December 6, 2024 • 42 mins
The Biden Administration set ambitious targets for America's offshore energy future with 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030. Listen in as industry veterans Jim Bennett and Ian Voparil discuss how these targets influence public perception, the allocation of government and private resources, and clarity of the path to market needed to secure investments in this next wave of offshore energy development.
Drawing parallels with historic endeavors, like the U.S. Mission to the Moon and the Interstate Highway System, we investigate how goals, strategic planning, and standardization have historically paved the way for industry success. Reflecting on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we explore the interplay between federal, state, and private sector efforts that are crucial in shaping America's renewable energy future.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
We've had some success with the growth of
offshore wind here in the USover the past few years.
Many would maintain that one ofthe contributing factors was
the establishment of clear goals, most notably 30 gigawatts by
2030.
Whether that is indeed the caseand whether that success will
continue is in doubt.
Do we need to reset our goals,and who will do that?
(00:25):
What is your role in settinggoals for the offshore wind
industry?
Let's take a look at that.
The Offshore Energy Podcast.
Next.
I'm Jim Bennett and I have over40 years of experience
developing energy in the ocean.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm Ian Valpero and I've spent the last 20 years
developing offshore energyprojects around the world, and
this is the Offshore EnergyPodcast.
Hey, jim, yes, good day.
How are you Nice to?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
see you.
Hey, very good, thank you, hopeyou're doing well.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Doing great.
Hope you had a goodThanksgiving.
This is the week afterThanksgiving.
I ate plenty of turkey and gotto see my boys.
One was home from college.
How about you?
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Same thing, same thing.
I had my grandkids over andthat was a handful and a lot of
fun.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Awesome, jim.
Today, episode four, we'retalking about these big, hairy,
audacious goals that politiciansseem to put out there, and
whether or not they're usefuland what we all can do to
contribute to them.
Give me a little bit of yourbackground and why you love this
topic so much much.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Well, we've seen many goals in a variety of settings,
most notably, of course, in thewind industry over the last
decade or so actually more thanthat and they do serve a role.
It's a little bit difficult tounderstand exactly how effective
that role is, because there'sthe additional element of the
private sector having controlover what moves forward.
(02:12):
It's not simply setting a goallike a personal goal or a
corporate goal, where there'smore control over the outcome.
And we'll talk about that alittle bit more, with some
examples coming up.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Jim, you may know this about me I'm one of those
kinds of people who likessetting goals and objectives,
both personally alsoprofessionally, and I think
thinking strategically about howyou can go and do ambitious
things is useful.
So I really would love for ourcountry to have a big energy
goal, so let's get into it, yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And in the absence of a clear energy policy, which
has pretty much been the casefor several decades now, it's
difficult to go there, and Ithink you're raising a really
good point also about having agoal in place has value in and
of itself.
Being able to attain it issomething that can be really,
(03:12):
really productive and good, butit may not necessarily be in the
cart.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Particularly, I'm thinking for politicians.
Your feet can be held againstit too, if you don't reach it
right.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
So, Jimim, let's get precise here for our listeners I
think our goal setting, thatwe're focusing on here uh is
public policy goal setting, uhand uh unlocking american
offshore energy, uh, both in theconventional sense and in the
renewable sense, the energyindustry, oil and gas and
certainly offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
They don't want administrative flips every four
years, particularly whenprojects take much longer than
that to develop.
So when you have even the CEOof Exxon talking to presidential
administrations about keepingthe path, you know that there's
a good opportunity for us to bemore consistent with the
applications of public policiesacross administrations.
(04:05):
Sounds really great, right, butI know I'm kind of living in
fantasy land too sometimes.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
You've got a couple of things to consider here, and
that's that.
What is the purpose of the goal?
What is intended to be achieved?
Is it to reset and completelywipe away the landscape and
start over again, or set a newgoal, which we'll talk about in
a minute, or is it to justexpand our grasp and make our
(04:36):
goal a little bit further, alittle bit more than what we're
expecting under the status quo?
And that's an importantdistinction between good goal
setting in the properenvironment versus goal setting
that might not serve the purpose.
Goals need to have clarity.
(04:58):
They need to be able to becommunicated clearly.
Hopefully and I think this isone of the purposes of both the
goal established by 2030 is togalvanize public opinion and
make people recognize thatthere's something out there that
(05:19):
we're in pursuit of and thatresults in the prioritization of
resources.
I think another thing as far asgoal setting successful goal
setting is whether or not wehave control over attaining that
goal or whether, like wesuggested before, there's
multiple parties that wouldprevent us from attaining that
(05:42):
goal.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Yeah, I know many people are you know, certainly
in their personal and kind ofprofessional careers are
familiar with this acronymaround SMART goals.
Right, smart goals are specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant and time-bound goals,and I know that when I worked
for a big energy company, youknow that was part of my
personal performance plan eachyear were to develop smart goals
(06:06):
and the metrics we'd use tomeasure against them and whether
or not we were successful.
And I think some of the thingsyou just said are really
important Are they achievable,are they realistic, are they
time bound?
We're definitely seeing thedisconnect between these
national energy ambitions andwhether or not they can be
(06:27):
completed in the times of theadministrations that make them.
So it's a real challenge, right, and it's one that the energy
industry is already reacting to.
We'd love to see more consistentapplication of big goals
towards energy development inthe country.
But goals are really usefulgenerally, right.
They help you break down BHAGs,right.
(06:48):
Big, hairy, audacious goals isone of the phrases that was used
about 20 years ago, but itallows you to break it down into
smaller pieces that can helpyou set smaller milestones, that
kind of make sure you'restaying on track to deliver
towards that bigger picture.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, I think that's an important point about the
time specificity.
When goals get out there andthey're very soft edged and
there's no clarity as far aswhen we're expecting that or
when we're going for that, theyjust kind of dissolve into the
ether.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
We need to be really explicit with how to get to some
certain goals, and when we'retalking about energy policy in
the United States, it's not asmuch as a comment by a
politician.
That's not going to get us allthe way there.
That's not going to get us tothe situation that we all want.
But there are some greathistoric examples where as a
(07:46):
nation we've set ambitious goalsand achieved them.
Start us out what jumps to yourmind.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Well, I think you're right off.
The thing that comes to mind isthe Second World War and how
the entire country galvanizedbehind a particular goal and
obviously achieved it, not onlythrough the arsenal of democracy
but the actual execution of thewar itself.
It was pretty clear what thegoal was.
It was pretty clear it neededto be as soon as possible, but I
(08:16):
think the quintessential goal,successful goal, is the space
race and the lunar mission inthe 60s, which was established
by, as we all know, and therewas a lot of support and a lot
of research went into it beforePresident Kennedy announced that
(08:39):
we should be trying to put aman on the moon by the end of
the decade, which was a prettyambitious goal and but it also
had some very good features toit.
One was that it was very, veryclear I mean anything short of
putting a human foot on thelunar surface was not going to
(09:02):
achieve that goal.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The goal was very clear.
It was very specific andmeasurable.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
by the way, using that acronym, yes very specific,
measurable, and it also had avery specific timeframe.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
If it was.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
January 1st 1970, it would not have been successful.
Maybe the overall effort wouldhave been successful and the
goal would have contributed toit, but the goal was very, very
specific by the end of thedecade, and it's a great example
of a goal that was achieved andit was also had.
(09:38):
The span of control to worktowards that end was also very
well defined.
It was with the Americangovernment and it had the
support by and large of theAmerican people, so it had
multiple features that were allvery, very positive and in fact
the Department of Energy usedthis as their analogy, their
(10:02):
shot for developing offshorewind.
I think the difference there isthat there were different
variables in that arena.
Probably a good thing, but notas clear in time frame, not as
clear in exactly what the endachievement would be.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
And I think about all of the great successes of the
DOE SHOP program.
It is still trying to defineimprovements in technology that
help a sector, but still thatsector relies upon private
companies, which are usuallypublicly held companies, to
continue to produce a profitquarter after quarter after
(10:49):
quarter, and it requires a wholebunch of additional
stakeholders and responsibleparties.
In the span of control program,it's or the, I should say, the
(11:09):
apollo program was a much, uhmuch better defined governance
structure and responsibilitiesthat didn't rely so much on the
private sector.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
There were outside factors, of course, but of
course, uh, they were much moreunder the control of the
government agency, nasa.
That succeeded in achievingthat objective.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
And it sure had, you know, with some ups and downs,
great support from the Americanpublic for lots of different
reasons.
Right, there were lots ofdifferent motivations for us to
put a man on the moon, not theleast of which was distinct
competition with Russia, right.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes, yeah, very true, and there were a lot of spinoff
benefits, even separate fromthe goal itself.
The obvious one which I'vesince been disabused of is Tang,
the breakfast drink.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
It's a great great benefit.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We all remember Tang and actually that was developed
by General Foods before theyjust adopted it with the program
.
But also some really importantdevelopments, like Teflon was
developed through the program.
Guidance systems, computersystems, development in general
(12:24):
all of these things were sidebenefits of the program in its
effort to achieve the statedgoal.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Well, jim, you're really shooting for the stars.
When you thought of the trackrecord for great examples, I was
thinking a little more down toearth.
Maybe my vision is yours, but Iwas thinking of the interstate
highway system and for those whoknow me and my play in offshore
wind, I often talk about theinterstate highway system as an
(12:54):
analogy that we ought to thinkabout for transmission,
particularly HVDC transmissionacross the United States.
But I thought this is also oneof these incredible examples
that had all the right, I'd say,motivations to build this
interstate highway system forthe benefit of America and
Americans.
(13:14):
But it wasn't easy either andif you look at the interstate
highway system, it was firstplanned in the late 30s.
World War II intervened andtook attention away from its
development after that and therewas no mechanism initially in
place that provided funding forit.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
It was also.
It served multiple purposes,Aside from what we think of it
today as a place to get in atraffic jam.
Aside from that, the transportof both the citizenry from one
city area to another city areais one thing, but it was also
(13:56):
set up for civil defensepurposes as well, and that was a
benefit of the program.
That was very clearly stated asto what the end state needed to
be.
I always think about.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
So who's going to pay for it?
Right, so the Federal HighwayAct in 56 established the
mechanism that would pay forthis interstate highway system.
Federal gas tax providedultimately 90% of the cost of
building this.
Federal gas tax.
States were responsible for 10%of this, but that was codified
in legislation and moved forward.
(14:29):
Another key part of this wasthat technical standards were
highly regulated across thesystem.
Right, and so you, for example.
I used to always wonder this toowhen I was riding around in a
car as a little kid how comebridges are at least 14 feet
high?
You know, you have 14 feet ofclearance off the highway, and I
(14:49):
used to notice that because Idrove a lot of highways with my
family growing up.
That's because that was arequirement All bridges had to
have at least 14 feet ofclearance.
Guess what that allowed?
Right?
Not only did it allow themovement of military equipment,
which was one of the reasons forcreating it, but it allowed us
to also standardize the shippingand transportation, the
(15:11):
trucking companies and thetrailers that they could pull
around the system.
And I think.
One last point about thehighway system too, and this is
one of these retrospectives thatwe've got to keep in mind now
it way exceeded the initial costand schedule estimates.
Right Back in the 50s, whenthey were planning or when they
started to implement theplanning of the system, they
(15:32):
predicted it cost something like$25 billion and would take 12
years to complete.
Guess what?
It cost over $130 billion andit took over 35 years to
complete.
It's become a tremendouslyvaluable asset for the country
and in fact has created muchmore return on investment than
(15:54):
anyone could have imagined inthe past.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
It's absolutely changed American life in a way
that was definitely foreseen tosome degree, but not foreseen
with regard to other aspects.
Let's bring this back to oceanenergy, which is what we're here
to talk about, and we have somehistorical background on
(16:18):
setting of goals for the OCS,and we can start with oil and
gas and that, if we start backin the 70s, early 80s, under the
Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct called for a five-year plan,
a plan.
It was a plan, not a goal.
It was a call for thegovernment to establish a plan
(16:42):
on the size, timing and locationof offshore wind leases.
It was not a goal with respectto X million towards making
clear what our direction was andwhatever goal it is and in this
(17:03):
case it was basically themarket would determine the exact
level but it was a clearstatement of moving forward and
developing the energy resourceson the outer continental shelf
through the 70s and the 80s andsince.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Yeah, still in effect .
And the five-year plan for OCSoil and gas development, I think
, provides the private sectorwith this kind of predictable
opportunity for access Right foraccess right.
As you said, it doesn't controlthe price of oil, nor does it
control you know how manyprojects are going to be
(17:43):
successful versus how many fail.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
So it provided that opportunity to develop at a
reasonable pace, recognizingmarket constraints at any given
time.
It also, I think the plan, orthe requirement for a plan,
created an opportunity, somewould say, for appropriate
involvement on the part of thepublic and various stakeholders,
and others would say simplycreated a target for litigation
(18:17):
in order to stop things frommoving forward.
Target for litigation in orderto stop things from moving
forward.
So, and the example, of course,is the requirement to conduct
NEPA analysis, nationalEnvironmental Policy Act
analysis, environmental analysisfor every federal action, and I
don't know the history ofexactly what the determination
was back in the 70s, but theredefinitely was a decision to
(18:40):
conduct NEPA analysis andexecute the environmental impact
statement process for thefive-year plan.
I know that from a number ofdifferent places, not the least
of which is many years beinginvolved in contributing to that
(19:03):
environmental effort.
So on the one hand, you gotkind of the double-edged swords
On the one hand it providescertainty, it provides direction
, and on the other hand, itcreates a mechanism that could
actually slow down the process.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
When you're talking about the challenge of
litigation.
Of course, as a private sectorentity, you would hope that all
of those challenges are workedthrough before the private
sector leases the area and thentakes the answer, because you
would certainly hope that anylitigation around the process
occurs earlier than you have tostart spending money on a
(19:40):
project.
So that makes some sense to me,but I but I do recognize that
that's also.
It creates a flash point forpotential.
You know disruption andlitigation activity yeah, I, I,
I.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
I have to agree with you that, yes, on on one hand,
you can look at at all thatlitigation and the creation of a
plan, et cetera, as fodder forlawsuits et cetera, but on the
other hand, well, maybe we needto have those lawsuits, have
that litigation, solve thoseissues up front.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And it's just a Get your house in order.
Yeah, government, come on,let's not ask too much.
But, jim, I know you were alsostarting to talk about the
alternative in renewables energy, so I think this is a you know.
Help us understand and walkthrough the timeline of setting
goals in alternative energy andrenewable energy development.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
clarified some confusion as towhether the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management had authorityto lease for alternative energy.
Some would argue that indeed italready had, but Congress made
it very clear that we definitelydo have that authority, or that
(20:51):
BOEM definitely has thatauthority, and that in itself is
kind of a direction.
It's obviously not a goal, butit kind of points towards where
we want to be going in thefuture, and the states also, of
course, were involved inrenewable portfolio standards,
(21:14):
where they were identifying aset percentage of new energy
development that needed to berenewable, and so that again
wasn't a specific goal.
It kind of was.
It kind of was a specific goal,but it did not mandate
(21:35):
particular projects or anyparticular mechanism for going
forward.
But it did indeed providedirection and it made clear on
the part of states what theywanted to see in a very positive
way or a very supportive wayfor offshore wind, and many
(21:56):
states have pursued that and inmany ways it's driving what's
going on on the federal side onthe outer continental shelf.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
The federal government has what's defined as
a regulatory process foroffshore energy development.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's been battle tested a number of different
times.
The state's RPSs have addedspecific state goals that have
to work hand in hand with thosethings when offshore energy is
part of a state's needs and away that a state can meet those
development goals.
As the offshore wind programdeveloped with the Cape Wind
Project the first project kindof before we actually had the
authority, the clear authority,to be moving forward and that
project transferred from theArmy Corps of Engineers to the
Bureau of Ocean EnergyManagement, which was the
Minerals Management Service atthe time.
Uh, but, uh, uh, everybody Ialways talk about how the
(23:05):
program at that point uh had theopportunity to take off the uh,
the perceived black hat of oiland gas and put on the white hat
of renewable energy andeverybody's going to love us and
we're going to have nothing butsupport as we move forward.
But in fact uh, the Cape windprojects disabused us of that
notion in that there wasconsiderable opposition, and it
(23:28):
was opposition focused on thewind industry through a single
project, because that was theonly game in town at the time
and the project specificconcerns, as well as the larger
concerns, were focused on thatproject and there was no larger
context in terms of goals.
We had a kind of a generaldirection that we could go
(23:51):
forward if the private sectorwas supportive, but that was an
example, to my mind, of the lackof a larger structure in which
to review the project.
So that put us on a track thatincluded the establishment of a
(24:11):
program of a regulatory regimein 2009.
And that made it clear thatthis is not just a one-off
situation or a case-by-casebasis.
There is, there will be, aprocess for reviewing these
projects and determining whereto go forward.
Again, not a specific goal, butmovement towards that.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
So that was the Obama administration, right?
Obama came into office in 2008.
So we see kind of these thingscoming together right a
programmatic way for developmentof the ocs related to offshore
wind, uh, and we start to seemarket forces making it more and
more attractive to the privatesector, right, which really
(24:57):
started to happen, I think,under under the Trump
administration the first Trumpadministration, if I'm correct.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Jim, yeah, ironically , yeah, it did.
The real watershed event, ofcourse, was the New York Bites
sale in 2016.
And it occurred after theelection in 2016, but before the
inauguration in 2017.
And that sale, along with theNorth Carolina sale that was
(25:26):
indeed in the during the Trumpadministration, followed by a
Massachusetts sale, made itclear that this was moving and
was going to be moving prettyfast, and the administration,
for a variety of reasons, slowedit down there's no other way to
(25:47):
put it.
And that changed, of course,with the Biden administration
which, through its 30 by 30 goal, made it very clear and
provided the predictability andcertainty, insofar as it could
(26:08):
with our election processes,that they would be pursuing
aggressively.
Offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
So we see that the regulatory process, the private
sector interest and even now,you know, in the Biden
administration, a big, hairy,audacious goal around output,
coming together to really helpthe industry and help the sector
move forward on behalf ofAmerica.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
A couple of things about the 30 by 30 goal, and one
of them is that you know it waskind of an incremental change.
It was an identification ofwhat was practical or feasible
or was thought to be feasible atthe time.
So to me it was an extension ofwhat we were doing, what was
(26:57):
going on, and the pursuit ofmore of that as opposed to a
game-changing goal like asopposed to a game-changing goal
like the lunar mission was wherewe're looking at.
(27:18):
Hey, we have to give thisattention because it's going to
change from something in the 20gigawatts up to maybe 20, maybe
50 gigawatts, maybe notrealistic, but a game-changing,
watershed goal, which may havebeen what was needed, but anyway
(27:45):
.
And then you also have theother aspect of the 30 by 30
goal.
In that many view the goalsetting like 30 by 30 goal.
In that many view the goalsetting like 30 by 30 to be a
relatively meaningless effort,because government goal setting
is fine.
But, as we talked about earlier, the offshore program, both the
oil and gas program and therenewable energy program, are
built upon private sectorinvestment and activity.
(28:06):
Yes, of course the federalgovernment needs to conduct the
leases and approve constructionand operations plans, the COPs
and the states need to createofftake opportunities and create
an encouraging environment forproject review and approval.
But in the absence of privatesector commitment, the program
(28:28):
would be going nowhere and goalson the parts of the state and
federal government managerswould just be of very little
consequence.
I don't think that was the casefor 30 by 30.
I think it served a number ofpurposes and was useful, but
(28:50):
there's that other side of thecoin as far as goal setting is
concerned.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
It really suggests that for these goals to be
useful, we need clear,predictable regulatory process
around the leasing process.
We need movement towardseconomic feasibility to attract
financial interests, privatesector interest for investment,
(29:15):
and outcome goals like RPSs thatthe states have, and maybe the
30 by 30, which was a federaloutcome goal, maybe the 30 by 30
, you know, which was a federaloutcome goal.
It does provide some sense ofclarity and direction that can
help assure investment from theprivate sector.
(29:35):
But private sector norgovernment can do these things
alone.
I think that's a reallyimportant point, jim.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
I'm glad you brought it up, and I agree with the way
you phrased it.
I do think that we have anopportunity here to bring this
all back.
There's an opportunity here tohelp set the goal.
I know that everybody's lookingat this as an administration
chain that's going to be nothingbut detrimental to offshore
(30:02):
wind.
I don't necessarily think thatthat is the case.
Wind.
I don't necessarily think thatthat is the case, but, in any
case, I think there's anopportunity for the offshore
wind industry, the offshore windcommunity, to help identify
what the proper goals should be.
But we do have to ask what arethe things that we want to focus
on here?
What are the things that thisgoal setting should be mindful
(30:27):
of or be in pursuit of?
You got decarbonization outthere, and there's questions as
to whether we can or should bemaking the program revolve
around decarbonization andattempting to alter the
scenarios for global climatechange, and that also includes
(30:50):
clean energy production, oceanenergy production.
These are objectives that youwould not think would be—you
wouldn't think of them as beinga problem in terms of garnering
support.
And then, of course, there'salways the all of the above,
(31:12):
which has been the goalprioritize in terms of those
many factors.
(31:33):
And that dialogue or thatdiscussion, I think would be a
very, very positive development.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Yeah, and help us set these goals that don't
necessarily switch with eachadministration moving forward.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
As opposed to just waiting for something from on
high.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think there's opportunity to greatly influence
what that is about Americanenergy dominance, export of US
energy companies, technology andpeople around the world to
improve America's geopoliticalstanding and secure access to
(32:16):
energy resources as well ascritical other resources that
the US uses and needs.
We've heard about affordable,independent and resilient energy
for Americans.
And we've heard aboutaffordable, independent and
resilient energy for Americans.
And we've heard about makingAmerican shipbuilding the envy
of the world again, and you know, as an American, I hear those
things and I'm behind those.
(32:38):
You know those sound like goodthings for us to do.
I know there are some detailsin there.
We've also heard the nextadministration strongly support
traditional oil and gasdevelopment right as kind of one
of those foundations upon whichthe American economy has been
built, and we've heard some ofTrump's campaign comments
(33:03):
against offshore wind.
But really offshore wind is oneof the ways that American can
achieve the goals of this nextadministration, using that same
language that they've beentalking about in their policy
documents.
This is not an either or thisdoesn't have to be a competition
(33:25):
between sources of energy forthe United States.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
Absolutely.
I got to keep coming back towhat my perspective is on this
and that's that pittingconventional energy against
renewable energy just is not.
It's not constructive and it'snot beneficial for our domestic
energy situation.
(33:49):
I think that they are notincompatible, that the demand
for energy is going to outstripboth the existing production of
conventional fuels as well asthe expanding production of
renewable energy, and there'sroom for both of them.
So let's talk about the variousgoals or the various policy
(34:17):
directions that the industrycould be taking.
And I say the industry could betaking because I'm not just
talking about the Trumpadministration's declaration.
I'm talking about influencingthe Trump administration to be
moving in the direction that ismost beneficial for offshore
(34:38):
energy.
And you can approach it from thestandpoint of laissez-faire
approach, where there are nospecific goals.
There's no need to set goals.
We should just depend on themarket to be moving forward in
all directions as possible.
We could approach it from thestandpoint and I invite the
viewers to be thinking aboutthis and generating their
(35:00):
thoughts as to what our goalsetting should incorporate what
our goal setting shouldincorporate.
On the other hand, thegovernment could set a
prescribed mix, like therenewable portfolio standards.
The government we do not have afederal prescribed mix that we
(35:26):
ought to be pursuing.
We have some state goals, butshould the government state and
federal be prescribing what themix should?
Speaker 2 (35:35):
be, yeah, and something as complicated as the
energy system, where governmentsand the private sector and the
public, as you're well remindingus play such an important role
on what we can try to achievetogether.
I think it's really importanttoo that we keep that in mind.
You know, with the privatesector's important involvement
(36:00):
in the energy systems of theworld, frankly, we do have to
make sure that the directionthat we wish to go is feasible
economically.
Yes, right, you wouldn't expecta private sector company to
forego profits for quarter uponquarter, year upon year, and
something that we know like theenergy transition is likely to
(36:23):
take decades to occur.
That's not feasible, right?
So what's the role ofgovernment in establishing that
kind of clarity of process thateither makes those steps towards
the energy transition feasibleeconomically or helps reduce the
risk of those?
That's a key role thatgovernment can play in aligning
(36:45):
us around that mission to themoon for energy policy in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Right, I agree.
And are we in a position wherewe simply want to maximize
energy resources and setseparate goals for the two
programs?
Or and this is where I wouldargue that we would be best off
do we want to integrate planningfor conventional and renewable
(37:13):
energy in a way that makes itclear the direction we're going,
that the government wants to go, and how the future should?
Indeed?
look, the government cancontinue those long duration
signals to head in a directionso that we can build the private
sector towards those Ratherthan a five-year plan for oil
(37:37):
and gas and kind of a lessformal statement of program
intentions and goals on therenewable side.
We should be looking moreholistically at energy
generation.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
Yep.
And if you look at you knowwhat I mentioned before if you
look at the key phrasing fromthe next administration here in
the United States, all of thosethings are completely consistent
with that integrated plan todevelop ocean energy resources.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
I think viewers should be thinking along the
lines of how they can contributeand what their thoughts are as
to what contributions they wantto make from an argument
standpoint, from a policystandpoint, to the new goal
setting for offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Yeah, this is the time for really all of the
offshore energy industries notjust offshore wind, not just
offshore oil and gas to help thenext administration recognize
how we can achieve these futuresthat combine both of them in
success for the United States.
Jim, what are your keytakeaways from our discussion?
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Well, we really just touched on them and my key
takeaway is that everybodyshould be involved and everybody
should be thinking throughthese issues so that they can
contribute to the conversationin a way that will identify what
the substance of new goalsetting should be and who should
be doing the new goal setting.
How does it come about?
(39:08):
And that's really my keytakeaway.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
I know we're all watching the news, particularly
for Offshore Wind.
There are a number of projectsnow that have talked about
pausing their activities whileawaiting the new
administration's formalpositions or maybe executive
orders around it.
These are issues that are soimportant for Americans and
America that we can get a lotcloser politically Any last
(39:33):
drops in the ocean that youwanted to mention to our
listeners.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
this week A real dearth of good offshore wind
jokes.
They're terrible, they're.
All the ones on the web are bigfan.
(39:58):
There's got to be.
There's humor in just about anyother industry and I just think
you know at some point, if wecollect enough or make a call
for them, it's not going toadvance the offshore wind
industry, but it is going tomake.
Could make the podcast a littlemore interesting.
(40:20):
Sounds great.
We're about to tell you whatthe topic will be for the next
session, which will be, I think,more controversial than we
think.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
And let's discuss regulatory streamlining.
It's a phrase that's easy tosay.
It's so easy to say, in fact.
I think I've heard all sidescall for it, all the time.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
What is the benefit that we can expect from
regulatory streamlining at thispoint in time?
And without giving away what myopinion is, I think there's a
lot of different aspects to that, and that's what we're going to
talk about for the next podcast.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
It's going to be exciting, jim and listeners
behind the scenes.
We're seeing steadilyincreasing listenership, so
thank you.
We love the comments, emailsand calls we're receiving from
you, so please keep them comingand spread the word about our
Offshore Energy podcast.
Jim, it's great to see you, asalways.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
You too.
I don't know if we're going tobe uh, uh on on the air, so to
speak, before christmas, but, uh, if not, have a great christmas
and uh, uh, we'll look forwardto, uh, to the new year and
participation from folks onthese various topics with regard
to ocean energy and we'll seeyou on the next Offshore Energy
(41:46):
Podcast.
We've had some success with the growth of
offshore wind here in the USover the past few years.
Many would maintain that one ofthe contributing factors was
the establishment of clear goals, most notably 30 gigawatts by
2030.
Whether that is indeed the caseand whether that success will
continue is in doubt.
Do we need to reset our goals,and who will do that?
(00:25):
What is your role in settinggoals for the offshore wind
industry?
Let's take a look at that.
The Offshore Energy Podcast.
Next.
I'm Jim Bennett and I have over40 years of experience
developing energy in the ocean.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I'm Ian Valpero and I've spent the last 20 years
developing offshore energyprojects around the world, and
this is the Offshore EnergyPodcast.
Hey, jim, yes, good day.
How are you Nice to?
Speaker 1 (00:59):
see you.
Hey, very good, thank you, hopeyou're doing well.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Doing great.
Hope you had a goodThanksgiving.
This is the week afterThanksgiving.
I ate plenty of turkey and gotto see my boys.
One was home from college.
How about you?
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Same thing, same thing.
I had my grandkids over andthat was a handful and a lot of
fun.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Awesome, jim.
Today, episode four, we'retalking about these big, hairy,
audacious goals that politiciansseem to put out there, and
whether or not they're usefuland what we all can do to
contribute to them.
Give me a little bit of yourbackground and why you love this
topic so much much.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Well, we've seen many goals in a variety of settings,
most notably, of course, in thewind industry over the last
decade or so actually more thanthat and they do serve a role.
It's a little bit difficult tounderstand exactly how effective
that role is, because there'sthe additional element of the
private sector having controlover what moves forward.
(02:12):
It's not simply setting a goallike a personal goal or a
corporate goal, where there'smore control over the outcome.
And we'll talk about that alittle bit more, with some
examples coming up.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Jim, you may know this about me I'm one of those
kinds of people who likessetting goals and objectives,
both personally alsoprofessionally, and I think
thinking strategically about howyou can go and do ambitious
things is useful.
So I really would love for ourcountry to have a big energy
goal, so let's get into it, yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And in the absence of a clear energy policy, which
has pretty much been the casefor several decades now, it's
difficult to go there, and Ithink you're raising a really
good point also about having agoal in place has value in and
of itself.
Being able to attain it issomething that can be really,
(03:12):
really productive and good, butit may not necessarily be in the
cart.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Particularly, I'm thinking for politicians.
Your feet can be held againstit too, if you don't reach it
right.
Speaker 1 (03:22):
So, Jimim, let's get precise here for our listeners I
think our goal setting, thatwe're focusing on here uh is
public policy goal setting, uhand uh unlocking american
offshore energy, uh, both in theconventional sense and in the
renewable sense, the energyindustry, oil and gas and
certainly offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
They don't want administrative flips every four
years, particularly whenprojects take much longer than
that to develop.
So when you have even the CEOof Exxon talking to presidential
administrations about keepingthe path, you know that there's
a good opportunity for us to bemore consistent with the
applications of public policiesacross administrations.
(04:05):
Sounds really great, right, butI know I'm kind of living in
fantasy land too sometimes.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
You've got a couple of things to consider here, and
that's that.
What is the purpose of the goal?
What is intended to be achieved?
Is it to reset and completelywipe away the landscape and
start over again, or set a newgoal, which we'll talk about in
a minute, or is it to justexpand our grasp and make our
(04:36):
goal a little bit further, alittle bit more than what we're
expecting under the status quo?
And that's an importantdistinction between good goal
setting in the properenvironment versus goal setting
that might not serve the purpose.
Goals need to have clarity.
(04:58):
They need to be able to becommunicated clearly.
Hopefully and I think this isone of the purposes of both the
goal established by 2030 is togalvanize public opinion and
make people recognize thatthere's something out there that
(05:19):
we're in pursuit of and thatresults in the prioritization of
resources.
I think another thing as far asgoal setting successful goal
setting is whether or not wehave control over attaining that
goal or whether, like wesuggested before, there's
multiple parties that wouldprevent us from attaining that
(05:42):
goal.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Yeah, I know many people are you know, certainly
in their personal and kind ofprofessional careers are
familiar with this acronymaround SMART goals.
Right, smart goals are specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant and time-bound goals,and I know that when I worked
for a big energy company, youknow that was part of my
personal performance plan eachyear were to develop smart goals
(06:06):
and the metrics we'd use tomeasure against them and whether
or not we were successful.
And I think some of the thingsyou just said are really
important Are they achievable,are they realistic, are they
time bound?
We're definitely seeing thedisconnect between these
national energy ambitions andwhether or not they can be
(06:27):
completed in the times of theadministrations that make them.
So it's a real challenge, right, and it's one that the energy
industry is already reacting to.
We'd love to see more consistentapplication of big goals
towards energy development inthe country.
But goals are really usefulgenerally, right.
They help you break down BHAGs,right.
(06:48):
Big, hairy, audacious goals isone of the phrases that was used
about 20 years ago, but itallows you to break it down into
smaller pieces that can helpyou set smaller milestones, that
kind of make sure you'restaying on track to deliver
towards that bigger picture.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, I think that's an important point about the
time specificity.
When goals get out there andthey're very soft edged and
there's no clarity as far aswhen we're expecting that or
when we're going for that, theyjust kind of dissolve into the
ether.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
We need to be really explicit with how to get to some
certain goals, and when we'retalking about energy policy in
the United States, it's not asmuch as a comment by a
politician.
That's not going to get us allthe way there.
That's not going to get us tothe situation that we all want.
But there are some greathistoric examples where as a
(07:46):
nation we've set ambitious goalsand achieved them.
Start us out what jumps to yourmind.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Well, I think you're right off.
The thing that comes to mind isthe Second World War and how
the entire country galvanizedbehind a particular goal and
obviously achieved it, not onlythrough the arsenal of democracy
but the actual execution of thewar itself.
It was pretty clear what thegoal was.
It was pretty clear it neededto be as soon as possible, but I
(08:16):
think the quintessential goal,successful goal, is the space
race and the lunar mission inthe 60s, which was established
by, as we all know, and therewas a lot of support and a lot
of research went into it beforePresident Kennedy announced that
(08:39):
we should be trying to put aman on the moon by the end of
the decade, which was a prettyambitious goal and but it also
had some very good features toit.
One was that it was very, veryclear I mean anything short of
putting a human foot on thelunar surface was not going to
(09:02):
achieve that goal.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
The goal was very clear.
It was very specific andmeasurable.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
by the way, using that acronym, yes very specific,
measurable, and it also had avery specific timeframe.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
If it was.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
January 1st 1970, it would not have been successful.
Maybe the overall effort wouldhave been successful and the
goal would have contributed toit, but the goal was very, very
specific by the end of thedecade, and it's a great example
of a goal that was achieved andit was also had.
(09:38):
The span of control to worktowards that end was also very
well defined.
It was with the Americangovernment and it had the
support by and large of theAmerican people, so it had
multiple features that were allvery, very positive and in fact
the Department of Energy usedthis as their analogy, their
(10:02):
shot for developing offshorewind.
I think the difference there isthat there were different
variables in that arena.
Probably a good thing, but notas clear in time frame, not as
clear in exactly what the endachievement would be.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
And I think about all of the great successes of the
DOE SHOP program.
It is still trying to defineimprovements in technology that
help a sector, but still thatsector relies upon private
companies, which are usuallypublicly held companies, to
continue to produce a profitquarter after quarter after
(10:49):
quarter, and it requires a wholebunch of additional
stakeholders and responsibleparties.
In the span of control program,it's or the, I should say, the
(11:09):
apollo program was a much, uhmuch better defined governance
structure and responsibilitiesthat didn't rely so much on the
private sector.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
There were outside factors, of course, but of
course, uh, they were much moreunder the control of the
government agency, nasa.
That succeeded in achievingthat objective.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
And it sure had, you know, with some ups and downs,
great support from the Americanpublic for lots of different
reasons.
Right, there were lots ofdifferent motivations for us to
put a man on the moon, not theleast of which was distinct
competition with Russia, right.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Yes, yeah, very true, and there were a lot of spinoff
benefits, even separate fromthe goal itself.
The obvious one which I'vesince been disabused of is Tang,
the breakfast drink.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
It's a great great benefit.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We all remember Tang and actually that was developed
by General Foods before theyjust adopted it with the program
.
But also some really importantdevelopments, like Teflon was
developed through the program.
Guidance systems, computersystems, development in general
(12:24):
all of these things were sidebenefits of the program in its
effort to achieve the statedgoal.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Well, jim, you're really shooting for the stars.
When you thought of the trackrecord for great examples, I was
thinking a little more down toearth.
Maybe my vision is yours, but Iwas thinking of the interstate
highway system and for those whoknow me and my play in offshore
wind, I often talk about theinterstate highway system as an
(12:54):
analogy that we ought to thinkabout for transmission,
particularly HVDC transmissionacross the United States.
But I thought this is also oneof these incredible examples
that had all the right, I'd say,motivations to build this
interstate highway system forthe benefit of America and
Americans.
(13:14):
But it wasn't easy either andif you look at the interstate
highway system, it was firstplanned in the late 30s.
World War II intervened andtook attention away from its
development after that and therewas no mechanism initially in
place that provided funding forit.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
It was also.
It served multiple purposes,Aside from what we think of it
today as a place to get in atraffic jam.
Aside from that, the transportof both the citizenry from one
city area to another city areais one thing, but it was also
(13:56):
set up for civil defensepurposes as well, and that was a
benefit of the program.
That was very clearly stated asto what the end state needed to
be.
I always think about.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
So who's going to pay for it?
Right, so the Federal HighwayAct in 56 established the
mechanism that would pay forthis interstate highway system.
Federal gas tax providedultimately 90% of the cost of
building this.
Federal gas tax.
States were responsible for 10%of this, but that was codified
in legislation and moved forward.
(14:29):
Another key part of this wasthat technical standards were
highly regulated across thesystem.
Right, and so you, for example.
I used to always wonder this toowhen I was riding around in a
car as a little kid how comebridges are at least 14 feet
high?
You know, you have 14 feet ofclearance off the highway, and I
(14:49):
used to notice that because Idrove a lot of highways with my
family growing up.
That's because that was arequirement All bridges had to
have at least 14 feet ofclearance.
Guess what that allowed?
Right?
Not only did it allow themovement of military equipment,
which was one of the reasons forcreating it, but it allowed us
to also standardize the shippingand transportation, the
(15:11):
trucking companies and thetrailers that they could pull
around the system.
And I think.
One last point about thehighway system too, and this is
one of these retrospectives thatwe've got to keep in mind now
it way exceeded the initial costand schedule estimates.
Right Back in the 50s, whenthey were planning or when they
started to implement theplanning of the system, they
(15:32):
predicted it cost something like$25 billion and would take 12
years to complete.
Guess what?
It cost over $130 billion andit took over 35 years to
complete.
It's become a tremendouslyvaluable asset for the country
and in fact has created muchmore return on investment than
(15:54):
anyone could have imagined inthe past.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
It's absolutely changed American life in a way
that was definitely foreseen tosome degree, but not foreseen
with regard to other aspects.
Let's bring this back to oceanenergy, which is what we're here
to talk about, and we have somehistorical background on
(16:18):
setting of goals for the OCS,and we can start with oil and
gas and that, if we start backin the 70s, early 80s, under the
Outer Continental Shelf LandsAct called for a five-year plan,
a plan.
It was a plan, not a goal.
It was a call for thegovernment to establish a plan
(16:42):
on the size, timing and locationof offshore wind leases.
It was not a goal with respectto X million towards making
clear what our direction was andwhatever goal it is and in this
(17:03):
case it was basically themarket would determine the exact
level but it was a clearstatement of moving forward and
developing the energy resourceson the outer continental shelf
through the 70s and the 80s andsince.
Speaker 2 (17:23):
Yeah, still in effect .
And the five-year plan for OCSoil and gas development, I think
, provides the private sectorwith this kind of predictable
opportunity for access Right foraccess right.
As you said, it doesn't controlthe price of oil, nor does it
control you know how manyprojects are going to be
(17:43):
successful versus how many fail.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
So it provided that opportunity to develop at a
reasonable pace, recognizingmarket constraints at any given
time.
It also, I think the plan, orthe requirement for a plan,
created an opportunity, somewould say, for appropriate
involvement on the part of thepublic and various stakeholders,
and others would say simplycreated a target for litigation
(18:17):
in order to stop things frommoving forward.
Target for litigation in orderto stop things from moving
forward.
So, and the example, of course,is the requirement to conduct
NEPA analysis, nationalEnvironmental Policy Act
analysis, environmental analysisfor every federal action, and I
don't know the history ofexactly what the determination
was back in the 70s, but theredefinitely was a decision to
(18:40):
conduct NEPA analysis andexecute the environmental impact
statement process for thefive-year plan.
I know that from a number ofdifferent places, not the least
of which is many years beinginvolved in contributing to that
(19:03):
environmental effort.
So on the one hand, you gotkind of the double-edged swords
On the one hand it providescertainty, it provides direction
, and on the other hand, itcreates a mechanism that could
actually slow down the process.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
When you're talking about the challenge of
litigation.
Of course, as a private sectorentity, you would hope that all
of those challenges are workedthrough before the private
sector leases the area and thentakes the answer, because you
would certainly hope that anylitigation around the process
occurs earlier than you have tostart spending money on a
(19:40):
project.
So that makes some sense to me,but I but I do recognize that
that's also.
It creates a flash point forpotential.
You know disruption andlitigation activity yeah, I, I,
I.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
I have to agree with you that, yes, on on one hand,
you can look at at all thatlitigation and the creation of a
plan, et cetera, as fodder forlawsuits et cetera, but on the
other hand, well, maybe we needto have those lawsuits, have
that litigation, solve thoseissues up front.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
And it's just a Get your house in order.
Yeah, government, come on,let's not ask too much.
But, jim, I know you were alsostarting to talk about the
alternative in renewables energy, so I think this is a you know.
Help us understand and walkthrough the timeline of setting
goals in alternative energy andrenewable energy development.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
As you know, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
clarified some confusion as towhether the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management had authorityto lease for alternative energy.
Some would argue that indeed italready had, but Congress made
it very clear that we definitelydo have that authority, or that
(20:51):
BOEM definitely has thatauthority, and that in itself is
kind of a direction.
It's obviously not a goal, butit kind of points towards where
we want to be going in thefuture, and the states also, of
course, were involved inrenewable portfolio standards,
(21:14):
where they were identifying aset percentage of new energy
development that needed to berenewable, and so that again
wasn't a specific goal.
It kind of was.
It kind of was a specific goal,but it did not mandate
(21:35):
particular projects or anyparticular mechanism for going
forward.
But it did indeed providedirection and it made clear on
the part of states what theywanted to see in a very positive
way or a very supportive wayfor offshore wind, and many
(21:56):
states have pursued that and inmany ways it's driving what's
going on on the federal side onthe outer continental shelf.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
The federal government has what's defined as
a regulatory process foroffshore energy development.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's been battle tested a number of different
times.
The state's RPSs have addedspecific state goals that have
to work hand in hand with thosethings when offshore energy is
part of a state's needs and away that a state can meet those
development goals.
As the offshore wind programdeveloped with the Cape Wind
Project the first project kindof before we actually had the
authority, the clear authority,to be moving forward and that
project transferred from theArmy Corps of Engineers to the
Bureau of Ocean EnergyManagement, which was the
Minerals Management Service atthe time.
Uh, but, uh, uh, everybody Ialways talk about how the
(23:05):
program at that point uh had theopportunity to take off the uh,
the perceived black hat of oiland gas and put on the white hat
of renewable energy andeverybody's going to love us and
we're going to have nothing butsupport as we move forward.
But in fact uh, the Cape windprojects disabused us of that
notion in that there wasconsiderable opposition, and it
(23:28):
was opposition focused on thewind industry through a single
project, because that was theonly game in town at the time
and the project specificconcerns, as well as the larger
concerns, were focused on thatproject and there was no larger
context in terms of goals.
We had a kind of a generaldirection that we could go
(23:51):
forward if the private sectorwas supportive, but that was an
example, to my mind, of the lackof a larger structure in which
to review the project.
So that put us on a track thatincluded the establishment of a
(24:11):
program of a regulatory regimein 2009.
And that made it clear thatthis is not just a one-off
situation or a case-by-casebasis.
There is, there will be, aprocess for reviewing these
projects and determining whereto go forward.
Again, not a specific goal, butmovement towards that.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
So that was the Obama administration, right?
Obama came into office in 2008.
So we see kind of these thingscoming together right a
programmatic way for developmentof the ocs related to offshore
wind, uh, and we start to seemarket forces making it more and
more attractive to the privatesector, right, which really
(24:57):
started to happen, I think,under under the Trump
administration the first Trumpadministration, if I'm correct.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Jim, yeah, ironically , yeah, it did.
The real watershed event, ofcourse, was the New York Bites
sale in 2016.
And it occurred after theelection in 2016, but before the
inauguration in 2017.
And that sale, along with theNorth Carolina sale that was
(25:26):
indeed in the during the Trumpadministration, followed by a
Massachusetts sale, made itclear that this was moving and
was going to be moving prettyfast, and the administration,
for a variety of reasons, slowedit down there's no other way to
(25:47):
put it.
And that changed, of course,with the Biden administration
which, through its 30 by 30 goal, made it very clear and
provided the predictability andcertainty, insofar as it could
(26:08):
with our election processes,that they would be pursuing
aggressively.
Offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
So we see that the regulatory process, the private
sector interest and even now,you know, in the Biden
administration, a big, hairy,audacious goal around output,
coming together to really helpthe industry and help the sector
move forward on behalf ofAmerica.
Speaker 1 (26:36):
A couple of things about the 30 by 30 goal, and one
of them is that you know it waskind of an incremental change.
It was an identification ofwhat was practical or feasible
or was thought to be feasible atthe time.
So to me it was an extension ofwhat we were doing, what was
(26:57):
going on, and the pursuit ofmore of that as opposed to a
game-changing goal like asopposed to a game-changing goal
like the lunar mission was wherewe're looking at.
(27:18):
Hey, we have to give thisattention because it's going to
change from something in the 20gigawatts up to maybe 20, maybe
50 gigawatts, maybe notrealistic, but a game-changing,
watershed goal, which may havebeen what was needed, but anyway
(27:45):
.
And then you also have theother aspect of the 30 by 30
goal.
In that many view the goalsetting like 30 by 30 goal.
In that many view the goalsetting like 30 by 30 to be a
relatively meaningless effort,because government goal setting
is fine.
But, as we talked about earlier, the offshore program, both the
oil and gas program and therenewable energy program, are
built upon private sectorinvestment and activity.
(28:06):
Yes, of course the federalgovernment needs to conduct the
leases and approve constructionand operations plans, the COPs
and the states need to createofftake opportunities and create
an encouraging environment forproject review and approval.
But in the absence of privatesector commitment, the program
(28:28):
would be going nowhere and goalson the parts of the state and
federal government managerswould just be of very little
consequence.
I don't think that was the casefor 30 by 30.
I think it served a number ofpurposes and was useful, but
(28:50):
there's that other side of thecoin as far as goal setting is
concerned.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
It really suggests that for these goals to be
useful, we need clear,predictable regulatory process
around the leasing process.
We need movement towardseconomic feasibility to attract
financial interests, privatesector interest for investment,
(29:15):
and outcome goals like RPSs thatthe states have, and maybe the
30 by 30, which was a federaloutcome goal, maybe the 30 by 30
, you know, which was a federaloutcome goal.
It does provide some sense ofclarity and direction that can
help assure investment from theprivate sector.
(29:35):
But private sector norgovernment can do these things
alone.
I think that's a reallyimportant point, jim.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
I'm glad you brought it up, and I agree with the way
you phrased it.
I do think that we have anopportunity here to bring this
all back.
There's an opportunity here tohelp set the goal.
I know that everybody's lookingat this as an administration
chain that's going to be nothingbut detrimental to offshore
(30:02):
wind.
I don't necessarily think thatthat is the case.
Wind.
I don't necessarily think thatthat is the case, but, in any
case, I think there's anopportunity for the offshore
wind industry, the offshore windcommunity, to help identify
what the proper goals should be.
But we do have to ask what arethe things that we want to focus
on here?
What are the things that thisgoal setting should be mindful
(30:27):
of or be in pursuit of?
You got decarbonization outthere, and there's questions as
to whether we can or should bemaking the program revolve
around decarbonization andattempting to alter the
scenarios for global climatechange, and that also includes
(30:50):
clean energy production, oceanenergy production.
These are objectives that youwould not think would be—you
wouldn't think of them as beinga problem in terms of garnering
support.
And then, of course, there'salways the all of the above,
(31:12):
which has been the goalprioritize in terms of those
many factors.
(31:33):
And that dialogue or thatdiscussion, I think would be a
very, very positive development.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Yeah, and help us set these goals that don't
necessarily switch with eachadministration moving forward.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
As opposed to just waiting for something from on
high.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
I think there's opportunity to greatly influence
what that is about Americanenergy dominance, export of US
energy companies, technology andpeople around the world to
improve America's geopoliticalstanding and secure access to
(32:16):
energy resources as well ascritical other resources that
the US uses and needs.
We've heard about affordable,independent and resilient energy
for Americans.
And we've heard aboutaffordable, independent and
resilient energy for Americans.
And we've heard about makingAmerican shipbuilding the envy
of the world again, and you know, as an American, I hear those
things and I'm behind those.
(32:38):
You know those sound like goodthings for us to do.
I know there are some detailsin there.
We've also heard the nextadministration strongly support
traditional oil and gasdevelopment right as kind of one
of those foundations upon whichthe American economy has been
built, and we've heard some ofTrump's campaign comments
(33:03):
against offshore wind.
But really offshore wind is oneof the ways that American can
achieve the goals of this nextadministration, using that same
language that they've beentalking about in their policy
documents.
This is not an either or thisdoesn't have to be a competition
(33:25):
between sources of energy forthe United States.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
Absolutely.
I got to keep coming back towhat my perspective is on this
and that's that pittingconventional energy against
renewable energy just is not.
It's not constructive and it'snot beneficial for our domestic
energy situation.
(33:49):
I think that they are notincompatible, that the demand
for energy is going to outstripboth the existing production of
conventional fuels as well asthe expanding production of
renewable energy, and there'sroom for both of them.
So let's talk about the variousgoals or the various policy
(34:17):
directions that the industrycould be taking.
And I say the industry could betaking because I'm not just
talking about the Trumpadministration's declaration.
I'm talking about influencingthe Trump administration to be
moving in the direction that ismost beneficial for offshore
(34:38):
energy.
And you can approach it from thestandpoint of laissez-faire
approach, where there are nospecific goals.
There's no need to set goals.
We should just depend on themarket to be moving forward in
all directions as possible.
We could approach it from thestandpoint and I invite the
viewers to be thinking aboutthis and generating their
(35:00):
thoughts as to what our goalsetting should incorporate what
our goal setting shouldincorporate.
On the other hand, thegovernment could set a
prescribed mix, like therenewable portfolio standards.
The government we do not have afederal prescribed mix that we
(35:26):
ought to be pursuing.
We have some state goals, butshould the government state and
federal be prescribing what themix should?
Speaker 2 (35:35):
be, yeah, and something as complicated as the
energy system, where governmentsand the private sector and the
public, as you're well remindingus play such an important role
on what we can try to achievetogether.
I think it's really importanttoo that we keep that in mind.
You know, with the privatesector's important involvement
(36:00):
in the energy systems of theworld, frankly, we do have to
make sure that the directionthat we wish to go is feasible
economically.
Yes, right, you wouldn't expecta private sector company to
forego profits for quarter uponquarter, year upon year, and
something that we know like theenergy transition is likely to
(36:23):
take decades to occur.
That's not feasible, right?
So what's the role ofgovernment in establishing that
kind of clarity of process thateither makes those steps towards
the energy transition feasibleeconomically or helps reduce the
risk of those?
That's a key role thatgovernment can play in aligning
(36:45):
us around that mission to themoon for energy policy in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Right, I agree.
And are we in a position wherewe simply want to maximize
energy resources and setseparate goals for the two
programs?
Or and this is where I wouldargue that we would be best off
do we want to integrate planningfor conventional and renewable
(37:13):
energy in a way that makes itclear the direction we're going,
that the government wants to go, and how the future should?
Indeed?
look, the government cancontinue those long duration
signals to head in a directionso that we can build the private
sector towards those Ratherthan a five-year plan for oil
(37:37):
and gas and kind of a lessformal statement of program
intentions and goals on therenewable side.
We should be looking moreholistically at energy
generation.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
Yep.
And if you look at you knowwhat I mentioned before if you
look at the key phrasing fromthe next administration here in
the United States, all of thosethings are completely consistent
with that integrated plan todevelop ocean energy resources.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
I think viewers should be thinking along the
lines of how they can contributeand what their thoughts are as
to what contributions they wantto make from an argument
standpoint, from a policystandpoint, to the new goal
setting for offshore wind.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
Yeah, this is the time for really all of the
offshore energy industries notjust offshore wind, not just
offshore oil and gas to help thenext administration recognize
how we can achieve these futuresthat combine both of them in
success for the United States.
Jim, what are your keytakeaways from our discussion?
Speaker 1 (38:46):
Well, we really just touched on them and my key
takeaway is that everybodyshould be involved and everybody
should be thinking throughthese issues so that they can
contribute to the conversationin a way that will identify what
the substance of new goalsetting should be and who should
be doing the new goal setting.
How does it come about?
(39:08):
And that's really my keytakeaway.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
I know we're all watching the news, particularly
for Offshore Wind.
There are a number of projectsnow that have talked about
pausing their activities whileawaiting the new
administration's formalpositions or maybe executive
orders around it.
These are issues that are soimportant for Americans and
America that we can get a lotcloser politically Any last
(39:33):
drops in the ocean that youwanted to mention to our
listeners.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
this week A real dearth of good offshore wind
jokes.
They're terrible, they're.
All the ones on the web are bigfan.
(39:58):
There's got to be.
There's humor in just about anyother industry and I just think
you know at some point, if wecollect enough or make a call
for them, it's not going toadvance the offshore wind
industry, but it is going tomake.
Could make the podcast a littlemore interesting.
(40:20):
Sounds great.
We're about to tell you whatthe topic will be for the next
session, which will be, I think,more controversial than we
think.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
And let's discuss regulatory streamlining.
It's a phrase that's easy tosay.
It's so easy to say, in fact.
I think I've heard all sidescall for it, all the time.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
What is the benefit that we can expect from
regulatory streamlining at thispoint in time?
And without giving away what myopinion is, I think there's a
lot of different aspects to that, and that's what we're going to
talk about for the next podcast.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
It's going to be exciting, jim and listeners
behind the scenes.
We're seeing steadilyincreasing listenership, so
thank you.
We love the comments, emailsand calls we're receiving from
you, so please keep them comingand spread the word about our
Offshore Energy podcast.
Jim, it's great to see you, asalways.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
You too.
I don't know if we're going tobe uh, uh on on the air, so to
speak, before christmas, but, uh, if not, have a great christmas
and uh, uh, we'll look forwardto, uh, to the new year and
participation from folks onthese various topics with regard
to ocean energy and we'll seeyou on the next Offshore Energy
(41:46):
Podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!