Roger Pielke, taking off from The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 has a thought-provoking post on the need for a new Energy Policy for the US.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was indeed highly consequential as Pielke says, but off base in several respects.
1. Public support for the development of fracking technology was a big win which we can perhaps attribute to EPCA.
2. The US Petroleum Reserve was probably a good idea by adding a large deep-pocketed speculator to the international petroleum market.
But on the other hand:
3. Even with oil embargo, there was no need to reduce use of “energy” just imported oil. Viewed as way to prevent OPEC, dominated by countries with authoritarian forms of government, from interfering with US foreign policy, a temporary modest tariff on imported petroleum would have given bit more of a boost to production and incentive to reduce consumption than the higher price itself did.
4. Although not part of the Act, it set the stage for costly subsidies and mandates for use of ethanol and biofuels.
5. CAFE – mandatory fuel economy standards for ICE vehicles (and with the absurd favorable treatment of the SUV) and related efficiency standards for consumer products are unlikely to a cost benefit test.
6. The ban on exports of petroleum from the US was sheer stupidity.
7. The great failing of the EPCA, of course, not to have placed a tax on net emissions of CO2.
With this mixed record we should be suspicious of new “energy” legislation.
Pielke lists a number of significant developments since EPCA which he sees requiring a new “energy” policy. Although these developments do highlight a need for policy change in a number of areas does not suggest an “energy” umbrella.
· The U.S. has become the world’s energy superpower, having massively increased oil and natural gas production.
· Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reordered global energy geopolitics, leading to greater reliance by Europe on U.S. natural gas supplies.
These call for no change in US energy policy other than NOT blocking production, transportation or export of fossil fuels as a means of reducing global CO2 emissions. See https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
· Domestic electricity demand, which plateaued for much of the past two decades is set to increase dramatically, requiring new supply.
· The U.S. grid shows signs of strain and vulnerability.
These require removing regulatory constraints on investment in electricity generation and transmission technologies, as with other investment.
· Production of electricity by wind and solar have grown in capacity and are expected to continue to expand, based on generous federal subsidies.
Subsidies for production of zero CO2 emitting energy (but not R&D) should be replaced with taxation of net CO2 emissions.
· The U.S. president signed on to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which has aggressive targets for emissions reductions, and the U.S. has implemented a range of legislation designed to accelerate decarbonization;
Taxation of net CO2 emissions, regulatory reform to make needed investments possible, and R&D for zero and net negative CO2 emissions technologies will likely reduce US emissions more than Paris Club agreements and certainly at lower cost than alternative ways of meeting those arbitrary targets.
· China has come to dominate energy supply chains, critical minerals, and low-emission technology manufacturing in areas such as solar panels and electric vehicles.
The US needs to ensure that it does not depend on supplies from hostile powers for any important goods. This has no particular “energy” component.
· Countries around the world are increasingly focused on security of energy supply and the prices paid by their citizens for energy and energy products and services (which is to say — everything);
Duh!
· The U.S. has largely abdicated any federal role in supporting the continued development and deployment of nuclear power, ceding leadership to other countries, even as nuclear power is experiencing new interest around the world;
A huge understatement! Largely in the name of “safety",” the US has placed significant obstacles to the development of nuclear power that it should remove, as for any other zero CO2 emitting energy technology.
· The U.S. lacks a coherent policy on its role in supporting energy development around the world, seemingly conflicted about the role of fossil fuels in supporting economic growth in poor countries.
Just as the US should tax domestic emissions of CO2, its position at the COP encshoud be to encourage other countries to do the same and should exempt imports from those that do so from fees on high CO2 content goods. See: https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting
I see the policy concerns flowing from these developments fitting better under a “Climate Change” than an “Energy” umbrella if an umbrella is needed.
OTOH, if policy reforms can better be sold as an “Energy” Act, let’s not let a little misleading semantics stand in the way.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/climate-risk-and-insurance
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 1
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 2
[Standard bleg: Although my style is know-it-all-ism, I do sometime entertain the thought that, here and there, I might be mistaken on some minor detail. I would welcome comments on these views.]
Thanks for your input Thomas. I recommend you send your perspective to Roger Pielke Jr himself as he's far more equipped than I am to address your points.