Reposted by permission from the Environmental Law Prof Blog.
This morning E&E News reported that researchers from the Netherlands and the Environmental Defense Fund had quantified a massive natural gas leak at an Exxon-subsidiary-owned well in Ohio. According to the study, the well leaked around 60,000 tons of methane.
That made me wonder: what might the carbon tax bill for a leak like that be? The answer, of course, is $0, because neither the United States as a whole nor the state of Ohio has a carbon tax (or a cap-and-trade system that would also put a price on carbon). But what if we did, and what if the tax rate approached the social cost of carbon? How much would that one leak cost Exxon (and, of course, put into the United States treasury, for the benefit of the public)?
A rough answer is very simple to calculate. The equation is: total bill = (tons leaked) x (methane CO2e factor) x (cost/ton of carbon). Methane's CO2e factor is generally set at 25, which means methane is twenty-five times more potent (over a 100-year period) than CO2. I pulled a $50/ton social cost of carbon estimate from this Center for Policy Integrity report (which is from several years ago, and which notes that this value is more likely low than high). The result is $75 million.
Compared to Exxon's overall revenues, that might seem like a rounding error. But this was just one leak, and not every well operator has Exxon's capacity to absorb a multi-million dollar loss. And if just one leak could generate that kind of bill, imagine what the threat of tax liability, perhaps in combination with heightened third-party monitoring of leaks, might do for the implementation of leak-detection systems.
Showing 2,829 results
Dave Owen | December 18, 2019
This morning E&E News reported that researchers from the Netherlands and Environmental Defense had quantified a massive natural gas leak at an Exxon-subsidiary-owned well in Ohio. According to the study, the well leaked around 60,000 tons of methane. That made me wonder: what might the carbon tax bill for a leak like that be? The answer, of course, is $0.
James Goodwin | December 17, 2019
Last week, my CPR colleagues and I were honored to be joined by dozens of fellow advocates and member of the press for a webinar that explored the recent CPR report, Regulation as Social Justice: A Crowdsourced Blueprint for Building a Progressive Regulatory System. Drawing on the ideas of more than 60 progressive advocates, this report provides a comprehensive, action-oriented agenda for building a progressive regulatory system. The webinar provided us with an opportunity to continue exploring these ideas, including the unique potential of the regulatory system as an institutional means for promoting a more just and equitable society.
Daniel Farber | December 9, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission. Despite the efforts of the Trump administration, renewable energy has continued to thrive. Key states are imposing rigorous deadlines for reducing power generation from fossil fuels. Economic trends are also supporting renewables. In the first half of 2019, Texas produced more power from renewables than coal. Texas may […]
Daniel Farber | November 25, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission. The idea of low-hanging fruit is ubiquitous in environmental policy – sometimes in the form of a simple metaphor, other times expressed in more sophisticated terms as an assumption of rising marginal costs of pollution reduction. It's an arresting metaphor, and one that can often be illuminating. But […]
James Goodwin | November 22, 2019
This post was originally published on the Union of Concerned Scientists' blog. Reprinted with permission. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears poised to take the next step in advancing its dangerous "censored science" rulemaking with the pending release of a supplemental proposal. The EPA presumably intends for this action to respond to criticism of the […]
Sean B. Hecht | November 21, 2019
Originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission. Over a year ago, EPA issued a proposed rule, ostensibly to promote transparency in the use of science to inform regulation. The proposal, which mirrors failed legislation introduced multiple times in the House, has the potential to dramatically restrict EPA's ability to rely on key scientific studies […]
Karen Sokol | November 21, 2019
This post was originally published by Expert Forum, a blog of the American Constitution Society. Reprinted with permission. In her opening statement on the second day of the House public impeachment hearings, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch recounted how President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani undermined the State Department's ability to "promote stated […]
David Flores | November 15, 2019
David Flores co-authored this post with Kathy Phillips, the Assateague Coastkeeper, an on-the-water advocate who patrols and protects the Maryland and northern Virginia Eastern Shore coastal bays and stands up to polluters. Last month, former CPR policy analyst Evan Isaacson wrote in this space about Maryland's proposal to revise and reissue its Clean Water Act […]
Lisa Heinzerling | November 10, 2019
This post was originally published on SCOTUSblog. It is republished here under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US). Click here to read Professor Heinzerling's argument preview for this case. The Clean Water Act requires a permit for the addition to the navigable waters of any pollutant that comes “from any point source.” Last […]