Politics Archives - Page 14 of 45 - An Economic View of the Environment

Reflecting on the Causes and Consequences of the Texas Energy Crisis

In mid-February of this year, a series of severe winter storms swept across the United States, due to the jet stream dipping particularly far south, stretching from Washington State to Texas, and running back north along the East Coast, allowing a polar vortex to bring exceptionally cold air across the country, and spawning multiple storms along the jet stream track. This weather phenomenon resulted in record low temperatures throughout the state of Texas, with temperatures in Dallas, Austin and San Antonio falling below temperatures in Anchorage, Alaska!

In Texas, this led both to dramatic increases in electricity demand for heating, and – at the same time – drastic reductions in electricity supply, as natural gas, nuclear, and wind generating facilities faced a variety of restrictions. This severe supply-demand imbalance on the Texas electricity grid resulted in what has already come to be called the “Texas energy crisis of 2021,” which according to my most recent podcast guest, William Hogan, was of “unprecedented” scale, scope, and duration.

William Hogan is the Raymond Plank Research Professor of Global Energy Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he directs research in the Harvard Electricity Policy Group. You can hear our complete conversation in the Podcast here.

In these podcasts – “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program – I talk with well-informed people from academia, government, industry, and NGOs. Bill Hogan surely belongs in this group, as one of the world’s leading authorities on electricity markets, the founding director of Stanford University’s Energy Modeling Forum, and the founding Research Director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group.

Among the questions I discuss with Bill Hogan in the podcast are these:

There have been previous electricity grid problems and blackouts – in Texas, California, New York – as well as in other parts of the world. What made this one so different?

What were the the supply-side causes, including for generation from natural gas, nuclear, and renewables? What about the fact that Texas has its own grid, with limited interconnections? Was that a major problem?

On the demand side, if the state’s high reliance on electric heating was part of the problem, what does that say, if anything, about the fact that California and other jurisdictions seem to be moving toward prohibit natural gas connections for new home construction, because of climate change concerns?

Was the nature of the Texas electricity market and its regulation (or lack thereof) a significant factor in the crisis?

What about the consequences of the Texas crisis, such as the incredibly high electricity prices faced by some of those who were fortunate enough not to lose their power?

As I noted above, the Texas energy crisis unfolded when a convergence of winter storms produced record-cold temperatures across much of the central part of the United States, reaching as far south as the Lone Star State. The sustained cold caused significant damage to energy infrastructure in Texas, knocking down transmission lines, freezing natural gas pipelines and pumps, severely pinching supplies, and creating blackouts throughout much of the state. At the same time, the exceptionally cold weather resulted in spiking demand, as electric heating was cranked up by consumers. Hogan describes the scale, scope, and duration of the crisis as “unprecedented,” characterizing it as a one-in-one-hundred-year event.

“It’s a very tragic situation. Terrible. And when you’re dealing with systems like this, you can plan for some things. And then, when you get outside the envelope, you’re in trouble,” he says.

In our conversation, Bill describes how this situation resulted in a severe energy supply/demand imbalance during which hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses were left without power for days, and some of those who remained on the grid were at risk of receiving extremely high electricity bills (because they had previously opted for contracts which passed on wholesale costs plus a relatively small monthly charge).

Some observers have pointed fingers at Texas’ relatively less regulated energy market as the culprit for the crisis that unfolded, but Professor Hogan largely disagrees.

“One of the claims that has been very popular in certain press articles is that Texas has a free market in electricity. And you can’t have a free market in electricity because of problems like this. And that’s a mischaracterization of what has happened in Texas,” he says. “There are differences in the level of choice. But there are also reliability conditions, operating reserves that are imposed, transmission constraints that you have to respect. So, it’s a complicated mix of engineering and economics. And you have more choice, perhaps, in Texas than you have elsewhere. But I think it’s a mistake to characterize it as just having no regulation.”

Hogan agrees that the Texas energy grid is not equipped to withstand such pronounced and sustained cold snaps as the one in February, but he argues that the state’s electricity market design, which is highly responsive to typical changes in supply and demand conditions under normal circumstances, is one that is admired and hence being replicated in other parts of the country.

“You see evidence in the Western energy imbalance market that’s expanding rapidly because of the pressure coming from renewables. And you see the Southeast electricity and energy market proposed a couple of weeks ago, which is trying to accelerate the amount of trading and the amount of market operations. All of these things are moving in the direction of the Texas energy market,” he says. In general, Hogan concludes, the Texas electricity market design isn’t “as broken as people have claimed.”

My complete conversation with Professor Hogan is the 21^st episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month. You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

Gina McCarthy, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nick Stern of the London School of Economics discussing his career, British politics, and efforts to combat climate change
Andrei Marcu, founder and executive director of the European Roundtable on Climate Change and Sustainable Transition
Paul Watkinson, Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Jos Delbeke, professor at the European University Institute in Florence and at the KU Leuven in Belgium, and formerly Director-General of the European Commission’s DG Climate Action
David Keith, professor at Harvard and a leading authority on geoengineering
Joe Aldy, professor of the practice of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, with considerable experience working on climate change policy issues in the U.S. government
Scott Barrett, professor of natural resource economics at Columbia University, and an authority on infectious disease policy
Rebecca Henderson, John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard University, and founding co-director of the Business and Environment Initiative at Harvard Business School.
Sue Biniaz, who was the lead climate lawyer and a lead climate negotiator for the United States from 1989 until early 2017.
Richard Schmalensee, the Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management, and Professor of Economics Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kelley Kizier, Associate Vice President for International Climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.
David Hone, Chief Climate Change Adviser, Shell International.
Vicky Bailey, 30 years of experience in corporate and government positions in the energy sector.
David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego.
Lisa Friedman, reporter on the climate desk at the The New York Times.
Coral Davenport, who covers energy and environmental policy for The New York Times from the Washington bureau.
Spencer Dale, BP Group Chief Economist.
Richard Revesz, professor at the NYU School of Law.
Daniel Esty, Hillhouse Professor of Environment and Law at Yale University.

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

History May Convey Some Hope for Biden’s Climate Agenda

Before launching into unbridled enthusiasm about the implications for environmental policies of the change from Trump to Biden, it can be helpful to place this change into some historical context. Someone who is exceptionally well qualified to do this is my guest in the latest episode of my podcast, released today – Daniel Esty, who held a variety of senior roles in the George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) administration, and has been a close observer – and sometime consultant – on environmental policies of the four subsequent Presidential administrations. You can hear our complete conversation in the Podcast here.

In these podcasts – “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program – I talk with well-informed people from academia, government, industry, and NGOs. Dan Esty certainly belongs in this group, as he has occupied positions in two of these sectors, and has worked with all four! Currently, he is the Hillhouse Professor at Yale University, with primary appointments at the Environment School and the Law School. I’m pleased to say that he and I are both proud, long-time members of the Board of Directors of Resources for the Future, the Washington-based think tank. Dan is the co-author with Todd Cort of a new book, Values at Work: Sustainable Investing and ESG Reporting.

Early in our conversation, Dan Esty reflects on his time in government, and recalls the high degree of bipartisanship that characterized voting in the U.S. Congress 30 years ago on the path-breaking Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, when 96% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in support (in the Senate, 91% of Ds and 87% of Rs voted in the affirmative). This stands in sharp contrast with voting in 2009 on the Waxman-Markey climate legislation, which had support from 83% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans!

In regard to the recent presidential transition, Dan comments that he was disturbed by the ease with which the Trump Administration rolled back environmental policies, but is heartened by the change of leadership in Washington and the course that the new administration is charting.

“I’m excited about having a commitment across the administration to good science, good data, and good analysis. And, frankly, the elevation of the White House Science Advisor to Cabinet-level status is a signal of that, and an important one, that…science is back, and we’re going to build on the best evidence we can establish, and drive policy from there,” he says.

Esty commends President Biden for many of his high-level appointments, including John Kerry as climate envoy, Gina McCarthy as domestic climate change czar, Jennifer Granholm as Secretary of Energy, Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation, and Michael Regan as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Kerry in particular, Esty notes, can play a critical role in helping rally international support for climate policy as the U.N. Conference of the Parties prepares to hold its next annual meeting, this November in Glasgow, Scotland.

“There’ll be a big push as we approach that November gathering in Scotland to really have countries demonstrate renewed commitment and increased ambition to speed up the pace at which de-carbonization takes place,” Esty says. “We’re not going to renegotiate the Paris agreement, but I think John Kerry is the one who could say, the U.S. is back in this agreement, serious of purpose in terms of its own strategy for emissions reduction, and he will be able to tell that story with conviction to the leaders across the world.”

Dan is cautiously hopeful that the new administration will deploy a bipartisan approach to domestic climate policy as it lays the foundation for the transition to a clean energy economy in the United States.

“There is a hope, but I know that it’s a tough moment, that we might get back to a time, perhaps not this year or next, but at some point soon, when more of the agenda does move on a bipartisan basis. I think we’re going to need to see a new tool box, a new set of approaches to the strategy of moving to clean energy, and I’m excited about that because I think it offers the promise, not the certainty, but the possibility of bringing together a broader coalition across party lines.”

Dan’s hope is commendable, and given the current state of political polarization in the U.S. Congress, he recognizes that it will require some truly inspired and highly creative proposals from the new administration to bridge the divide that exists.

All of this and much more is found in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.” I hope you will listen to this latest discussion here. You can find a complete transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

My conversation with Professor Esty is the 20th episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month. Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

Gina McCarthy, former Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nick Stern of the London School of Economics discussing his career, British politics, and efforts to combat climate change
Andrei Marcu, founder and executive director of the European Roundtable on Climate Change and Sustainable Transition
Paul Watkinson, Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Jos Delbeke, professor at the European University Institute in Florence and at the KU Leuven in Belgium, and formerly Director-General of the European Commission’s DG Climate Action
David Keith, professor at Harvard and a leading authority on geoengineering
Joe Aldy, professor of the practice of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, with considerable experience working on climate change policy issues in the U.S. government
Scott Barrett, professor of natural resource economics at Columbia University, and an authority on infectious disease policy
Rebecca Henderson, John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard University, and founding co-director of the Business and Environment Initiative at Harvard Business School.
Sue Biniaz, who was the lead climate lawyer and a lead climate negotiator for the United States from 1989 until early 2017.
Richard Schmalensee, the Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management, and Professor of Economics Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kelley Kizier, Associate Vice President for International Climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.
David Hone, Chief Climate Change Adviser, Shell International.
Vicky Bailey, 30 years of experience in corporate and government positions in the energy sector.
David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego.
Lisa Friedman, reporter on the climate desk at the The New York Times.
Coral Davenport, who covers energy and environmental policy for The New York Times from the Washington bureau.
Spencer Dale, BP Group Chief Economist.
Richard Revesz, professor at the NYU School of Law.

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

The Future of European Climate Change Policy

In my previous blog post, on January 14^th, I offered my personal views regarding “International Climate Change Policy & Action in the Biden Administration.” Today, I’m pleased to turn to a parallel assessment of future European climate change policy by Ottmar Edenhofer, a greatly-accomplished German economist, admired by academics, as well as leaders in government, industry, and non-governmental organizations.

Professor Edenhofer’s presentation, “The European Green Deal – Reform or Regulatory Tsunami?” and our subsequent discussion is the most recent webinar in our series, Conversations on Climate Change and Energy Policy, sponsored by the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements (HPCA). As you know, in this webinar series we feature leading authorities on climate change policy, whether from academia, the private sector, NGOs, or government. A video recording (and transcript) of the entire webinar is available here.

Ottmar Edenhofer is Professor of Economics at the Technical University of Berlin, the Founding Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, and Co-Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. He has been a major contributor to scholarship on the economics of energy and climate change, and served as Co-Chair of Working Group III of Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where I had the pleasure of working under his leadership. He is a key advisor of the German Government, as well as the European Union. He holds a Ph.D. in economics and a B.A. degree in philosophy (a pairing of degrees which – I’m delighted to say – he and I share).

In his presentation and the discussion that follows, Ottmar Edenhofer offers a frank assessment of the European Green Deal’s potential to significantly address the impacts of global climate change.

“It’s a very good time to talk about the European Green Deal because now the prospects that United States and Europe could work closer together on climate change or climate policy and energy policy are very good,” Ottmar notes, referring to the change in U.S. administrations and recent remarks by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirming the European Union’s (EU’s) intent to reduce its target for emission reductions from 40 percent to 55 percent by the year 2030 and to achieve net carbon neutrality by the year 2050.

Calling it a “huge task,” Edenhofer outlines the actions that would need to occur to achieve such ambitious goals, including enhanced efforts to decarbonize the power sector, accelerated electrification for end-users, increased investments in bio-energy and semi-synthetic fuels, and advancements in carbon dioxide removal technologies. Using the EU’s climate policy impact assessment as a framework, he walks us through three different policy scenarios, ranging from one that relies heavily on regulation to one structured primarily around carbon pricing.

Characterizing the heavily regulatory approach as a “high-risk scenario,” he instead promotes the idea of an “intermediate step” in a which a mix of policy measures and carbon pricing are deployed to move toward the goal of a 55-percent carbon emissions reduction, and toward a longer-term strategy of using carbon pricing alone as the primary driver in CO₂ reduction efforts.

“The crucial question therefore is, how can we design this intermediate step, and this is really the most important debate around this reform proposal,” he says, noting that several issues would need to be addressed. “The intermediate step has to address the distributional issues and guarantee the stability and manage the political economy challenge between the sectors.”

Professor Edenhofer suggests that the intermediate step that may gain the political support necessary to succeed would be one that would allow for two separate emissions trading systems – one for the energy and industry sector, and the other for transportation and buildings.

“Meanwhile we could define gateways between these two systems. “Creating such gateways might have a two-fold effect – the first one is that market participants already anticipate that there are gateways and they anticipate these enterprise expectations, and this could lead to a convergence of the different prices across the sectors. And secondly, this is a starting point to manage the division of labor among the sectors, and this could be a credible pathway toward a carbon-price scenario when we have one ETS with one credible CO₂ price scenario.”

In his presentation, Edenhofer also acknowledges the role that fiscal federalism could play in affecting the future direction of climate policy in Europe. While arguing that carbon pricing could generate roughly 800 billion euros between now and 2050, he notes that the funding base would shrink over time as emissions decrease, and therefore would not serve as a stable revenue source. He has answers for this challenge as well.

After his presentation, Professor Edenhofer responds to questions from the virtual audience of more than 200 people. One question focuses on the impact of the new Biden-Harris Administration in Washington on global efforts to address climate change.

“The good thing is they are back in the Paris Agreement. The announcement alone that the U.S. is committed has already helped.”

All of this and much more can be seen and heard in the full webinar here. I hope you will check it out.

Previous webinars in this series – Conversations on Climate Change and Energy Policy – have featured Meghan O’Sullivan’s thoughts on Geopolitics and Upheaval in Oil Markets, Jake Werksman’s assessment of the European Union’s Green New Deal, Rachel Kyte’s examination of “Using the Pandemic Recovery to Spur the Clean Transition,” Joseph Stiglitz’s reflections on “Carbon Pricing, the COVID-19 Pandemic, and Green Economic Recovery,” Joe Aldy describing “Lessons from Experience for Greening an Economic Stimulus,” and Jason Bordoff commenting on “Prospects for Energy and Climate Change Policy under the New U.S. Administration.”

The next bi-monthly HPCA Conversation on Climate Change and Energy Policy will take place in March. You can register in advance for that event at the HPCA website.