Learning to say ‘yes’
Source: Politico
Date: May 6, 2024
By Greg Ebel
President and CEO, Enbridge Inc.
Across much of the U.S., the public doesn’t have an appetite for more energy infrastructure. That’s a problem for economic growth, energy affordability and the climate.
In today’s society, too often, and on too many issues, there’s a binary sorting of perspectives—good or bad, more or less, yes or no. Yet, in our complex world, the way forward is often found in the middle, with balance, compromise and progress over perfection.
Prioritizing progress is particularly true in energy, where we must solve the challenge of growing energy demand and climate change. It can’t be one or the other: to meet both objectives, we need to come together and say “yes” to practical solutions.
Take electricity, which is dominating the energy conversation—and for good reason. Demand from data centers alone is poised to grow by about 50% by 2026. We face an urgent need to figure out how our country will keep up.
But debate ensues once the conversation turns to which energy source is the right one to generate affordable, 24/7 energy and reach net zero. It’s a question best answered with “all of the above,” but differing and hardened perspectives are driving a permitting and legal gridlock that results in none of the above—a hard “no” that means zero progress toward either goal.
“The public loves the benefits of infrastructure but doesn’t always have an appetite for specific projects, regardless of their attributes. Investments in modernizing existing and constructing new energy infrastructure are required to deliver on policy ideals at home and in the global context in which they matter most.”
The public loves the benefits of infrastructure but doesn’t always have an appetite for specific projects, regardless of their attributes. Investments in modernizing existing and constructing new energy infrastructure are required to deliver on policy ideals at home and in the global context in which they matter most.
The Cardinal-Hickory Creek Transmission Line is a timely example. It’s a 102-mile, high-voltage transmission line from Iowa to Wisconsin that will carry renewable power from 161 generation projects into cities and industrial areas in the Midwest. In March, a federal judge ruled to temporarily block construction of the last two miles after siding with a coalition of environmental groups that claim the proposed route is through a wildlife refuge. The energy companies behind the project initiated public involvement in 2014—10 years ago—and carefully selected a route that will reduce two existing transmission corridors to one.
Disputes like this substantiate recent findings from the International Monetary Fund. The 2024 report shows a clear contrast between the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) inability to reduce emissions under the current permitting regime and the desire to see the successful acceleration of energy investment.
Princeton University’s Zero Lab came to a similar conclusion that if the current growth rate of high-voltage transmissions persists, 80% of the emissions benefit of the IRA could be lost.
And even among environmental activists, we're seeing discussion of the need to support “new developments that address present crises,” and calls for progressives to embrace the green building boom by saying “yes” to building infrastructure in our backyards.
Increasingly, those voices slotted into “yes” or “no” categories are circling the same enabling ideas: acknowledging the need to build and maintain energy infrastructure that moves us closer to achieving our climate and energy goals.
So how do we get to ‘yes’?
First, we need to recognize that solving complex problems requires us to make compromises. To listen to and accommodate the viewpoints of others. Maintaining polarized views will not move our country forward.
Second, we need to acknowledge that no two regions are confronting the energy transition in the same way or timeframe. The economic health and available natural resources heavily influence how a specific region approaches its energy direction and destination.
Third, we need reforms to make reviewing and approving projects more efficient, transparent and cooperative. Some of the ingredients needed for meaningful permitting reform include addressing how electric transmission is reviewed and approved, getting Congress to clarify statutory intent around scopes of reviews and judicial review timelines, and clarifying the roles the states and the federal government play to get energy infrastructure projects built.
Wholesale reform may not be likely but nor is it necessarily required. Incremental progress and addressing issues that will help the industry get back to building the projects that move us forward can be a powerful tool, creating confidence in Americans’ endearing ingenuity and practicality.
To accommodate energy needs and climate goals, we’ll need all forms of energy—more renewables, natural gas and oil—alongside more carbon capture, more energy efficiency and more innovation. We need solutions that ensure intermittent renewables are supported with a reliable baseload of power that are still lower emitting.
With vast natural resources, a well-trained workforce and an inherent thirst for innovation, the U.S. has a lot going for it. Just look at the added boost from bipartisan legislation like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and energy infrastructure investment provisions in the IRA.
We have the energy, skills and support to meet our energy needs at home, enhance energy security and support a practical global energy evolution.
By saying “yes” to incremental improvements to the permitting process, we’re saying “yes” to building energy projects. By saying “yes” to building energy projects, we’re saying “yes” to advancing our climate goals, to providing affordable energy for all and bolstering our economic leadership.
Who is against that?
The above column is sponsor-generated content from Enbridge. See the Politico link here.
