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

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

DOE proposes cutting $1.2 billion in funding for hydrogen hub

funding cuts

The U.S. Department of Energy has proposed cutting $1.2 billion in funding for the HyVelocity Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, a clean energy project backed by AES, Air Liquide, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Mitsubishi Power Americas and Ørsted.

The HyVelocity project, which would produce clean hydrogen, appears on a new list of proposed DOE funding cancellations. The list was obtained by Latitude Media.

As of November, HyVelocity had already received $22 million of the potential $1.2 billion in DOE funding.

Other than the six main corporate backers, supporters of HyVelocity include the Center for Houston’s Future, Houston Advanced Research Center, Port Houston, University of Texas at Austin, Shell, the Texas governor’s office, Texas congressional delegation, and the City of Fort Worth.

Kristine Cone, a spokeswoman for GTI Energy, the hub’s administrator, told EnergyCapital that it hadn’t gotten an update from DOE about the hub’s status.

The list also shows the Magnolia Sequestration Hub in Louisiana, being developed by Occidental Petroleum subsidiary 1PointFive, could lose nearly $19.8 million in federal funding and the subsidiary’s South Texas Direct Air Capture (DAC) Hub on the King Ranch in Kleberg County could lose $50 million. In September, 1Point5 announced the $50 million award for its South Texas hub would be the first installment of up to $500 million in federal funding for the project.

Other possible DOE funding losses for Houston-area companies on the list include:

  • A little over $100 million earmarked for Houston-based BP Carbon Solutions to develop carbon storage projects
  • $100 million earmarked for Dow to produce battery-grade solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Dow operates chemical plants in Deer Park and LaPorte
  • $39 million earmarked for Daikin Comfort Technologies North America to produce energy-efficient heat pumps. The HVAC company operates the Daikin Texas Technology Park in Waller
  • Nearly $6 million earmarked for Houston-based Baker Hughes Energy Transition to reduce methane emissions from flares
  • $3 million earmarked for Spring-based Chevron to explore development of a DAC hub in Northern California
  • Nearly $2.9 million earmarked for Houston-based geothermal energy startup Fervo Energy’s geothermal plant in Utah

Houston ranks No. 99 out of 100 on new report of greenest U.S. cities

Sustainability Slide

Houstonians may be feeling blue about a new ranking of the greenest cities in the U.S.

Among the country’s 100 largest cities based on population, Houston ranks 99th across 28 key indicators of “green” living in a new study from personal finance website WalletHub. The only city with a lower ranking is Glendale, Arizona. Last year, Houston landed at No. 98 on the WalletHub list.

“‘Green’ living means a choice to engage in cleaner, more sustainable habits in order to preserve the planet as much as possible,” WalletHub says.

Among the study’s ranking factors are the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the number of “smart energy” policies, and the presence of “green job” programs.

In the study, Houston received an overall score of 35.64 out of 100. WalletHub put its findings into four buckets, with Houston ranked 100th in the environment and transportation categories, 56th in the lifestyle and policy category, and 52nd in the energy sources category.

In the environment category, Houston has two big strikes against it. The metro area ranks among the 10 worst places for ozone pollution (No. 7) and year-round particle pollution (No. 8), according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 list of the most polluted cities.

In the WalletHub study, San Jose, California, earns the honor of being the country’s greenest city. It’s followed by Washington, D.C.; Oakland, California; Irvine, California; and San Francisco.

“There are plenty of things that individuals can do to adopt a green lifestyle, from recycling to sharing rides to installing solar panels on their homes,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. “However, living in one of the greenest cities can make it even easier to care for the environment, due to sustainable laws and policies, access to locally grown produce, and infrastructure that allows residents to use vehicles less often. The greenest cities also are better for your health due to superior air and water quality.”