Author: arh0531@gmail.com

Now retired from multi-decade career in Federal government, most recently at U.S. Department of Energy..

Now retired from multi-decade career in Federal government, most recently at U.S. Department of Energy..

Looking Back at Energy Policy in the 1970’s

Recently I have spent some time cleaning up some boxes in my basement, as ‘requested’ by my wife. Three of the boxes contained personal files from my several years as Staff Scientist with the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in the mid 1970’s. This was the period following the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-4 when the U.S. first began to think seriously about energy policy. The history of this period is still largely to be written, and it promises to be a rich history. It also represents a unique period in recent American political history in that Democrats and Republicans occasionally cooperated to pass legislation that was deemed to be in the national interest.

Reviewing the files in the boxes took me several days because I.found the contents much more interesting than anticipated after 35 years of non-attention. I also will donate the files to the Senate Archives after I have absorbed more of and thought more about the contents.

The Oil Embargo focused U.S. attention on the country’s significant and increasing dependence on imported oil from unstable and often unfriendly parts of the globe. While only about a quarter of total oil consumption was affected at the time, the Embargo was a rude shock to Americans when they had to endure higher prices and long lines at gas stations and even alternate day access to the pumps based on their license plate numbers.

Suddenly, energy became a dominating issue and the Ford Administration and the Congress were struggling to reassure the American public and devise policies that addressed this increasing import dependence. Lots of disagreements ensued, particularly on oil pricing, but attention also began to be focused on limiting energy demand and indigenous energy resources. Thus was born a large push for greater use of America’s large resources of coal and for increased use of nuclear power. Most economists talked of the one-to-one relationship between gross national product and energy consumption (not true, as has subsequently been demonstrated) and a favorite theme of nuclear supporters at the time was to call for a “doubling every decade”, meaning that we should double the number of nuclear power plants every ten years until the turn of the century. It was also a time when domestic oil production had just peaked and natural gas supplies were thought to be in limited supply. This led to restrictions on the use of natural gas, reduced use of oil for power generation, announcements of many new nuclear power plant construction projects, increased attention to reducing energy demand in buildings, industry, and transportation, attention to non-fossil fuel energy resources (read ‘renewables’), and calls for a national energy strategy. In the intervening years we’ve made progress on a number of these issues, some more than others, but we still lack a national energy strategy, a critical missing piece as we penetrate further into the 21st century.

A major step forward was the passage in 1975 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA – Public Law 94-163), the country’s first comprehensive energy legislation. It passed that summer in the House by more than a 3:1 margin and by 3:1 in the Senate, triggering a 3-month House-Senate Conference to iron out differences. The bill, as finally negotiated, was signed by President Ford just before Christmas that year despite Republican threats of a Presidential veto. It created many features of our current energy scene, which are discussed below. I also want to recognize those I consider the major legislative leaders, both Republican and Democrat, who fought for this legislation across party lines and brought it to the President’s desk. I do not believe that they have yet received the full recognition that they richly deserve.

EPCA’s primary goals were to increase energy supply, reduce demand, put a focus on energy efficiency, and give the President more tools with which to respond to energy supply disruptions. It’s primary actions were to:
– establish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The need for such a reserve had been recognized for decades, since the 1940’s, but the Oil Embargo underscored the critical need for such a reserve.
– Part B/Title III established the Energy Conservation Program which gave “authority to develop, revise, and implement minimum energy conservation standards for appliances and equipment.” It also authorized an appliance labeling program, to assist consumers in making energy- and cost-wise purchasing decisions.
– Part A/Title III established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new automobile fleets. This legislation, which remained unamended for 32 years, is still the nation’s most impactful energy conservation measure.
– other provisions included loan guarantees to encourage domestic coal and oil production by smaller firms, and additional presidential authority to act in times of emergencies.

The principal legislative leaders behind EPCA (see photos below) included Fritz Hollings (D-SC) who was the prime mover in the Senate of the CAFE legislation, Warren Magnuson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee On Commerce, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Ed Muskie (D-ME) who chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chuck Percy (R-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Tunney (D-CA), all strong Senate supporters of energy conservation, John Dingell (D-MI) who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Harley Staggers (D-WV) who chaired the House Science and Technology Committee, and Phil Sharp (D-IN) who shepherded the CAFE legislation through the House. One must also give credit to President Gerald ‘Gerry’ Ford of Michigan who signed the bill into law despite severe pressure not to from many of his constituents and advisors. All deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for putting national interest ahead of party politics as we don’t do too often today.

My final thought is the recognition that critical energy issues were clearly identified in the 1970’s, 40 years ago, but that progress since then has been slower than then hoped for. This has hurt the country in terms of preparing for the future (wje still lack a national energy policy codified by the Congress), less job creation and economic growth in clean energy industries, and unnecessary environmental degradation. We have made progress in the years following the scary wake-up call to the nation following the Oil Embargo and the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1970’s when global oil production was curtailed. Nevertheless, we can and must do better in the future if we are to successfully combat global warming and climate change (this became a public issue only after Jim Hansen at NASA began to talk about the issue in 1979) and ensure America’s place in the emerging and inevitable renewable energy society.

In order, left-to-right: Sen. Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings, Sen. Warren Magnuson, Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, Sen. Ed Muskie Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Tunney, Sen. Charles ‘Chuck’ Percy, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. Harley Staggers, Rep. Plil Sharp.

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage
imageimage

A Letter to President Obama

This letter, which will be published as a blog post, is a followup to my earlier post entitled ‘A Conversation With S. David Freeman’. In that post I stated:
“….. despite the obvious resistance that Obama faces from Republicans on anything he proposes, and the need to keep a Democratic Senate if at all possible (so that his last two years in office will not be even more difficult than his first six years), should the President think big and propose what he knows the country needs as opposed to what is politically feasible? My heart says yes, and the side of me that claims to be practical, after many years in Washington, DC, tries hard to understand Obama’s strategy and support it. But Dave may be right – we may have an intellectual President whose nature just won’t allow him to stick his neck out. As I said to Dave, the test for me will be after the November elections, when Obama will have no Democratic candidates to protect and nothing to lose by proposing farseeing energy and environmental legislation. He will not succeed in getting it passed by the most dysfunctional Congress I’ve seen in forty years, but as Dave says, we have to start somewhere.”

I’m also aware that a number of my liberal/progressive friends and colleagues, in addition to Dave Freeman, have expressed disappointment with the President for not doing more on energy and environmental issues as they assumed he would when he was elected. I have resisted joining this group and continue to support the President’s analytic and pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues. It has led to some difficult discussions, and despite my long and transparent political history led one long-standing friend to write: “…it is interesting, for sure, to see you moving toward the real Democrats.”

Needless to say, I disagree with this friend’s characterization of what a true Democrat believes, as if there is only one way to address these issues, and we will have to agree to disagree. Nevertheless, these interactions with friends and my own impatience about seeing more done quickly to achieve a clean energy society, leads to this appeal to you as you approach the final two years of your presidency.

Once we are past the elections in the first week of November you will have little reason, in my opinion, to hold back on your vision for this country’s energy future. I believe you have a clear understanding of what that future must be, but that vision has to be translated into a national energy policy that is codified by the U.S. Congress. As a nation we need to set long-term goals for moving away from dependence on fossil fuels and toward an energy system increasingly dependent on increased energy efficiency and renewable energy generating sources, as the European Union has done and even China is doing in its multiple five-year plans. You need to level with the American public about the policy choices we have to make now to ensure we are well on our way to that energy future that other nations have identified more clearly than we. Republicans and some Democrats may not agree but your leadership is needed to point the way forward and put pressure on the Congress to protect our long-term interests.

You have recently taken important steps to do what you feel you can reasonably do within your executive powers to reduce energy-related carbon emissions. You are taking some political heat for that. but that comes with the job and as best I can tell from media reports the majority of Americans agree with your approach. What is less clear is your vision for a long-term clean energy policy and how we can move rapidly to that end, which is part-and-parcel of addressing global warming/climate change and improving national security. Your all-of-the-above energy strategy leaves many of us wanting more clarity from you on the hard choices we have to make to ensure our energy future. This letter is a request for such clarity while you still have a chance to make a significant difference as President. It will undoubtedly lead to further political attacks, but so what? You were overly patient with Republican intransigence in your first Administration, a serious mistake that took you too long to learn from, and you must not repeat that again in setting out your goals for the future. They will huff and puff and perhaps slow down national progress, as they threaten to do on health care, but you must lead in pointing the way. We will get there eventually but the sooner the better. You can make a difference and I await your post-November 4th leadership.

A Few Thoughts on Energy and the Scottish Independence Vote

In less than a week, on September 18th, an estimated 80-90 percent of Scottish voters (including those 16 or older for this vote), will decide whether to separate from their treaty partnership with the rest of Great Britain. This partnership was created by the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England.

image

First a few words on why I’m commenting on the Scottish vote. My wife is Scottish, her family is all in Scotland except for a wayward brother who defected to England, and my wife and I are new property owners (a flat) in East Kilbride. Besides, it’s a fascinating subject (how often do you see the chance for a new country to appear on the global scene) and the energy questions are central to separation considerations.

I will also concede up front that I don’t think the decision to separate (a Yes vote) or not separate (a No vote) is an easy one, given the many uncertainties that will ensue, and the lack of what I consider adequate information provided by either the Scottish Government (Yes) and the ‘unionists’ (No). The latter group includes the Cameron government in London.

What is the current energy situation in Scotland? Nuclear power provides about a third of Scottish electricity, renewables about a third, a quarter from coal, 8% from gas and just under 3% from oil and other sources. Scotland continues to produce more energy than it uses, with more than a quarter of electricity generated being exported. And the Scottish government says it is on course for half of electricity use to come from renewable sources by 2015, an interim target ahead of the goal of having renewables generate 100% of the county’s electricity by 2020.

The energy issue for Scotland seems to be two-fold: do they have enough energy to go it alone and are the oil and gas reserves that would remain with an independent Scotland provide enough revenue, via exports to other countries , to pay off Scotland’s share of the UK’s current national debt and finance Scotland’s ambitious national plans. Those plans include the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund, modeled after Norway’s, that will allow sharing of the benefits of Scotland’s current fossil fuel exports with future generations.

There seems to be little doubt that Scotland has the renewable energy resources to meet its ambitious 2020 electricity goal, if not in 2020 then shortly thereafter, if the necessary investments can be made. These resources include the largest wind resources in the European region, both onshore and offshore, hydropower, significant wave energy resources, and other renewable resources that can contribute such as biomass and tidal energy. The real issue seems to be oil reserves off both the eastern and western coasts of Scotland – how big are they and how long will they last?

This is where the debate gets interesting. Scottish oil off the eastern coast, from the North Sea, has been an energy mainstay for many years, but how much of that oil is left to recover is in dispute. London says 16 billion barrels, Edinburgh says 24. The reality is that nobody really knows, and much depends on the application of improved technologies that have increased recovery beyond initial estimates in several of the world’s oil reservoirs. The other wild card is oil to be found off Scotland’s western coast where exploratory wells are few and far between – only 20 to date. Published estimates vary from little to a massive potential find that could make Scotland one of the world’s major oil producers. An intriguing aspect of Scotland’s offshore oil potential is the additional possibility of offshore fracking – some of the underwater shale resources resemble shale plays in the U.S. that have been successfully fracked for both oil and gas.

It is only in recent weeks that the Yes votes seem to to outnumber the No votes, with a significant and determining share of Scottish voters saying they are still undecided. We will find out shortly, but no matter which way the vote goes there will be years of uncertainty ahead for Scotland as they negotiate with England, and with the European Union for membership if the Yes voters prevail.

My own view, which has no bearing on the vote, is that Scotland should go for it. Such an opportunity comes along rarely, and certainly wouldn’t again for many years if the vote is No. The energy resources seem to be there and Scotland is a highly educated and innovative country. It has contributed much to the world in the past and has the potential to contribute much more in the future. Keep in mind that in addition to their contribution of Scottish whiskey, the Scottish Enlightenment provided the basic ideas of the American Revolution, the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, a Scot, two major industries were invented by Scots (steel and asphalt/macadam), and in scientific fields the Scots have always played a major role (e.g., see ‘The Mark of the Scots’ by Duncan A. Bruce). Not too shabby!

A Conversation With S. David Freeman

Had a most interesting discussion at lunch today (3 September 2014) with Dave, whose name is well known to older generations of energy policy types but less well known to many younger folks. He and I first met when we both joined the staff of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on October 1, 1974. Dave joined as a full-time energy staffer just after leading a major review of national energy policy sponsored by the Ford Foundation (‘A Time to Choose: America’s Energy Future’), and me as a Congressional Fellow/Staff Scientist. Dave is now 88 years old (I’m a relatively young 77) and in my opinion is as sharp, feisty and opinionated as he was when I first met him forty years ago. In the interim he has held a series of high level jobs (Chairman/TVA, General Manager/Sacramento Municipal Utility District, General Manager/New York Power Authority, General Manager/Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) and is still active in trying to close down California’s aging and poorly located nuclear power plants. We had not seen each other in a number of years and today’s lunch was a chance to catch up a bit.

image

We met at noon at his apartment building in DC, and after walking to a nearby barbeque restaurant we got down to filling in the years. We reflected on the work we both did in the 1970’s on energy issues during Senator Warren Magnuson’s tenure as Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and on the many talented people we worked with at that time. We then discussed Dave’s time in Knoxville where he pushed hard to introduce conservation and solar energy into TVA’s energy portfolio and resisted the pressures to add more nuclear power plants. These priorities characterized his subsequent roles at SMUD, NYPA, and LADWP, and remain his priorities today. He was an early voice for clean energy in the U.S., and was appointed by President Johnson in 1967 as “..the first person with an energy responsibility in the federal government.” He has also been termed an “‘eco-pioneer’ for his environmentally-oriented leadership of SMUD.”

Our lunchtime discussion, after appropriate reminiscences, devolved into a discussion of energy policy under President Obama. Dave appreciates that Obama has an understanding of the importance of energy efficiency and renewble energy to our future energy system, but feels strongly that Obama is indecisive and has failed to put action behind his words. In fact, Dave called him “gutless” for failing to provide needed leadership on reducing our use of fossil fuels and making an all-out push on renewables. Dave’s feeling is that Obama is too cautious by nature (he quoted the opinion of an Illinois politician who had worked with Obama) and unwilling to stick his neck out, when what this country needs is a Preident who does just that. Notwithstanding the argument that the President is having a hard time getting any legislation through the Congress, and may have even more trouble after the November elections, Dave’s argument is that we have a critical need to reduce carbon emissions and that we have to start somewhere, even if it takes 10 years to get a meaningful program implemented. It is a powerful argument, as nothing gets done if one doesn’t try.

Dave gave me a lot to think about, as I’ve been a strong supporter of the President and his energy policies, but admit to being concerned about the President’s limited public explanations of his policies, whether energy or foreign policy. He may understand the issues, and Dave and I agree that he does, but is the President being too cautious by far? As a result, is he passing up an opportunity to lead the country in a needed direction at a critical time? As the leader of the nation is it encumbent upon him to propose legislation that limits our use of fossil fuels and puts us more aggressively on the path to a renewable future, even if the likelihood of passage is low to nonexistent in the near future? Upon leaving Dave after lunch I decided to write about our conversation and raise the question that Dave poses. This is the result.

My thoughts upon reflection are the following: despite the obvious resistance that Obama faces from Republicans on anything he proposes, and the need to keep a Democratic Senate if at all possible (so that his last two years in office will not be even more difficult than his first six years), should the President think big and propose what he knows the country needs as opposed to what is politically feasible? My heart says yes, and the side of me that claims to be practical, after many years in Washington, DC, tries hard to understand Obama’s strategy and support it. But Dave may be right – we may have an intellectual President whose nature just won’t allow him to stick his neck out. As I said to Dave, the test for me will be after the November elections, when Obama will have no Democratic candidates to protect and nothing to lose by proposing farseeing energy and environmental legislation. He will not succeed in getting it passed by the most dysfunctional Congress I’ve seen in forty years, but as Dave says, we have to start somewhere.

As those who read my blog will recall, I’ve taken issue with the Clinton-Gore Administration for not doing more on clean energy when they had the chance in the 1990’s. Dave’s point about Obama is similar – we need leadership that looks down the road despite today’s political realities. My final verdict on the Obama Administration’s achievements on energy policy will depend on what comes out of the White House after November. I hope that the President has it in him to do what Dave and I both agree the country needs, but at this point I still have confidence in President Obama. Dave does not.

This is a lot to think about, and I will continue to cogitate on Dave’s perspectives. Hopefully, others will join this discussion via comments on this blog post.

Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue

A detailed report on fracking (‘Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue’), co-authored with two Swedish colleagues Gustaf Olsson and Andreas Lindstrom, was released today by SIWI, the Swedish International Water Institute. The report’s Executive Summary is included below; the full report can be found at http://www.siwi.org.

SIWI Report no. 24/Executive Summary
“Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue” by Andreas Lindström, SIWI, Dr. Allan Hoffman, US Department of Energy/retired, and Prof. Gustaf Olsson, Lund University.

The emergence of shale gas and shale oil has quickly changed the landscape of opportunities for energy provision and security in different regions of the world. Difficulties in assessing the actual quantity of existing global shale hydrocarbon reserves produce opposing views on whether the world is on the verge of a “shale gas revolution” and, if it is, how long it could last. Some argue that shale gas may constitute a backbone of energy supply for specific countries for decades to come, while others say the peak may have passed already.

Despite this, some nations – such as the USA – have already started an ambitious exploitation of this comparatively cheap energy resource, providing new and favourable conditions for domestic energy supplies and costs, and creating new jobs in the booming shale industry. For various reasons other countries have not taken the plunge, despite assessed quantities of shale resources. These reasons include fear of possible severe environmental impacts. These are often associated with shale gas extraction accomplished through the technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”; evidence of the impacts is emerging in places where intense, unregulated fracking takes place.

Many of these impacts make themselves felt in water resources. Fracking is a water-intensive activity, and as the reserves are often found in dry areas extraction poses additional challenges in what are often already water-stressed environments. The vast water quantities needed over the life span of a shale gas well, where water is used to fracture rock under high pressure, pile further stress on local fresh water sources which are already needed for many different purposes. At times when water supplies are running short in a specific area it has to be transported to the fracking site from afar.

Water quality is also under threat from fracking as well as the quantity available. Many chemicals used in the fracking fluid (the composition of which is often protected for commercial confidentiality reasons) have increasingly been found to be harmful both to the environment and to human health, yet poor regulations and legislation governing fracking often allow accidents which contaminate surrounding water sources. There is a need for greater responsibility, through developing codes of conduct and regulatory systems governing fracking so as to protect water resources and the environment. It should be adopted by all nations currently exploiting or liable to exploit shale resources as part of their energy supply.