A ‘Real’ Energy Policy?

A new year offers the chance for new beginnings – and that’s what’s happening here this month in Washington, D.C., as the Senate and House of Representatives convene the 112th Congress.

Deficits, soaring debt and persistently high unemployment dominate the headlines. But as I talk to AAPG members the frustration I hear frequently is the absence of a national energy policy.

Make that statement to congressional lawmakers or their staff and you’ll get a blank look. Clearly you haven’t done your homework, they’ll say, because nearly every Congress passes energy legislation: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 runs over 500 pages; the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is more than 300 pages long.

How much more policy do you want?

As you read those pages, however, the problem quickly becomes apparent – the legislation is light on strategy and heavy on tactics.

While it may have a theme – such as energy independence and security – it is hard to discern from the constituent parts what the desired outcome looks like and how these programs get us there.

Many of the programs are designed to benefit a legislator’s constituents and home state. There is strong bipartisan support for biofuels, for example, because it benefits the American farmer. And passing legislation requires consensus. So what becomes law is not necessarily what is best, but what legislators can agree on.

Consequently, tough decisions are deferred and resulting policy isn’t comprehensive.

The process of developing a national energy policy is further complicated by the diverse and numerous participants in the U.S. energy sector – it is not a monolithic system. Instead, you have multinational corporations alongside mom-and-pop oil and gas producers, public utilities and start-up renewable energy producers all responding to supply/demand pressures in a highly regulated energy market.

Policymakers try to prompt desired behavior from energy producers and consumers through energy policy. But the intended policy outcome is frequently accompanied by unintended (and negative) consequences. You can’t expect simple stimulus-response behavior in a complex market, especially when you’re dealing with differing time horizons. As former Shell CEO John Hofmeister observed in “Why We Hate the Oil Companies,” “[T]here is a basic conflict between ‘energy time,’ which is defined by decades, and ‘political time,’ which is defined by two- and four-year cycles.”

Developing a coherent, far-sighted national energy policy is a major challenge – one further compounded by the partisanship that characterizes today’s political discourse, which is why I found the following paragraph so interesting:

“Today, few issues in American political life are as polarized as energy policy, with both left and right entrenched in old worldviews that no longer make sense. For the better part of two decades, much of the right has speculated darkly about global warming as a United Nations-inspired conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, all while passing off chants of ‘drill, baby, drill’ as real energy policy. During the same period much of the left has oscillated incoherently between exhortations that avoiding the end of the world demands shared sacrifice, and contradictory assertions that today’s renewable energy and efficiency technologies can eliminate fossil fuels at no significant cost. All the while, America’s dependence on fossil fuels continues unabated and political gridlock deepens, preventing real progress toward a safer, cleaner, more secure energy system.”

The above is from the introduction to Post-Partisan Power – how a limited and direct approach to energy innovation can deliver clean, cheap energy, economic productivity and national prosperity.

The report, released last October, is a joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution and Breakthrough Institute, a trio of think-tanks that spans the political spectrum. It is an effort to push beyond current thinking, and consider how to develop a strategy for our nation’s energy future.

Their proposal has four elements:

♦ Invest in energy science and education.

Creating our energy future requires a significant investment of resources to fund energy research, and a commitment to public energy education from kindergarten onward and to train the next generation energy work force.

♦ Overhaul the energy innovation system.

Harness the creative talents and entrepreneurial spirit needed to discover and commercialize energy technologies through “regional energy innovation institutes.” These institutes would foster public and private partnerships between companies, government and academia. Scale up the activities of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to conduct high-risk, high-reward energy research. Look at dual-use energy technologies that also have military application.

♦ Reform energy subsidies and use military procurement and competitive deployment incentives to drive price declines.

Focus on cost and performance of new energy technologies and stop subsidizing business as usual. Use incentives to drive down costs until new technologies become competitive with current technologies, use the scope and scale of the military to further reduce costs – and don’t forget nuclear.

♦ Internalize the cost of energy modernization and ensure investments do not add to the deficit.

Scrap ineffective subsidies, redirect existing federal revenues and raise additional revenue to fund this innovation and make energy systems, such as the power grid, self-sustaining.

Are these four principles sufficient to create a new energy future? Probably not. But the focus on reducing costs so that alternative energy sources are commercially competitive without subsidy, and using military procurement to drive innovation and cost reduction are ideas worthy of consideration.

That such an ideologically diverse group could debate and agree on these principles suggests developing a national energy policy isn’t a hopeless cause.

In fact, it points to the real task ahead:

Another round of energy legislation isn’t the answer. Instead, we need a national dialogue that forges consensus on the energy future we are trying to build.

Then, and only then, will energy policy have any hope of getting us there.


Comments (0)


Washington Watch

Washington Watch - David Curtiss

David Curtiss served as the Director of AAPG’s Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. from 2008-11.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Creties Jenkins

Creties Jenkins is a past president of the EMD.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Dan Smith

Dan Smith is chair of the Governance Board.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Peter MacKenzie

 Peter MacKenzie is vice chair of the Governance Board. 

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

See Also: Book

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 8145 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Criteria for recognizing stratigraphic sequences are well established on continental margins but more challenging to apply in basinal settings. We report an investigation of the Upper Devonian Woodford Shale, Permian Basin, west Texas based on a set of four long cores, identifying sea level cycles and stratigraphic sequences in an organic-rich shale.

The Woodford Shale is dominated by organic-rich mudstone, sharply overlain by a bioturbated organic-poor mudstone that is consistent with a second-order eustatic sea level fall. Interbedded with the organic-rich mudstone are carbonate beds, chert beds, and radiolarian laminae, all interpreted as sediment gravity-flow deposits. Bundles of interbedded mudstone and carbonate beds alternate with intervals of organic-rich mudstone and thin radiolaria-rich laminae, defining a 5–10 m (16–33 ft)-thick third-order cyclicity. The former are interpreted to represent highstand systems tracts, whereas the latter are interpreted as representing falling stage, lowstand, and transgressive systems tracts. Carbonate beds predominate in the lower Woodford section, associated with highstand shedding at a second-order scale; chert beds predominate in the upper Woodford section, responding to the second-order lowstand.

Additional variability is introduced by geographic position. Wells nearest the western margin of the basin have the greatest concentration of carbonate beds caused by proximity to a carbonate platform. A well near the southern margin has the greatest concentration of chert beds, resulting from shedding of biogenic silica from a southern source. A well in the basin center has little chert and carbonate; here, third-order sea level cycles were primarily reflected in the stratigraphic distribution of radiolarian-rich laminae.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/a-sequence-stratigraphic-framework-for-the-Upper-Devonian-Woodford-Shale.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3250 Bulletin Article

Select lacustrine and marine depositional settings show a spectrum of styles of carbonate deposition and illustrate the types of carbonates, with an emphasis on microbialites and tufa, to be expected in early rift settings. Early rift lake examples examined in this review article are all from East Africa: Lakes Turkana, Bogoria, Natron and Magadi, Manyara, and Tanganyika. Other lake examples include four from the western United States (Great Salt Lake and high lake level Lake Bonneville, Mono Lake and high lake level Russell Lake, Pyramid Lake and high lake level Lake Lahontan, and Searles Lake) and two from Australia (Lakes Clifton and Thetis). Marine basin examples are the Hamelin Pool part of Shark Bay from Australia (marginal marine) and the Red Sea (marine rift).

Landsat images and digital elevation models for each example are used to delineate present and past lake-basin margins based on published lake-level elevations, and for some examples, the shorelines representing different lake levels can be compared to evaluate how changes in size, shape, and lake configuration might have impacted carbonate development. The early rift lakes show a range of characteristics to be expected in lacustrine settings during the earliest stages of continental extension and rifting, whereas the Red Sea shows well advanced rifting with marine incursion and reef–skeletal sand development. Collectively, the lacustrine examples show a wide range of sizes, with several of them being large enough that they could produce carbonate deposits of potential economic interest. Three of the areas—Great Salt Lake and high lake level Lake Bonneville, Pyramid Lake and high lake level Lake Lahontan, and the Red Sea—are exceedingly complex in that they illustrate a large degree of potential depositional facies heterogeneity because of their size, irregular pattern, and connectivity of subbasins within the overall basin outline.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/Assessing-extent-of-carbonate-deposition.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3553 Bulletin Article

See Also: Energy Policy Blog

January 8 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new rule on offshore hydraulic fracturing that takes effect on March 1. The rule adds additional effluent limits and monitoring requirements. Operators would be required to maintain an inventory of chemicals used in drilling operations and report any released into surrounding waters. The new EPA rule applies only to existing development and production platforms, and new exploratory drilling operations in federal waters off the Santa Barbara coast. There are 23 existing production platforms in California federal waters.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/california-offshore-fracking-controversy-2014-01jan13.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 12370 Energy Policy Blog

See Also: Field Seminar

This six-day field seminar is designed to provide participants with an appreciation of the broad range of deep-water reservoir facies, the mechanisms by which they were deposited, their predictive attributes, their reservoir heterogeneity and their stratigraphic architecture.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/fs-Deep-Water Siliciclastic Reservoirs-California.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 46 Field Seminar