs and monies paid to the federal coffers are delayed.

The Julia Field debacle is reminiscent of a decision earlier this year that forced Shell to shelve Artic drilling plans after they spent nearly $4 billion in preparation to conduct exploratory drilling in Arctic waters. In dispute is what amounts to a clerical error that requires Shell to start over and puts off the creation of new jobs and revenue another year.

Black Arctic Gold

It has just been announced that Exxon Mobil Corp. has entered into a deal with Russia to develop Arctic oil resources. The company has agreed to invest $2.2 billion to explore a potential oil field in the Kara Sea and to spend $1 billion in exploration in the Black Sea. The ventures are politically risky, and there is no certainty that oil will be found. The deal includes Russia’s state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, acquiring stakes in Exxon’s US projects.

Exxon expects to spend tens of billions of dollars just to start producing, with a potential direct investment of $500 billion in Russian waters. With an estimated 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Arctic, someone is going to go after it. Unfortunately, the revenues are going to Russia, not the US.

Bakkan Field

North Dakota is home to a series of newer US oil discoveries—known as the Bakkan Field. As a result, North Dakota enjoys the lowest unemployment rate in the country—3.3%. It is widely known that the energy industry creates jobs, and not just minimum wage jobs. A report released this week shows that the industry is ready to create 1 million jobs over the next seven years and a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that each direct job in the U.S. oil and gas industry supports more than three jobs elsewhere in the economy.

“Coal is making us sick. Oil is making us sick.” So said Senator Harry Reid. As the entire East Coast faced a fierce Irene, the lunacy of Reid’s statement was brought to light.

America’s energy is what kept people alive despite nature’s fury.

Over the weekend, the news was filled with clips of governors, mayors, and police chiefs begging people to evacuate and escape the storm, and shots of highways were filled with cars heading out. Reports warned that gas stations were out of gas and major power outages impacting millions of people could remain for as long as two weeks.

Buried between the lines of “storm surges” and “wind gusts,” is an untold story of the importance of energy in saving lives.

One hundred years ago, the rate of death in America due to extreme weather was dramatic with 8000 people being killed in the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. Today, the death rate per million has dropped from 241.8 in the 1920s to 3.5 in the 2000-2006 period—a decline of 99%. The Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events report indicates that better transportation and communication systems have played a major role in the decline of death rates.

Irene destroyed boats, boardwalks, bridges, and buildings. Despite the widespread devastation of the epic storm, at the time of this writing, less than 2 dozen deaths have been reported as a result of the storm.

People heard about the storm through TV, Radio, and the internet. They got into their cars and drove away. Coal is keeping people alive—not making them sick. Coal provides the electricity for the communications. Oil is keeping people alive—not making them sick. Oil provides the gas for the transportation.

The role of America’s energy to keep people alive and well goes beyond hurricanes.

Over the past several weeks, much of the country has been facing near-record breaking heat that has strained the power grid as high air-conditioning demand nearly caused rolling outages. Despite the heat and the heavy use of electricity, few deaths have been reported and most of them are due to a lack of air conditioning.

Coal—the largest single source of America’s electricity—is keeping people alive.

With the vital role of American energy in keeping us alive and well, you’d think that exploration and extraction would be encouraged, that permits would be streamlined, and that power plants would be popular. Not! James Wood, deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy says: “New regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency mean a lot of coal-fired power plants will shut down soon. The approval of new rules for air pollution, water pollution and waste disposal could result in the retirement of between 35 and 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power generation nationwide, with EPA predicting much less and some analysts predicting much more.”

Megan Parsons, of the engineering firm Burns & McDonnell, said: “These days utilities aren’t coming to the company for help with developing coal plants. Instead, they’re looking at environmental retrofits—and studying whether it’s viable to even keep the plants open. A lot of utilities are retiring their coal units,” she said.