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
It's the first time the company has used EVs in any of its upstream sites, including the Permian Basin. Photo via exxonmobil.com

ExxonMobil revs up EV pilot in Permian Basin

seeing green

ExxonMobil has upgraded its Permian Basin fleet of trucks with sustainability in mind.

The Houston-headquartered company announced a new pilot program last week, rolling out 10 new all-electric pickup trucks at its Cowboy Central Delivery Point in southeast New Mexico. It's the first time the company has used EVs in any of its upstream sites, including the Permian Basin.

“We expect these EV trucks will require less maintenance, which will help reduce cost, while also contributing to our plan to achieve net zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions in our Permian operations by 2030," Kartik Garg, ExxonMobil's New Mexico production manager, says in a news release.

ExxonMobil has already deployed EV trucks at its facilities in Baytown, Beaumont, and Baton Rouge, but the Permian Basin, which accounts for about half of ExxonMobil's total U.S. oil production, is a larger site. The company reports that "a typical vehicle there can log 30,000 miles a year."

The EV rollout comes after the company announced last year that it plans to be a major supplier of lithium for EV battery technology.

At the end of last year, ExxonMobil increased its financial commitment to implementing more sustainable solutions. The company reported that it is pursuing more than $20 billion of lower-emissions opportunities through 2027.

Cowboys and the EVs of the Permian Basin | ExxonMobilyoutu.be

As the world becomes more reliant on renewable energy, artificial intelligence is proving to be a major game-changer. Photo via Getty Images

How AI technology is advancing a low-carbon future

the view from heti

In the midst of a continuously changing global energy landscape, industry experts, leading energy companies and corporations have rallied together for one common goal: to reach net zero by 2050. As the demand for energy increases, so does the urgency to develop more energy efficient technologies that reduce emissions.

As the world becomes more reliant on renewable energy, artificial intelligence is proving to be a major game-changer. AI is one of the world’s largest disruptors in tech to date with some tech giants pouring millions into research surrounding AI technologies.

While artificial intelligence may not be the first thing to come to mind when talking about the energy industry, it’s already proven its value in fueling the energy transition in multiple domains: improving renewable energy forecasting, grid operations, materials innovation and more. Companies like Accenture have shown how artificial intelligence can play a huge role in steering the energy transition toward a more efficient future.

As a technology services provider, Accenture bridges the gap between technology and human ingenuity to solve some of the world’s most complex issues. With more than 15 years of leadership in metaverse-related technology and more than 1,400 patents, the Accenture Metaverse team brings together metaverse-skilled professionals and market-leading capabilities across Accenture.

The Dublin, Ireland-based company recently announced plans to invest more than $3 billion in artificial intelligence and double its AI-related staff to accommodate demands. Accenture also plans to use generative AI for client work and launch an AI Navigator for Enterprise platform to help guide AI strategy, use cases, decision-making and policy.

With decades of investments and patents, Accenture is no stranger to AI. The company also recently introduced their Net Zero Metaverse, an immersive experience that allows users to explore the future of energy, at the third annual Future of Global Energy conference hosted by the Greater Houston Partnership and the Houston Energy Transition Initiative presented by Chevron. The innovative software system consists of multiple digital worlds including a Charge Stations of the Future, Energy Transition Igloo, a Space Lab and Hydrogen Heights, a renewable-powered neighborhood named after The Heights of Houston.

While Accenture is helping to shift to a more sustainable future, three ways that AI software has already transformed the way we generate, distribute and consume energy are through smart grids, optimized electricity consumption and electricity mobility.

Smart Grids
AI technology can help optimize the efficiency of smart grids, reducing the number of outages and mitigating impact for both residential and commercial customers. In its ability to analyze data collected by smart grids, AI can predict the demand of energy and adjust the flow of electricity accordingly.

Optimized electricity consumption
According to the World Economic Forum, reducing carbon emissions in buildings will be critical to achieving net zero emissions by 2050; buildings represent 39% of global greenhouse gas emissions. AI powered smart buildings and homes can help to reduce energy consumption and operating costs. With the ability to analyze data from sensors and other sources, AI software can identify patterns, predict equipment failures and maintenance needs and help building managers schedule maintenance repairs more efficiently.

Electricity mobility
According to the Congressional Budget Office, transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States with CO2 emissions representing about 97% of the global warming potential of all greenhouse emissions. AI software plays a key role in monitoring driving conditions, speed and load levels predicting the most efficient way to use available energy. AI software also helps in safety management and aids in the race to a pollution-free eco-friendly environment.

While AI technology is still advancing, and there is uncertainty in its accuracy, this breakthrough technology is shaping the future of society offering new approaches to optimize energy systems’ operation and reliability.

Learn more about what companies like Accenture are doing with AI technologies.

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

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

Navigating the energy transition is a relay race, and the baton is in Houston, says this energy executive. Photo courtesy of SCS

O&G exec: Houston is where the future of energy is taking shape

Q&A

Earlier this month, a West Texas-based oilfield equipment provider announced that it was opening an office in the Ion Houston. It's all a part of the company's energy transition plan.

SCS Technologies, based in Big Spring, Texas, has a new strategy and innovation-focused office in the Ion, the company announced last week. The company, which provides CO2 capture measurement and methane vapor recovery equipment for the energy, industrial, and environmental sectors, also announced René Vandersalm as the new COO.

These are just the latest moves for the company as the world moves away from hydrocarbons and toward a greener future, CEO Cody Johnson tells EnergyCapital, explaining that he recognizes Houston has a role in the energy transition.

"This is a relay race – a race that has already started," he says. "Houston is the place where the baton will be handed off – it’s the place where the race is occurring. SCS Technologies is determined to be part of this solution dreamed of and planned in Houston and then executed in the Permian Basin, where we call home."

In an interview with EnergyCapital, Johnson weighs in on the new office and the future of his company.

EnergyCapital: How has SCS’s business evolved amid the energy transition?

Cody Johnson: SCS Technologies was founded to design and fabricate customized Lease Automated Custody Transfer units in the Permian Basin. These LACT units were used primarily to measure the quality and quantity of crude oil at all points of custody transfer. Essentially, SCS Technologies produced the premier "crude cash registers" for the Permian Basin.

As the oil and gas industry has adapted into the energy transition industry, our customers and the communities we operate in have a growing need for SCS Technologies to use our design and fabrication of measurement skids to measure the quality and quantity of CO2 or to design and fabricate methane — and other vent gases — Vapor Recovery Units. SCS Technologies’ design and fabrication expertise in measurement skids, pump skids, and compression skids, coupled with our Permian Basin based training and fabrication campus, ideally positioned us to answer the call to fill the expertise and capacity gap.

EC: How are you preparing for the future of energy?

CJ: Society has been powered for the past 100 years or so by the management of hydrocarbon molecules. The essential tools for that have been and continue to be oil rigs, pipelines, and refineries in large part. This has given society many benefits but at a price to the environment that isn’t sustainable. Over the next 50 years, society will complete a transition away from managing hydrocarbon molecules and towards managing electrons. Those electrons are created by wind, solar, geothermal, or nuclear processes and travel down copper wires. Managing this transition that is already occurring and working together to do it in the near-term future of energy.

As we execute this transition over the next several decades from managing molecules to managing electrons to provide energy, molecule management companies must find ways to reach net zero emissions in their management practices. This means primarily capturing and managing methane vapors and capturing and sequestering CO2. This is starting in 2023 in a meaningful way and needs to continue past 2030 and probably past 2050 to have any chance to meet the globally shared social goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 and stay below a maximum increase of 1.5 degrees C in global temperatures.

The clock is ticking, and we are behind. The largest molecule management infrastructure investment in history must happen for us to reach these goals. It's mission-critical as one of the three things we simply cannot fail at to achieve net zero by 2050. SCS Technologies is very focused on being an intentional part of the tremendous supply chain buildout to support the infrastructure buildout.

EC: How does the new office in the Ion support these plans?


CJ: SCS Technologies needs to collaborate with the brightest minds working on the energy transition challenges. To contribute meaningfully to the overall effort and to be the thought leader in the methane vapor recovery and CO2 compression and measurement niche, we need to be at the heart of the energy transition collaboration community. That beating heart is the Ion in Houston.

EC: What role does your new COO, René Vandersalm, play in SCS evolving with the energy transition?


CJ: René is a proven executive in growing mission-critical design and fabrication capacity without sacrificing quality. René’s experience, capabilities, and global network will play a key role in our path forward.

EC: Based in West Texas, SCS has a growing presence in Houston. Why do you see Houston as a leader in the energy transition?

CJ: West Texas has an amazing group of oil and gas professionals and infrastructure. We are proud of that heritage and will always maintain our roots and foundation there. Houston has the only community of engineers, scientists, universities, companies, investors, and key professional service providers that can deliver on the buildout of the molecule management infrastructure required to buy the electron management infrastructure folks time to transition fully to green energy after 2050.

This is a relay race – a race that has already started. Houston is the place where the baton will be handed off – it’s the place where the race is occurring. SCS Technologies is determined to be part of this solution dreamed of and planned in Houston and then executed in the Permian Basin, where we call home.

------

This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Only radical innovation can get the world to its climate goals, says this Houston expert

guest column

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

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.

There's no silver bullet for clean energy. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: When it comes to the future of energy and climate, think 'all of the above'

guest column

People in the energy industry don’t have the Oscars. For us, the big event of the year is CERAWeek — a conference stuffed with CEOs, top policymakers, and environmental and energy wonks held annually in March.

CERAWeek 2022, with the theme“Pace of Change: Energy, Climate, and Innovation," meant the return of in-person activations, panels, and networking. Walking and talking between sessions and around the coffee table, it occurred to me that the unofficial theme of the event was “Maybe now we can find middle ground on energy.” This idea came up time and time again, from all kinds of people.

As with too many other issues, the discussion of the future of US energy has become polarized. On one end of the spectrum are those who want everything renewable and/or electrified by ….. last week, whatever the cost. Their mantra for fossil fuels: “Keep them in the ground.”

On the other end, are those who dismiss climate change, saying we can always adapt and that it doesn’t much matter, anyway. Just keep digging and drilling and mining as we have always done. And in the middle are the great majority of Americans who are not passionate either way, but want to be responsible consumers, and also to be able to visit grandma without breaking the bank.

I believe that the transition toward an energy system that is cleaner and less reliant on fossil fuels is realand will ultimately bring substantial benefits. At the same time, I believe that energy security and economics also matter. At a time when inflation was already running high, paying an average of $4.25 a gallon at the pump is piling pain on tens of millions of US households. Ultimately, over decades, the use of electric vehicles will reduce the need for oil and that lower-emissions sources, including renewables, will provide a larger share of the power supply, which today depends largely on gas and coal. But that moment is not now, or next week. Indeed, fossil fuels continue to account for almost 80 percent of US primary energy consumption, and a similar figure globally.

Here is one way to think about the interplay between the energy transition and energy security: “We need an energy strategy for the future—an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.” No, that isn’t some apologist for Big Oil; it was President Obama. In 2014, the Obama White House also noted the role of US domestic oil and gas production in enhancing economic resilience and reducing vulnerability to oil shocks. In short, the White House argued, US oil and gas production can bring real benefits for the country. I think that is still true.

Does that mean throwing in the towel on the energy transition and climate change? Absolutely not. There are a variety of ways to pursue the goal of reducing emissions and eventually getting to net-zero emissions. I’ve touched on many of them in previous posts—including reducing methane emissions,pricing carbon, hydrogen, renewables, electric vehicles, urban planning, carbon capture, and negative emissions technologies. In other words, an “all of the above strategy” makes sense in this regard, too.

I don’t know how, or if, a middle ground can be captured. But from what I heard at CERAWeek last year, from people of otherwise widely divergent views, there just may be momentum to get there. A middle-ground consensus rests on three premises. First, we need fossil fuels for energy security and reliability now and until the time when technologies are in place to secure the energy transition. Second, at the same time, we need to be investing in the energy transition because climate change is real and matters. And third, for sustained and systematic progress, government and industry need to work together.

Or, in a phrase, “all of the above.”

------

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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

ERCOT approves $9.4B project to improve grid, meet data center demand

power project

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the electric grid for 90 percent of Texans, is undertaking a $9.4 billion project to improve the reliability and efficiency of statewide power distribution. The initiative comes as ERCOT copes with escalating demand for electricity from data centers and cryptocurrency-mining facilities.

The project, approved Dec. 9 by ERCOT’s board, will involve building a 1,109-mile “super highway” of new 765-kilovolt transmission lines. One kilovolt equals 1,000 volts of electricity.

According to the Hoodline Dallas news site, the $9.4 billion project represents the five- to six-year first phase of ERCOT’s Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP). Hoodline says the plan, whose price tag is nearly $33 billion, calls for 2,468 miles of new 765-kilovolt power lines.

STEP will enable ERCOT to “move power longer distances with fewer losses,” Hoodline reports.

Upgrading the ERCOT grid is a key priority amid continued population growth in Texas, along with the state’s explosion of new data centers and cryptocurrency-mining facilities.

ERCOT says about 11,000 megawatts of new power generation capacity have been added to the ERCOT grid since last winter.

But in a report released ahead of the December board meeting, ERCOT says it received 225 requests this year from large power users to connect to its grid — a 270 percent uptick in the number of megawatts being sought by mega-users since last December. Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of the requests came from data centers.

Allan Schurr, chief commercial officer of Houston-based Enchanted Rock, a provider of products and services for microgrids and onsite power generation, tells Energy Capital that the quickly expanding data center industry is putting “unprecedented pressure” on ERCOT’s grid.

“While the state has added new generation and transmission capacity, lengthy interconnection timelines and grid-planning limitations mean that supply and transmission are not keeping pace with this rapid expansion,” Schurr says. “This impacts both reliability and affordability.”

For families in Texas, this could result in higher energy bills, he says. Meanwhile, critical facilities like hospitals and grocery stores face a heightened challenge of preventing power outages during extreme weather or at other times when the ERCOT grid is taxed.

“I expect this trend to continue as AI and high-density computing grow, driving higher peak demand and greater grid variability — made even more complex by more renewables, extreme weather and other large energy users, like manufacturers,” Schurr says.

According to the Pew Research Center, data centers accounted for 4 percent of U.S. electricity use in 2024, and power demand from data centers is expected to more than double by 2030. Data centers that support the AI boom make up much of the rising demand.

In September, RBN Energy reported more than 10 massive data-center campuses had been announced in Texas, with dozens more planned. The Lone Star State is already home to roughly 400 data centers.

“Texas easily ranks among the nation’s top states for existing data centers, with only Virginia edging it out in both data-center count and associated power demand,” says RBN Energy.

Federal judge strikes Trump order blocking wind energy development

wind win

In a win for clean energy and wind projects in Texas and throughout the U.S., a federal judge struck down President Donald Trump’s “Day One” executive order that blocked wind energy development on federal lands and waters, the Associated Press reports.

Judge Patti Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated Trump’s executive order from Jan. 20, declaring it unlawful and calling it “arbitrary and capricious.”

The challenge was led by a group of state attorneys general from 17 states and Washington, D.C., which was led by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The coalition pushed back against Trump's order , arguing that the administration didn’t have the authority to halt project permitting, and that efforts would critically impact state economies, the energy industry, public health and climate relief efforts.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told the Associated Press that wind projects were given unfair treatment during the Biden Administration and cited that the rest of the energy industry suffered from regulations.

According to the American Clean Power Association, wind is the largest source of renewable energy in the U.S. It provides 10 percent of the electricity generated—and growing. Texas leads the nation in wind electricity generation, accounting for 28 percent of the U.S. total in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Several clean-energy initiatives have been disrupted by recent policy changes, impacting Houston projects.

The Biden era Inflation Reduction Act’s 10-year hydrogen incentive was shortened under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, prompting ExxonMobil to pause its Baytown low-carbon hydrogen project. That project — and two others in the Houston region — also lost federal support as part of a broader $700 million cancellation tied to DOE cuts.

Meanwhile, Texas House Democrats have urged the administration to restore a $250 million Solar for All grant that would have helped low-income households install solar panels.

Texas launches cryptocurrency reserve with $5 million Bitcoin purchase

Digital Deals

Texas has launched its new cryptocurrency reserve with a $5 million purchase of Bitcoin as the state continues to embrace the volatile and controversial digital currency.

The Texas Comptroller’s Office confirmed the purchase was made last month as a “placeholder investment” while the office works to contract with a cryptocurrency bank to manage its portfolio.

The purchase is one of the first of its kind by a state government, made during a year where the price of Bitcoin has exploded amid the embrace of the digital currency by President Donald Trump’s administration and the rapid expansion of crypto mines in Texas.

“The Texas Legislature passed a bold mandate to create the nation’s first Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” acting Comptroller Kelly Hancock wrote in a statement. “Our goal for implementation is simple: build a secure reserve that strengthens the state’s balance sheet. Texas is leading the way once again, and we’re proud to do it.”

The purchase represents half of the $10 million the Legislature appropriated for the strategic reserve during this year’s legislative session, but just a sliver of the state’s $338 billion budget.

However, the purchase is still significant, making Texas the first state to fund a strategic cryptocurrency reserve. Arizona and New Hampshire have also passed laws to create similar strategic funds but have not yet purchased cryptocurrency.

Wisconsin and Michigan made pension fund investments in cryptocurrency last year.

The Comptroller’s office purchased the Bitcoin the morning of Nov. 20 when the price of a single bitcoin was $91,336, according to the Comptroller’s office. As of Friday afternoon, Bitcoin was worth slightly less than the price Texas paid, trading for $89,406.

University of Houston energy economist Ed Hirs questioned the state’s investment, pointing to Bitcoin’s volatility. That makes it a bad investment of taxpayer dollars when compared to more common investments in the stock and bond markets, he said.

“The ordinary mix [in investing] is one that goes away from volatility,” Hirs said. “The goal is to not lose to the market. Once the public decides this really has no intrinsic value, then it will be over, and taxpayers will be left holding the bag.”

The price of Bitcoin is down significantly from an all-time high of $126,080 in early October.

Lee Bratcher, president of the Texas Blockchain Council, argued the state is making a good investment because the price of Bitcoin has trended upward ever since it first launched in early 2009.

“It’s only a 16-year-old asset, so the volatility, both in the up and down direction, will smooth out over time,” Bratcher said. “We still want it to retain some of those volatility characteristics because that’s how we could see those upward moves that will benefit the state’s finances in the future.”

Bratcher said the timing of the state’s investment was shrewd because he believes it is unlikely to be valued this low again.

The investment comes at a time that the crypto industry has found a home in Texas.

Rural counties have become magnets for crypto mines ever since China banned crypto mining in 2021 and Gov. Greg Abbott declared “Texas is open for crypto business” in a post on social media.

The state is home to at least 27 Bitcoin facilities, according to the Texas Blockchain Council, making it the world’s top crypto mining spot. The two largest crypto mining facilities in the world call Texas home.

The industry has also come under criticism as it expands.

Critics point to the industry’s significant energy usage, with crypto mines in the state consuming 2,717 megawatts of power in 2023, according to the comptroller’s office. That is enough electricity to power roughly 680,000 homes.

Crypto mines use large amounts of electricity to run computers that run constantly to produce cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized digital currencies used as alternatives to government-backed traditional currencies.

A 2023 study by energy research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie commissioned by The New York Times found that Texans’ electric bills had risen nearly 5%, or $1.8 billion per year, due to the increase in demand on the state power grid created by crypto mines.

Residents living near crypto mines have also complained that the amount of job creation promised by the facilities has not materialized and the noise of their operation is a nuisance.

“Texas should be reinvesting Texan’s tax money in things that truly bolster the economy long term, living wage, access to quality healthcare, world class public schools,” said state Sen. Molly Cook, D-Houston, who voted against the creation of the strategic fund. “Instead it feels like they’re almost gambling our money on something that is known to be really volatile and has not shown to be a tide that raises all boats.”

State Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, who authored the bill that created the fund, said at the time it passed that it will allow Texas to “lead and compete in the digital economy.”

___

This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

View All Listings