About Marshall Kaplan

Marshall Kaplan is the former Dean of the Graduate School of Public Affairs at University of Colorado and held the Wirth Chair in Energy, Climate Change and Community Development. He also served in the Carter and Kennedy administrations and as an Advisor to Assistant Secretary Floyd Hyde when George Romney was Secretary of HUD. He was a principal in the policy advisory firm of Marshall Kaplan, Gans and Kahn. Marshall has written several books and numerous articles on regional and urban policy, New Towns, poverty, infrastructure, environment and social welfare policy. He was honored by the Colorado ADL for his contributions to the nation and community in the early 1980s.

Paul Revere: The Teslas are coming, the Teslas are coming!

Paul RevereWhen he died, the patriot Paul Revere was embalmed in V8 juice, tanning lotion and several energy drinks. Surprisingly, he reappeared at a relatively recent conference of the Massachusetts Association of Automobile Dealers, looking fit and ready for another ride. The dealers had prayed for his second coming. They hoped that even though his previous ride was only one horsepower, he would consent to try a low-horsepower vehicle and ride the state, warning their brave residents that Tesla is online and in-store sales of electric cars coming. The dealers’ marketing folks felt that a reincarnated Revere would do wonders for their shaky image as wheeler dealers (excuse the pun). His deep, holier-than-thou, Fred Thomas-type voice (you know, the actor-turned-politician-turned-actor who now sells most anything on TV for money) would convince all but his former peer group (dead people) that Tesla was anti-American.

“What did Tesla do wrong,” asked Revere? Oh, it’s trying to sell its non-horse, torque-engine vehicles directly to modern-day patriots. Can you imagine euthanizing horsepower? Tears came to Revere’s eyes. But there’s more, paraphrasing a former automaker and cabinet officer Charles Wilson, one of the dealers indicates that what’s good for automobile dealers was and will always be good for America. What Elon Musk, the head of Tesla Motors, wants to do is eliminate dealerships. If the present case before the courts in Massachusetts is won by Tesla and Teslas are sold online, from a storefront, or shopping mall, surely Ford, Chrysler and General Motors will not be far behind. Forget capitalism, forget free markets, forget competition, even forget, Paul, your membership in the old Tea Party in Boston (you know, the taxation-without-representation crowd). Forget everything you fought for. By eliminating dealerships, Tesla will cost jobs. Dealers soon will have to close their doors. Bypassing dealers to sell cars will also first limit and then end our community philanthropy — you know, Little League teams, Fourth of July concerts, community picnics, jerseys for kids etc. Tesla’s headquarters is in California, and it’s a crazy state with Hollywood and all that. Californians act like foreigners. Tesla’s founder believes in global warming, he isn’t satisfied with life in America and he is developing a spaceship where the elite can, someday soon, travel to a second home and ruin our local economy. Losing dealers will make every community less American. Sure, vehicle costs may come down and emissions may improve, but what American is unwilling to pay extra to save his or her friendly auto dealer?

Revere was puzzled. He was a merchant way back then and he believed that competition and the free market were part of the American Dream. (To be honest, he also feared riding and did not understand how he could ride a multiple-horse powered vehicle. He had only mounted one horse.)

But he understood what the dealership folks were trying to tell and sell him. While in his heart, he was a bit ambivalent, he finally said he would do the famous ride again, and this time, because mileage capacity had increased and population of Massachusetts had grown, he agreed to try to go farther west than in his famous, poet-legitimized and sanctified ride.

But just as he gave them the okay, the dealerships received an email from a colleague in Boston that Tesla had won in the Massachusetts court. One dealer started crying. Several others criticized “those activist judges.”

Revere asked to read the email. It indicated that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously determined that the Mass. State Automobile Dealers “lacked standing to block direct Tesla sales under a state law designated to protect franchises owners from abuses by car manufacturers” (Reuters, Sept. 15, 2014). Succinctly, the law was tied to the franchise relationship rather than unaffiliated manufacturers like Tesla.

The court’s finding should make it easier for Tesla to secure positive rulings in many other states. Earlier this spring, senior officials from the Federal Trade Commission strongly indicated that laws outlawing direct sales harmed consumers. Revere, after looking at the email, felt guilty that he had all but agreed to replicate his famous ride. But he was consoled by the fact that freedom and competition won out, at least in the Tesla case in Massachusetts, and that at least consumer democracy was alive and well in the state. He couldn’t help but muse on the fact that Texas, a state supposedly committed to minimal regulation and almost zero interference by government concerning businesses and citizens’ lives, turned its back on Tesla because of lobbying by dealers. Tesla cannot sell directly in Texas. But, as Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested, “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” After driving a Tesla (with no horsepower), Revere went back to the halo- lit neter lands happy. We haven’t heard from him since. But on faith alone, his experience with reincarnation likely would have made him a fan of Tesla’s electric cars and other alternative fuels.

The game of checkers and corn-based ethanol

checkersRecent news concerning the use of corn waste or residual products to create commercially viable ethanol reminds me of a game of checkers. One jump forward, one jump backward, one move sideways. Depending how smart, bored or prone to crying the players are, the game often results in either a stalemate or a glorious victory, particularly glorious when it’s your grandson or granddaughter.

The good news! The American-owned POET and the Dutch-owned Royal DSM opened the first facility in Iowa that produces cellulosic ethanol from corn waste (not your favorite corn on the cob), only the second in the U.S. to commercially produce cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste, according to James Stafford’s recent article in OilPrice.com (Sept. 5).

The new owners jumped (note the analogy to checkers…my readers are bright) with joy. They announced, perhaps, a bit prematurely, that the joint project, called Project LIBERTY, is the “first step in transforming our economy, our environment and our national security.” After their press release, quick, generally positive, comments came from electric and hydrogen fuel makers, CNG producers, advocates of natural gas-based ethanol and a whole host of other replacement fuel enthusiasts. The comments reflected the high hopes and dreams of leaders of public interest groups, some in the business community, several think tanks and many in the government who see transitional replacement fuels reducing U.S. dependency on oil and simultaneously improving the economy and environment. Several were fuel agnostic as long as increased competition at the pump offered a range of fuels at lower costs to consumers and reduced environmental harm to the nation.

Ethanol from corn waste, if the conversion could be made easily and if it resulted in less costs than gasoline, would mute tension between those who argue that use of corn for ethanol would limit food supplies and provide consumers a good deal, cost wise. The cowboys and the farmers might even eat the same table. (Sorry, Mr. Hammerstein.)

Life is never easy. Generally, when a replacement fuel seems to offer competition to gasoline, the API (American Petroleum Institute — supported by the oil industry) immediately tries to check the advocates of replacement fuel. The association didn’t disappoint. It made a clever jump of its own with a confusing move…sort of a bait and switch move.

API’s check and jump is reflected in their quote to Scientific American. It indicated, in holier-than-thou tones, “API supports the use of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuels, once they are commercially viable and in demand by consumers. But EPA must end mandates for these fuels that don’t even exist.” Wow, how subtle. API supports and then denies!

What a bunch of hokum! Given their back-handed endorsement of advanced biofuels, would API and its supporters among oil companies agree to end their unneeded government tax subsidies simultaneously with EPA’s reductions or ending of mandates? Would API and its supporters agree to add provisions to franchise agreements that would allow gas station owners or managers to locate ethanol from cellulosic biofuels in a central visible pump? Would API work with advocates of replacement fuels to open up the gas market to replacement fuels and competition? Would API agree to a collaborative study of the impact of corn-based residue as the primers of ethanol with supporters of residue derived ethanol, a study including refereed, independent evaluators, and abide by the results? If you answer no to all of these questions, you would be right. API, in effect, is clearly trying to jump supporters of corn-based residual ethanol and block them from producing and marketing their product. Conversely, if you believe the answer is yes to one or more of the questions, you will wait a long time for anything to happen and I will offer to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge and more.

The advocates and producers of cellulosic-based ethanol from corn waste (next move) were suggested by overheard advisors to API. These advisors from the oil industry cheered API’s last move and noted that a recent study in Nature Climate Change, a respected peer-reviewed journal, suggested that biofuels made from corn residue emit 7 percent more greenhouse gases in early years than gasoline and does not meet current energy laws. They wanted checkerboard pieces held by advocates of corn residue off the policy board.

Oh, but the supporters are wise! They don’t give in right away. They pointed to an EPA analysis which indicates that using corn residue to secure ethanol meets existing energy laws and probably produces much, much less carbon than gasoline. Studies like the one reported in Nature Climate Change do not, according to an EPA spokesperson, report on lifecycle changes in an adequate way — from pre-planting, through production, blending, distribution, retailing produce and use. Moreover, a recent analysis funded by DuPont — soon to open a new cellulosic residue to ethanol facility — indicates that using corn residue to produce ethanol will be 100 percent better than gasoline, concerning GHG emissions. (Supporters were a bit hesitant about shouting out DuPont’s involvement in funding the study. It is a chemical company with a mixed environmental record. But after review, supporters indicated it seemed like a decent analysis.)

The response of supporters and its intensity caused API and its advisors to withdraw their insistence, that the checkers of the advocates of corn based residue derived ethanol come of the board. Instead, they asked for a two-hour break in the game. The residue folks were scared. “API was a devious group. What were they up too?”

When the game started again, both supporters and opponents pulled out lots of competing studies, before they made their moves. The only things they agreed on was that the extent of land use devoted to corn, combined with the way farmers manage the soil and the residue, likely would significantly affect GHG emissions. Keeping a strategic amount of residual on the soil would help reduce emissions.

Supporters of corn-based residue argued for a quick collaborative study that might help bridge the analysis gap. But they wanted a bonafide commitment from API that if corn-based residual, derived ethanol, proved better than gasoline, it would support it as a transitional replacement fuel. No soap! The game ended in a stalemate.

Based on talking to experts and surveying much of the literature, I believe that the fictional checkers game tilts toward corn residual derived ethanol, assuming significant attention is granted by farmers to management of the soil and the residue. Whether corn residual-based ethanol becomes competitive as a transitional replacement fuel will be based mostly on farmer intelligence, consumer and political acceptance and a set of even playing field regulations. It, as well as natural gas-based ethanol, as I have written in previous columns, are worthy of a set of demonstration efforts. The nation will have an extended wait until electric and hybrid cars make a big dent regarding the share of the total number of cars in America. We have a moral obligation to do the best we know how to do to lower GHG emissions and other pollutants. We shouldn’t let the almost perfect in our future reduce the possible good now.

Ruminations on oil donations, foreign nations and replacement fuels

exxonThe “Old Gray Lady,” The New York Times, did it again….its recent article indicating the extent of government funds from foreign countries supporting so-called independent think tanks and universities in the U.S. was enlightening and was also clearly in the public interest. Most of us policy wonks suspected or knew what the Times indicated on September 7. “More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities…” The money is transforming the once-staid, think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign government’s lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom — some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government that is financing the research.” In this context, NATO, European, Middle East and Asian nations (e.g., Norway, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Japan, etc.) have been visible funders according to the Times and other media..

Before readers become holier than thou about the perception of perversion in foreign governments that link their support to what they want done regarding research and lobbying (implicit, if not explicit), they should know that the grant system in the U.S., in general, is not free of, at times, donor efforts to influence and/or sometimes pressure, whether it involves foreign governments, all levels of government in the U.S, business or foundation grants. Both have been and will remain the way of doing business.

I suspect attempts to influence or pressure research institutions or scholars are sometimes worse in social science research than in the sciences or engineering, where data, analysis and results can often claim at least some visible and quantifiable correlation or causation relationships. A donor’s ideological commitments also may predetermine and lessen the need for donors to try to negotiate the outcomes of grants or gifts. Not many liberal academics will apply for research money from the Koch Family Foundations, not many conservatives will likely go to the George Soros Open Society Foundations (OSF) for money.

Life is complicated for donors and recipients. Free speech and the free flow of ideas are embedded in the U.S. creed and the nation’s constitution. Truth in advertising in research grants and their products, a mythological spin-off, is often muted by the overwhelming influence and importance of money and the need for it, in light of fund shortages. However, the American public, for the most part, cannot easily separate the respected status of the Brookings Institution, the University of California, the Center For Global Development, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, etc. from their willingness to accept what seem clearly donor advocacy grants and subsequently to participate in what appears, to many, to be advocacy research and lobbying. The involved leaders, not always the researchers, of recipient institutions will deny the fact that research money sometimes comes with a price concerning legal, moral and often spoken words in grantor testimonials or contracts concerning obligations to search for the truth and increase wisdom concerning policy and program options.

Oil and oil-related companies and Middle Eastern nations seem now to be among the biggest givers and perhaps receive the biggest “take back” benefits. They fund schools and centers as well as analyses in and at major universities and independent think tanks, both within and outside universities. They have also funded “independent” scholars, chairs and specific RFPs (Request for Proposals) describing general and sometimes relatively specific areas of energy or transportation and fuel-related research. Significant oil and foreign money for policy-related research is also funded through third-party groups, which often mask the source of donations. Donors, understandably, expect benefits from supported research — at least consistency with and, in some cases, advocacy for their economic, social welfare and environmental objectives.

Perhaps one of the more egregious relationships concerning policy or program research involved the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), generally a mouthpiece of and also funded by the oil and automotive industry. Its relatively recent study debunking of E15 reflected the views of their sponsors — again the oil and auto industries. It indicated that E15 significantly harmed engines of many vehicle classes. The study was legitimately criticized by the EPA and others concerning methodology and content. Indeed, it and its implications concerning use of E15, was refuted in part or whole by the EPA’s more extensive analyses, by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and by other respected groups and individuals, some even associated with the auto industry. CRC’s efforts stimulated analyses and similar findings by groups like AAA— again based on even weaker methodology and unknown funding (likely mostly membership dues). Critics have pointed to AAA’s tenuous policy links to members and its long-time support by and of the auto and oil industries. Remember, more cars result in more gasoline use and increased ownership secures more AAA memberships.

Forget the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the proponents and critics of research concerning E15, or for that matter E85. At most times, policy choices and behavior are not based on perfection concerning data and analysis.

What concerns me the most is the predominance of oil and its friends’ money and the lack of transparency concerning funding sources and grant and gift requirements or constraints — both informal and formal.

Like the Times, I am also concerned about the dividing line between education and lobbying concerning grants and gifts provided by oil companies and, foreign nations. Lobbyists are required to register as such. Most think tanks and universities do not see themselves as lobbyists and do not register.

Industry, some foundation and even government-supported research grants sometime come with strings attached. Even if they didn’t, the results of paid research into complex issues are generally not conclusive and can be helpful in stimulating dialogue, if it’s matched by research initiatives funded by donors with different perceptions. Bad, or mediocre research funded by advocates, like speech, shouldn’t be countered by censorship, but by efforts to execute better research and by initiatives to provide to policymakers and the public with countervailing views and analysis to generate dialogue and debate.

I am not a purist. There is no chance in hell that the basic system of what I call advocacy grants and gifts now in existence will end. But public policymakers should insist on transparency as to funding sources and research methodology. Key advocacy studies likely to affect public sentiment and decision maker views concerning replacement fuels and gasoline should be granted, at least some form of even informal refereed reviews. If I could figure out an easy way to do it, I would define alternatives that would provide some reasonable equivalency concerning research funding. They would assure Americans that all key replacement fuel options are examined fully and are compared to gasoline. The research on replacement fuels should not be submerged by foreign nation or internal U.S. oil interest funding. But I don’t get paid enough nor am I smart enough to think this one through, at least until the next column. Maybe you can help me? Paraphrasing my favorite oil scholar, Socrates, unexamined studies funded without independent review, only by the oil industry or its Middle East friends and colleagues, are often not worth having or debating. Peace.

What the world needs now is land (and honesty) to get to replacement fuels

poisonI had the good fortune to meet and work a bit with Dr. Edwin Land, the inventor of the Polaroid camera. We were both on an informal poverty task force created by President Kennedy. I always admired Land. Throughout his life, his comments were always thought-provoking. His suggestion that “politeness is the poison of collaboration” really challenged, and continues to challenge, many of the facilitation and leadership gurus and practitioners who sometimes seem to have invented linguistic anti-depressants. Translated: don’t get angry, hold your tongue, mind your manners, mute some of your views or make them sound less critical, try to be nice and likeable, move toward a win-win situation, compromise and, if you get intense, take a break and go out for a while. Have a beer?

Times have changed, but only a bit, since Land died in the early nineties. Many participants still go into a collaborative and/or facilitative policy process with squeamishness about being direct and honest about their concerns. Because of this fact, it takes many sessions, rather than a few, to get real, difficult issues on the table and achieve a real meaningful and honest dialogue. Bonding and game playing (real and surreal) are often seen as more important than advocacy as well as early substantive dialogue. There is often little chance to compromise because the people at the table compromise their own views before they speak. They want to be polite. We don’t really know what they really think. Building collaboration in the hands of a facilitherapist (my own word), is regrettably, at times, using everyone’s favorite term, an existential threat. It makes collaborative victories, frequently short-term ones, in light of the fact that underlying disputes and tension were not given an airing.

With this as context, let’s look at key policy and behavioral issues now confronting the nation, concerning the harmful link between gasoline, the economy and social welfare, and the environment, particularly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. As relevant, let’s also think about why it’s been so tough to move toward replacement fuels for gasoline, even though such options would benefit consumers and the nation.

Gasoline now fuels approximately 250,000,000 vehicles in the U.S. While GHG emissions from gasoline are down because of improved technology in vehicles, gas still generally spews more GHG than alternative fuels such as ethanol, methanol, electricity or fuel cells. Gasoline also fails health and well- being tests when measured against a range of other pollutants, including NOx and VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Gasoline prices, while seemingly low (only) compared to the recent past, in some cases remain higher than alternative fuels, by a significant amount, whether based on renewables or fossil fuel. In this context, most of you reading this column are neither poor nor near poor. Imagine though, that you are, and in order to work, you need find housing at a reasonable cost relatively close to your job, see a doctor or take your family to see an aunt or uncle. But if you secure these and other basics, you have fewer choices since you have to spend from between 10-15 percent of your meager income on fuel. This is a verity now for most low- and moderate-income households. Indeed, based on EIA projections of gas prices and conservative as well as liberal economists conclusions concerning job growth and income, the percentages, likely, will increase in the future. If you were a person of very limited means, what would you limit first: travel to and from work, decent housing, health care or food, etc.?

Now, none of the replacement fuels are perfect. Most, including those based on or derived from fossil fuels such as natural gas, do emit some measurable GHG and other pollutants. This includes electric cars, particularly those that do secure their power from coal-fired electric utilities. But all are better than gasoline on environmental, economic and social welfare indices.

Why then is there not a clear movement toward transitional replacement fuels? Sure, electric car sales and CNG sales are up and hydro fuels will soon be on the market. Hopefully, they all will succeed in attracting consumers. But right now, all three together constitute from 1.5 to 3 percent of sales of new cars.

Why? Well, electric cars, CNG and hydrogen fuel cars are expensive and out of reach for many American households. For some, particularly those who purchase lower-end electric cars, the miles per charge often create road fear on the part of drivers. “What if I get stuck on the L.A. freeway?” Fuel stations are few and often far between for both electric, CNG and hydrogen fuel.

New electric, CNG or hydrogen fueled cars, at least for the near future, will illustrate for us all the comparative purchasing power of the haves, the have nots and the almost haves. Hopefully someday soon, most Americans will be able to compete — price, technology and design wise — for larger shares of the automobile market. But even if they become competitive, they will not be able to generate a major dent in the number of existing vehicles that rely on the internal combustion engine for a long time. Look at the data yourselves! Given their predicted annual sales, how many years would it take before the fleet of privately owned vehicles contained a very large percentage of electric, CNG, or hydrogen fueled vehicles (perhaps as much as 50 to 75 percent or more)? I have seen figures ranging up to almost several decades from respected analysts . Clearly, if sales of hybrid and plug-in vehicles are counted in the totals, the amount of time, it takes will be lower. However, achievement of a proportionately large share of the total number of cars will still extend out a many many years.

What can we do to achieve legitimate important national objectives concerning the environment, the economy and consumer costs for vehicles and fuel almost immediately? We can move to expand the number of FFVs (flex-fuel vehicles) in the country, first, by encouraging Detroit to build more each year and second, by asking public, nonprofit and private sectors to work together with the EPA to certify more conversion kits as well as existing in-use cars for conversion to FFV status. The net results would be vehicles able to use much higher percentages of ethanol (E85) derived from natural gas or from corn cobs, husks and stalks as well as other biofuels.

The proposed strategy is a transitional one. Clearly, electric, CNG and hydro fueled cars, when able to meet market tests concerning consumer needs, should join the mix of choices at the pump. I am optimistic. For example, twenty two states led by Colorado and Oklahoma have agreed to use CNG fueled cars to replace older cars retired from their state’s fleets. Detroit with the pool of CNG cars purchased by the states has agreed make best efforts to develop a lower cost CNG vehicle. Electric cars are coming down in costs. Hydro fueled cars will likely be produced in larger numbers soon and technology over time will reduce vehicle prices.

Now back to Edwin Land. I believe his comments about politeness, perhaps a bit too absolute, reflect his and my own views that the ground rules for collaborative efforts and consensus building may impede honesty concerning discussions of difficult topics. Being polite sometimes circumscribes and weakens important strategic dialogue. Involved participants fear being direct and sometimes avoid linking their intense feelings to their commentary. They try to avoid criticism or be seen as breaking the mythology of togetherness concerning long-term objectives and initiatives. Indeed, both objectives and initiatives are often so long term, that they are vague and don’t really matter to folks at the table. So why not go along? Individuals either avoid saying things that might lead to even temporary policy, program or behavior conflict and debate.

Politeness, certainly, is generally a virtue in most circumstances. Perhaps Land went too far in his choice of words. But the term, if used to guide collaborative efforts, often serves to mask real disagreements and necessarily blunt conversation. I have done lots of facilitative sessions on policy issues between senior officials of different nations and the U.S., as well as between community leaders on education, growth, environmental, race and poverty issues. Maybe the difference is miniscule, but I like the term being “civil” rather than being “polite;” the former presumes disagreement and allows for willingness to entertain tough dialogue and the possibility that the dialogue might step, at times, on intellectual toes; the latter, when translated into behavior, often suggests a willingness to skirt conflicts regarding ideas, if it temporarily reduces the ambience at the table.

Leaders from all sectors need to help build a collaborative “coalition of the willing” among environmental, public interest, government, private sector, nonprofit and academic leaders to push for flex fuel cars and replacement fuels. The criteria for coalition selection should be relevance to the policy and political issues related to gaining the public’s access to multiple fuel choices at the pump and to secure a much larger number of new FFVs as well as existing vehicles converted to FFV status. Identification and selection should not be limited to leaders who think exactly like us. But both should be limited to individuals who care about the environment, the economic and job growth of this nation, the well-being of consumers, particularly low- and moderate-income consumers and, although not discussed above, the security of this nation and the world. Claims of absolute wisdom should be a non starter for membership.

I suspect if the leadership group is diverse enough and if reasonable ground rules concerning structure and processes are set at the outset (ones that encourage substantive dialogue and debate ), disagreements can be bridged based on the data and agreements reached on transitional replacement fuel strategies that would influence public and private sector decision makers. A good facilitator would be needed, one weaned on policy and strategy more than psychology. A nationally respected foundation, or possibly even EPA, could either support or indeed facilitate the proposed serious exercise in collaboration and democracy. Civility, not politeness, should be a principle governing the dialogue.

Paul Harvey, the rest of the news and natural gas

Paul HarveyPaul Harvey was a conservative icon in radio news during the mid to end of the 20th century. While I often differed with the substance of his commentary, he was a welcome travel partner when driving, particularly on a long trip. What I liked most about him was that he generally articulated his views without being malicious, and his voice was just wonderful. He sounded like a symphonic rap musician, using iambic pentameter.

One of Harvey’s favorite phrases was here’s “the rest of the story.” Remembering it, gives me a wonderful opening for this column.

This week there were several optimistic articles on natural gas growth this past week .One article in particular caught my eye. The piece described the expanded, but still relatively low, market penetration of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Given the cost and environmental benefits of natural gas, I was pleased to read the content and see the numbers and quotations. But in Paul Harvey’s terms it did not tell “the rest of the story”!

Yes, natural gas is making inroads into the trucking industry, even among buyers of new cars, asserts the article. “The boom in natural gas production in the U.S. has ignited a revolution in the auto sector that could reshape the way Americans fuel their vehicles, market participants and analysts said in a week-long special on FOX Business.” ClearView Energy Partners, the Newport Beach, California company that is building fuel stations along major interstate trucking corridors, will likely facilitate the growth of natural gas as a fuel in trucks. It will provide one of the missing pieces that have impeded natural gas’ popularity — fear of running out of fuel. “About 25% of the truck market could convert to natural gas by 2020, according to a report by Citigroup…eight in 10 new trucks Waste Management brought in 2012 were powered by natural gas.” Your friendly bus driver’s bus is increasingly likely to run on natural gas.

“Only a tenth of a percent of natural gas consumed in U.S. last year was used for fuel in vehicles, according to the Energy Department. Of the more than 15.2 million natural gas vehicles on roads across the globe, [only] about 120,000 are in the U.S.” Natural gas clearly hasn’t taken off yet as a transportation fuel in the U.S. Kevin Book, ClearView’s managing director of research indicates that, “I think you look at locomotives, also a very interesting and potentially large market, and also some of the marine applications before you start talking about smaller passenger cars.” I suspect his negative perceptions of natural gas as a competitive fuel in cars stems from the present costs of CNG passenger vehicles and the present absence of CNG fuel stations — a possible temporary problem if ClearView’s commitment to develop a natural gas highway could extend to private automobiles. We have had many successful freedom movements in this country. There would be only relatively marginal costs to extend the capacity of the natural gas highway’s fuel stations to include CNG availability for all consumers of natural gas vehicles and to assure availability of natural gas derivative fuels like ethanol. If you build it, many of the 17 million FFVs now on the road will come and more will follow, given what’s presently on the (near term) horizon.

Here is more of “the rest of the story,” à la Paul Harvey. One of the most innovative programs to stimulate the use of natural gas, CNG, was initiated by Gov. Hickenlooper and Gov. Fallin. Under their nonpartisan umbrella, 22 states have agreed to replace older cars, when they are due to retire, with CNG cars. Their commitment will create a large pool of CNG purchases over the next few years. Detroit has agreed to work with the states and both the governors and carmakers want to use the effort to produce a less expensive CNG car for American households.

But there is more! Two companies, Coskata, Inc. and Celanese have had success in converting natural gas to ethanol and are both striving to commercialize and define strategies to market their product. If they are successful, other companies will follow in light of historical “copycat capitalism.” The result will be a fuel that will be environmentally better and clearly cheaper than gasoline. The result will also be increased demand for fuels like E85, which will generate consumer purchases of FFVs and the conversion of existing, older cars. It may also open up the pockets of investors concerning the support for future E85 pumps. If ethanol becomes popular because of price and environmental objectives, can methanol be far behind (excuse me, Percy)? Freedom to choose what you drive and what fuel you use on the high and bi ways of this nation would be consistent with the American way and creed.

Bipolar, manic depressive and natural gas

Although a bit bipolar concerning the data, the editors of Real Clear Energy published a useful graph and narrative on Tuesday. It showed the slow, steady increase of natural gas use in the U.S. over the past few years. The graph and narrative noted a 33% increase in vehicle fuel consumption since 2007. More good news for those who support natural gas, given its ability to reduce GHG emissions: the editors reported that the T. Boone Pickens’ “Natural Gas Highway” appears to offer hope that the trend will continue upward. Indeed, the EIA indicates that natural gas will increasingly substitute for gasoline in the truck, bus and rail freight sectors. So much good news! However, don’t open the champagne yet!

Now the bad news! Despite the increasing popularity of natural gas, over the next 25 years, the editors suggest it will only replace or displace 3% of the nation’s oil budget. What a bummer! But, paraphrasing Frank Sinatra (the noted oil man turned singer), when you have “your chin on the ground, there’s a lot to be learned, so look around… [we’ve] got high hopes…all problems just a toy balloon, they’ll be bursted soon, they’re just bound to go pop”…cause we’ve got high hopes.

Thanks Frank. Now, back to the editors. They correctly advised their readers that we, as a nation, will “never make any real progress until we start using liquid methanol and ethanol in regular passenger cars.” I assume the editors mean that we should increase the amount of ethanol in our cars. All of us now use at least 10% ethanol when we fill-er-up. Some of us, if we are lucky and have a flex-fuel vehicle (over 17 million of us do, but likely don’t know it), can use E15 and E85, assuming we can find a station with the necessary pumps. With the exception of a few states, such pumps are relatively few and far between. Sales of E15 and E85 constitute only a small share of the fuel market.

EIA ChartWhy? Neither ethanol not methanol is a perfect fuel. Yet, study after study indicates that, on most dimensions, they are better than gasoline. Both are cheaper, both are generally environmentally superior and both emit less GHG emissions. Competition with gasoline from both would allow the U.S. to become less dependent on oil imports and add to our nation’s security. Over time, opening fuel markets to consumers by adding choice would likely help stabilize, and even reduce, the price of gasoline and limit its frequent nonstructural cycles.

As a former dean of a major School of Public Policy, I would gladly supervise a Ph.D. thesis or an “independent” student study concerning consumer decisions relative to the purchase of gasoline vs. replacement fuels, particularly ethanol and the acquisition of new or the conversion of existing cars to FFV status. The student could start off with some reasonable, contextual assumptions and/or hypotheses. For example:

1. Consumer decisions about alternative fuels often must be speculative, given the fact that oil companies, most times, prohibit their franchises from adding a replacement fuel pump or require them to put the pump in a hidden sidebar location.

2. There are sufficient anecdotes that price management is also a barrier to the development of competitive fuel markets. Data descriptive of the life cycle of ethanol suggests that costs for production, distribution and sales would permit ethanol to compete well, price-wise, with gas. However, anecdotes suggest that producers, distributors, blenders and retail stations — including independent stations — often raise or lower the price of gasoline relative to replacement fuels, which often impedes real consumer choice. There are no angels here. Retail stations carrying E85 have been known to raise its price to capture extra revenue.

3. Although the gap is narrowing in light of technological improvements, replacement fuels, including ethanol, get less mileage per gallon than gasoline. But, as noted earlier, the costs at the pump, if recognized in the price per gallon, generally work out in favor of ethanol. However, consumers find the calculations difficult to make without the addition of simple signs at the pump, a willing and patient station attendant, or an app in your hand. As a rule of thumb, replacement fuels should be at least 22% cheaper than gasoline to cement the deal for a knowledgeable consumer.

4. Despite EPA studies and approvals to the contrary, groups mainly associated with, supported by or historically favorable to the oil industry have planted the worry seed in car owners’ minds. E15 and, likely E85, they say, will damage engines that are actually built to use both. Saying it often enough has likely made many consumers consciously or subconsciously avoid replacement fuels like ethanol. The best answer to bad speech — whether written or oral — is good speech. Yet, only a handful of writers, editors, TV and cable anchors have responded to negative stories and rumors about replacement fuel safety.

I could go on. But I am over my word limit. Thank you, Real Clear Energy, for making me manic depressive — my friends would say it’s a rather normal state. I hope the brief comments by your editors will be discussed over and over again by others and stimulate strategies to increase the use of natural gas based ethanol, and someday soon, the legalization of methanol.

Bring back Woodstock and passion, and bring on replacement fuels

WoodstockThe ‘60s and early ‘70s were exhilarating at times and depressing at other times. America seemed angry and divided about the Vietnam War, the struggle over civil rights and equal rights for women. Many of those who were against the war and supported civil rights for minorities and equal rights for women were passionate about their views and saw themselves as change agents in an America that they viewed as perfectible but not perfect. They debated, they marched, they shouted, they irritated, and they (at times) exceeded legal boundaries. Some even took personal risks by becoming Freedom Riders in the south. By the early ‘70s, they had made a positive difference. They had become legends in their own time, capped off by Woodstock — an exotic, culture-changing, music rebellion concert. America would never again be the same!

I ask myself why the effort to break up the oil industry’s monopoly at the gas pump has won intellectual interest among some, but not the passion and the emotion of the ‘60s. No one is riding in a vehicle column through the nation, stopping at gas stations to plead for an opportunity for consumers to choose among alternative or replacement fuels. No one is shouting en masse about the extensive environmental harm and economic loss caused by our reliance on gasoline. Very few are concerned with the widening income gap and increasing poverty in America. Where is the concern about the negative impact that gas prices have on the purchasing power of the poor?

Surprisingly, very few Americans seem worried that most of the wars we are fighting either overtly or covertly involve (to some degree) our or our allies’ dependence on oil and, sometimes, lead to our becoming allied with some unsavory folks. I keep remembering a relatively recent conversation I had with a special services soldier who quite clearly indicated that he and his colleagues believed the U.S. was in Iraq not because of the quest for democracy or freedom, but because of the West’s need for oil. He indicated that it was b.s. — all this talk about building democracy. Whether it’s Iraq, Syria, or Egypt, Americans themselves are having growing doubts about why we have been, are now, or might be in the future, involved in Middle Eastern wars. Many, if not most, hope that their kids are not the first in and the last out.

What is it going to take to stimulate the adrenaline of Americans when it comes to the oil industry’s ability to limit competition at the gas pump through price management, franchise agreements, and political muscle in Congress? I suspect the draft helped energize the public’s antipathy toward the Vietnam War, but for the most part, the anti-Vietnam movement secured the intense support of only a minority of Americans. Indeed, polls at the time indicated that both the women’s and the civil rights movements also had less than majority support. Yet, in all three instances, the overlapping minorities among the population wielded a big political voice, bigger than their numbers.

Why? I suspect media-savvy, bright, and committed leadership had much to do with it. Further, they were helped by the tragic assassinations of President Kennedy; his brother, U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy; and Martin Luther King, Jr. Growing public distrust of politicians caused by the gap between the facts on the ground and press releases concerning Vietnam increased the willingness of the American public to support the marchers. Polls began to shift on the war, civil rights, and equality for women. All three issues won increasing numbers and granted legitimacy to efforts to end the war and to assist the “have nots” and the “have less” among us. Given the federal budget authorizations and appropriations, an argument could be made that the halcyon days of the Great Society actually occurred during the first years of President Nixon. This is not heresy. Look at the budget details from 1965 through the early ‘70s.

Can we replicate the passion associated with the Vietnam War, civil rights and women’s rights movements and focus it on more democracy and freedom for consumers concerning choice of fuels? Probably not! The issues involved are difficult to grasp for the public. It is unlikely that families will sit down at the dinner table and stimulate conversation on the benefits and costs of replacement fuels or flex-fuel vehicles. Americans are not going to “March on Exxon” as they did on the Pentagon or gather at the National Mall in D.C. in the hundreds of thousands as they did for civil rights.

The term “silent majority” has been used without a hard and sustained predictable meaning in the last four or five decades. It’s a phrase that needs amplification and definition today. It could become the missing public change agent concerning replacement fuels. Coalition building among supportive pro-environmentalists, businesses, consumers, and anti-poverty groups could lead to the development of multitasked, innovative, and interactive national education program with a broad reach (e.g., town meetings, the newspaper and website articles, webinars, Twitter, movies, YouTube, etc.). Its success could convert a now-silent majority or near majority into a thoughtful, articulate majority focused on breaking up the monopoly at the pump. Success would be reflected in poll numbers supportive of federal, state, and local leaders who are willing to push for open fuel markets and increased FFVs. There would be a coalition of the willing; that is, an increasing number of Americans who would provide backbone to public policymakers who, in turn, would commit to challenging the oil companies’ understandable desire to sustain restricted fuel markets and the status quo favoring gasoline over environmentally better, safer, and cheaper replacement fuels. Their support would be conveyed through voting, and the use of innovative communication technology, rather than marching. The results would be illustrated by new, important, expanded democratically made choices by you and me, regarding fuel and vehicles — and maybe a new Woodstock composed of music celebrating America’s new freedoms. I didn’t go to the last one, but will go to the next one celebrating expanded choice for consumers, a healthier economy, and an improved environment. ­

Winston, what would you do concerning natural gas?

Winston ChurchillWhere is Churchill when we need him? How many psychobabble articles and cable commentary about Putin and Russia could we have done without by just remembering good old Winnie’s marvelous, insightful quote in 1939? It’s as near perfection as we are going to get in trying to understand Mr. Putin and Russia. Both are “riddle[s] wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian [and Putin’s] national interest.” (The word Putin is my addition — I am sure Churchill would not have minded.) What does Putin want? Apparently not only full control of Crimea, but also instability in Eastern Ukraine.

Okay, now some of you readers are saying the same about the U.S. We seem to accept Russia’s takeover of Crimea…ah, Russia had it once anyway and it has a big naval base there. Sounds vaguely historically familiar. What about the other place, they say. What was its name? Guantanamo and Cuba! Oh, no?! Please let’s focus on Eastern Ukraine.

Forget consistency and remember Ralph Waldo Emerson. “Consistency [in foreign policy] is the hobgoblin of little minds” (Again, pardon the added-on term, foreign policy.)

Now how does oil come into all of this? None of us, not just President Obama, want to fight a war over the Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine or Crimea. If he were running again, Obama would probably borrow from Woodrow Wilson’s campaign slogan, “He kept us out of war,” at least big wars, particularly with corrupt nations some of which have a history of fascism..

Alright, let’s use tough energy sanctions — oil and natural gas. if the regulations concerning sanctions were tough, they might really hurt Russia’s economy and its ability to move out of the economic doldrums. Let’s hit them where it hurts! No, apparently, we will not, at least for now. Why? Well, Western Europe and our new ally, the Ukraine, depend on natural gas. Without it, both would be in for cold winters and probably a severe industrial recession. So what did our leaders do? They excluded natural gas from the list of recent sanctions. I suspect they, also, will allow Russia and the West to continue to trade in oil not involving new technology from the West.

Absence of natural gas in Europe and the Ukraine (and probably other Eastern Europe nations) is a plus for the U.S. We can make it up by selling natural gas. Isn’t what’s good for the U.S. bad for Russia and Mr. Putin?

Maybe, maybe not…or maybe the view that the U.S can be savior of Western Europe is a myth. Or maybe it’s just too complex for political leaders to grab hold of instantly.

Some verities to deal with:

1. Even with the current rush to permit the export of natural gas, before terminals get built and tankers are ready and environmental issues are disposed of, the first large volume of natural gas would not reach Ukraine or Western Europe until 2016 or later.

2. The U.S., despite the increase in shale development and natural gas production, still imports natural gas to meet domestic supplies — about 12.5% in total. Like big oil, exports of natural gas are to a large degree being sought to secure a higher prices overseas than in the U.S. Hurting Russia for U.S producers is a side show.

3. Russia, ostensibly, can produce natural gas and ship it by pipeline, rail or boat cheaper than we can. According to experts, the cost of U.S.-produced, transported and sold natural gas in Europe and the Ukraine is and will be much higher than Russian-produced and transported natural gas sold globally. Note in this context that Russia just cemented a $4 billion deal for Russia to sell oil to China. Will the Europeans and Ukrainians want higher-priced natural gas from the U.S.?

4. Oh, I almost forgot. Just last winter, U.S. residents in many states, particularly eastern states, nearly froze because of shortages of natural gas resulting from lack of adequate pipeline capacity and pipeline congestion. Consequently, the gas they secured came at very high prices. If ports can be built, pipeline amendments for the east coast cannot be far behind and probably should come first, if money is tight. Can we afford both, given uncertainties concerning price of natural gas and cost of drilling in tight areas? Sure. But the tradeoffs need to be carefully balanced by policymakers and the long term for investors must look bright.

It’s a puzzlement. Our policy seen by many nonpartisan observers as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery…” I will know sanctions are real when gas is included. What I won’t know is whether it will make a difference to Russia, given the fungibility of import-needy nations like China. Sanctions may bring both China and Russia something that communism has failed to do — build back a broken alliance. What I also don’t know is whether the growth of exports will significantly raise natural gas prices over time in the U.S. and lower the price differential with oil, and its derivative gasoline. If it does, producers and distributors may get rich, but opportunities for something I do care about — the development and widespread use of natural gas-based ethanol as a replacement fuel — may be impeded significantly. If this occurs, the environment, our economy and low- and moderate-income Americans may be worse off for it. Policymaking in today’s world is difficult and is something you often cannot fully learn in school.

Optimist and pessimist, the Oil & Gas Journal and replacement fuels

Shutterstock“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist fears this is true” — James Branch Cabell. Or, as I once said in a presentation in China after Tiananmen Square, “a strategic optimist is a realist with brains.”

I live with the hope we can do better as nation with respect to the environment, our economy and the quality of life choices open to Americans, particularly low- and moderate-income Americans. But I worry that given the ideological and related political divisiveness among us, we may not.

In this context, after reading the recent article, “SAFE: Report’s ‘flash points’ emphasize US transportation fuel problem” in the Oil & Gas Journal, often seen by some as a mouthpiece for the oil industry, my thoughts reflected both optimism and pessimism. I concluded that I was a realist tempered by experience (and hopefully with a brain). Okay, what did the piece suggest that stimulated my mental and emotional adrenaline? Two or three quotes used by the author Nick Snow, respected Washington editor of OGJ, taken from a national conference convened by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE):

“A proliferation of global oil geopolitical ‘flash points’ (e.g., conflicts in countries or within countries that limit or could limit the supply of oil) makes it even more urgent for the U.S. to aggressively reduce its dependence on crude oil for transportation fuels…If we could be only 65% dependent on oil for our transportation fuels by 2025 instead of 90%, it would make a tremendous difference…We also need better politics developed by people who can find win-win situations so we can move forward…We all agree that we need to diversify our transportation sources away from oil.”

Nick Snow is no blazing liberal. According to his resume, Mr. Snow has spent 30 years or so as a journalist covering oil issues, many of those for media outlets friendly to oil interests (e.g., Oil Daily).

Have we reached nirvana? Did the article in the OGJ signal that big or small oil companies will soon announce their commitment to replacement fuels, like natural gas-based ethanol and methanol? Their support, given the fact that some oil companies already own significant natural gas fields, could be important from a public policy and an “on the ground production and distribution” perspective.

When I was a kid, older members of my family, if they wanted something but knew it was impossible to secure, would say, “I should live so long.” In some respects, while I’m surprised by the selected quotes used in the article by Mr. Snow, I doubt it heralds an epiphany by leaders of the oil industry or their companies.

Why am I a wannabe optimist but a realistic pessimist? Oil companies’ primary behavior over the past decade or more has been to oppose the development of most replacement fuels, FFVs and open fuel markets. Sometimes they have done this through other organizations that they influence or control, and sometimes directly. Clearly, gas station franchises granted by oil companies remain tied to a “just say no” position on replacement fuels, or a back- or side-of-the-station mandate concerning location of replacement-fuel pumps. For the most part, their reaction to “flash points” has been “drill, baby, drill,” and their battle cry has been that only more drilling will make the nation oil independent. This is a curious stance, since companies are simultaneously seeking to increase their ability to export globally. America still imports about a third of its oil, while retail prices for gasoline at most stations remain high.

I’m afraid that the OGJ piece by Snow is not a harbinger of good tidings concerning oil company endorsement of replacement fuels — at least any time soon. Rather, the article reflects a willingness of the author to honestly describe a major issue facing the nation, that is, the disproportionate share of oil in transportation fuels. Regrettably, excluded from the piece is a narrative about the fact that oil converted to gasoline has a significant negative effect on the environment, and that oil imports still take a toll on the economy. Replacement fuels would address security, environmental and economic issues, and related national objectives in a much more positive way.

I have a vested interest in remembering the famous Andrews Sisters. How many of you remember them? They played in my uncle’s band for a short time. So let me end, somewhat inappropriately, using the last stanza of one of their hit tunes “I Can Dream, Can’t I?” by composer Sammy Fain. I am sure neither the sisters nor Sammy would mind. With respect to the oil companies, “I am aware. My heart is a sad affair. There is much disillusion there. But I can dream, can’t I?”

Dreaming is about all you can do now, with respect to getting oil companies to develop, or support the development of, flexible replacement fuels. Maybe someday!

The journey of a thousand miles, replacement fuels and FFVs

President John F. Kennedy, first lady Jackie, and the poet Robert Frost at a dinner for Nobel Prize winners at the White House, April 29, 1962. (Wikimedia Commons)The headlines recently have been terrible — a commercial plane was shot down over the Ukraine, there’s war in the Middle East and more. It makes you wonder, over and over again, about man and woman’s inhumanity to his or her fellow men and women.

While certainly not equal in impact on the world at the present time, I happened to run across one point of light concerning a set of innovations which, in the long run, could positively impact climate change, security and consumer choice issues. It was reflected in a couple of articles describing the partnership between the state of California’s Energy Commission and Cummins Engines to develop an E85-fueled engine that apparently cuts Co2 by up to 80 percent (read it in Fleets and Fuels) in medium-duty trucks.

According to Cummins Engines and the Commission, a relatively small 4-cylinder, 2.8-liter engine has been successfully subjected to 1,000 miles and 1,500 hours of testing. It is now going through validation tests in Sacramento.

The story is a welcome one. Cummins indicates that the engine can generate 250 horsepower and 450 pound-foot of torque using E85. “Using lignocellulosic-derived E85, the powertrain’s efficiency features 75 to 80 percent lower well-to-wheels carbon emissions than gas engines; depending on the drive cycle…Cellulosic E85 is not derived from tilling, fertilizing and harvesting corn…Using corn-derived E85, the high thermal efficiency and power-to-weight ratio of this engine results in 50 to 80 percent lower well-to-wheels carbon emissions compared with the gasoline engine.”

Based on the Cummins documentation, California’s Energy Commission indicates “that successful completion of the project may result in a new market for E85 fuel now dominated by gasoline and diesel in the 19,500 lb. step-van fleet market.” The agency estimates greenhouse-gas savings as great as 69 percent, or 10 to 20 percent using corn based ethanol.

Fortunately, the general principles guiding development of Cummins’ engine may help improve flex-fuel automobiles and grant Americans more confidence in the environmental, price and economic benefits associated with extended use of E85.

Lessons learned may increase the nation’s ability to reduce GHG emissions. Based on what Cummins has done, using smaller engines extends the benefit of E85. Diesel-like cylinder pressures are important. Ethanol’s high-octane rating generates more engine efficiency. Use of state-of-the art sensors for spark ignition and coordination of stop-and-start functions enhances efficiency and reduces emissions. E85 is clearly a safe fuel.

The knowledge gained from the Cummins effort could lead to better flex-fuel vehicles and could support the effort to use increased technology fixes for older, non-flex-fuel cars and FFV twins. Perhaps the biggest benefit from the partnership between California and Cummings relates to the boost it could give to the search for replacement fuels, as well as the myth-busting understanding it could provide consumers about the safety of E85. It is a safe fuel, assuming engine adaptation and software amendment.

Elon Musk’s proposal to share Tesla’s electric-car patents and ideas might at least encourage increased collaboration among FFV makers in Detroit and the potential players in the conversion industry that likely would emerge, subsequent to EPA testing and approval of older vehicles for conversion. Even improved cooperation at the margin would could expand production of new FFV vehicles and expand conversion of older vehicles. For automakers and makers of conversion kits, as well as developers of FFV software technology, successful collaboration would generate larger markets.

Increased use of E85 through conversion of existing cars and the increased production of new FFV vehicles would help meet national and local environmental objectives, reduce gasoline prices and provide consumers with lower fuel costs, apart from gasoline. Both would also reduce dependency on foreign oil. Paraphrasing the poet Robert Frost, while FFVs — new or converted — are on a road less traveled now, as John F. Kennedy indicated, the journey of a thousand miles must begin with one step. The road less traveled now has more replacement-fuel drivers and FFVs than ever. Because of this fact, the journey of a thousand miles toward alternative fuel choices has made progress and, hopefully soon, will move at a faster speed. Success will mean a better quality of life for us all. It’s good news!

Image credit: Wikimedia commons