SIGN UP! If you’d like to continue receiving Washington Examiner’s Daily on Energy newsletter, SUBSCRIBE HERE: http://newsletters.washingtonexaminer.com/newsletter/daily-on-energy/

TRUMP’S SUCCESS IN HOBBLING IRAN’S OIL EXPORTS HINGES ON INDIA AND CHINA: President Trump’s goal of cutting off Iran from the global oil market will have as much to do with China and India as anything else, according to the Congressional Research Service’s top expert on Iran.

“Together, these two buy 60 percent of Iran’s oil exports,” said CRS’ Kenneth Katzman, presenting his latest analysis at a Mideast forum in Washington on Wednesday. “If those two countries remain relatively defiant of the U.S. reimposition of sanctions, Iran will likely export enough oil to keep its economy afloat.”

On the other hand: “If China and India start complying with sanctions and cut their imports of Iranian oil dramatically, then I would predict that the administration might achieve its goals of imposing very severe damage on the Iranian economy,” Katzman explained.

Here’s why they matter so much: Iran’s oil exports have been cut in half over the last few months, as its customers prepared for U.S. sanctions to kick in on Nov. 5. Iran’s exports are now down to 1.65 million barrels per day. Most of that is going to China and India.

Press reports say India and China will reduce imports, but Katzman is not so sure.

It is possible they will decrease on Nov. 5, and then ramp back up right after, he said. “We just don’t know,” he added.

Katzman said the current cuts are significant, but nowhere near what the Trump administration ultimately wants, he said.

“If it does hold, it’s a level that Iran’s economy can live with… and not go into a very significant risk of recession,” Katzman explained.

Both India and China say they oppose the Trump exit of the Iran nuclear agreement. The Europeans also oppose the pull out, but they haven’t said they would “flout” the sanctions, Katzman said.

What will Europe do? Italy, Greece, and Spain have cut half of what they were importing from Iran in May when Trump first announced his intention to pull out of the Iran deal.

However, they are holding steady at about 300,000 barrels per day, which could indicate they may try to flout sanctions by seeing how well Trump can enforce the sanctions after Nov. 5, said Katzman.

Turkey, which is dependent on Iran for oil, has cut imports by about a third, but it may retain imports too, because it opposes reimposition of sanctions.

South Korea is the only country at zero: The biggest cuts have been made by South Korea and Japan. Katzman announced that South Korea is now the only country importing zero oil products from Iran. Japan is a close second, only importing a few thousand barrels per day.

Bloomberg reported Thursday that India and South Korea agreed with the U.S. on the outline of deals that would allow them to keep importing some Iranian oil.

South Korea is an exception because it isn’t a big importer of oil from Iran, it is mainly dependent on condensates, such as propane and butane, according to Katzman.

There is some wiggle room: Several countries “may not be able to go all the way to zero” immediately on purchases of Iranian oil after U.S. sanctions take effect, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday at an event in Washington.

Meanwhile, Trump said Wednesday that there is enough oil to support the global energy market without Iran, giving the green light to re-impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic next week.

There “is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions,” Trump said in a formal declaration.

Trump said he came to the conclusion “after carefully considering” the reports submitted to Congress by the Energy Information Administration, the analysis arm of the Energy Department, which has been tracking the supply issues that could arise from sanctions.

Welcome to Daily on Energy, compiled by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers John Siciliano (@JohnDSiciliano) and Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe). Email [email protected] for tips, suggestions, calendar items and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list.  

LARGEST GRID OPERATOR DISMISSES THREAT OF COAL AND NUCLEAR CLOSURES: The operator of the largest power market in America released a report Thursday finding that its electricity supply would hold up against a range of threats, providing evidence against the Trump administration case for preserving coal and nuclear plants.

“The PJM system is reliable today and will remain reliable into the future,” the grid operator, PJM Interconnection, said in an eight-page summary of a much-anticipated report slated for full release in December.

Andrew Ott, president and CEO of PJM, amplified that assertion Thursday morning during a press conference in Washington D.C.

“The grid is more reliable today than it’s ever been,” Ott said.

PJM covers a large territory, representing 65 million people in 13 states from Illinois to Virginia.

Undercutting rationale for Trump plan: The report weighs against the Trump administration’s interest in using emergency power to keep coal and nuclear plants alive.

“We think government intervention is unnecessary,” Ott said. “Nothing in our report would say there is a specific need for a specific fuel source. We are fuel neutral.”

The White House has reportedly considered asserting a national security justification for providing coal and nuclear plants with subsidies to keep them from retiring. The effort has stalled, but critics fear the administration could try to revive the idea through different mechanisms.

How the study worked: PJM’s analysis of the grid’s resilience released Thursday projected five years into the future, testing more than 300 different scenarios, including extreme ones in which announced retirements of plants occur as planned, the weather is disruptive, and power demand is high.

Potential far off risk: PJM, however, included one scenario in which the grid could face risk – if more retirements of power plants occur than expected.

“Based on results of this analysis we do see a risk we can get into situations where we couldn’t meet all demand under certain circumstances,” Ott said, adding later that any threat is “at least” five to six years away.

What comes next: While there is no “imminent threat” to the grid, PJM said the findings of its report justify its effort to encourage the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees wholesale power markets, to take action to more fairly pay fuel sources based on the security they can provide.

PJM has offered a proposal to FERC that would change how power providers are compensated as the grid transitions to more natural gas and renewables, rewarding sources with higher payments that can provide reliable and resilient service.

“There are legitimate discussions about resource attributes that aren’t priced,” Ott said. “My message is: let’s quantify the attribute and price it through the market. It’s a more sustainable and efficient way to do it.”

WHEELER, PERRY, AND PERDUE MAKE TRUMP’S PITCH FOR RENEWABLE BIOMASS: The Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department, and the Department of Agriculture sent a letter to Congress Thursday asking for lawmakers’ support in certifying trees and other forest stock — referred to as biomass — as a renewable energy resource.

“Biomass is a key part of the Administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy,” said Energy Secretary Rick Perry in sending the letter. “The Department of Energy supports the men and women in the agricultural and forest industries that help provide America with clean, secure, and affordable sources of bioenergy.”

The administration wants to give the agriculture sector another market for its commodity by making use on the tons and tons of biomass for energy.

The rub is that biomass is not always considered renewable energy, depending on how it is used. Environmentalists have argued against harvesting trees on the grounds that they’re not renewable form of energy.

But it looks like something like that is what the administration is looking to do, as the letter cites an April policy statement by EPA that seeks to make clear “that future regulatory actions will treat biomass from managed forests” as “carbon neutral” when used for energy production at “stationary sources,” which is EPA-speak for things like power plants.   

Carbon-neutral means biomass curbs as much carbon dioxide — blamed for causing climate change — as it produces from burning it.

COLORADO FRACKING BALLOT MEASURE SPLITS DEMOCRATS: Democrats are split over a Colorado ballot measure that would curb drilling in most of one of America’s largest oil and gas producing states.

Facing growing pressure to transition away from fossil fuels to combat climate change, the party is divided on how to manage the spoils, and consequences, of America’s decade-long natural gas boom.

Colorado’s ballot initiative — Proposition 112 — would ban new oil and gas drilling within 2,500 feet of homes, schools, and “vulnerable areas” such as playgrounds, to respond to complaints from communities close to fracking who say wells are increasingly encroaching on populated areas.

A state analysis shows that if the measure passed, it would block new oil and gas wells on 85 percent of nonfederal land in the state.

State and national Democrats take different positions: Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a centrist Democrat, opposes the measure, as does U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, the state’s Democratic nominee for governor — mostly for economic reasons.

But nationally-minded progressives, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Al Gore, the former vice president and environmentalist, have backed the measure, viewing the potential impact of its success in bigger terms — as a vehicle to ban fracking to combat climate change.

Polis once supported similar efforts to restrict fracking in Colorado, but in running for statewide office, he is more responsive to the economic impact of fracking, which provides millions of dollars of local and state tax revenue.

“We are not Polis’ favorite industry, but he is smart enough to understand, ‘I can’t support something that will annihilate my state’s economy,’” Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, told Josh.

National groups who support and helped organize the drive to limit fracking in Colorado are also not shy about their larger ambition.

“We have been fighting fracking coast to coast for many many years,” Seth Gladstone, deputy communications director of Food & Water Watch, a Washington-D.C. based nonprofit, told josh. “We oppose fracking and want it banned everywhere.”

It’s not all about climate: “Our main concern is public health and safety for Coloradans,” Anne Lee Foster, a volunteer organizer for Colorado Rising, the main group supporting the measure, told Josh. “Global climate change is something a lot of us care about, but the main existential threat to us is oil and gas coming close to communities.”

Read more of Josh’s report here.

NANCY PELOSI DREAMS OF CLIMATE BILL IF DEMOCRATS TAKE HOUSE: House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in new comments published Wednesday that climate change will become a front-and-center issue if the Democrats take back the House.

In a lengthy interview published Wednesday by the New York Times, the California congresswoman said she would resurrect the defunct select committee on climate change if the Democrats win back the House in November. The GOP killed off the Democrat-funded special committee when they took control in 2011.

The committee’s purpose was to “prepare the way with evidence” for developing legislation for energy conservation and climate change mitigation legislation, Pelosi told the newspaper.

STATE REGULATORS SAY EPA IGNORED THEM IN CLIMATE PLAN REBOOT: A trade association representing the states’ air pollution agencies says they were shut out of talks with the EPA in developing the replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.

In comments sent in just before the deadline for input on Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy rule, or ACE, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies said Wednesday it was worried about the “lack of outreach to state and local agencies” and said it wanted “better engagement.”

The air agencies are in charge of complying with air pollution standards put into effect by Washington. The regulators were critical of the Obama EPA rules, and were key in getting the agency to listen to state concerns.

Missed opportunities: “The process used to develop the proposed ACE rule missed opportunities to draw from state and local air agency expertise,” the comments begin, with a whole section criticizing the lack of outreach in the public comment proposal stage of the new regulation. The group is re-submitting comments it previously submitted on the advanced notice of the proposal, in addition to its new substantive comments on ACE.

Trump’s regulation creep: Still, the agencies have bigger concerns that EPA is underplaying the reach of the ACE regulation, warning that the rule could have far greater applicability than just helping coal plans, as the administration has touted it. The comment suggests that a “significant number,” of natural gas- and oil-fired units, 300, will be affected, expanding the rule’s reach by 50 percent.

EPA’s not prepared to handle: The EPA’s proposal “does not include” a best system of emission reduction analysis, which it is required to do, “for either of these types of units nor does it contain a rationale for exempting them.”

The states say they want a seat at the table in resolving “the ambiguity,” which could include expanded exemptions for power plants.

CHAMBER MAKES MIDTERMS ABOUT VOTING ON ENERGY: The Chamber of Commerce launched an 11th-hour campaign this week to get voters to cast their support behind energy jobs.

“In order to continue to harness our abundant natural resources and spur innovation, we need elected officials who support forward-looking energy policies,” said an email sent to supporters a week before the Nov. 6 midterm elections by the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute.

It explains that “Pro-energy” elected officials will help to ensure the energy industry is able to “improve all Americans’ access to abundant, affordable energy and to provide hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs.”

It doesn’t say who to vote for in specific races, but links to their website where voters can research how both Senators and House members voted on key issues to see for themselves.   

RUNDOWN

Wall Street Journal Coastal property was once king. Fears of climate change are undermining its value

Politico Zinke’s heir apparent ready to step in

Bloomberg Oil rally gives Kremlin a headache as gasoline prices spike

Washington Post New research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming

CNN EPA quietly telling states they can pollute more