Week Recap: Human Rights, Policy Pivots, and the Push for Clean Energy

Source: ENB

Weekly Daily Standup Top Stories

Tesla battery material supplier tops list of human rights abuses for second year in a row

Environmentalists ignore renewables’ waste

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

– Get in Contact With The Show –

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

Michael Tanner: [00:00:15] What’s going on, everybody? Welcome into a special Saturday edition of the Daily Energy News Beat. Stand up here on this gorgeous May 11th, 2024. For our weekly recap, I am joined by Stuart Turley. Man, it was a great week we had. [00:00:29][14.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:00:30] Oh, it’s just crazy wild. You know what the bottom line is? The bottom line I loves natural gas. Without natural gas I is not going to happen. [00:00:40][9.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:00:40] It’s a good point. We talked all about natural gas. We I had a great, great little rant on phantom carbon credits, which to be honest, really isn’t phantom carbon credits from Shell’s point of view. So super interesting. We’ve got a lot of we got a lot of earnings. So the team is going to go ahead and pick out some of our top segments from the week. We appreciate them keeping that up to speed though guys. But as always again just check us out on www.energyNewsbeat.com. All the news and analysis that you hear is brought to you by that website. We got a lot of cool partnerships coming up on that we’re excited to talk about. So until then, guys, I’m going to turn it over to the weekly recap and the team. We’ll see you Monday. [00:01:13][33.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:01:14] Hey, let’s start with our buddies over there at Tesla. You know, Michael, when you’re, you’re a manufacturer and you’ve got some suppliers that are like using child labor in the Congo. I don’t think that’s a good list to be on. Tesla battery materials supplier tops list of human rights abuses for second year in a row. Here are some quotes in here. The global push for, clean energy depends on materials used from solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and batteries. Unless companies take a says stamp out to abuse quote, we expect large companies like Tesla to use their leverage. This is one of the Congo minor companies saying this year we expect Tesla to do it. You’re the one hiring them. [00:02:01][47.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:02] I, I it’s I there’s so much that goes into this I’ll let you I’ll let you read a little bit more than I’ll give my take. [00:02:09][6.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:02:10] I’ll tell you, there’s more than 500 allegations of abuse going back in 2010. Here’s another quote. We see the risk of abuse is increasing as pressure to mine for new materials is also intensifying, says Carolyn Avalon, the center for Natural Resources Research. Or obviously, we expect large companies like Tesla to use their leverage to influence the sector as a whole, and not only, but as we require that their suppliers are not committing human rights abuses. There’s this brings up a whole can of worms, Michael, is it because the world is being forced to go this way because they’re trying to kill Ice engines so that we abuse kids? I mean, which way do you think on this? [00:02:54][44.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:55] Well, I think the I mean, this article does an interesting job of trying to shift blame from Tesla, who is the one buying the cobalt to Glencore, who’s kind of the main the main company who they’re targeting in this article talking about those 500 individual abuses. Glencore, as we know, is one of the world’s largest kind of energy trading companies. They’ve shifted really away from that energy trading side and are really a producer. They have huge, huge coal manufacturing and coal plants where they actually go mined coal. We know they’re, they’re thinking about in in London. They’re they’re considering spinning that off and trying to see if they could maybe take that coal business and make it part of the United States stock exchange. We’ll see where that goes. I think this brings up an interesting question is who is Lyb? Obviously, Glencore needs to be providing the requisite work. You know, they’re talking mainly that there’s no water there in Zambia here or what it it’s, sorry. Give me a second. Where’s the, what country is this in? This is in some country where they’re basically saying, hey, we’re not even. They’re not even giving us water. You’re they’re forcing us to work 12 hour days and we don’t even have water, which is pretty interesting. This is in Congo, Peru and Colombia, specifically in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Workers there. And I’m reading now in the article workers, they’re reported to have little water or food while working long hours in sweltering heat, according to a Glencore spokesperson, the the workers had access to as much water as they need from water stations, communal areas and emphasized the company’s commitment to worker health and safety. Again, whose job is it? It’s everybody’s job, and I think that’s where people swing it, miss. They try to say, Tesla will say, well, it’s Glencore’s job. Glencore would say, well, it’s the job of the people who are on. We’re a little bit removed. We’re maybe a passive investor. The answer is everybody is is responsible to make sure that if you’re going to if you’re going to hire workers and you’re going to use workers, you’re going to make sure that they have a, a decent working environment. I think the if I had to put my finger on I blame Tesla a little bit more than I blame Glencore, because Tesla is incentivized to have Glencore give them cobalt, which is known as the blood diamonds of batteries, as cheap as possible. The cheaper they can get cobalt, the cheaper they can sell their batteries and their cars, and the more they’ll be able to. Compete with some of the Chinese companies who we know don’t care about human rights. So if if you’ve got to pay it one way or the other, I feel like Tesla pushing it off to Glencore is a little bit of, let’s just say convenient for them so they don’t have to necessarily. It’s like Apple. We know Apple is is involved with human rights abuses up and down their value chain. But what do they continue to do. Just push it off. Just push it off. Tim Cook. Elon Musk they’re never going to Congo to look at this stuff. They’re going to read a report and say oh we need to do better. But it’s Glencore. It’s like, okay, maybe it is Glencore, but Glencore is only responding to the incentives that you put in place. Remember, in a free market society, incentives matter. [00:05:55][179.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:56] I agree, and here’s where I think it’s despicable is because our law, makers and our Congress people are going after the, scope one, scope two, scope three emissions for oil and gas companies, but yet they won’t go to the, go the other way for human rights and child abuse. I think it’s despicable. So. [00:06:18][21.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:06:19] Yeah. Now, you know, while Glencore hasn’t necessarily been charged with human rights abuses, we do know that they agreed to pay 1.1 billion in fines in 2022, mainly on the fact of foreign bribery and market manipulation charges. So clearly, there’s something, you know, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. [00:06:37][18.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:06:38] Yeah. And where there is, a politician in Ukraine, there is kickback here. This one’s near and dear to my heart, Michael. Environmentalists ignore renewables. Waste. This one drives me nuts. The farm land and landowners are getting it in the drive through all the time. And this is just making it nuts. This was actually out of, Midland Odessa newspaper. And here’s a couple really good quotes in here. It’s noteworthy that so many environmental activists fail to account for the waste streams associated with wind and solar power generation, overlooking the holistic oil and environmental impact of their overall technology, said land Grant Odessa Republican, who chairs that Texas House Environmental Regulation Committee in Austin. Hey, I’d love to visit with you on the podcast there. They fail to recognize embracing renewable energy also necessitates confronting, accompanying waste challenges ahead on. However, from a hindrance, these challenges can offer a fertile ground for innovation. I couldn’t agree more. Well, let’s figure out how to get these things renewable. But it’s the reclamation land reclamation that nobody is talking about. And the landowners are getting screwed. [00:08:04][86.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:05] Yeah. In in the mining business, specifically in the United States, I’m not going to speak for a broad in the mining business. We figured out reclamation, and it’s one of the reasons why permitting and getting in and getting mines approved in the United States takes a lot of money and a lot of time, because a lot of that money goes towards reclamation, and a lot of the permitting required is, how are you going to clean this site up when it’s done? If there’s only a ten year mine life cycle, what are you going to do for the next. [00:08:29][24.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:29] That’s missing in the wind industry? Michael. What that is missing in the wind industry, right? [00:08:35][5.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:35] Oh, it’s missing everywhere. So what I’m saying is this needs to come. Ever. We figured it out in the mining business. Why can’t we figure it out elsewhere? [00:08:42][6.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:43] I agree, because now these all this farmland that we’re going to need ain’t going to be farming. [00:08:48][5.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:49] No. Well, and, you know, I love the the the the pic, the cover art here. You’ve got a drilling rig in a wind farm right next to each other. Again, we figured out a lot of this stuff with mining and oil and gas. It’s going to be interesting how it works. I love this quote. Here in the article, the oil and gas industry adaptability serves as evidence of this potential, as it has effectively converted waste into a profitable income stream to fulfill market needs. That’s according to, our friend what’s his name? Doo doo doo doo doo. State Representative Brooks Landgraab, who is kind of spearheading, as you said, this discharge again, it’s clear wind and solar are being backed by people who don’t necessarily care about the environment. What they care about is the taking back. What they see is control from the greedy oil and gas companies. [00:09:36][47.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:37] Exactly. And I, I personally, it’s all about electrification and, everything else. [00:09:44][7.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:09:45] Let’s talk about Exxon closing its pioneer deal. But but mainly it’s the FTC forcing Sheffield not to be on the board. So let’s go ahead and read the top headline here. I’m reading from the article. The US Federal Trade Commission declined to challenge Exxon Mobil $60 billion purchase of pioneer natural Resources. But in allowing that to go through, asserted that Scott Sheffield, pioneer CEO and co-founder, must not take a seat on the super majors. Interesting the issue. The decision, which was announced Thursday, quote unquote, will ease concern that the Biden administration will seek to block a series of oil and gas mega mergers. But it came at a hefty price. Here’s the quote from deputy director of the FTC Bureau of Competition Kyle Mok. He said Mr. Sheffield’s conduct makes it crystal clear that he should be nowhere near Exxon’s boardroom. American consumers, should it pay unfair prices at the pump simply to pad corporate executives? Pocketbooks. Unbelievable. So what’s the FTC claiming here and blocking scotch if we’re going to get into this in a little bit because this has got built up. [00:10:50][65.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:10:50] About this one. [00:10:50][0.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:10:50] I said the FTC says it will or the order will prevent Sheffield from engaging in, quote, collusive activity that could drive up crude oil prices and force U.S. consumers to pay higher fuel prices. The agency said he exchanged hundreds of text messages with OPEC representatives and officials about the oil market. Wait a second. The CEO of a major oil company is exchanging text messages with other CEOs and heads of major oil and gas companies. Color me shocked. Yeah. Absolutely unbelievable. We’re going to move over here to you know Linda can’t I. Unbelievable. She’s the head of the FTC here. She has a Twitter thread that I want to read a little bit about. So she she’s got six points here. We’ll list this in the in the description below. But but she says the FTC’s investigation into the Exxon pioneer deal revealed an elaborate campaign by pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield to collude with OPEC officials and inflate oil prices. The same guy who was saying the same guy who’s in charge when oil prices were -$37. Just just remember that. Just remember that. Tweet number two, global oil production has long been dominated by the cartel still dominated by the OPEC cartel. If OPEC cuts productions, Americans can get hit with high gas prices. Just a fundamental misunderstanding of how gas prices work. But that’s okay. U.S. production in the Permian Basin has emerged as a potential check on OPEC, but Sheffield has been trying to collude with OPEC rather than compete. Now this is where it gets interesting okay. They’re going to they’re going to pop up some of these images of Sheffield has routinely made public comments public which I love find that hilarious. But we’re not holding public comments against him, signaling to rivals that they should, quote, stay in line and reduce output over text messages and private dinners. Now we’re looking at text messages in terms of mergers and acquisitions, but over text messages in private dinners. He has also stayed in close contact with top officials from OPEC to coordinate on cutting back production. FTC orders bans Sheffield from serving on the Exxon board or serving in any advisory capacity. Listen to this. This is what I think the absolute most is. The order also prohibits Exxon for five years from nominating or designating any pioneer employees or directors, to the Exxon board, with limited exceptions. This all goes back to, again, some private text messages that Sheffield sent a temp, you know, in which they’re trying to garner the idea that he is trying to lower oil and gas production in order to raise prices at the pump. Wait, wait. Lowering oil and gas production actually does lower profits a little bit. How do you make money? You make money by selling oil. And yet this completely swings at miss. This is this is a lawyer attempting to spin what the underlying is assumption. And let’s go back. Why was Scott Sheffield from 2016 early 2017 through his purchase the he’s selling to pioneer. Why was he screaming at the top of his lungs, both publicly and privately. So you can’t say he’s he’s talking in one mouth and saying something over here. He’s saying everything in the same period over. He’s saying everything in public and private. Why is it why is he talking about lowering oil production? It’s all about investors. Go back to what we talk about the incentives okay. So you know, they have like over 40 different points they put in this FTC thing. Point number 27 gave one move in Sheffield’s playbook has involved publicly threatening U.S. shale producers who might deviate from a coordinated reduction scheme, for example, in 2021. Okay, this is when oil was like, what, 30 bucks, 40 bucks, Sheffield said. Everyone’s going to be disciplined regardless of whether it’s 75, 80 or 180. All shareholders that I’ve talked to say that if anybody goes back to growth, they will punish those companies. Is that threatening, stew? Is that a threat? [00:14:46][235.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:14:47] No. He was leading the cartel back in charge for following up and saying, I’m going to give money back to the shareholders. He’s being a great CEO. [00:14:58][11.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:15:00] Well, again, what is the what is the 30,000 foot overhang from this from his comment, he was part of the 22,008 to 2016 mode where there was no regard for oil. Crisis. There was that drill, baby. Drill. Invest capital. Produce as much oil as possible. To what raised oil prices. Was that what he was doing in those eight years prior to this? No. What happened was there was an absolute value destruction of oil and gas valuations because of that. Nobody made money in the oil and gas prices investors pulled out. So what is he saying? Pioneer is going to be okay regardless. And he said this multiple times. That pioneer is going to be okay regardless of whether or not oil prices go up. What he’s saying is, if you run an oil company and you are not focused on and you’re shareholders, which the whims of shareholders change all the time. It used to be growth. Now it’s cash flow. Which business? Amazon was able to run negative profit margins for years and get rewarded by that. Why? Because it’s what the shareholders wanted. Then all of a sudden they move to profit. And guess what? Shareholders realized they wanted profits. So it’s unbelievable okay. It’s unbelievable. He again he also says you know, they say quote 30. In fact, as recently as April 16th, 2024, Mr. Sheffield said in a conference even if oil goes to 200 a bell, independent producers are going to be dismal. Yeah, because they like they need access to capital markets. They need access to capital market. They also go on to say that he had these secret dinners with OPEC where they were, you know, attempting to clue. It’s unbelievable. This is this is a way and a political. I’m throwing my pens because I’m so mad. This is a political witch hunt. In order to hey, we know we can’t find legal grounds to block this merger, but all we can do is signal to our base that we are attempting to help with oil prices. Wait. I thought the U.S. government couldn’t do anything about gas prices. I thought the government couldn’t do any. I thought they I thought, no. [00:17:00][119.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:00] Can’t do things with the price so they can raise PR, they raid the SPR. [00:17:04][4.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:17:06] Oh, this gets me fired up. This is unbelievable. And you know who gets hurt or hurts the worst on this. And this is more inside baseball pioneer employees get hurt by this. They only want this. They only had one person looking out for them on the Exxon board. And that was going to be Scott Sheffield. Now all of a sudden they’re going to be integrated to the Exxon machine. And you know what? They’re going to be seen as disposable in a few years. And that’s just there’s no one to back them up on the board because guess what. You the FTC blocked the any representation for five years of pioneer employees or original pioneer employees on the board. This is unbelievable. Sheffield has got con shame on the FTC. Shame on Linda. Con in order for making this happen, for being motivated by political points rather than actual public and not public, but actual strong facts. It’s unbelievable. What do you think? [00:17:56][49.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:17:56] Do I want an attorney to reach out and get a hold of the Sheffield and go after this person? Legally, this is defamation at the highest level as far as I’m concerned. This is despicable. Yeah, it I have other things, but I don’t want to get thrown off of Google for something like that. [00:18:21][25.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:18:22] Well, I think you should think about again, I think what they, what they, what they gambled was that Scott Sheffield made his money. Scott Sheffield is independently wealthy that if this this theoretical you know, this not proxy move but this this signaling that we’re going to stop this, we’re going to stop somebody who’s colluding for low oil prices and keep him off. The Exxon board is somehow going to, you know, satisfy our political base. But actually allowing these mergers to go through, which is it’s it’s it’s like what they did for Obama. Oh, well, you know, it’s the sleight of hand where I remember the Obamacare debate when Chief Justice Roberts eventually okayed it by saying, well, it’s technically a tax and Congress has a right to tax. So sure it’s true. Well, that’s a just a hand waving, an attempt to satisfy both parties. And again, this is what this is where politicians get themselves in trouble. They try to thread the needle so that everybody likes them. And guess what? Nobody likes them. Democrats on the other side said, why would you let this go through? You know, Republicans and people in the oil and gas business are like, you’re an absolute idiot if you actually believe that. You think, Scott Sheffield, what if he was in control of hundred dollar oil? He was also in control of -$37 oil. So you’re going to thank him then? Are you going to thank him for that? Unbelievable. I, I mean, you got any more on this do I. Like I said we’re going to you know, we’re in a. [00:19:45][82.9]

Stuart Turley: [00:19:46] We’re going to go ahead and and curtail this. But I guarantee you I hope it comes out and I hope that person loses their job as a political hack. [00:19:55][9.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:19:55] Yeah. It’s it’s this this was tough. This was tough. I, you know, it’s well, we’ll move on. But, you know, Sheffield, he got con for sure. [00:20:04][8.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:20:05] Replacing talent energy coal fired power plant with battery storage is infeasible. PJM. Well, let me read you this quote from BDM. While a large battery could reduce the severity and reliability concerns in the Baltimore Gas and Electric system following the eventual retirement of the Brandon Shores and Wagner units, the battery concept would not replace the needs for a reliability run agreement or address the system reliable the needs in the near or longer term. Bottom line is it comes down in here and says it is highly unlikely that a battery system could be built by June 1st, 2025, when they’ve taken these out. You know, Holy smokes Michael, that is like it would also caused $1 billion to build a 600 megawatt, four hour battery system, more than the planned transmission upgrades and proposed battery storage. None of this is fiscal responsibility for PJM. [00:21:14][69.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:21:16] No, I mean, if you shocker, renewables are fiscally responsible. Could have told you that. [00:21:21][4.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:21:21] Yeah. The, RFP, RC, approved and $796 million package of transmission projects to address the plant’s retirement. That doesn’t cover a cause. A fourth of what they need. [00:21:36][14.3]

Michael Tanner: [00:21:37] What I what I can’t figure out is why the Sierra Club’s got their fingerprints all over this. Aren’t they an environmental organization? [00:21:41][4.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:21:42] They’re supposed to, but they don’t realize that natural gas will have. Actually, if they allow natural gas instead of the battery to come in, it would actually save the planet and kids. [00:21:52][10.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:21:53] It would it it it it. [00:21:55][2.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:21:56] You know, the Sierra Club is is actually funded. I would like to go check if anybody is listening to the podcast. If George Soros is funding the Sierra Club, please send us a note. I would like to send them an invite to come on the podcast, because I think this is a despicable. Yeah, absolutely. Biden administration bans fossil fuels, in federal buildings. I’d like to read change that to the Turley administration. Bans fossil fuel o anyway, the the the rule mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required federal buildings to phase out fossil fuel by 2030. Cleaner energy. It means nothing. It just means that when they try to do a building, the Department of Energy is faced delays in implementing the rule due to opposition from natural gas utilities concerned about potentially business losses, the American National Gas Association criticized the final rule. This is not about rule. It’s about the, utilities are not able to keep the lights on. Yeah. [00:23:14][77.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:23:14] It well, it’s I think this they’re going to end up obviously kicking the can down the road on this. It’s one of those things where they propose it. They’ll probably have an implementation period. And then when that implementation period comes up they’ll do kick the can down the road. [00:23:28][14.2]

Stuart Turley: [00:23:29] Oh yeah. But I really want to just say that I have this story on here Michael, just so I can say banned fossil fuels, not fuels. Absolutely. [00:23:37][8.0]

Michael Tanner: [00:23:38] And I love how Executive Order 1407 five and other for famous sustainability plans. The new rules aimed at goal giving net zero emissions by 2045. What happened to I thought it was 2030? [00:23:49][11.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:23:51] They’re kicking the can that way. They just put they launched it in 105 millimeter and. [00:23:57][5.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:23:59] All right. Shell sold millions of carbon credits for carbon that was never captured, according to report. Now is what you’ll discover. Greenpeace wrote the report. So we’ll see here. I’m going to read straight from the article here. Shell showed millions of carbon credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that never happened, allowing the company to turn a profit on its fledgling carbon capture and storage project, according to a new report by Greenpeace Canada. Yeah, I’m sure they’re not biased at all. Under an agreement with the Alberta government, shell was awarded two tons worth of emission reduction credits for each ton of carbon that it actually captured and stored at its underground facility at its quest plant near Edmonton. This took place between 2015 and 2021 through a subsidy program for carbon capture and utilization storage projects, which are championed by the oil and gas sector as a way to cut its greenhouse emissions. During this period, shell was able to sell 5.7 million tons of what Greenpeace described as phantom credits, making more than 200 million for the company. These credits were sold to other oilsands companies in the Alberta carbon market. I love the next quote, though such sales would not have been illegal, but amounted to a hidden subsidy within the program which undercut the effects and effect. Industrial carbon pricing. According to Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace. Wow, what a title over at Greenpeace, senior energy strategist it should be. It should probably be Lights Out senior energy strategist, because Greenpeace really just wants your lights to. Hey, do go out. Shell has received over 777 million from the federal government and provincial governments at about 406, in revenue from carbon offsets, according to the company records cited by our friends over at Greenpeace. All in all, this is what’s crazy. Taxpayer funding is covered about 93% of the cost of Shell’s Quest project to date. So this is what’s funny. Okay, so we’ve talked a lot about carbon credits, maybe the Fugazi that they are. Are you really offsetting? Are you really not? The problem is carbon credits have been championed exactly by people like Greenpeace. Greenpeace has been at the forefront of trying to push carbon credits on. We need to do this. We need to have a carbon price. We need to do that. They’re all for this. And then when shell actually enters into not an illegal agreement, remember what the article said. Such sales would not have been illegal, but amounted to a, quote, hidden subsidy. Wasn’t that what you want, a subsidy? That’s exactly what the whole carbon credit thing is. It’s a subsidy. So why are you for carbon credits? If now when a company takes advantage of given carbon credits, you can go out and say hidden subsidy. Absolutely unbelievable. And rightfully so. The Alberta government, Ryan Fournier, he’s a spokesperson of the Alberta. Alberta’s Environment Minister, Rebecca Schultz said that this is a, quote, smear job by Greenpeace. He and the environmental people are now saying Greenpeace is doing a smear job. Unbelievable. That quest facility is operated by Shell Canada and owned by Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron and Shell Canada. It’s unbelievable. You’ve now got interesting. You’ve got environmentalists fighting with each other. They should be on the same side, specifically Canadian. I could see how maybe the environmentalist, you know, in the United States have a bunch of different stuff. Pretty unbelievable. It’s it’s I find it hilarious with Greenpeace will go to any lengths to make the oil and gas industry look back, even if they’re the ones pushing for this. In response to this report, Shell Canada spokesperson Steffen Dolan said carbon capture technology is critical to achieving international climate targets. His actual code is, quote, a result of its innovative fiscal and regulatory framework. 9 million tonnes of CO2 has been captured at the Shell Quest facility that otherwise would have been released into the atmosphere. Neither Province or shell denied the sale of extra credits. I love how they say the innovative fiscal and regulatory frameworks, so they’re telling you it’s a little bit of a Fugazi without even telling you I’m on either side here. I think carbon credits are a little bit, pie in the sky. I’ve been. I keep saying the word Fugazi, do I do I believe that in some respects. You know, if they’re doubling down on credits for no reason to receive subsidies in order to make their project work, that really is an innovative fiscal framework because you’re going to need it. So carbon credits or I think are going to become a big deal. And I also think what you’re going to see is you’re going to see a lot of people who were for carbon credits, aka a lot of these Greenpeace folks all of a sudden when they see the impact and say, oh, well, now Shell’s making a bunch of money on its own. Now shell selling them to other companies. It’s going to be interesting. So Greenpeace not happy with carbon credits even though they were all for it. Gotta love it. [00:28:39][280.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:28:40] Let’s roll over to Wisconsin here I eat. This article is a lot longer and is worth our time on energy news beat.com Wisconsin ratepayers still paying off the coal plants in the past. Ask for $2 billion for gas plants of the future. This title of this article is kind of misleading. A little bit is the reason they’re asking for the new gas plants is for dispatchable, energy, because the coal plants are coming offline and they have wind and solar, and they need the dispatchable, energy. So if you did not have to go to dispatchable, you could go to these plants cheaper in an organized fashion and, have to have the $2 billion. So let’s go through this here real quick. This is just unbelievable. The company says it needs more gas capacity for three main reasons. Its coal plants are being retired because of the Biden administration, the Clean Air Act, regional transmission organization. Mismo. Miss. oh. Is, giving renewable less credit toward you utilities capacity obligations meaning their formula in mesmo has changed so that you have to have X number dispatchable power in your reserves. They need to be, dispatchable. Natural gas is the only way that they’re going to be able to. Get this up there. Based off of the formulas that they have to have. [00:30:16][96.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:30:17] Yeah. I mean, first off, whoever came up with the name of this company, we energies, they need to be just taken out of the back and shot. Not a great branding move, in my opinion. To call yourselves we energy, but we’ll save that for another one again. Who would have thought people just want elect? Who? Who would have guessed? People just want electricity when want on a whim. Who would have thought, oh, I need to plug something in. I like the electricity to be on. [00:30:43][26.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:30:43] Oh, you know, it’s now become a way of life. And we are, the way it’s designing, Michael, is you could see rolling blackouts. I’m not predicting this. The the federal government is now predicting that due to long lead time. Listen to this. Due to long lead time in high demand of some equipment, we have requested to be able to procure certain items to make sure they’re available in a timely manner. Consumer advocates argue the company shouldn’t be allowed to bill rate payers for these supplies before the new power plants. Here’s part of the problem. We’re talking two years the you have to plan for a supply chain now for trans for part of the grid components now, two years. [00:31:29][45.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:31:30] Well, and I mean, there’s also you called this about three years ago when you said natural gas is going to become the new renewable fuel of the future. Listen to this email that we energy spokesperson Brendan Conaway said in an email. So he’s like putting this in an email. He’s the spokesperson for we energy. Quote, the key to the renewable energy transition is to have quick start gas plants available for those times when zero carbon generation cannot meet energy customers need. Then he goes on to say, as we transition our baseload power to renewable energy, these proposed plants will support our customers. When solar and wind are not able to provide enough power. I mean, they’re just saying the quiet part out loud. [00:32:14][43.8]

Stuart Turley: [00:32:14] Yeah. When your health is your number one focus, this is another quote. And here it has to be about getting pollutants gone, not making them less, there is no safe number of kids having asthma attack. The air is cleaner now than it was when I was growing up. And it’s because of natural gas. [00:32:32][17.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:32:33] So we energy’s not looking out for you. Trust me. No. [00:32:33][0.0][1903.2]

– Get in Contact With The Show –

Energy News Beat