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

Shell to shut down Volta EV charging business with 2,000 stations

pulling the plug

A little over two years after buying it for $169 million, Houston-based Shell USA is shutting down its Volta C electric vehicle charging business.

Shell confirmed to AdExchanger that it will dismantle Volta’s network of more than 2,000 EV charging stations this year. A Shell spokesperson said the energy giant is turning its attention to high-speed public charging stations at Shell-branded sites like gas stations and standalone EV hubs.

Around the world, Shell operates more than 70,000 public EV charging stations. In 2024, the company said it was aiming for a global total of about 200,000 charging stations by 2030.

When Shell announced in March 2023 that it had completed its acquisition of Volta, the energy company said it was gaining an EV charging network with more than 3,000 charging stations at places such as shopping centers, grocery stores and pharmacies.

Shell had said that although Volta’s revenue came from advertising on screens at EV charging stations, it planned to increase the number of charging stations that required motorists to pay for power.

Shell explored a sale of the Volta business earlier this year but didn’t find a buyer, according to AdExchanger.

ExxonMobil may delay or cancel plans for $7 billion Baytown hydrogen plant

project uncertainty

Spring-based ExxonMobil, the country’s largest oil and gas company, might delay or cancel what would be the world’s largest low-carbon hydrogen plant due to a significant change in federal law. The project carries a $7 billion price tag.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act created a new 10-year incentive, the 45V tax credit, for production of clean hydrogen. But under President Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the window for starting construction of low-carbon hydrogen projects that qualify for the tax credit has narrowed. The Inflation Reduction Act mandated that construction start by 2033. But the Big Beautiful Bill switched the construction start time to early 2028.

“While our project can meet this timeline, we’re concerned about the development of a broader market, which is critical to transition from government incentives,” ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call.

Woods said ExxonMobil is working to determine whether a combination of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture projects and the revised 45V tax credit will help pave the way for a “broader” low-carbon hydrogen market.

“If we can’t see an eventual path to a market-driven business, we won’t move forward with the [Baytown] project,” Woods said.

“We knew that helping to establish a brand-new product and a brand-new market initially driven by government policy would not be easy or advance in a straight line,” he added.

Woods said ExxonMobil is trying to nail down sales contracts connected to the project, including exports of ammonia to Asia and Europe and sales of hydrogen in the U.S.

ExxonMobil announced in 2022 that it would build the low-carbon hydrogen plant at its refining and petrochemical complex in Baytown. The company has said the plant is slated to go online in 2027 and 2028.

As it stands now, ExxonMobil wants the Baytown plant to produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day made from natural gas, and capture and store more than 98 percent of the associated carbon dioxide. The company has said the project could store as much as 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

EPA scraps $7B solar program, stripping Texas of hundreds of millions in clean energy funds

funding cut

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is ending a $7 billion Biden-era program that was supposed to enable low-income Americans to access affordable solar power. The program, which EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called a “boondoggle,” would have benefited more than 900,000 U.S. households.

In line with the EPA’s action, the Lone Star State is losing a $249.7 million grant awarded last year to the Harris County-led Texas Solar for All Coalition. The grant money would have equipped more than 46,000 low-income and disadvantaged communities and households in Texas with residential solar power. The nonprofit Solar United Neighbors organization said Texas had already begun to roll out this initiative.

Also slipping out of Texas’ hands are:

  • A more than $156 million 19-state grant awarded to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas in partnership with the Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Houston’s Texas Southern University. The Clean Energy Fund is a Houston-based “green bank” that backs investments in solar and wind power.
  • Part of a $249.3 million multistate grant awarded to the Community Power Coalition’s Powering America Together Program. The nonprofit Inclusive Prosperity Capital organization leads the coalition.
  • Part of a $249.8 million multistate grant awarded to the Solar Access for Nationwide Affordable Housing Program, led by the nonprofit GRID Alternatives organization.

In a post on the X social media platform, Zeldin said the recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill” killed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which would have financed the $7 billion Solar for All program.

“The bottom line is this: EPA no longer has the statutory authority to administer the program or the appropriated funds to keep this boondoggle alive,” Zeldin said.

Anya Schoolman, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Solar United Neighbors, accused the EPA of illegally terminating the Solar for All program. She said ending the program “harms families struggling with rising energy costs and will cost us good local jobs.”

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, joined Schoolman in alleging the EPA’s “outrageous” action is illegal. Sanders introduced the legislation that established the Solar for All program.

The senator lashed out at President Trump for axing the program in order “to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry.”