By Robert Bradley Jr. – January 24, 2022
“The adage ‘if you’re not on the table, you’re on the menu’ is still alive and well in the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The same goes for legislation and elections that have dealt with EERE regulatory biases. ” (Krebs, below)
Q. Mark, you have been a persistent voice for the free choice of consumers to use natural gas in the face of government “deep decarbonisation” intervention to replace electricity under the guise of “high efficiency”. energy fruit”. Tell us about your activity today.
ONE. I am now independent, retired from the gas industry. My statements are intended only to serve the best interests of energy consumers and not necessarily the gas industry, or any part thereof, or any other energy sector.
Q. In November 2020, you wrote a three-part series looking at the legal highs and lows of the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (EERE) during Trump’s opportunistic times.
ONE. It’s correct,
I looked at progress and where free market access has been restricted under Trump. I also anticipated changes at the EERE under the newly elected Biden Administration.
Q. What is the main topic?
ONE. Three:
- A petition filed by Trump’s “gas industry” to the EERE to recognize the illegality of banning appliances that use non-condensable gas fuels
- Amendments to the “rule of procedure” that the DOE must follow to establish more stringent minimum efficiency standards for devices
- The appeal status challenges NRDC’s successful lawsuit to force EERE to publish a Final Rule that effectively bans commercial non-condensing boilers.
Q. And what has happened since then?
ONE. The EERE under Biden is following a “burning earth policy” to reverse all things Trump because it has ostensibly prevented the “existential threat” of man-made global warming (AGW). Such policies are initiated by a series of initial President Biden Executive Orders (commencing with day one) that rapidly allow the EERE to accelerate what has previously been done to eliminate options. replacement for electricity.
Q. Tell us about the previous versus current approach.
ONE. Historically slow/incremental processes aimed at achieving more stringent “energy efficiency” mandates have transitioned to a faster and systematic “electricity all the time” policy using buzzwords of environmentalists is “deep decarbonisation” through the “ethical cycle” of “beneficial electrification”. In the process, EERE became the “poster kid” to grasp the regulations.
In essence, “improving” energy efficiency (as we know it) is rapidly transitioning under the Biden Administration to carbon efficiency. The following image illustrates what this means for fossil fuels versus renewable electricity in buildings and vehicles:
The source: “Electrification – What does it mean for energy efficiency?”
Note: This image is taken from page 31 of the presentation above. It describes how the traditional electric energy efficiency program of the Sacramento City Utilities District (SMUD) can evolve by transitioning to promoting electrification-based carbon efficiency. Since natural gas is a form of carbon-based energy, self-catering results eliminate competition from the direct use of fossil fuels (i.e. natural gas, propane and oil) in buildings. This is clearly appealing to mainstream environmentalists and power companies— EERE’s well-established fixed preferred clientele.
Q. There are further threats as Biden goes all out against fossil fuels, natural gas in this case.
ONE. Looks like EERE will be overshadowed by the new DOE Clean Energy Certification Office with a budget of $20 billion (compared to EERE’s $2 billion last year and $4.7 billion requested for fiscal year 22
Also note the word DOE’s updated org chart, there are several other highly centralized offices in the DOE. I have yet to research their budget requirements, but regardless, these are staggering amounts for what could ultimately destabilize the grid and eliminate consumer electricity alternatives. use; while simultaneously causing consumer costs and general inflation to rise massively in the name of countering the existential threat of anthropogenic global warming.
Q. Can you summarize how the equipment using direct gas has been disadvantaged?
ONE. EERE (like other DOE offices) has a “priority client”. That is at least the equivalent of a regulated catch. These customers are mainly environmentalists and people interested in electrical services. Now, they share the goal of forced electrification through renewable energy. See War on natural gas: EEI/NRDC Joint Declaration with NARUC (Cruel Environmentalism at Work) for a prime example.
Sometimes, manufacturers also cooperate. A perfect scenario is the effort to mandate device performance standards in the region under the Obama Administration. Instead of revisiting that history, search for the term “regional standard” in MasterResource.
Q. Explain some of these plots.
ONE. Federal minimum equipment energy efficiency standards remain the domain of EERE. The DOE itself was founded in 1977, in large part as a response to the Arab oil embargo (despite the fact that relatively few equipment uses oil). In 1978, National Energy Act amalgamated several former agencies into the DOE and established an office focused on energy efficiency and renewable fuels.
Since 1978, the office has been renamed several times to reflect its expanding scope, including the Office of Solar Conservation and Applications (CSA), the Office of Solar Conservation and Energy (CSE). , and the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy (CRE).
The current name, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, was adopted in 1993 under Secretary Hazel O’Leary. Secretary O’Leary arrives at the DOE from Tonkin Electric Company, now a division of Xcel Energy. This move further opens the door for electricity service delivery. As the full name of EERE, its mission is to integrate the regulations of minimum energy efficiency standards of equipment and the development of renewable energy. “Sustainable transport” has also found a home there (currently focused almost exclusively on electric vehicles and to a lesser extent hydrogen).
Q. These are classic scammers and Baptists with special business interests benefiting from regulation of partnership with a supposedly special interest.
ONE. Yes, the EERE has long been an opportunity for priority interests to influence regulatory agendas. And they did, rightly so bootlegger & Baptist fashion; especially in the case of equipment that meets minimum performance standards. Testimony via Brian Mannix of George Washington University before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy back in March 2019 was very clear on this.
A good example is the establishment of energy efficiency measures; namely the controversial site compared to the source index. Even now, EERE considers resistive appliances to be 100% efficient on a site basis (thus leaving no room for “improvement”, while conventional gas appliances are always less efficient (due to that justifies the stricter regulations).
Q. And back to history?
ONE. It’s correct. Another watershed event for EERE is Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, aka., Pub. L. 110-140) signed by President Bush on December 19, 2007. EISA was originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007 with the intention of bringing the United States to towards greater energy independence and security, developing renewable fuel production and improving vehicle fuel economy. EISA also more clearly defines EERE goals and objectives as demonstrated by 42 USC 16191 about “clean” energy (mainly electricity). Regardless, there’s nothing in 42 USC 16191 Legitimacy can be construed as Congress justifying the phasing out of fossil fuels.
Q. And then the Obama Administration accelerated its pro-electric bias?
ONE. Obama’s mission statement for EERE is “transition to a global clean energy economy. “Not exactly an electrification directive, however, but it is on the way.
Q. And then Trump and now Biden.
ONE. Under Biden, EERE is completely “wake up” and “net zero” The mission statement To be:
ERE’s mission is to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to equitably transition the United States to a worldwide greenhouse gas-free economy. 2050 and ensure a clean energy economy benefits all Americans, creating jobs for Americans – especially workers and communities impacted by the process energy conversion and those that have historically been underserved by the energy system and overloaded by pollution.
Q. And with all these threats, where is the gas industry? Less demand is bad news for manufacturers, for pipelines, for utilities….
ONE. Unfortunately for natural gas fueled appliances, the American Gas Association (AGA), has effectively delegated its responsibility to the Gas Equipment Manufacturers Association (GAMA). very early on. GAMA soon merged with the Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI) to become the Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). As a result, proponents of natural gas (and propane) have never had much of a say in how EERE’s business compares with other “stakeholders,” especially the “preferred” customer base. like” by EERE.
The adage “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu” still exists in the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The same goes for legislation and elections that have dealt with EERE regulatory biases.
———————
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst, has been involved in energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, as an advisor to the DOE, and has filed numerous Federal energy efficiency filings. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Every four nights, titled “It’s a fight out there: A gas man questions the ‘Efficacy’ of electricity “” (December 1996).
For more on Mark, check out MasterResource Repository.
Related
