Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘energy policy’ Category

Seattle Times: “Don’t block the will of voters on natural gas”

Nearly 2 million residents voted to approve Initiative 2066, which aims to protect the use of natural gas as an energy source in state law and within Washington’s building codes. This month, climate advocates, joined by King County and the City of Seattle, filed suit in court to block the will of those voters.

While the courts will have final say, Gov. Jay Inslee and Democratic legislative leaders support killing off what they see as a misguided and overly broad initiative. Their view brushes aside the concerns of the majority of state voters. Those leaders fail to see a genuine fear that, during the clean energy transition, the fundamental supply of energy to homes and businesses — the basic ability to stay warm, cook food and bathe — is under threat.” 

Kudos to the Seattle Times for their common sense editorial. In addition to noting the economic and social necessity of natural gas, it would have been nice if the editorial board had also acknowledged natural gas’s environmental benefits. However, that would have probably been a bridge too far in Seattle.

The reasons for transitioning to natural gas are arguably clearer and better substantiated than the reasons for transitioning from natural gas.

Read Full Post »

Forbes (USGS map of active wind turbines): “The U.S. Wind Turbine Database contains more than 74,695 wind turbines built since 1980, spread between 1,699 wind power projects in 45 states. However, thousands of wind turbines are reaching the end of their operational lifespan and need to be either repowered to make way for updated (often larger) turbines or entirely decommissioned to allow for new uses of the land they occupy. Unfortunately, there is no uniform legal framework to regulate the steps involved, nor is there an accepted industry-wide set of best practices, and the environmental costs are considerable.”

Forbes:As is often the case when new technologies come to market, unintended downstream consequences are not always immediately obvious to the players. Enthusiasm for clean energy initially pushed the first wind turbines into existence in the U.S. without considering the environmental and monetary costs that would be involved in either upgrading or bringing projects to a close later in their life cycle. “

Similarly, BOEM’s enthusiasm for offshore wind projects has increased decommissioning financial assurance risks for power customers and taxpayers. Their “Rule to Streamline and Modernize Offshore Renewable Energy Development” is intended to “make offshore renewable energy development more efficient, [and] save billions of dollars.” The savings associated with relaxed financial assurance requirements come at the expense of transferring decommissioning risks to those who have received little or no financial benefit from the projects.

Related story: “Osage Tribe Wins Again, Federal Judge Orders “Ejectment” Of 84 Wind Turbines By Next December”

Read Full Post »

From the Protect Our Coast – NJ Facebook page:

From the Protect Our Coast – NJ Facebook page: “During his interview with Radio Host Dom Giordano on Monday, December 23, NJ Congressman Jeff VanDrew (pictured), stated an executive order, to be signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025 will place a 6 months pause on further construction of Offshore Wind Turbines while our new administration reviews all aspects of these highly controversial structures in our ocean.

We’ll see what transpires, and if this post is accurate, await clarification and reactions.

Read Full Post »

The Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has responded (attached) to the ACK for Whales petition (ACK is the FAA abbreviation for Nantucket) to the Supreme Court to review the First Circuit’s ruling on the Vineyard Wind project. (Also see the amicus brief filed by the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head).

The question before the Supreme Court:

Excerpt from the DOJ filing:

The petitioners’ “sole argument” is rather compelling to this non-attorney. Given that multiple offshore wind projects are planned for Right whale habitat, how do you fulfill your endangered species responsibilities by only considering the first project (I.e. Vineyard Wind 1)?

(In light of Vineyard Wind’s performance to date, one could also argue that the Right whale is jeopardized by the Vineyard Wind project alone.)

Keep in mind that the Federal govt wanted to block all oil and gas leasing in a huge swath of the Gulf of Mexico because of far more speculative concerns about potential impacts to Rice’s whales.

Read Full Post »

Per a provision in the “Inflation Reduction Act,no offshore wind leases may be issued after 12/20/2024, the one year anniversary of the last oil and gas lease sale (no. 261).

Although the 4 leases receiving bids at the most recent wind sale (10/29/2024, Gulf of Maine) have presumably been issued, BOEM’s lease table does not reflect that. If those leases have not been issued, it’s too late now.

Assuming that the Gulf of Maine leases have in fact already been issued, the legislative restriction on issuing new leases should not be an issue. A qualifying oil and gas lease sale will likely be held in the Gulf of Mexico in the first half of 2025.

The bigger question is whether the new administration will hold any wind lease sales. Pre-election energy policy comments imply that new wind sales are unlikely.

Read Full Post »

Addressing regulatory fragmentation will improve efficiency and lower costs for industry and government while reducing safety and environmental risks.

Unfortunately, the regulatory regime for US offshore oil and gas operations is noteworthy for redundancy, uncertainty, and complexity that divert industry and governmental attention from safety and environmental protection objectives to administrative processes, interpretations, and jurisdictional boundaries.

“Poster Child” for regulatory fragmentation?

The 12 Federal entities that have some OCS regulatory responsibilities are identified in the above chart. The organizations with core regulatory roles are included in the overlapping circles. The responsibilities of BOEM and BSEE are so inextricably intertwined that those bureaus occupy the same circle.

Coastal states also have OCS regulatory roles through authority granted in the Coastal Zone Management Act.

When multiple agencies have jurisdiction over a facility, system, or procedure, the redundancy inevitably results in inconsistency, ambiguity, and gaps in oversight. The focus of operating companies and contractors is diverted from safety and risk management to understanding and satisfying the regulators. The inevitable result is a compliance mentality that weakens the safety culture.

Interagency agreements in the form of MOUs and MOAs, which are ostensibly for the purpose of managing redundancy, are often unclear or inconclusive. They tend to be more for the benefit of the agencies than the regulated industry. The interests of the regulators and protecting turf are paramount.

Regulatory fragmentation was a contributing factor to the two most fatal US OCS incidents in the past 35 years, the 2010 Macondo blowout and the South Pass 60 “B” fire and explosion in 1989.

Solutions:

  • Where legislation is not required (e.g. BOEM and BSEE), use executive orders to combine and streamline the regulatory functions.
  • Where agencies have separate legislative authority, establish a lead regulator by executive order pending corrective legislation. Under the EO, the agencies would function as a joint authority under the direction of the lead regulator.
  • A combined BOEM/BSEE would be the logical choice for leading the joint authority given that OCS energy is their sole focus and they are accountable for the success of OCS programs.
  • Use a management system regulatory approach that holistically considers all of the legislatively enacted regulatory objectives.
  • Increase the attention given to regulator and operator performance in terms of both outcomes and efficiency.
  • Reduce and simplify permitting requirements for operating companies that have demonstrated outstanding safety and environmental performance over a sustained period.
  • See the findings and recommendations from the 2010 Vancouver IRF Conference.

 

 

Read Full Post »

W&T (lease and facility map above) claims that insurers have colluded to damage the company by jointly demanding additional collateral and premiums.

Comments on excerpts from the W&T press release follow:

At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well, platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company fails to do so.”

Comment: Despite disagreeing with aspects of the BOEM financial assurance rule, this blog has defended the rule against unfair criticism. Better solutions are achievable, but that will require industry leaders from all factions to come to the table with a commitment to reach a balanced agreement that protects the public interest.

“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent operators like W&T.”

Comment: If insuring offshore decommissioning is so risk-free and lucrative, why aren’t other companies entering the market?

Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.

Comment: As previously posted, the concerned States should propose alternative solutions that would promote production while also protecting taxpayer interests. Arguing that decommissioning financial risks are not a problem is neither accurate nor a solution.

“In over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or pipeline operations.”

Comment: Shamefully, from the standpoints of both the offshore industry and the Federal government, that statement is no longer true. The taxpayer has now funded decommissioning operations in the Matagorda Island Area offshore Texas (BSEE photo below) and more significant decommissioning liabilities loom.

Other thoughts:

Read Full Post »

Jens Christiansen graphics

New record high for power prices in Denmark!

Read Full Post »

Quaise Energy, an ultradeep geothermal energy pioneer, investigated 2022 and 2023 data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to examine what the grid would look like without fossil fuels.

The full report is attached. Key points:

  • On average, solar produces full power 25% of the time, whereas wind does so 35% of the time.
  • Without fossil fuels, Texas would need to scale up its wind and solar capacity by 3.4x and energy storage by 42.4x just to meet the average hourly demand.
  • Despite these high values for renewables and 5 GW of firm nuclear power, the system only meets demand 76% of the time, equivalent to 176 days over the two-year period when generation and storage fall short.
  • Even with a 5x overbuild and corresponding 10x in storage capacity, only 88% of demand can be fully satisfied, not considering transmission challenges.
  • Just meeting the average demand, with a 3.4x capacity expansion, would require more than 50,000 km2 of land, equivalent to the size of Lake Michigan.

Read Full Post »

BusinessWire: These turbines destroy our culturally sacred viewshed, destroy our traditional and historic fishing grounds, and threaten the continued existence of the North Atlantic right whale,” said William “Buddy” Vanderhoop, a member of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head.

Aquinnah Wampanoag chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais

We are known as ‘The People of the First Light,’” said Tribal Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais. “The unobstructed eastern view of the ocean from our ancestral lands from Nantucket, Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard (‘Noepe’) and southeastern Massachusetts is inextricably intertwined with who we are as a people and our cosmology, and is essential to our spiritual beliefs and practices.”

Green Oceans

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »