View this email in your browser ([link removed])
MORNING ENERGY NEWS | 12/12/2019
Subscribe Now ([link removed])


** From the Fiefdom of New York under the careful watch of King Cuomo.
------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan Contrarian ([link removed]) (12/3/19) blog: "As I have noted many times before, this whole green energy thing is all just so much talk until the point hits where energy shortages start to emerge or consumer prices begin to soar. At that point, the people will notice. And then, how will the politics shift? Will the politicians press forward with green energy — and impose energy deprivation on the people in the process? Or will they promptly back off the green energy blather, and return to the cheap and reliable fossil fuels? Here in New York, where professing the green religion is the indispensable ticket to entry into polite society, we’re in the early phases of seeing this process play out. Out there in the hinterlands, you may be interested in the dynamics...In other words, we had upon us a one hundred percent self-inflicted impending crisis, about 90% of it the personal responsibility of
the Governor, with maybe a 10% assist from the legislature. So how has the Governor reacted? If the answer is not obvious to you, then you clearly will never qualify for political office. The answer is that the Governor reacted by blaming National Grid. On November 12 he issued a letter to the utility, claiming that it had failed to provide 'adequate and reliable service,' and threatening to revoke its operating permit unless it immediately resumed acceptance of new customers in its service area."


** "President Trump's policies have led to a historic era in American energy. We are the world’s largest oil and gas producer, second biggest generator of wind and solar power, and continue to lead the entire world in energy-related carbon emissions."
------------------------------------------------------------


– ([link removed]) Dan Brouillette, 15th Secretary of Energy ([link removed])

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

How many five year plans can California fit into 230 years?

** Wall Street Journal ([link removed])
(12/11/19) reports: "Sustained power outages caused by electric-wire failures in Northern California could double or even quadruple in years to come unless PG&E Corp. PCG -1.46% steps up its replacement of aging equipment, according to a utility-commissioned analysis. PG&E’s current rate of electric-line replacement falls far short of what’s needed to prevent a surge of failures due to the effects of aging, according to the analysis by researchers at Georgia Tech. The analysis suggests the current focus on upgrading distribution lines in areas of extreme fire risk fails to solve a more basic problem of age-related deterioration, especially in coastal areas where gear often ages faster. The analysis was released by regulators to The Wall Street Journal in a public records request. If electric-wire replacement continues at the rate currently proposed by the utility, PG&E customers should expect a doubling of sustained power outages in 15 years and a fourfold increase in 30 years, according
to the analysis by the National Electric Testing, Research and Applications Center at Georgia Tech, which did the analysis for PG&E last year...At the current proposed level of replacement—about 100 circuit miles annually due to aging—researchers said it would take the utility about 230 years to refresh its distribution system. They assumed the typical electric wire has a useful life of about 83 years."

Gee, they keep telling us they're cheaper. They must be Lying.

** E&E News ([link removed])
(12/1/19) reports: "A group of major electric companies is pressing Congress for tweaks to a proposed energy tax credit bill that they say would encourage investment in storage projects. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Duke Energy Corp., Portland General Electric and Xcel Energy Inc. are seeking a change to the bipartisan proposal, S. 1142, to allow regulated electric companies to opt out of long-standing requirements to spread out savings from a federal tax credit over the life of a major capital project — such as a solar farm or nuclear reactor. These utilities cannot immediately apply the tax benefit to the project, something that would lower its upfront costs...The electricity sector has said it's looking at ways to incorporate storage into the power grid, but the industry at this point remains in its nascent stages. Projects have not reached critical mass, like wind and solar, and remain costly compared with the other, more mature renewable technologies."

In the running for top ten quotes to come out of a congressional hearing this decade.

** R ([link removed])
** eal Clear Energy ([link removed])
(12/10/19) column: "'For many decades the human species has been at war with the planet,' UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared at the start of the Madrid climate conference last week. 'And the planet is fighting back.' Alex Epstein, the youthful pro-fossil-fuel campaigner and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, disagrees. What Guterres sees as humanity’s war on nature, Epstein regards as our successful effort to protect ourselves from raw, brutal nature—from famine, disease, natural disasters, and shortened lifespans, an effort that has, in the modern age, provided human beings with a hitherto undreamt-of quality of life. And it is energy—overwhelmingly from coal, oil, and natural gas, powering our machines and technologies—that has given rise to this unprecedented human flourishing...A few years ago, when Senator Barbara Boxer angrily questioned what Epstein was doing at a hearing of the Senate environment and public works committee, Epstein responded: 'To teach you how
to think more clearly.' Clear thinking is vital, given current American public opinion on climate and energy."

** ([link removed])

The climate clowns are disscussing everything under the sun in Madrid, except the price tag.

** N ([link removed])
** ew York Post ([link removed])
(12/8/19) column: "The UN climate summit is underway in Madrid, and activists are sounding their usual calls for world leaders to achieve carbon neutrality as fast as possible. It’s a fool’s errand. From California to France to Chile, environmentalists laud leaders for already making the promise, and sometimes even passing legislation, to stop putting more greenhouse gases into the air than they take out...New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, received plaudits this year for passing legislation designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. To her credit, her government asked a respected economics institute to estimate the cost. This revealed that getting to 50 percent below 1990-levels in 2050 would cost at least 5 percent of GDP annually by 2050. Why so expensive? For the same reason, it is expensive anywhere: Weaning economies off fossil fuels and onto pricier, less efficient forms of energy reduces growth and prosperity. The impact quickly adds up....In Paris in 2015, world
leaders promised to double spending on research and development into green energy. They are on track to miss that target. The Madrid conference should focus its energy on innovation — rather than wild-goose chases."

Energy Markets


WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $58.96
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.28
Gasoline: ↑ $2.91

Diesel: ~ $2.99
Heating Oil: ↑ $194.23
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $64.07
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↓ 839



** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow 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 900 ([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])