Despite increasingly catastrophic weather events occurring across the globe, climate change expert Paul Bledsoe is optimistic there is still time to ward off the worst of climate disruption caused by emissions of greenshouse gases, but time is running out. And he sees reducing what he calls "super pollutants," such as methane and HFCs, rather than simply reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, as offering the most efficient appraoch to stemming the worst of the worst when it comes to climate disruption.

"If we can just over the next 20 years reduce these super pollutants, begin to reduce CO2, I think we can just stave off the worst," he says. "We can prevent the true catastrophe, but we need to act, and we need to act more urgently."

Support the show

The data industry is in a land rush to develop new data centers to meet projected demand due to artificial intelligence. Rapidly bringing many new, large data centers online translates into a sharp increase in demand for electricity at a time when consumers and politicians are concerned about rising electricity prices. At the same time, communities and their political representatives are increasingly working to block the siting of data centers in their communities.

The industry is attempting to meet "unprecedented demand for the services that are powered by data centers" as the amount of computing time and computer power by users has grown dramatically since the pandemic, says Aaron Tinjum, executive vice president for policy, regulatory, and strategy at the Data Center Coalition. "That's even setting aside any sort of conversation around artificial intelligence, and really a point of emphasis in all of that is that it is homes and it is businesses, it is utilities that are necessitating more data center infrastructure than ever before, and so our members are working to meet that demand."

Tinjum sought to push back against the data industry being tarred as a primary cause of increasing electricity prices, noting that there are so many other factors contributing to the recent upsurge in electricity costs, such as generation shortfalls, transmission constraints, and supply chain issues. "Yes, data centers have had an impact on capacity prices, but that can't solely be assigned to data centers when we're talking about things like market design, we're talking about things like price caps, we're talking about accelerated plant retirements, and the interconnection backlogs to connect any new resources that would offset the reduced supply side resources," he says.

"This is really infrastructure that our modern economy and daily lives have become dependent upon, and one of the most necessary inputs in meeting that demand is electricity," he notes. "Energy is the single highest operating expenditure for a data center, so they are naturally incentivized to be as efficient as possible in addition to whatever sustainability commitments they may have already in place." 

Support the show

William S. Becker, the executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project and a former Department of Energy official, discusses the fossil fuel industry "cartel" that has aligned itself with congressional Republicans and the Trump administration to frustrate concerted policies in response to the threat from climate disruption.

"It's a huge industry. It's got a tremendous sunk investment," Becker observes. "It's been around for 200 years. It's fighting to keep access to something on the order of, well, tens of trillions of dollars of fossil fuels that are still underground. Science is saying that about two thirds of them have to stay there in order to keep climate change under some bearable level, at some bearable level. So it began late in 1989, the fossil energy industries and companies formed a coalition to begin resisting climate science and discrediting it, and we've been at this ever since."

Support the show

The Insurance Information Institute's Chief Economist, Michel Leonard, discusses how the insurance industry is contending with increasingly intense and more frequent extreme weather events that are driving up insurance costs for consumers. While there are a number of factors driving cost increases for insurance, such as inflation, there's no doubt that extreme events driven by human-caused climate disruption is a principal factor, Leonard says.

Climate is the one of most critical issues affecting the insurance industry, he says. "It's the make or break of our industry."

Support the show

Energy Markets Podcast host Bryan Lee explains why he has returned to publishing regular episodes of the podcast after a two-year sabbatical. "I feel compelled to return," Lee says, citing "the looming threat of a retreat from electricity regulatory reforms that have provided billions of dollars in benefits to consumers."

Lee also draws on his long career in energy and environmental policy to provide the history of competitive reforms over the past 30 years intended to replace monopoly regulation of electricity prices with market-based pricing. 

"While the decades-old model for competitive electricity markets needs to be improved, we shouldn't lose sight of the benefits we've derived – billions in consumer savings and a consistently cleaner electric industry," Lee says. "It would be a tragedy if we returned to monopoly regulation rather than take the steps needed to make the markets work better."

Support the show

In this episode we continue our consideration of what Bill Massey in our first episode this season called "the battle of the statistics" between monopoly and competition advocates. We talk with Michael Giberson, an economist and senior fellow for energy with the R Street Institute, who notes the importance of taking statistics into proper context when attempting to contrast between monopoly utility regulation and competitive markets – particularly the need to account for the impact of inflation when looking at changes in electricity prices over time.

Support the show

Since the dawn of retail energy competition a quarter century ago, various factions pro and con have engaged in a "battle of the statistics" (as former FERC Commissioner Bill Massey termed it in Episode 1 of this season) regarding the benefits that consumers – particularly residential customers – obtain from competition in retail electricity service. Mostly, these statistical arguments have centered around price savings that residential consumers may or may not have obtained from having a competitive choice in energy suppliers.

In this episode, we hear from Constellation Energy's Rich Spilky, who on behalf of the Retail Energy Supply Association breaks down for us the body of RESA-sponsored work by the late former Illinois utility regulator Phil O'Connor that objectively sought to identify the consumer benefits of customer choice over time, with the price data adjusted for inflation. Spilky assisted O'Connor in these data analyses, which sought to objectively identify which states had effective retail energy competition, and to use federal government statistics to compare the performance of those retail choice states against that of states that retained traditional monopoly price regulation.

The results have been compelling. For both studies that Spilky assisted O'Connor in preparing – Restructuring Recharged and The Great Divergence – as well as in the analyses that Spilky has conducted independently since, this objective methodology has shown that electricity consumers in the 14 jurisdictions with effective customer choice have generally experienced downward price trends while their counterparts without choice in monopoly states have generally experienced upward price trends. 

The analyses clearly show "there's something good going on in the competitive states, pricewise and cost-containmentwise, that's not happening in the monopoly states," Spilky says.  "I think it's remarkable."

Support the show

The Biden administration in January announced a pause in reviewing export permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in order to better understand the impacts that the United States' world-leading LNG exports will have on domestic natural gas prices, climate change, and environmental equity. Could the pause threaten the U.S.'s position as the world's top LNG supplier? 

Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for LNG, speaks to the the national security implications of the administration's pause – U.S. LNG was instrumental in Europe's pivot away from Russian gas in the wake of the Ukraine invasion – and says the regulatory action has prompted concerns among European allies and buyers regarding the reliability of the United States as an energy supplier. 

The economic and environmental impacts of LNG exports have been studied and restudied, says Riedl, who sees election-year politics prompting the announced review.  Given today's record-low prices for natural gas in the U.S. and the projected impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's recently finalized methane emissions-monitoring rules, the outcome of the new review should be a net positive for the industry, he suggests.

Support the show

The debate over the benefits of competition for energy consumers has persisted since the advent of retail competition for electricity and natural gas more than two decades ago. Consumers are stuck in a limbo between traditional monopoly regulation and competitive choice because the movement to deregulate energy pricing (much as most other formerly price-regulated industries were deregulated decades ago) has stalled in the wake of the catastrophic collapse of California's disastrously ill-designed market at the turn of the century.

Ever since, competition advocates have sought to expand the dozen or more states where competitive energy supply is available to consumers, but mostly have been thwarted in the face of monopoly utilities' deep-pocketed opposition.  Today, emboldened monopoly utility interests, along with well-meaning but misguided consumer advocates, are supporting legislation in at least two states – Maryland and Massachusetts – that would effectively end competitive retail energy supply choices for residential customers.

Travis Kavulla,  vice president of regulatory affairs at NRG Energy, is on the front lines of the battle by competitive energy suppliers to preserve customer choice for residential consumers. The former Montana utility regulator discusses the headwinds in states like Maryland and Massachusetts, but also the opportunities to expand retail energy choice in other states – such as South Carolina and Louisiana – where elected officials seek to reign in the increasingly higher costs their constituents pay to monopoly utility suppliers for electricity and natural gas.

Support the show

Our discussion continues with David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney, who notes that flexible market-based emissions cap-and-trade programs have been applied somewhat ubiquitously to address a range of environmental issues, from eliminating lead in gasoline, to combatting acid rain, to phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals – even to allocating catch limits for herring, an issue incidentally connected to cases now pending before the Supreme Court challenging the long-standing legal precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.

But Congress and the Supreme Court have rejected attempts to apply this flexible market-based approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Today, few in Washington even attempt to suggest emissions cap-and-trade as a response to greenhouse warming, and instead call for Congress to put a "price" on carbon. But Doniger notes that putting a price on carbon involves establishing a new tax, and he doesn't see a carbon tax gaining traction among Republicans in Congress.

"I don't think we're going to see carbon taxes because the one whole party has become the anti-tax party. It's a dead letter to one whole party," Doniger says. But he does see merit to cap-and trade, and points to bipartisan congressional agreement in 2017 to employ cap-and-trade in phasing down ozone-depleting HFCs. 

"There is life in the old cap-and-trade design yet," Doniger says. "There are variations of emissions trading that we continue to promote because the flexibility reduces costs for industry and therefore lets them reach farther for the same total regulatory costs."

Support the show