Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted July 6, 2015
Another sign of the times on the Keystone XL pipeline: South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is weighing pipeline builder TransCanada’s request for a reissued construction permit because the company’s original permit died of old age – victimized by the White House’s failure to decide on Keystone XL despite nearly seven years of review.
That’s right. TransCanada’s first construction permit for the 314 miles of the pipeline that would cross South Dakota expired last summer. You could say the cause of death was neglect – neglect by the White House, with its Keystone XL review approaching the seven-year mark this fall.
So, TransCanada seeks a reissued permit. The PUC is scheduled to hold a public input session Monday night, followed by evidentiary hearings July 27 and Aug. 4.
A couple of points. The first is to underscore again the absurd and unfair way the White House has kept Keystone XL in suspended animation, causing a state construction permit that’s good for four years to lapse. The second is to point out that the economic and energy merits of building Keystone XL – for South Dakota and the U.S. – remain unchanged, basically unchallenged by pipeline opponents.
Posted July 3, 2015
What makes you happy? Good health? A pleasing career, your family’s well-being, realizing dreams? There are many things we could list that lead to happiness. One of the glories of America is that it’s up to us as individuals to choose – the search for happiness being fundamental to what it means to be an American.
Posted June 29, 2015
Posted June 26, 2015
More from the new Wood Mackenzie study comparing the effects on the U.S. energy picture from pro-development policies versus a regulatory-constrained path. We’ve looked at the implications for energy supplies. Today we’ll zero in on two very different scenarios affecting individual American households.
Once again, the study compared impacts on key areas, depending on the energy policy path our country chooses. The pro-development path includes increased access to oil and natural gas reserves, approaches to regulation and permitting that encourage accelerated energy production and export policies that allow U.S. oil and natural gas to reach global markets, stimulating domestic output. The constrained path would pretty much maintain the status quo on access, regulation and exports – costing the United States, as the study shows.
Posted June 25, 2015
The U.S. Interior Department is out with its Economic Report for Fiscal Year 2014 – which doesn’t sound like it would be a whole lot of fun reading. But the report actually contains some pretty important bits of information.
For example, you get a clear sense that Interior Department activities support jobs and economic growth, which are good things. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called her department a “powerful economic engine.” More Jewell:
“Our parks and public lands support outdoor recreation, promote renewable energy and allow us to harness other domestic energy resources, create jobs and promote economic development in communities across all 50 states.”
It’s the “other domestic energy resources” that caught our eye.
Posted June 11, 2015
Nowhere in the United States is there more to learn from EPA’s recent water/fracking study than in the state of New York.
Six months ago Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned hydraulic fracturing as too hazardous. Though the Cuomo administration conducted no original research of its own, the governor said no to fracking, no to jobs and economic growth – especially in the state’s struggling Southern Tier. He all but extinguished the hopes of many upstaters for a home-grown economic miracle – like the one occurring next door in Pennsylvania, thanks to fracking – one that would help save family farms, let children and grandchildren live and prosper where they were raised and help ensure economic security for thousands.
Yet, EPA’s five-year, multi-million-dollar study says the governor’s concerns are basically baseless, that safe hydraulic fracturing doesn’t threaten the nation’s drinking water.
Posted June 11, 2015
NPR – There's a serious problem in the American economy: Big corporations are doing well, but real household income for average Americans has been falling over the past decade — down 9 percent, according to census data.
"That's not good for America," says Harvard economist Michael Porter. "That's not good for America's standard of living. That's not good for our ultimate vitality as a nation."
That's why Porter's excited about the deep reserves of natural gas and oil that have been made accessible by hydraulic fracturing technology, or fracking — a boon he examines in detail in a new report.
"It is a game changer," Porter says. "We have estimated that already, this is generating a substantial part of our GDP in America. It's at least as big as the state of Ohio. We've added a whole new major state, top-10 state, to our economy."
Posted June 8, 2015
David McGowan was named executive director of the North Carolina Petroleum Council in 2013. Previously, McGowan served as director of regulatory affairs for the North Carolina Association of Realtors. He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina. Below, he talks with Energy Tomorrow about the potential for energy development in North Carolina, as well as the challenges for industry in his state.
Q: What do North Carolinians think about the state’s onshore and offshore energy potential? Is it something people are aware of, and what do you believe they want most from industry as it develops that energy?
McGowan: An overwhelming bipartisan majority of North Carolinians support more domestic exploration and production for oil and natural gas resources, both onshore and offshore. According to a Harris poll in January, 91 percent of the state’s citizens believe that we should produce more energy here at home to strengthen our energy security. Furthermore, 90 percent believe that increased oil and natural gas production will lead to more jobs here in the state. North Carolinians also understand that our country and our state need oil and gas resources for our economy to grow. They understand that more domestic production increases global supplies, putting downward pressure on costs and benefiting consumers.
Finally, most people in the state understand that energy production and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. They know that we can safely and responsibly develop our natural resources, create jobs and stimulate the economy – all the while ensuring that the health of our citizens and environment are protected.
Posted May 19, 2015
Solid bipartisan support for important energy legislation is on display in the U.S. Senate, with members of a key committee considering a number of ways to increase access to domestic supplies of oil and natural gas – as well as bills ending 1970s-era restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports.
Energy security is about having secure, reliable energy supplies to fuel broad economic expansion and create opportunity for individual Americans. When we remove outdated export restrictions, allowing U.S. energy to reach global markets, studies have detailed how domestic production will be stimulated – again, creating jobs and economic growth here at home. API Executive Vice President Louis Finkel talks about new legislation offered by Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, similar to legislation offered last week by Republican Lisa Murkowski, that would lift the crude export ban and boost U.S. energy:
“Bipartisan leadership on this issue keeps the focus on the consumers and workers that will benefit from free trade in crude oil. … Study after study shows that lifting outdated limits on crude exports will allow America to create more jobs, cut the trade deficit, grow the economy, and put downward pressure on fuel costs. Exports will help keep U.S. production strong in a tough market, and they will provide our allies with an important alternative to energy from less friendly regimes.”
Posted May 13, 2015
Some observations on a new University of Texas energy poll and its findings on the Keystone XL pipeline:
First, among Americans who have some familiarity with Keystone XL, 45 percent support the pipeline’s construction while 21 percent oppose. (Twenty-one percent said they neither support nor oppose Keystone XL and 13 percent said they didn’t know.)
The more than 2-1 margin of Americans who favor Keystone XL over those who don’t in the poll underscores a couple of things: People who’ve learned about the pipeline, its purposes and its benefits in terms of jobs and economic growth overwhelmingly support it – and they must be baffled that it hasn’t been built yet. It also underscores how unfortunate it is for the country that Keystone XL’s merits have been denied by purely political, inside-Washington reasons.
Second, among those in the poll who oppose Keystone XL, climate change isn’t the top reason they oppose it – no doubt a kick in the pants to those who’ve spent lots of time and money arguing that building the oil pipeline would doom the climate and the planet.
They have themselves to blame. The main reasons to oppose Keystone XL, cited by the 21 percent in the poll – potential impacts on the environment and water, the presence of hazardous chemicals and benefits accruing to Canada instead of U.S. consumers – reflect the “whack-a-mole” strategy opposition leaders used, moving from flawed claim to flawed claim as quickly as facts, science and sound analysis dispelled them.
To further the discussion, let’s look again at the facts surrounding the top concerns of the 21 percent. Maybe that number will come down in the next UT poll.