View this email in your browser ([link removed])
DAILY ENERGY NEWS | 11/18/2024
Subscribe Now ([link removed])


** The Wright Stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bryce Substack ([link removed]) (11/16/24) reports: "The current Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, never worked in the energy sector. Her predecessor, Dan Brouillette, made his career as a staffer on Capitol Hill and later as a deputy secretary in the DOE under Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas who headed the DOE under Trump for two years. Before them were two academics, Ernie Moniz and Steve Chu. Before Moniz and Chu, there were a slew of lawyers and one engineer, Sam Bodman, none of whom came from the energy sector. That history is relevant because it underscores how remarkable it is that Trump has named Chris Wright, the founder and CEO of Denver-based Liberty Energy, an oilfield services company, as his nominee for Secretary of Energy. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Wright is the most qualified person ever named to that position. As Trump explained in his announcement, 'Chris was one of the pioneers who
helped launch the American shale revolution that fueled American energy independence, and transformed the global energy markets and geopolitics.' Trump said that in addition to Energy Secretary, Wright will serve on the new Council of National Energy led by Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota, who is Trump’s nominee for Interior Secretary."
[link removed]


** "Energy matters. It not only matters for human lives, it's a winning political position. No one wants expensive gasoline to fill their tanks. No one wants to struggle to afford to pay their heating bills or to have their electricity go out. These are winning issues and they matter."
------------------------------------------------------------


– Chris Wright, Nominee for Secretary of Energy ([link removed])

============================================================

To cut wasteful spending, start with energy subsidies.

** Reason ([link removed])
(11/14/24) op-ed: "For decades, the federal government has propped up energy sources and technologies through subsidies and tax credits. From 2010 to 2023, the cumulative cost of these policies was $76 billion and $65 billion for solar and wind power, respectively, and $33 billion for oil and gas. Nuclear energy, meanwhile, received about $26 billion. Not only have these subsidies been costly for taxpayers, but they have also proven ineffective in changing the energy landscape. Despite receiving more than twice the amount of money as fossil fuels and nuclear power since 2010, wind and solar only generated 10.2 percent and 3.9 percent of the country's electricity in 2023, respectively. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) supercharged subsidies for wind and solar energy while introducing new technology-specific tax credits for green hydrogen, nuclear power, sustainable aviation fuel, and more. Additionally, it established a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles (E.V.s) assembled in North
America. Households earning less than $300,000 and individuals earning less than $150,000 are also eligible for the one-time clean vehicle credit... While the government's practice of picking winners and losers always comes with a steep price tag, the cost of increased energy subsidies from the IRA is exorbitant. Initially projected at $369 billion over the next 10 years, these subsidies are now expected to add over $1 trillion to the federal deficit through 2032. And, with some provisions lacking an expiration date, this figure could feasibly reach $3 trillion."

Has our man Horner cracked the code?

** The Wall Street Journal ([link removed])
(11/17/24) op-ed: "Agencies aren’t permitted to lie about their reasons for imposing a regulation—a doctrine known as the rule against pretext. Yet it happens. EPA Administrator Michael Regan, for instance, has shown a willingness to use authorities unrelated to climate change to force closure of plants to achieve climate goals. This presents the new administration with an opportunity to rein in some of the most egregious Biden-administration overreaches before the rules achieve their intended outcomes. Trump administration officials will need to review promptly internal agency files to establish the record of pretextual rulemakings and other improprieties. Government lawyers will then need to acknowledge these improprieties in court. 'Confessing error' is the practice by which government attorneys inform a court that the state has legally misstepped and that annulment of an agency’s judgment is warranted. A change in administration philosophy or interpretation is insufficient. But the
courts would almost certainly accept a confession of error of law, fact or procedure supported by documents that illustrate the admitted wrongdoing. Typically, rescinding a regulation requires going through the same lengthy process necessary to impose a rule. That process is then subject to judicial review, and the courts frequently send aspiring reformers back to the drawing board. The Supreme Court has increasingly rejected initiatives for which there was no clear congressional grant of authority. This trend indicates that the justices are likely to reverse many of the Biden administration’s major rules, possibly by mid-2026. But in the meantime, costs mount. Electricity-reliability organizations warn of increasing blackouts from early retirement of power plants due to regulations. To limit such costs, the Trump administration needs to move aggressively to identify and confess error to courts hearing challenges to these rules. They should start by looking at public records. Freedom of
Information Act requests have produced troves of documents that, though often heavily redacted, provide sufficient information to raise concerns and warrant further scrutiny. Incoming officials can review such records in unredacted form, giving them the best chance for timely reversal of unlawful rules."

¡Afuera!

** The Guardian ([link removed])
(11/15/24) reports: "There is growing concern that Argentina’s far-right president, Javier Milei, is set to announce his country’s departure from the Paris climate accord. Earlier this week, negotiators from Milei’s government were ordered to leave the Cop29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, after just three days. Now, the Guardian understands that Milei is considering announcing a formal withdrawal from the agreement, and that a decision could be made after a formal meeting with Donald Trump... Milei has previously called the climate crisis a 'socialist lie' and pledged to withdraw Argentina from the Paris agreement to limit global heating to below 2C during his campaign last year, but he subsequently backed down. Trump has already pledged to withdraw the US from the climate accord for the second time after he pulled out in 2016, when no other countries followed. Trump is expected to set in motion a second US withdrawal soon after he is sworn in as US president on 20 January. His allies
are pushing for a more permanent US exit from the Paris deal, and potentially even the underlying United Nations climate framework. 'President Trump can certainly announce his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement, but he should take it a step further and submit the treaty to the Senate, which is what has supposed to happen in the first place,' said Tom Pyle, president of the conservative American Energy Alliance."

** ([link removed])

"That market sucks."

** The Wall Street Journal ([link removed])
(11/16/24) reports: "The dream of a $25,000 electric vehicle for U.S. drivers is in trouble. Elon Musk has abandoned it. President-elect Donald Trump is unlikely to help. And the current economics of the U.S. auto industry don’t support it. The key problem: America doesn’t really sell cheap new cars anymore. Why would any automaker offer an EV—with all of that costly technology—at a price point that’s half of what the average new vehicle goes for these days? 'I think having a regular $25,000 model is pointless,' Musk said a few weeks ago. 'It would be silly.' Musk isn’t alone in taking a sour view of making a cheap EV for the U.S. 'That market sucks,' Peter Rawlinson, chief executive of Lucid Motors, told me and my colleague Christopher Mims for our new podcast... Abandoning the idea of a $25,000 car comes as a blow to those who were betting that the electrification of the automobile was on track to happen seemingly overnight—with EVs for every pocketbook replacing the tens of millions of
vehicles on the roadways."

Energy Markets


WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $67.28
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.89
Gasoline: ↓ $3.07

Diesel: ↓ $3.53
Heating Oil: ↑ $219.41
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $71.42
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↓ 616



** Donate ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Unregulated Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Subscribe to The Plugged In Podcast ([link removed])
** Connect with us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Connect with us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])

** Suite 525 ([link removed])

** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])