The World Doesn’t Work that Way

Image credit: Roanoke Times

by Bill O’Keefe

The political elites who promoted the passage of the Virginia Clean Economy Act would have us believe that planning an energy transition is no more difficult than planning a long vacation. You know where you want to go, how long you will be gone, and how you plan to travel. The Clean Energy Act was demonstrated extreme hubris. Uncertainties and unintended consequences were viewed as minor matters, if considered at all.

Advocates seemed to think that what looks doable in theory will be doable in practice. That was certainly the case where members of the Virginia General Assembly and environmentalists who pushed passage of the Virginia Clean Economy Act. The world doesn’t work that way. The announcement by Dominion’s CEO that the cost estimate has risen from $8 to 10 billion was an early sign about future cost increases.

These advocates forget the truism that in theory, theory and practice are the same but in practice they are not. We are slowly beginning to see nationally as well as here in the Commonwealth that long-term energy planning involves a lot of uncertainties, unintended consequences. and consumer sensitivity to price increases.

Rather than being like planning a long vacation, long-term energy planning is much like the iterative decision process followed by Lewis and Clark in exploring the territory west of the Missouri. Policy makers are also relearning the lesson that energy policy based on the pain caused by constrained supply and high prices is not sustainable.

For climate advocates, the highest priority is reaching net zero emissions by 2050. They believe that priority dominates all others and is strongly shared by most citizens. That is the mind set of central planners. In reality, citizens have a number of high priorities and their decisions over time reflect the reality that decisions always involve trade-offs and are affected by circumstances and price.

Now that Republicans control the House of Delegates perhaps they will see more clearly the unintended consequences of energy and climate decisions of the Clean Economy Act. Europe can serve as the canary in the coal mine. The pandemic and supply-chain problems are important disrupters but no one should underestimate the impact of climate-related decisions as being the main drivers of high prices and scarcity throughout Western Europe. Those decisions have made energy prices excessively high while also leading to a decline in fossil fuel production. Germany’s elimination of nuclear power as a source of electric power and the Dutch decision to close the Groningen gas field -– the largest in the world — by 2030 only make the price problem worse.

Here in the U.S., gasoline prices have reached levels not seen since 2014. Government policy has depressed fossil fuel production and investment. We have the ironic situation where the Biden Administration is acting to depress oil and gas production while simultaneously urging OPEC and Russia to increase their oil production to help lower gasoline prices. We have gone from the world’s leading producer of oil and gas to being energy beggars.

Virginians are experiencing persistently high gasoline prices and can look forward to natural gas prices increasing heating costs as much as 30% this winter. These price increases as well as national ones reflect the fact that governments are actively discouraging investments in non-renewable sources of energy. According to the Wall Street Journal, for example, oil and gas investments domestically are down 26%, except for the Permian Basin where shale production is not growing.

If non-renewable energy is the future, it should get there on its own merits and not by discouraging advances in energy technology and fossil fuel production. Energy companies are not like buggy-whip companies. They want  a future based on technology that will reduce emissions while also producing commercially viable supplies.

William O’Keefe, a Midlothian resident, is founder of Solutions Consulting and former EVP of the American Petroleum Institute.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

30 responses to “The World Doesn’t Work that Way”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “Government policy has depressed fossil fuel production and investment.”

    Not true… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80cbc66437833d417a42d35aa9224ff48c352cee3daa4ab4e14771eff4746ad3.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Well it is if you believe in political mythology – even required!

      gas prices have gone up and down for decades… independent of who is POTUS, but the partisan claims continue….

      in terms of theory and practice – I agree…

      but I also point out for instance, that you have to assume some level of risk to advance.

      And I point out things like Boeing’s airplanes, or Amazons success AFTER the dot.com failure… and least but not last the advent of mandated higher fuel mileage vehicles that started out as a disaster… but over time – had significant success.

      You have to look ahead and you have to take risks – that’s what the very best private sector companies actually do – like Elon Musk and his Starlink internet.

      Almost ALL of our prescription drugs and now vaccines were high risk ventures – with failures…

      I don’t know what has happened to Conservatives of late but this country grew to it’s leadership position by taking risks and enduring failures before success.

      Even fossil fuel oil drilling is a high risk venture with LOTS of failures…

      It’s what leaders do.

    2. William O'Keefe Avatar
      William O’Keefe

      Check EIA production data. Have you seen any White House energy policy statements?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        August number was 345 million barrels. Trump’s last month was 343 million barrels. According to EIA data… 🤷‍♂️

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          EIA–“U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.3 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2020, down 935,000 b/d (8%) from the record annual average high of 12.2 million b/d in 2019.” “Total U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.3 million b/d in July–the most recent monthly historical data point. We estimate that domestic production fell to 10.6 million b/d in September…. We forecast production will be 11.0 million b/d in October and rise to 11.3 million b/d in December. We forecast 2021 production will average 11.0 million b/d, increasing to 11.7 million b/d in 2022 as tight oil production rises

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “”U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.3 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2020, down 935,000 b/d (8%) from the record annual average high of 12.2 million b/d in 2019.” “Total U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.3 million b/d in July–the most recent monthly historical data point.”

            2020 is Trump’s concern, not Biden. And we actually have August figures and production is up 5.5% year to year. Sorry but Trump is the one who did the damage, not Biden.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Please show me where ANY fossil fuel production figures are lower under Biden. By my accounts we are currently producing some 300 Trillion Btus over December of last year in fossil fuels.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d952afd0adcb042a4d9864e92c5708b7a66d111811205d8f704c3d54698da6bc.jpg

        1. William O'Keefe Avatar
          William O’Keefe

          First look at the EIA production data, second look at statements by the Biden Administration and more importantly investment in exploration and production.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I looked at the production data and as I pointed out from the get go, it is untrue that production has been depressed under Biden. Plain and simple. You can try making the case it will be in the future but I will wait and see what happens.

            Further, you have not made the case that it was not market forces that led to the Trump reduction in production. You don’t think experiencing negative oil prices last year may have scared off some investors….??

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Look at February and deny the suppression!

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Did you see the Trump suppression in May and June of 2020!! Sheesh!

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          “The World Doesn’t Work That Way,” so let me explain yet another way the world doesn’t work.

  2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I prefer Pennsylvania’s utility approach, which I manage for my mother. Residents can pick whatever energy source they want, including on-shore wind, which is cost-effective. Virginia is basically opting to mandate ultra expensive electric generation, built in the most expensive way (via Virginia GA/Dominion monopoly team, instead of open bids). So Virginia cannot allow freedom of choice, because we want a guaranteed rate base for the super expensive energy choices. I am reminded of New Jersey when NJ went nuclear in the 1970’s which raised the electric cost, permanently I assume. I have interest in off shore wind but feel too exposed. We should be leveraging with Feds and other states maybe trade off-shore wind with onshore wind with Pa…something like that.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      and the question is why couldn’t Virginia do that…..instead of bailing from it?

      What Pennsylvania did was better than Texas? how?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Eggs in baskets, ya know. Let’s use one basket and develop only one egg. That way, we’re safe.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Youngkin is promising to roll back the last state gasoline tax increase of July 1. I need a scorecard, however, I forget if the current Va. gaso tax formula is still indexed to the wholesale cost of gasoline. In any case we are quickly climbing from one of the lower gaso tax states, to the other side of the coin. I would also drop the new HUF tax penalty on more fuel efficient gasoline vehicles. Let’s have a realistic policy that can reduce CO2 emissions in a better way and perhaps faster way.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think the tax is per gallon (26.2 cpg) but assessed at the wholesale level not separately at the pump. IOW, the tax is embedded in the pump price per gallon.

      Next year it is supposed to index to inflation.

      None of this tax is associated with carbon or clean air – it all goes to highway infrastructure – operations, maintenance and construction.

      transportation taxes in Virginia are diversified – the tax on fuel is just one of several:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/69bd2ac748c1200b74d69985f4fdb3a243b9a639bb54d209eeb11349d2a92508.jpg

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “I would also drop the new HUF tax penalty on more fuel efficient gasoline vehicles.”

      As would I… you know that is not going to happen though, right…?

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Sure I think it can be fixed, I was active on the prior hybrid taxation attempt, which was killed (by McAuliffe actually, but the decision was made months earlier, St Senator Dave Marsden gave me a call one day said they decided to kill it).

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          the transportation tax is not about the environment – it’s about paying for the construction, maintenance and operation of the highways and roads we all use, and we all owe our fair share of the costs.

          It has nothing to do with the environment.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      well this doesn’t sound good:

      ” Youngkin has sourced much of his fiscal agenda from Stephen Moore, a writer and TV commentator who advised former President Donald Trump on his signature tax legislation, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Moore, a proponent of supply-side economics, also helped shape a set of deep tax cuts that former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback implemented in 2013, promising a host of benefits for the state’s economy. The cuts quickly devastated Kansas’ budget, and the legislature overturned them in 2017.”

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Not the only Stephen they talked to….

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          aha….

          no matter… supply side is bogus…and Mr. Moore proved it in spades in Kansas…

  4. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    The Paris Accord is not binding. It’s a piece of paper. To bind the United States, the president must sign a treaty and submit it to the Senate for ratification. President Obama did not do that. So far, neither has President Biden.

    Data show the United States has made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while China and India, for example, continue to grow. More needs to be done. But the President went to Europe and got nothing substantial from the Indian and Chinese goverments (indeed, the latter did not even attend.) And, instead of working to provide alternative energy sources on a reliable and low-cost basis, our leaders are looking to reward rent seekers. Putting the off-shore wind project in the rate base of Dominion borders on the criminal. Any greenhouse gas credits will be traded by Wall Street (Las Vegas East) and prices for energy will go higher with the profits going to traders. Maybe that should be traitors.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The basic problem when comparing the US to other more populous, but less developed countries like China and India is this;

      1. – They have a LOT more people

      2. – They currently use far less energy per capita

      3. – They seek to achieve what we have – i.e. a nationwide grid where all of their people have electricity.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c89a5c4dc2d4b086856d28a7038112bf6c3d3e56e30f2b61c1199e0885ea33f.jpg

      That means that cutting back emissions in those countries at the same time more and more citizens are getting access to electricity they did not have prior is an almost impossible task compared to our task which is to merely try to cut back on an existing much more slowing growing population.

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar
        tmtfairfax

        Why put India and China first? They are our competitors economically. Oil 38%-approval Joe isn’t up to the task of international negotiations.

        On a positive note, “Thiel-backed fusion power startup raises $500 million.” https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2425426034091/thiel-backed-fusion-power-startup-raises-500-million

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I don’t put them first. I just say that countries who have a lot of people and are still in the process of getting their people that don’t yet have electricity are going to have a harder time meeting targets and comparing the US to them is probably not a fair comparison.

          Yep – Joe has a problem with people believing he is a leader… but I’d still choose him ANY DAY over that idiot before him.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Keeeee rect. China is going to ignore all this climate nonsense and the CO2 levels (respecting no borders) will just keep rising….India, Russia, Africa as well.

Leave a Reply