Guest column

Defining ‘energy transition’ — and the semantics involved in it

Just what does 'energy transition' mean, anyway? Photo via Shutterstock

The term “energy transition” is fraught with misconceptions, but not just because of the varied interpretation of the term “transition.” The Energy101 series on EnergyCapitalHTX.com brings clarity to both terms with simple and direct information that anyone can understand. As explored in a previous conversation with ChatGPT, we are all part of the Energy Industry, so its high time we all understood it.

DEFINING TERMINOLOGY

Merriam-Webster defines transition as “a change or shift from one state, subject, place, etc. to another.” The popular interpretation of ‘energy transition’ implies a complete shift away from energy produced from fossil fuels to energy produced from renewable sources. This isn’t entirely accurate–let’s explore why.

“The challenge of our lifetime is addressing [the] dual challenge of meeting increased global energy demand while confronting global climate change” says Jane Stricker, executive director of the Houston Energy Transition Initiative and senior vice president, Greater Houston Partnership. This globally inclusive definition of ‘energy transition’ focuses on addressing objectives instead of proffering solutions–a common project management viewpoint through which opportunities are explored.

It's a simple, but effective, way to expand one’s line of thinking from acute problem solving to broader root-cause analysis. In other words, it is how we elevate from playing checkers to mastering chess.

DEFINING THE OPPORTUNITY

The United Nations tells us the world’s population reached 8 billion in late 2022, an increase of more than one billion people in just over a decade. During the same time frame, the number of people around the world without consistent access to electricity declined from approximately 1.2 billion to 775 million per the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2022 World Energy Outlook report. A commendable feat, no doubt, but the fact remains that about 10% of the world’s population still lives in energy poverty–and that number is increasing.

The first half of Stricker’s sentiment, the challenge of “meeting increased global energy demand” reflects these statistics, albeit almost poetically. To state the issue more plainly, one could ask, “how do we get more energy to more people?” Taking it one step further, we can split that inquiry into two basic questions: (1) how to get more energy, and (2) how to reach more people. This is where it gets interesting.

As explored in the inaugural Energy 101 article, energy is converted into usable form through one of three reactions. Mechanical and nuclear reactions that create electricity for immediate consumption are often deemed “cleaner” than those produced by chemical reaction, but the challenges of delivering more energy consistently and reaching more people are left shortchanged due to intermittent production and limited distribution mechanisms.

In recent history, this has left us to rely upon energy produced by chemical reactions from fossil fuels and/or batteries. Batteries have inherently been the more expensive option, mostly because of the limited supply of minerals necessary to effectively store and transport energy for later use in these contained systems. Hence, the heavy reliance on cheap fossil fuels.

REFINED CONSTRAINTS DEMAND NEW SOLUTIONS

With price as the determining factor influencing the modern world’s energy supply, oil and natural gas have scrambled to compete with coal, which is affordable and easily transportable. However, coal has one major drawback–using it accounts for approximately 20% of carbon emissions, more than oil and gas industrial use, combined, per calculations from the U.S. Energy Information Agency.

We have a duty to get more energy to more people, “while confronting global climate change,” as Stricker states. In the context of energy poverty, where more consistent access to more electricity needs to reach more people, energy needs not only be abundant, reliable, affordable, and accessible, but also, less toxic.

So far, we have yet to find a solution that meets all these conditions, so we have made trade-offs. The ‘energy transition’ merely reflects the energy industry’s latest acceptance of the next hurdle to enhance our lives on earth. As depicted by the image from the IEA below, it most certainly reflects a reduction in the reliance on coal for electricity production, but how that energy reduction will be off set remains yet to be determined.

It's an opportunity ripe for exploration while existing sources push to meet the expanding definition of sustainable energy–a shift in evaluation criteria, some might say. Perhaps even a transition.

Stacked chart showing demand of natural gas, coal, and oil from 1900 to 2050 (estimated)Demand for natural gas and oil are expected to level out, as demand for coal shrinks to meet goals for lower carbon emissions. Photo courtesy of IEA, license CC by 4.0Demand for natural gas and oil are expected to level out, as demand for coal shrinks to meet goals for lower carbon emissions. Photo courtesy of IEA, license CC by 4.0


------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Energy hungry data centers are increasing electric costs. Getty Images

Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech's energy-hungry data centers.

It's not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta.

But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines.

That has meant pressuring the nation's biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs.

Rising power bills are “something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It’s something we’ve been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I’ve ever seen before,” said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. “There’s a massive outcry.”

Not the typical electric customer

Some data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That's pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use.

“A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,” said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. “I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.”

A fix, Peskoe said, is a “can of worms" that pits ratepayer classes against one another.

Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills.

Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia’s Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather.

The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share.

But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority.

Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant.

In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs.

Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year's increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand.

States are responding

Last year, five governors led by Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers “paying billions more than is necessary.”

PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power.

In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a "massive wealth transfer” from average people to tech companies.

At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs.

In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers.

The Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever.

New Jersey’s governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with “unreasonable rate increases” to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers.

In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark.

Doubts about states protecting ratepayers

In Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service.

Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a “pretty good deal” that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed.

But, he said, state law doesn't force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they're paying their fair share of transmission costs "will be a challenge.”

In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers.

Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said.

To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer “special deals to favored customers” like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said.

In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is.

“We’re talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,” commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. “And that’s what you don’t want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for."

Trending News