Making the Most of a New Era of American Energy

This year, the United States emerged from history’s biggest oil boom—this boom was more than an order of magnitude bigger than previous U.S. commodity booms and seven times bigger than the world’s biggest previous oil boom, which occurred in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s.

As a result, even with the 2020 oil bust, the U.S. produces more oil than any other nation. In 2019, America produced 65% more oil than #2 Saudi Arabia. And the U.S. is also the world’s biggest producer of natural gas and may soon be the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas. America is at the dawn of a new era as the world’s #1 energy producer.

My new line of research shows that, to maximize the benefit from this new bounty, oil & gas regulators should slightly slow production. Counterintuitively, slower production will benefit oil & gas companies by marginally increasing their cash flow and significantly increasing the long-term expected value of their assets. And slower production will also limit the environmental downsides of oil & gas and maximize the environmental benefits of natural gas.

Slower production counterintuitively helps oil & gas companies for two reasons.

First, although no individual company wants its production slowed, if companies were allowed to freely negotiate with each other, they would agree to cut back production simultaneously because slower production means higher prices and higher profits. As Adam Smith put it, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in some contrivance to raise prices.” Antitrust law forbids them to negotiate a production slow down, because we usually prefer lower consumer prices. But oil & gas prices have been so low following the boom, sometimes even negative, that gas is just being wasted—flared off at thousands of wells across Texas and North Dakota. Regulators can stop this waste, which just harms consumers, by cutting back oil production. Modest production limits would also raise prices enough to increase overall cash flow to oil & gas companies immediately.

Second, oil and gas is a long-term asset, oil and gas that is wasted today could be worth a lot in the future. American oil & gas law pushes companies to drill and pump oil more rapidly than they would like—the rule of capture, common lease terms, and covenants implied into leases by the courts all make companies drill for oil when they would rather wait. But it makes no sense to rush to produce natural gas that will simply be flared, or to flood the market with oil at rock-bottom prices, when companies could simply wait to drill until prices recover. Modest production limits would somewhat mitigate the common law’s tendency to push more oil production than a truly free market would provide.

I explain these theoretical reasons for oil & gas production limits in my forthcoming Cardozo Law Review article, State Energy Cartels. I show how oil & gas production limits are actually an idea that came from the United States, and its oil producing states, during the Great Depression. And I show that production limits also have potentially massive environmental benefits: slowing carbon emissions, boosting renewable energy, and creating a counter-intuitive coalition of oil producing countries with a powerful interest in slowing fossil fuel production.

My own state of Texas will have to be a leader in negotiating any new coalition of oil producers to impose production limits. Because of the new oil boom, Texas now produces more oil than 12 of the 13 nations that comprise the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The Railroad Commission, Texas’s oil and gas regulator, has coordinated oil production limits before, as I explain in this EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast. In the years before and after World War II, Texas alone produced one quarter of the world’s oil and the United States together produced two-thirds. During these years, American oil powered recovery from economic catastrophe, victory in World War II, and the post-war global economic expansion. Texas played a leading role in limiting year-by-year oil production—so much so that when Middle Eastern countries moved to the forefront of oil production and formed OPEC, they described it as “a kind of international Texas Railroad Commission.”

My newest article, published in the Oil, Gas, & Energy Law Journal, shows how the Texas Railroad Commission can reclaim its mantle as the world’s leading oil & gas regulator and take initial steps toward cooperation on restraining production. I propose that it start by phasing in modest cuts in natural gas production to stop economic flaring and marginally raise oil and gas prices.

As I explain in this new Houston Chronicle op-ed, the Commission can improve its data collection to fine-tune its phase-in of new gas limits to ensure they boost industry cash-flow. I explain the economic and environmental benefits of this proposal at greater length in this recent video presentation on why it is the best method of stopping flaring, which is also embedded below.

The United States and Texas find themselves again at the center of global energy production. It is high time for them to carefully consider how they will maximize the economic and environmental benefits of this new bounty.

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #43: Eric Orts

Another Thursday, another EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode: This week, Eric Orts from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and David Spence talk about Eric’s research on “Climate Change and the Ethical Obligations of Business.”

Eric argues that major fossil fuel companies—the “carbon majors”—face a dilemma: they face an ethical imperative to address climate change but they also face a market imperative to maximize their profits. He argues that one way to address this dilemma is for the carbon majors to push governments to adopt stricter greenhouse gas regulations. If governments adopted a legal framework that adequately reduced carbon emissions, then energy companies could compete within this framework without violating their ethical imperative. Eric also argues that the investment community must accept that it is ethically bound to reduce carbon emissions and can no longer focus solely on maximizing economic returns.

The conversation builds on a working paper that Eric has written with Brian Berkey, which is titled “The Climate Imperative for Management.”

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #42 – David Konisky

This week’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode features Indiana University’s David Konisky talking with Shelley Welton about his research on “Public Attitudes on Energy & Climate.”

David and Shelley discuss David’s research on what Americans believe about different sources of power. David finds that people mostly judge power sources based on their local environmental harms and their cost. They tend to be very favorable toward renewable sources, less favorable toward fossil fuels, and conflicted about nuclear power. David explains that many are more comfortable with traditional regulation such as emissions standards rather than market-based approaches to limiting carbon emissions. The discussion relates to a 2016 book that David wrote with Stephen Ansolabe, Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think About Energy in the Age of Global Warming.

Shelley and David also discuss a newer article that David coauthored with Sanya Carley and Stephen Ansolabe, “Are all electrons the same? Evaluating support for local transmission lines through an experiment.” In the paper, they examine local opposition to new energy infrastructure projects and find that it may be possible to provide information to landowners that would make them more favorable to new transmission lines designed to enable more renewable power.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #41 – Sheila Olmstead

For this week’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast interview, we have David Spence interviewing Sheila Olmstead his colleague at the University of Texas, about Sheila’s research on “Carbon Taxes: The Evolving Conventional Wisdom.”

Sheila responds to the concern that a carbon tax would have a regressive impact on lower-income households by raising the price of energy. She explains that a carbon tax is actually less likely to have a net regressive impact on low-income households than other climate policies. Nearly all climate policies place disproportionate burdens on low-income households that spend a larger share of their income on energy. But a carbon tax produces revenue that can be used to offset or eliminate the costs it imposes on vulnerable populations. (And, of course, as I argue here on Greg Mankiw’s blog, it imposes more transparent burdens than other climate policies, which means that policymakers will be more likely to address those burdens on low-income households.)

Sheila also argues that a carbon tax would not have a major negative impact on the economy. And she argues that the negative impact of the tax on some fossil fuel sectors is a feature not a bug of a policy designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Sheila also argues that even if a carbon tax starts at $40 per ton, new research suggests that it should rise well beyond that. Finally, Sheila explains the controversy over whether governments that impose a carbon price should consider rolling back other climate regulations.

Sheila and David reference the Climate Leadership Council’s “Economist Statement on Carbon Dividends,” which was signed by all four former Chairs of the Federal Reserve, 27 Nobel Laureate economists, and 3,500 economists, including Sheila. 

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #40 – Doug Kysar

This Thursday’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast is our 40th episode! It features Yale Law School’s Doug Kysar talking with University of Colorado’s Sharon Jacobs about his research on “Tort Law & Climate Litigation.”

Sharon and Doug first discuss the different types of climate litigation, including causes of action based on nuisance, arguments that the government holds the climate in trust for future generation, and claims that fossil fuel companies have misled investors and the public about the dangers of climate change. They go on to discuss the challenges of holding companies liable when greenhouse gas emissions were also caused by consumers around the world, and how that may prevent or dissuade judges from allowing these suits to go forward. Finally, they discuss the remedies that the various plaintiffs are looking for to protect them from climate harm.

The conversation builds on a 2017 article that Doug and Henry Weaver published in the Notre Dame Law Review, which was titled “Courting Disaster:  Climate Change and the Adjudication of Catastrophe.”

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #39: Hannah Wiseman

For this week’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast interview, we have David Spence interviewing my friend and co-author Hannah Wiseman, now at Penn State Law – University Park, about her research on “Balancing the Local Costs and Wider Benefits of Energy Development.”

Hannah and David discuss her research on how to address energy projects that have concentrated costs in local communities but broader benefits to the economy and energy system—such as natural gas fracking and solar and wind farms. At times, states have responded to local opposition by stripping communities of local control over energy development, but that can leave important externalities unregulated. Hannah suggests that taxation might be a better way to address these externalities.

Hannah has a forthcoming paper titled “Taxing Local Energy Externalities” forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review. And along with Tara Righetti, we have just published a paper in the Yale Law Journal Forum on “The New Oil & Gas Governance.” Hannah also cites Kristen van de Biezenbos‘s important argument on oil company negotiations with local communities, “Contracted Fracking.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #38 – Caroline Cecot

In this Thursday’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode, I talk with Caroline Cecot of GMU’s Scalia Law School about her research on “Regulating the Risks of Fracking to Water.”

Caroline describes her empirical research on how New York towns approached fracking in the years before it was banned across the State. She finds that towns that were more vulnerable to water pollution and those that were less accustomed to oil and gas development were more likely to ban fracking. As a result, she argues that fracking might win more widespread support if better water contamination regulation could assure local communities of its safety. She also describes some of her ideas for improving insurance and regulation of fracking risks to water.

The discussion builds on two of Caroline’s recent articles: “Regulatory Fracture Plugging: Managing Risks to Water from Shale Development,” which was published in the Texas A&M Law Review in 2018, and “No Fracking Way: An Empirical Investigation of Local Shale Development Bans in New York,”which was published in Environmental Law in 2019.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #37 – Eric Biber

Another week, another EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode. This week, the University of California at Berkeley’s Eric Biber talks with David Spence about his research on “How Law Must Change in the Anthropocene.”

Eric explains his argument that as humans change the global environment, legal doctrines will have to change to accommodate regulatory responses as well as to address wider problems triggered by environmental harm. Eric describes the comprehensive challenges that will arise from climate change and other global environmental challenges and how they are caused by the “full range of human activity.” As a result, he argues that these challenges will require, in David’s words, “fundamental changes in the relationship between governments and individuals.” Eric describes how governments might be forced to rethink traditional approaches to legal rules for tort causation, federalism, and state coercion.

The conversation builds on Eric’s 2017 article on “Law in the Anthropocene Epoch” , which was published in the Georgetown Law Journal.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #36 – Scott Burger

This week’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode features David Spence interviewing MIT’s Scott Burger about his research on “How to Value Distributed Energy Resources.”

David and Scott discuss the problems that can arise if rooftop solar is overcompensated through net metering when rooftop solar is mostly installed by wealthier customers. Scott and his colleagues “simulated rooftop solar adoption across single family homes [in] the Chicago, Illinois area” and found that bills dropped for rooftop solar adopters and rose for those who didn’t adopt. This tended to increase costs for low-income consumers “[b]ecause adopters are (on average) wealthier than non-adopters.”

The discussion builds on one of Scott’s recent articles: “Why Distributed? A Critical Review of the Tradeoffs Between Centralized and Decentralized Resources,” which was published last year.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

Energy Tradeoffs Podcast #35 – Michael Wara, Part II

This week’s EnergyTradeoffs.com podcast episode is Part II of Michael Wara‘s discussion with David Spence about his research on California’s wildfire policies. This two-part series focuses on “PG&E’s Wildfire Liability and Bankruptcy: Who Pays?” Today’s 19-minute podcast episode starts where the last one left off; it focuses on “Bankruptcy & the Future.”

Michael explains why PG&E’s bankruptcy is co complex, noting: “It’s a mess. It’s not just in one court. It’s in seven.” And he explains how some of the important stakeholders and issues are not well represented in the bankruptcy proceedings. For example, he notes that ratepayers are not directly represented. He also highlights the danger that the results of the bankruptcy may make it even harder to address California’s affordable housing shortage.

As noted last week, Michael is frequently quoted in the media as an expert on PG&E, wildfires, and liability.

The Energy Tradeoffs Podcast can be found at the following links: 
Apple | Google

1 2 3 5