Daily Energy Standup Episode #112 – A Weekly Recap

Men make up most early adopters of electric cars, while women account for most EV skeptics. Higher-income consumers are more likely to adopt or consider going electric. Those skeptical about EVs aren’t willing to accept […]

If the regulation is implemented, it will be the first time the federal government has limited carbon emissions from existing power plants, which generate 25 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases. WASHINGTON — President Biden’s administration […]

Every year, the California Legislature passes blank bills. Twenty, 30, even 40 pieces of blank legislation are introduced, each with a bill number, each completely empty of language except for a single line expressing the […]

Supreme Court rejects climate bids from oil and gas companies

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

Stuart Turley: [00:00:14] Hey Everybody Welcome to the Energy News Beat Podcast Daily Edition. My name’s Stuart Turley, President and CEO of the Sandstone Group Mike is on Assignment. We’ve got a special treat for you today. We have our weekly summaries and we really want to also get you some feedback today on the energy news website EnergyNewsBeat.com there’s an article out there and we want your opinion. [00:00:36][22.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:00:37] Women are more skeptical of electric cars than men and won’t accept less than a 350 mile range. Boy, you know what? I thought that was pretty interesting and my wife and I are having a discussion. We want to hear from you any of the forums on Energy News Beat let us know let Michael know let me know through LinkedIn we want to hear from you. Thanks and enjoy the rest of the show and we will see you Monday morning have a great day. [00:01:05][27.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:06] The EPA proposed the first controls on greenhouse gases from power plants. Michael? A I’m not against good regulations I’m against bad, politicized regulations. First line out of this article is if the regulation is implemented, it will be the first time the federal government has limited carbon emissions from existing power plants, which generate 25% of the U.S. greenhouse gases. [00:01:37][30.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:39] And everything else. Almost all coal and gas fired power plants could have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, according to the people familiar with the regulation. Michael, This is actually disastrous from a standpoint of cost. [00:01:59][20.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:02:01] if we put the plan in to go to natural gas and if we had the permitting capability of building new refineries or new plants with it built-in with the technology built-in, we would save money, we would save all this, and we wouldn’t have to go retrofit. The consumers are going to pay for this regulation. [00:02:27][25.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:28] Yeah, I’m going to push back a little bit. I’m not going to necessarily fully agree with you. I agree with you that implementing bad regulation is worse than doing nothing or I’m with you on. I agree with you there I’m not convinced this is an overall bad regulation. I need to read some of the finer details. [00:02:43][15.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:43] But what they cite this article is power plants would have to cut or capture nearly all of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2040. I think that’s a unique distinction. When it doesn’t just say cut carbon emissions, it’s says capture. What is your favorite company doing that Warren Buffett about? What are they doing? What what’s Oxy doing? [00:03:03][20.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:03:04] They’re in that trillion dollar market but you got me again. Dang it! [00:03:09][5.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:10] I’m not. What I’m saying is 2040 is also, in my opinion, a long enough timeframe where you can at least there is some sliver of reality that you could theoretically by 2040 if you started now, probably cut a lot of the emissions that come out of power plants because it’s not even we don’t know how to do it you know,. [00:03:29][19.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:29] The one thing you pointed out, which is correct, is it costs money. It’s not free to just buy scrubbers, which are the things that you put on smokestacks to try to scrub out all the dodging. It’s not free for nobody to then take all of that scrub dioxide and pump it in down hole. There will be a cost increase. [00:03:43][14.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:43] So the real question is who takes it in the drive thru? I think the consumers will, unless the federal government, through the Inflation Reduction Act, also begins to step in and provide funding to increase the technology that’s being thrown at this problem. Because remember, no good solutions. There are just tradeoffs. Yes, it’d be great to cut emissions. It’s going to cost more though. [00:04:01][18.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:02] So the real question is what’s the optimum level of cost that we’re going to take to achieve the we don’t just want I mean, this is what again, not to get on a rant, but in the 1970s, you couldn’t see two miles in L.A. Now you can see 20 miles. There is a cost that we’re willing to pay in order to have clean air. Everybody is there’s a cost who’s willing to pay to make sure that, you know, whatever I do, it’s hard to come up with an example on the spot. But you got to take everything has a cost to it in which you would say, I will pay that cost in order to achieve this outcome. [00:04:32][30.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:33] Exactly! And why should we pay the cost of making our energy just as high as it is in Europe or the EU when China is going to be publishing or implementing still as one coal plant per week or whatever the number is, and you know that nothing we do. Matt. [00:04:56][23.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:56] Yes. On a macro level, I’m with you. Why put why put these regulations on when our when our counterparts aren’t. So that’s there’s that I’m talking about this specific rule. If you’re going to cap something, if you’re going to tell me in at some point in the future, you’re going to have to change your behavior. Give me enough time to slowly change my behavior and slowly get a customer. Don’t just tell me tomorrow, boom all of a sudden you can’t drive anymore. Give me some time so I can learn to ride a horse. Please. [00:05:22][26.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:23] California’s absurd energy policies are not what we should use for good examples for the rest of the United States. This is actually a fairly disgusting article from I mean, in talking about disgusting political processes, 20, 30, even 40 pieces of blank legislation are introduced. Each bill with a number, each completely empty of language, except for a single line expressing the intent of the legislator to fill them in later, with some related, it read something related in the budget. [00:06:06][42.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:07] Holy smokes. That is how the amendments to their energy have been going on. So when you go in and you say the new state law is Assembly Bill 205, it was first introduced in January of 2021, completely blank except for 118 word sentence. It says the intent of the legislator is to enact statutory changes related to the Budget Act of 2021. [00:06:35][28.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:36] About seven weeks later, the Assembly passed the blank bill of a vote of 56 to 18 and sent it to the Senate, where it sat for more than a year. These are the kinds of words and things that are going on that people are putting in that are causing high energy prices for California. We don’t. I mean, this is just despicable. How do you…. I would like. [00:07:05][28.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:07:05] This is this is an example of what you mentioned in the previous article about bad legislation causing huge negative externalities it is there’s no argument here on this. [00:07:17][11.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:17] No, it’s despicable. I’m going to go ahead and jump to the next article, which is almost related to with Berkeley. I love Berkeley, even though they are a little bit not in our listening to Natural gas ban by Berkeley Bolsheviks bites the dust. Berkeley’s latest generation of Bolsheviks enacted a natural gas ban that has been wisely overturned in a federal court. Biden and the blue staters must take notice. [00:07:47][29.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:07:47] This article’s got some stuff in here that’s really pretty interesting one of the quotes in here. Berkeley can’t bypass preemption by banning natural gas piping within buildings rather than banning natural gas products themselves. This ordinance, the panel this ordinance, as well as the solution it seeks, is an overreaching measure beyond the scope of any city according to John Candy, CEO and president of the C.R.A., I have to go check what the CRA Cities and Statutes cannot ignore federal law in order to constrain consumer choices. It’s pretty important. You know, local does not trump federal and stupidity doesn’t Trump. [00:08:37][49.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:38] Did I just hear that Stu?. That’s local. Local law. In your opinion, shouldn’t Trump Federal Law? [00:08:43][5.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:43] I agree. Now, let me add this caveat in the Constitution. [00:08:47][3.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:48] Stu big government Stu. [00:08:49][0.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:49] No, no. Hang on. No. Okay oh, you just warmed up I just warmed up on this bad dog. Okay. Let’s take Texas for a matter of matter of fact, it is the federal government’s responsibility to protect the border. Right? They are not doing it. [00:09:07][17.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:07] So now Texas needs to protect the border, but they can’t because it’s against the Constitution. It is a state’s right, though, in the constitution of Texas to be able to protect their border from an invasion. So which trumps in that case, which one? [00:09:27][19.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:09:27] I’m with you. I was just I was making an interesting observation in this case. And I agree with you. [00:09:32][4.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:32] And. [00:09:32][0.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:09:32] The problem is the letter of the law is federal trumps state. The issue is the way the founders had intended the construction of the Constitution to be would say the states have it was federalism. [00:09:44][12.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:45] Right, The states have most of the controls and there are only certain things that the feds are supposed to control. [00:09:53][7.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:09:53] To bring it back to Berkeley, though I hope they freeze. I hope they banned natural gas. I hope they freeze. I hope they need to start burning their shoes. Remember when we were starting to we had that donate that shoe collection going for Germany. We were going to send them over there to help give more. Well, we just keep it shipped to Berkeley. [00:10:09][15.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:10:09] Oh, absolutely Dude. All right. Great job. [00:10:12][2.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:12] Supreme Court rejects claim it bids from oil and gas companies. The US Supreme Court today decided against allowing climate lawsuits filed against some of the biggest oil companies in the world to be moved out of the state and local courts and into the federal level here so it’s very specific what happened so large oil. [00:10:30][17.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:30] And so, you know, mainly a conglomerate of big oil and gas companies, Exxon, Suncore and Chevron. What they are attempting to do is move climate lawsuits away from the state and local level, which are jury style, you know, jury style, where the jury, your own peers, all that jazz to the federal level, which there’s no jury. It’s a panel of, you know, ex-lawyers who are now judges, a.k.a. you’ve got the Supreme Court, the verb who’s got all that stuff. [00:10:57][26.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:58] That’s what they were trying to do they were trying to move all of that stuff out of the state and local level. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, no, you know, we got richer while here. He’s the president of the Center for Climate Integrity. So, you know, probably a lot we agree on. [00:11:13][15.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:14] He said the high court’s decision is a major victory for communities across the country, that fighting to hold big oil accountable and make them play for the climate damages they knowingly cause now it’s time for these polluters to face the evidence of their deception in court. I don’t agree at all with that statement. It is so facto to say that, you know, these are the type of people who who were opposing this. [00:11:34][20.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:35] Now, we’ll say this. This is where I’ll I’ll zig when peoples act. I don’t agree with anything Richard Wiles said in that statement. Now, unfortunately, I kind of agree with the decision here with the Supreme Court. I am in favor of anything that hands over more power to the states and the local level and the federal government. And Stu is the reason why I’m saying this now, because Stu’s not on the other side, because all his blood would be boiling right now his blood would be boiling, as I’m saying this. [00:12:01][26.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:12:01] But this is an instance where, unfortunately, my belief of states and localities should control their destiny has to apply evenly everywhere, including oil and gas. I get that it would be great to have federal lawsuits for climate change, if only because smart you know, the lawyers can do lawyer things and can work and, you know, meld arguments and all you do is pitch them to other trained lawyers and judges. [00:12:27][25.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:12:27] Versus getting someone like me on the on the jury where I’m just I’m punching a clock, wondering when lunches and hopefully they didn’t cut my TV access back at the hotel or I have to play a crossword for the 80th night in a row. I’m listening to me you know, climate scientists try to talk to me about greenhouse gas exposure. [00:12:45][17.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:12:45] I mean, I I’m only half kidding when I say like, there’s a reason Exxon Suncore Chevron wanted to go to the federal level. It’s an instance where, unfortunately, my belief on who should control their own destiny must be applied evenly. I have to applaud the decision by the Supreme Court, if only unfortunately, this probably does mean we’re going to see an uptick in climate lawsuits now that they know they have to be settled at the local level or the state level, which again, you now get into jury trial. [00:13:13][28.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:13:14] So, you know, again, I’d be very interested in what Stu’s take is on this we will try to ask his thoughts more. I know his blood would be boiling with that take. The nice part is we’re going to get his thoughts tomorrow let them cool off a little bit. But a big decision out of the Supreme Court, guys. [00:13:27][13.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:13:27] 19 countries express interest in joining BRICS group. Okay, BRICS, it is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are meeting in Cape Town on June 2nd and third to discussed it to discuss its enlargement. This is absolutely crazy on how many of another been asking in here. 13 countries have formally asked to join and another six have asked informally and we’re getting applications to join every day. [00:14:05][37.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:14:06] What this means to folks is if anybody’s listening to us for a little while, BRICS is absolutely going to be a whole new monetary system where it is going away from Swift. It’s going to be building and building trade in the Yuan. It’s going to replace the dollar, the dollar, the petrodollar. It’s also going to displace the dollar as the global currency. And there’s a lot of the if, ands or technical reasons on people saying it not going to happen. I can tell you technical reasons why it is going to happen. [00:14:43][37.4]

Michael Tanner: [00:14:44] I love when Stu gets fired up about BRICS. Now I’m just waiting till I have to go by, till I have to shell out my Starbucks in wine because Starbucks is shifted over to using BRICS payments. [00:14:57][12.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:14:57] As you laugh. But guess what they they’re coming out with in this meeting. My goal, which is not in this article, it’s in like in three other articles, they are coming out with their own visa equivalent and they’ve now updated it. So you’re going to be able to get a BRICS visa. I don’t know if you’re going to call it a break, you know, a discover. [00:15:17][20.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:15:18] Breeza? [00:15:18][0.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:15:19] A Breeza! I don’t know. But you’re going to be able to have a competitor to Visa, American Express, and it’s going to go through China. [00:15:27][8.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:15:28] Interesting. Well, I think, you know, as you know, Energy News Beat is a part of those 19 countries expressing interest in BRICS. Our application is out there. So, yes. [00:15:38][10.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:15:39] We will be offering our own credit card. [00:15:41][1.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:15:41] Yes. Yes. We’re we’ll be tokenizing the website and being be selling NFT. So it’ll be fun. Oh, it’ll be fun. [00:15:49][7.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:15:50] Nice. All right. Instead of merch, we’ll have a Digital Coin. Okay? [00:15:54][4.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:15:55] Yes. Yeah. No merch. You know, first of all, you get all you get is a token. [00:16:01][5.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:16:02] Tesla gives update on battery degradation only 12% after 200,000 miles. Michael, this is really bringing up a resale on the car because it takes about $20,000 after a car. Needs a whole new battery up lift after this. [00:16:21][19.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:16:21] So if you’re only going to get 12% of your capacity at 200,000 miles, then you’re going to have to drop in 20, $30,000 just to get the car for 20 or 30,000. You can get a really nice car from an internal combustion engine. [00:16:37][15.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:16:38] Yeah, I was confused at first. I thought this report said that their batteries are only 12% useful after 200,000. What this is saying is that if it starts at 100% or whatever percent it starts at, it’ll be somewhere around 87. I mean, that’s not horrible. I think that. It’s horrible. But the real question is, okay, what happens for trucks? What happens for larger vehicles? Like. Yes, okay, cool. You build a little go cart. That’s great! I would own a Tesla. I think they’re sweet. Actually, I. [00:17:10][31.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:10] Would love a Tesla, but it has to be my second car because, you know,. [00:17:14][3.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:15] Absolutely! Absolutely! [00:17:15][0.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:16] You know how many miles I drive? It would be absolutely pathetic. [00:17:19][2.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:19] I think the thing is the range I don’t think it’s necessarily the miles burn where I think the issue where Tesla and all these even makers are going to have issues is how do you get range?, How do you replace are you going to be able to replace the 5, 6, 700 mile trips that people like you who have, you know, larger vehicles mount up and go for? You know. [00:17:38][18.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:39] One of the things I really, really like is the plug in hybrids. I mean, throw me some, you know, gasoline engine in there and let me keep on going down the road Im in. [00:17:50][11.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:51] And that’s where I’m a little sad that we didn’t go the world of hybrids. I mean, hybrids could have achieved so much. I mean, I agree. It’s the fact that it’s all or one. And that’s there there’s there’s no there’s no. And, you know, I’m not in the car business. I mean, maybe there’s a reason the hybrids are harder to make. I don’t know. [00:18:12][20.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:18:12] All I’m saying is, from a high level standpoint, if we could have moved policy into more of the let’s promote hybrid technology versus what they’re doing in California, the and transporting, you know, what is it, 65% of new cars by 20 is like 2020 or 2032 have to be EVs. It’s ridiculous. [00:18:31][18.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:18:32] Okay, this one was pathetic. Michael, let’s see here Twitter this was Granholm, our beloved Granholm just was in testifying today in front of the Congress. And she says she thinks that by 2030, the US military needs to be in electric vehicles. She said that today jobs there is no way that you can be in electric vehicles in the military. Excuse me while I go charge up when a tank. You got tanks a lot, lady. You’re going to kill our people at work. [00:19:08][36.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:19:08] And yesterday she’s approving she’s requesting that the Mountain Valley pipeline be approved. You remember, she we didn’t cover this yesterday because you were on sabbatical, which is fine. But Secretary Granholm yesterday wrote a letter ordering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the Mountain Valley pipeline. So if this is a classic case of talking out of both sides of your mouth. One, approve the gas pipeline, which theoretically is going to cause more emissions in her world and then also try to push EVs. Well, you know, I’d like to have my cake and eat it, too. But I ended up I just end up with love handles. [00:19:45][36.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:19:46] Thanks for listening to the Energy News Beat Daily Edition Podcast. If you are an industry thought leader, a CEO, and another podcast host, I want to interview you. Please reach out, fill out the form, and say, Hey, we want to come on your podcast. Our podcast is gaining incredible worldwide reach and we just thank everyone that is listening and downloading to our shows. Thank you all so much and have a Fantastic Weekend! Look forward to talking to you soon! [00:19:46][0.0]