Connect with us

Energy

Industry groups sue over Biden regulation requiring electric school buses, trucks

Published

3 minute read

From The Center Square

By

A coalition of industry groups have filed a lawsuit challenging a Biden administration rule.

A dozen groups joined together to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for the Biden administration’s new rule, finalized earlier this year, which requires model 2027 trucks to meet strict emissions standards that critics say are meant to push out diesel and gas vehicles and to replace them with electric vehicles.

The EPA’s “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3” is the rule in question.

“The new standards will be applicable to HD vocational vehicles (such as delivery trucks, refuse haulers, public utility trucks, transit, shuttle, school buses, etc.) and tractors (such as day cabs and sleeper cabs on tractor-trailer trucks),” EPA said.

Critics argue the rules are so strict that the only option will be to go electric, part of a nationwide effort by the Biden administration to push Americans into electric vehicles. However, currently the electric grid could not handle a wholesale transition of to electric vehicles, posing a major infrastructure problem.

Notably, as The Center Square previously reported, a coalition of 19 states filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Tuesday to challenge a recent federal rule giving the federal government broad power over the electric grid.

“FERC has never been granted the authority to revamp the structure of state energy grids or force states and their ratepayers to subsidize large-scale transmission lines that don’t transport enough energy to justify the cost,” the states argue. “This encroachment upon state authority far exceeds FERC’s limited purview and damages the ability of states to regulate their electric grids efficiently, all in the name of advancing costly climate goals.”

The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers is one of the groups that joined to protest the Biden EPA rule. They argue the EPA overstepped its authority and that it will spike costs for Americans.

“The Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) regulation finalized this spring aims to phase out trucks that run on American-made, American-grown diesel, biodiesel, renewable diesel and renewable natural gas,” Rich Moskowitz, AFPM General Counsel, said in a statement. “Americans will pay dearly because of it.”

Moskowitz said the federal government cannot enact such a drastic change without explicit direction from Congress.

“This policy will increase costs for consumers, dramatically strain the U.S. electric grid, contribute to more traffic and congestion on roads, undermine our energy independence, and impact every sector of the U.S. economy,” he said.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

We can and must adjust to climate change – and not kill billions

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen and Ronald Stein

The futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

We’ve always done so and have no right to tell others they can’t have modern living standards.

Earth’s climate has changed many times over four billion years, and 99.999% of those changes occurred before humans were on this planet. During that short time, humans adjusted their housing, clothing and agriculture in response to climate changes. Can we now control the climate?

Except for decades-long droughts or massive volcanic explosions that ended some civilizations, humanity generally adjusted successfully – through a Pleistocene Ice Age, a Little Ice Age, a Dust Bowl and other natural crises. Numerous state high temperature records were set in Dust Bowl years.

After putting our current “microsecond” on Earth into its proper perspective, we might therefore ask:

* With today’s vastly superior technologies, why would humanity possibly be unable to adjust to even a few-degrees temperature increase, especially with more atmospheric carbon dioxide helping plants grow faster and better, providing more food for animals and people?

* How dare the political, bureaucratic, academic and media ruling elites – who propagate GIGO computer predictions, calculated myths and outright disinformation – tell us we must implement their “green” policies immediately and universally … or humanity won’t survive manmade climate influences that are minuscule compared to the planetary, solar and galactic forces that really control Earth’s climate?

* How dare those elites tell Earth’s poorest people and nations they have no right to seek energy, health and living standards akin to what developed countries already enjoy?

Scientists, geophysicists and engineers have yet to explain or prove what caused the slight change in global temperatures we are experiencing today – much less the huge fluctuations that brought five successive mile-high continental glaciers, and sea levels that plunged 400 feet each time (because seawater was turned to ice), interspersed with warm inter-glacial periods like the one we’re in now.

Moreover, none of the dire predictions of cataclysmic temperature increases, sea level rise, and more frequent and intense storms have actually occurred, despite decades of climate chaos fearmongering.

Earth continues to experience climate changes, from natural forces and/or human activity. However, adjusting to small temperature, sea level and precipitation changes would inflict far less harm on our planet’s eight billion people than would ridding the world of fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and myriad products that helped to nearly double human life expectancy over the past 200 years.

Today, with fuels, products, housing and infrastructures that didn’t even exist one or two centuries ago, we can adjust to almost anything.

When it’s cold, we heat insulated homes and wear appropriate winter clothing; when it’s hot, we use air conditioning and wear lighter clothing. When it rains, we remain dry inside or with umbrellas; when it snows, we stay warm indoors or ski, bobsled and build snowmen.

Climate changes may impact us in many ways. But eliminating coal, oil and natural gas – with no 24/7/365 substitutes to replace them – would be immoral and evil. It would bring extreme shortages of reliable, affordable, essential energy, and of over 6,000 essential products derived from fossil fuels.

It would inflict billions of needless deaths from diseases, malnutrition, extreme heat and cold, and wild weather – on a planet where the human population has grown from 1 billion to 8 billion since Col. Edwin Drake drilled the first oilwell in 1859.

Weather-related fatalities have virtually disappeared, thanks to accurate forecasting, storm warnings, modern buildings, and medicines and other petroleum-based products that weren’t available even 100 years ago.

* Fossil fuels for huge long-range jets and merchant ships move people, products, food and medications to support global trade, mobility, health and lifestyle choices. Indeed, more than 50,000 merchant ships20,000 commercial aircraft and 50,000 military aircraft use fuels manufactured from crude oil.

* Food to feed Americans and humanity would be far less abundant and affordable without the fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and tractor and transportation fuels that come from oil and natural gas.

* Everything powered by electricity utilizes petroleum-based derivatives: wind turbine blades and nacelle covers, wire insulation, iPhone and computer housings, defibrillators, myriad EV components and more.

Petroleum industry history demonstrates that crude oil was virtually useless until it could be transformed in refineries and chemical plants into derivatives that are the foundation for plastics, solvents, medications and other products that support industries, health and living standards. The same is true for everything else that comes out of holes in the ground.

Plants and rocks, metals and minerals have no inherent value unless we learn how to cook them, extract metals from them, bend and shape them, or otherwise convert them into something we can use.

Similarly, the futures of poor developing countries hinge on their ability to harness foundational elements: fuels, electricity, minerals and feed stocks made from fossil fuels and other materials that are the basis for all buildings, infrastructures and other technologies in industrialized countries.

For the 80% of humanity in Africa, Asia and Latin America who still live on less than $10 a day – and the billions who still have little to no access to electricity – life is severely complicated and compromised by the hypocritical “green” agendas of wealthy country elites who have benefited so tremendously from fossil fuels since the modern industrial era began around 1850. Before that:

* Life spans were around 40 years, and people seldom travelled more than 100 miles from their birthplaces.

* There was no electricity, since generating, transmitting and utilizing this amazing energy resource requires technologies made from oil and natural gas derivatives.

* That meant the world had no modern transportation, hospitals, medicines and medical equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, radio and other electronics, cell phones and other telecommunications, air and space travel, central heating and air conditioning, or year-round shipping and preservation of meats, fruits and vegetables, to name just a few things most of us just take for granted.

There are no silver-bullet solutions to save people from natural or man-made climate changes. However, adjusting to those fluctuations is the only solution that minimizes fatalities which would be caused by the callous or unthinking elimination of the petroleum fuels and building blocks that truly make life possible and enjoyable, instead of nasty, brutish and short. The late Steven Lyazi explained it perfectly:

“Wind and solar are … short-term solutions …. to meet basic needs until [faraway Ugandan villages] can be connected to transmission lines and a grid. Only in that way can we have modern homes, heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, offices, factories, schools, shops and hospitals – so that we can enjoy the same living standards people in industrialized countries do (and think is their right). We deserve the same rights and lives.

“What is an extra degree, or even two degrees, of warming in places like Africa? It’s already incredibly hot here, and people are used to it. What we Africans worry about and need to fix are malnutrition and starvation, the absence of electricity, and killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, sleeping sickness and HIV/AIDS…. We just need to be set free to [get the job done].”

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

Continue Reading

Economy

Energy exports continue to fuel the Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

Without exports of oil, natural gas and other energy goods, Canada’s cumulative trade deficit with the rest of the world—which stood at $130 billion in the decade ending in 2023—would have ballooned to $1 trillion.

Energy sits at the heart of Canada’s export economy, even though some federal policymakers and provincial governments appear to be discomfited by that fact.

In recent years, energy has supplied 20–25 percent of Canada’s total international exports (goods plus services combined), with crude oil, refined petroleum products, and natural gas making up the lion’s share of our energy-related shipments to other countries. Canada’s energy export basket also includes coal, uranium, and electricity.

In the last two decades, energy has become Canada’s leading export sector, mainly owing to higher oil production volumes, rising hydrocarbon exports, and still-robust global demand for fossil fuels (which provide 80 percent of the world’s primary energy). Measured in millions of barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), Canadian conventional oil and gas production rose from 4.5 million BOE per day in 2015 to 5.4 million/day last year, with most of the additional output destined for the United States. With the completion of pipeline expansion projects and the looming start-up of liquefied natural gas (LNG) production on the West Coast, oil and gas are set to play an even bigger role in Canada’s economy and export portfolio in the coming years.

A May 2024 modelling study by S&P Global Commodity Insights predicts a further jump in conventional oil and gas output of between 0.5 and 1.0 million BOE/day by 2035, assuming the federal government doesn’t impose draconian caps on production in the sector as part of its shambolic climate policy agenda.  Based on that scenario, S&P estimates that production, capital and operating spending in Canada’s conventional oil and gas industry will add up to $1.3 trillion to Canada’s gross domestic product by 2035. This forecast is premised on a modest (8 percent) increase in output and further declines in the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions intensity due to efficiency measures, advances in technology, greater use of carbon capture, and other factors.

To illustrate the contribution that energy makes to Canada’s prosperity, the Coalition for A Better Future recently estimated that without exports of oil, natural gas and other energy goods, Canada’s cumulative trade deficit with the rest of the world—which stood at $130 billion in the decade ending in 2023—would have ballooned to $1 trillion.

Thanks to energy production, Canada garners up to $200 billion of additional export receipts each year—and the figure is set to rise significantly in the next decade. This outsized stream of export earnings furnishes the means to pay for imports, supports hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and generates tens of billions of dollars of extra revenues for Canadian governments.

In Canada’s case, it is also worth noting that energy reliably produces the largest trade surplus of any sector, by a wide margin. And, as noted above, that surplus will increase in size over the rest of this decade and possibly beyond, mainly due to oil and gas output and exports climbing from current levels.

Averaged over the period 2022-23, Canada’s two-way trade in energy goods yielded a net annual surplus of almost $150 billion.  This dwarfs the surpluses posted in other natural resource-based sectors such as metal ores, non-metallic minerals, agri-food, and forest products. Large trade surpluses in energy—and, to a lesser extent, in other natural resource industries—offset chronic Canadian trade deficits in consumer goods, machinery and equipment, electronic products, and other high-tech goods. Canada also runs a trade deficit of $35-40 billion in motor vehicles and parts.

Trudeau government ministers are fond of talking up (and subsidizing) Canadian non-fossil fuel energy industries, like (carbon-free) electricity, biofuels, hydrogen (production of which currently is almost non-existent in Canada) and the “clean tech” sector. However, except for electricity, these segments of the Canadian energy sector are very small in size and export little. And while the “clean tech” industry does hold considerable promise over the medium term, today it accounts for less than one percent of Canada’s international exports.

When it comes to energy exports, the reality for Canada is that oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuel products dominate the picture—and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Continue Reading

Trending

X