ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Houston energy leader on why the future of fuels is more than electric vehicles

guest column

The future of transportation fuels will be shaped by a mix of innovation, government policies, and what consumers want. Photo by Engin Akyurt/Pexels

Gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, and jet fuel. Four liquid hydrocarbons that have been powering transportation for the last 100-plus years.

Gas stations, truck stops, ports, and airport fuel terminals have been built up over the last century to make transportation easy and reliable.

These conventional fuels release Greenhouse Gases (GHG) when they are used, and governments all over the world are working on plans to shift towards cleaner fuels in an effort to lower emissions and minimize the effects of climate change.

For passenger cars, it’s clear that electricity will be the cleaner fuel type, with most countries adopting electric vehicles (EVs), and in some cases, providing their citizens with incentives to make the switch.

While many articles have been written about EVs and the benefits that come along with them, they fail to look at the transportation system as a whole.

Trucks, cargo ships, and airplanes are modes of transportation that are used every day, but they don’t often get the spotlight like EVs do.

For governments to be effective in curbing transportation-related greenhouse emissions, they must consider all forms of transportation and cleaner fuel options for them as well.

43 percent of GHG emissions comes from these modes of transportation. Therefore, using electricity to reduce GHG emissions in light duty vehicles only accounts for part of the total transportation emissions equation.

The path to cleaner fuels for these transportation modes has its challenges.

According to Ed Emmett, Fellow in Energy and Transportation Policy at the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES);

  • "Airplanes cannot be realistically powered by electricity, at least not currently, and handle the same requisite freight and passenger loads"
  • "The long-haul trucking industry [...] pushed back against electrification as being impractical due to the size and weight of batteries, their limited range, and the cost of adoption"
  • "Shipowners have expressed reluctance to scrap existing bunker fueled ships for newer, more expensive ships, especially when other fueling options, e.g. biofuels and hydrocarbon derivatives-for fleets can be made available"

Finding low-cost, reliable, and environmentally sound fuels for the various segments of transportation is complex. As Emmett suggests in his latest article;

"Hovering over the transition to other fuels for almost every transportation mode is the question of dependability of supply. For the trucking industry, the truck stop industry must be able to adapt to new fuel requirements. For ocean shipping, ports must be able to meet the fuel needs of new ships. Airlines, air cargo carriers and airports need to be on the same page when it comes to aviation fuels. In other words, the adoption equation in transitions in transportation is not only a function of the availability and cost of the new technology but also a function of the cost of the full supply chain needed to support fuel production and delivery to the point of use. Going forward, the transportation industry is facing a dilemma: How are environmental concerns addressed while simultaneously maintaining operational efficiency and avoiding unnecessary upward cost shifts for moving goods and people? In answering that question, for the first time in history, modes of transportation may end up going in multiple different directions when it comes to the fuels each mode ultimately chooses."

This is why many forecasts predict that hydrocarbon demand will continue through 2050, despite ambitious aspirations of achieving net zero emissions by that year. The McKinsey "slow evolution" scenario has global liquid hydrocarbon demand in 2050 at 92mmb/d versus 103 mmb/d in 2023. With their "continued momentum" scenario, oil demand is 75 mmb/d. Proportionally, global oil demand related to GHG emissions from transportation would decline 11-27 percent. The global uptake of EVs is the primary driver of uncertainty around future oil demand. In all the McKinsey scenarios, the share of EVs in passenger cars sales is expected to be above 90 percent by 2050.

The Good News

Despite the relatively slow progress expected for reducing GHG emissions in the global transportation sector, there are solutions emerging that lower the carbon footprint tied to traditional petroleum-based fuels. Emmett highlights some of the methods under study, noting that "sustainable biofuels sourced from cooking oils, animal fats, and agriculture products, as well as hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, and various e-fuels are among the options being tested. Some ocean carriers are already ordering ships powered by liquified natural gas, bio-e-methanol, bio/e-methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Airlines are already using sustainable aviation fuel as a supplement to basic aviation fuel. Railroads are testing hydrogen locomotives. The trucking industry is decarbonizing local delivery by using vehicles powered by electricity, compressed natural gas, and sustainable diesel. Long-haul trucking companies are considering sustainable diesel as a drop-in fuel for existing equipment, and fuel suppliers are researching new engines fueled by hydrogen and other alternative fuels."

Most of these options will require a combination of increased government incentives, along with advancements in technology and cost reductions.

McKinsey's "sustainable transformation" scenario, which considers potential shifts in government regulations as well as advancements in technology and cost, suggests there is moderate growth in alternative fuels alongside growth in EVs. Mckinsey projects;

  • EV demand could grow to over 90 percent of total passenger car sales by 2050
  • EVs to make up around 80 percent of commercial truck sales by 2050
  • In aviation, low carbon fuels such as biofuels, synfuels, hydrogen and electricity are projected to grow to 49 percent by 2050.

According to McKinsey, the combination of these alternatives along with demand changes in power and chemicals could reduce global oil demand to 60 mmb/d in 2050. The shift to cleaner fuels, for modes of transportation other than EVs, is underway but the progress and adoption will take decades to achieve according to McKinsey’s forecasts.

Looking more closely at EVs, the story may not be as dire globally as it seems to be in the West. While the U.S. appears to be losing momentum on electric vehicle adoption, China is roaring ahead. New electric car registrations in China reached 8.1 million in 2023, increasing by 35 percent relative to 2022. McKinsey’s forecasts have underestimated global EV sales in the past, with China surpassing their estimates, while the U.S. lags behind. It’s clear that China is the winner in EV adoption; could they also lead the way to adopt cleaner fuels for other modes of transport? That is something governments and the transportation industry will be watching in the years ahead.

Conclusion

While we are not on a trajectory to meet the aspirations to reduce global GHG emissions in the transportation sector, there are emerging solutions that could be adopted should governments around the world decide to put in place the incentives to get there. Moving forward, the future of transportation fuels will be shaped by a mix of innovation, government policies, and what consumers want. The focus will be on ensuring that the transportation sector remains reliable, secure, and economically robust, while also reducing GHG emissions. But, decarbonizing the transportation sector is much more than just EV's – it's a broader effort that will require continued global progress in each of the multiple transportation segments.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn on October 9, 2024.

From Your Site Articles
The layoffs could affect about 14,000 of the 140,473 workers employed by the Austin, Texas, company at the end of last year. Photo courtesy of Tesla

Tesla plans to lay off 10 percent of workforce after dismal quarterly sales

making cuts

After reporting dismal first-quarter sales, Tesla is planning to lay off about a tenth of its workforce as it tries to cut costs, multiple media outlets reported Monday.

CEO Elon Musk detailed the plans in a memo sent to employees. The layoffs could affect about 14,000 of the 140,473 workers employed by the Austin, Texas, company at the end of last year.

Musk's memo said that as Tesla prepares for its next phase of growth, “it is extremely important to look at every aspect of the company for cost reductions and increasing productivity,” The New York Times and CNBC reported. News of the layoffs was first reported by electric vehicle website Electrek.

Also Monday, two key Tesla executives announced on the social media platform X that they are leaving the company. Andrew Baglino, senior vice president of powertrain and energy engineering, wrote that he had made the decision to leave after 18 years with the company.

Rohan Patel, senior global director of public policy and business development, also wrote on X that he was leaving Tesla, after eight years.

Baglino, who held several top engineering jobs at the company and was chief technology officer, wrote that the decision to leave was difficult. “I loved tackling nearly every problem we solved as a team and feel gratified to have contributed to the mission of accelerating the transition to sustainable energy,” he wrote.

He has no concrete plans beyond spending more time with family and his young children, but wrote that he has difficulty staying still for long.

Musk thanked Baglino in a reply. “Few have contributed as much as you,” he wrote.

Shares of Tesla fell 4.8 percent Monday afternoon, hours after news of the layoffs and departures broke. Shares of Tesla Inc. have lost about one-third of their value so far this year as sales of electric vehicles soften.

Tesla sales fell sharply last quarter as competition increased worldwide, electric vehicle sales growth slowed, and price cuts failed to draw more buyers. The company said it delivered 386,810 vehicles from January through March, nearly 9 percent below the 423,000 it sold in the same quarter of last year.

Since last year, Tesla has cut prices as much as $20,000 on some models as it faced increasing competition and slowing demand. The price cuts caused used electric vehicle values to drop and clipped Tesla's profit margins.

The company has said it will reveal an autonomous robotaxi at an event in August.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

CenterPoint Energy names new COO as resiliency initiatives continue

new hire

CenterPoint Energy has named Jesus Soto Jr. as its new executive vice president and chief operating officer.

An energy industry veteran with deep ties to Texas, Soto will oversee the company's electric operations, gas operations, safety, supply chain, and customer care functions. The company says Soto will also focus on improving reliability and meeting the increased energy needs in the states CenterPoint serves.

"We are pleased to be able to welcome a leader of Jesus Soto's caliber to CenterPoint's executive team,” Jason Wells, CEO and president of CenterPoint, said in a news release. “We have one of the most dynamic growth stories in the industry, and over the next five years we will deliver over $31 billion of investments across our footprint as part of our capital plan. Jesus's deep understanding and background are the perfect match to help us deliver this incredible scope of work at-pace that will foster the economic development and growth demands in our key markets. He will also be instrumental in helping us continue to focus on improving safety and delivering better reliability for all the communities we are fortunate to serve.”

Soto comes to CenterPoint with over 30 years of experience in leading large teams and executing large scale capital projects. As a longtime Houstonian, he served in roles as executive vice president of Quanta Services and COO for Mears Group Inc. He also served in senior leadership roles at other utility and energy companies, including PG&E Corporation in Northern California and El Paso Corp. in Houston.

Soto has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a master's degree in civil engineering from Texas A&M University. He has a second master's degree in business administration from the University of Phoenix.

“I'm excited to join CenterPoint's high-performing team,” Soto said in the news release. “It's a true privilege to be able to serve our 7 million customers in Texas, Indiana, Ohio and Minnesota. We have an incredible amount of capital work ahead of us to help meet the growing energy needs of our customers and communities, especially across Texas.”

Soto will join the company on Aug. 11 and report to Wells as CenterPoint continues on its Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative and Systemwide Resiliency Plan.

“To help realize our resiliency and growth goals, I look forward to helping our teams deliver this work safely while helping our customers experience better outcomes,” Soto added in the news release. “They expect, and deserve, no less.”

Oil markets on edge: Geopolitics, supply risks, and what comes next

guest column

Oil prices are once again riding the waves of geopolitics. Uncertainty remains a key factor shaping global energy trends.

As of June 25, 2025, U.S. gas prices were averaging around $3.22 per gallon, well below last summer’s levels and certainly not near any recent high. Meanwhile, Brent crude is trading near $68 per barrel, though analysts warn that renewed escalation especially involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz could push prices above $90 or even $100. Trump’s recent comments that China may continue purchasing Iranian oil add yet another layer of geopolitical complexity.

So how should we think about the state of the oil market and what lies ahead over the next year?

That question was explored on the latest episode of The Energy Forum with experts Skip York and Abhi Rajendran, who both bring deep experience in analyzing global oil dynamics.

“About 20% of the world’s oil and LNG flows through the Strait of Hormuz,” said Skip. “When conflict looms, even the perception of disruption can move the market $5 a barrel or more.”

This is exactly what we saw recently: a market reacting not just to actual supply and demand, but to perceived risk. And that risk is compounding existing challenges, where global demand remains steady, but supply has been slow to respond.

Abhi noted that U.S. shale production has been flat so far this year, and that given the market’s volatility, it’s becoming harder to stay short on oil. In his view, a higher price floor may be taking hold, with longer-lasting upward pressure likely if current dynamics continue.

Meanwhile, OPEC+ is signaling supply increases, but actual delivery has underwhelmed. Add in record-breaking summer heat in the Middle East, pulling up seasonal demand, and it’s easy to see why both experts foresee a return to the $70–$80 range, even without a major shock.

Longer-term, structural changes in China’s energy mix are starting to reshape demand patterns globally. Diesel and gasoline may have peaked, while petrochemical feedstock growth continues.

Skip noted that China has chosen to expand mobility through “electrons, not molecules,” a reference to electric vehicles over conventional fuels. He pointed out that EVs now account for over 50% of monthly vehicle sales, a signal of a longer-term shift in China’s energy demand.

But geopolitical context matters as much as market math. In his recent policy brief, Jim Krane points out that Trump’s potential return to a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran is no longer guaranteed strong support from Gulf allies.

Jim points out that Saudi and Emirati leaders are taking a more cautious approach this time, worried that another clash with Iran could deter investors and disrupt progress on Vision 2030. Past attacks and regional instability continue to shape their more restrained approach.

And Iran, for its part, has evolved. The “dark fleet” of sanctions-evasion tankers has expanded, and exports are booming up to 2 million barrels per day, mostly to China. Disruption won’t be as simple as targeting a single export terminal anymore, with infrastructure like the Jask terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz.

Where do we go from here?

Skip suggests we may see prices drift upward through 2026 as OPEC+ runs out of spare capacity and U.S. shale declines. Abhi is even more bullish, seeing potential for a quicker climb if demand strengthens and supply falters.

We’re entering a phase where geopolitical missteps, whether in Tehran, Beijing, or Washington, can have outsized impacts. Market fundamentals matter, but political risk is the wildcard that could rewrite the price deck overnight.

As these dynamics continue to evolve, one thing is clear: energy policy, diplomacy, and investment strategy must be strategically coordinated to manage risk and maintain market stability. The stakes for global markets are simply too high for misalignment.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

New forecast shows impact of 'Big Beautiful Bill' on Texas clean energy generation

energy forecast

Texas is expected to see a 77-gigawatt decrease in power generation capacity within the next 10 years under the federal "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which President Trump recently signed into law, a new forecast shows.

Primarily due to the act’s repeal of some clean energy tax credits, a forecast, published by energy policy research organization Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, predicts that Texas is expected to experience a:

  • 54-gigawatt decline in capacity from solar power by 2035
  • 23-gigawatt decline in capacity from wind power by 2035
  • 3.1-gigawatt decline in capacity from battery-stored power by 2035
  • 2.5-gigawatt increase in capacity from natural gas by 2035

The legislation “will reduce additions of new, cost-effective electricity capacity in Texas, raising power prices for consumers and decreasing the state’s GDP and job growth in the coming years,” the forecast says.

The forecast also reports that the loss of sources of low-cost renewable energy and the resulting hike in natural gas prices could bump up electric bills in Texas. The forecast envisions a 23 percent to 54 percent hike in electric rates for residential, commercial and industrial customers in Texas.

Household energy bills are expected to increase by $220 per year by 2030 and by $480 per year by 2035, according to the forecast.

Energy Innovation Policy & Technology expects job growth and economic growth to also take a hit under the "Big Beautiful Bill."

The nonprofit organization foresees annual losses of $5.9 billion in Texas economic output (as measured by GDP) by 2030 and $10 billion by 2035. In tandem with the impact on GDP, Texas is projected to lose 42,000 jobs by 2030 and 94,000 jobs by 2035 due to the law’s provisions, according to the organization.

The White House believes the "Big Beautiful Bill" will promote, not harm, U.S. energy production. The law encourages the growth of traditional sources of power such as oil, natural gas, coal and hydropower.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a historic piece of legislation that will restore energy independence and make life more affordable for American families by reversing disastrous Biden-era policies that constricted domestic energy production,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a news release.

Promoters of renewable energy offer an opposing viewpoint.

“The bill makes steep cuts to solar energy and places new restrictions on energy tax credits that will slow the deployment of residential and utility-scale solar while undermining the growth of U.S. manufacturing,” says the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, complained that the legislation limits energy production, boosts prices for U.S. businesses and families, and jeopardizes the reliability of the country’s power grid.

“Our economic and national security requires that we support all forms of American energy,” Grumet said in a statement. “It is time for the brawlers to get out of the way and let the builders get back to work.”

View All Listings