Yesterday's panel discussion in Washington, DC on "The Trust Factor" in energy couldn't have been more timely. The stakes for lost trust seemed especially apparent against the backdrop of an EU probe into allegations of price fixing in the spot oil market, involving some of the industry's largest players, and coverage of the IRS and Associated Press wiretapping scandals. The session was hosted by The Energy Collective and communications firm Edelman, which presented the energy-related findings from its latest annual Trust Barometer. The theme of this year's survey was a "Crisis of Leadership."
Edelman found a small improvement in the US public's trust for the energy industry, compared to last year. Yet energy's trust level of 59%, which is slightly better than government's 53%, falls far short of the 80% trust score for the technology sector, followed by the automotive, food and beverage, and alcoholic beverage industries in the 70%'s. Energy's position isn't encouraging, considering its importance to the overall economy, but the details resist a blanket assessment. Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) enjoyed a big jump in trust from 2012 to 2013, up to 70%.
Trust levels within energy differed widely by energy source, with a 30% gap between renewables, which garnered 65%, and oil at 35%. Natural gas and utilities came in near the average for energy as a whole, reflecting closer customer connections for the latter, and the technology-driven, cost-saving growth of the former, notwithstanding concerns about hydraulic fracturing. Although renewables have been involved in some messy bankruptcies and an ongoing debate over subsidies, their reduced environmental impacts and links to cutting-edge R&D puts them closer to the technology end of the trust spectrum. Oil--arguably just as technology-focused as renewables--suffers from the fallout from events like Deepwater Horizon, and perceptions of inadequate stakeholder engagement. Yet this disparity in trust levels also creates mutually beneficial opportunities for partnership.
I thought the most surprising findings were those describing how the factors that affect trust have evolved in recent years. In the past trust could be earned by simply focusing on operational results, including financial performance and company rankings; now that's just the cost of admission. Engagement with customers and employees, along with business ethics and transparency, topped the list of today's trust factors. This might explain at least part of the gulf between oil and renewables. In my experience, oil executives live and breathe operations and shareholder returns, although broader definitions of stakeholder relations have been gaining ground in the last decade or so. Yet the insular nature of these businesses, which have lived under decades of regulatory and anti-trust scrutiny, works against their embrace of new media and other tools of open engagement with both customers and critics.
The panel discussion that followed the Edelman presentation was also quite interesting. Paula Gant of the American Gas Association memorably described the synergies between natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency as a symphony. Jason Walsh of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy addressed concerns about the reform of subsidies for renewable energy, while reminding the audience that private investment in renewables stood at $269 billion last year. Peter Nelson, communications director of Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan, highly trusted NGO, offered his thoughts on the politicization of environmental issues, which seems linked to polarization over climate change. Robert Dillon, communications director of the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, pointed out that much of the current debate is over facts, asking, "Who owns the facts?" The panel was moderated by Paul Bledsoe, a veteran of Congress, the White House and policy circles. His comment that, "It's a stakeholder world, not a shareholder world," encapsulated what might have been the key takeaway of the day for companies.
As good as the panel discussion was, when I left I was still mulling over an implication raised by Amy Hemingway of Edelman in her remarks at the start of the session. Energy policy involves the intersection of government and energy companies. It surely complicates the challenging tasks we face, with regard to resource management and environmental stewardship, that much of the public doesn't trust government or energy to solve our important problems. Both institutions suffer from serious trust gaps, while NGOs, who as one panelist observed have significantly fewer constraints on their statements and actions, enjoy more trust than either one (or both together?) Especially for the energy industry, getting things done increasingly requires more than good plans and solid returns. Its "license to lead", as another panelist described it, must be earned by engaging in activities that usually aren't second nature for experienced engineers and finance experts.
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy. Show all posts
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Energy and the Federal Budget Sequester
Barring a last-second deal to avert it, the federal government's budget will be cut on Friday by $85 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends in September. These cuts will be applied across the board to every cabinet department and agency of the federal government, though at different rates for defense and non-defense activities, and with some functions exempted by the legislation that set the sequester in place. Energy is no exception, and some of the cuts there may seem surprising, given the President's emphasis on promoting new energy sources. It's worth putting all this into perspective.
Much of the discussion I'm hearing about sequestration, including efforts to replace it with a mix of smaller, more-surgical spending cuts and new tax revenue, seems to miss the bigger picture. Sequestration was devised by the White House and agreed to by Congress as an intentionally repulsive fallback to the $1.2 trillion of detailed spending reductions that were to have been negotiated in exchange for raising the federal debt ceiling by what ended up being $2.1 trillion--already spent in the meantime. There were certainly political reasons why that deal focused on spending cuts, rather than a mix of cuts and new revenue. However, after reviewing the White House's own data on federal revenues and expenditures for the last five years, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the US government has a serious spending problem, irrespective of any revenue concerns.
Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expects combined federal revenue for fiscal year 2013 to come in at $2.9 trillion, or 13% higher than the previous all-time, pre-recession peak in 2007. Yet 2013 expenditures of $3.8 trillion would be 40% higher than the 2007 level--a trillion dollars more, in fact. Some of that increase reflects carry-overs from the 2009 stimulus bill, most of which was spent in 2010-12. Even after factoring out expenditures related to the higher unemployment resulting from our weaker economy, federal spending has grown rapidly.
What does sequestration mean for federal energy programs? Before the cuts were postponed for two months, OMB identified annual reductions totaling $2.4 billion from non-exempted programs within the Department of Energy. That included cuts of about 8% to the department's science budget, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), ARPA-E, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, innovative technology loan guarantees, and other activities. Around a billion would be cut from the DOE's nuclear weapons and defense-related work. Yet when applied to the DOE's 2013 budget request, it appears the department would still receive about a billion dollars more after sequestration than it spent in 2008.
DOE isn't the only place that energy spending would be cut. I was surprised when I was alerted by a friend in the renewable energy practice of the Akin Gump law firm that Treasury renewable energy grants in lieu of future tax credits would also be subject to sequestration. The federal low-income heating energy subsidy (LIHEAP) would be cut, too, along with the budget for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which administers offshore oil, gas and renewable energy leases. Together they amount to just over $3 billion in reductions from the roughly $44 billion appropriated for energy-related activities this year.
Across-the-board cuts should never be management's first choice for reducing expenses, because they hack away at necessary and useful functions along with the wasteful ones. However, these cuts are occurring because the administration and Congress couldn't agree on setting priorities for where to cut. After seeing the reactions to the threat of cuts from almost every interest group in America, are we in any position to blame them? When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. That's what the sequester reflects, nor is it without precedent.
Because of where I live, some of my relatives, friends and neighbors will feel the direct impact of sequestration. They have my sympathy. I'm sure it would be little consolation to them to know that I spent several stretches of my own corporate career under various across-the-board budget cuts, pay freezes, and similar programs that frustrated me, too, because I saw so much muscle cut along with the fat. Parts of the private sector have been through their own versions of sequestration numerous times, some quite recently. It's never ideal, but sometimes it's the only workable option to rein in spending.
With respect to energy the numbers above suggest that, if given some flexibility in how to allocate cuts on this scale, the government should be able to fund all the core functions of the Department of Energy in promoting energy security and helping to develop new technology, while preserving its key organizational capabilities. That might not be true of the department's recent efforts in industrial policy. It remains to be seen whether the Congress and White House can agree on providing that kind of flexibility in the execution of a sequestration policy that now looks virtually certain to go into effect this weekend.
Much of the discussion I'm hearing about sequestration, including efforts to replace it with a mix of smaller, more-surgical spending cuts and new tax revenue, seems to miss the bigger picture. Sequestration was devised by the White House and agreed to by Congress as an intentionally repulsive fallback to the $1.2 trillion of detailed spending reductions that were to have been negotiated in exchange for raising the federal debt ceiling by what ended up being $2.1 trillion--already spent in the meantime. There were certainly political reasons why that deal focused on spending cuts, rather than a mix of cuts and new revenue. However, after reviewing the White House's own data on federal revenues and expenditures for the last five years, it would be hard to avoid the conclusion that the US government has a serious spending problem, irrespective of any revenue concerns.
Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) expects combined federal revenue for fiscal year 2013 to come in at $2.9 trillion, or 13% higher than the previous all-time, pre-recession peak in 2007. Yet 2013 expenditures of $3.8 trillion would be 40% higher than the 2007 level--a trillion dollars more, in fact. Some of that increase reflects carry-overs from the 2009 stimulus bill, most of which was spent in 2010-12. Even after factoring out expenditures related to the higher unemployment resulting from our weaker economy, federal spending has grown rapidly.
What does sequestration mean for federal energy programs? Before the cuts were postponed for two months, OMB identified annual reductions totaling $2.4 billion from non-exempted programs within the Department of Energy. That included cuts of about 8% to the department's science budget, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), ARPA-E, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, innovative technology loan guarantees, and other activities. Around a billion would be cut from the DOE's nuclear weapons and defense-related work. Yet when applied to the DOE's 2013 budget request, it appears the department would still receive about a billion dollars more after sequestration than it spent in 2008.
DOE isn't the only place that energy spending would be cut. I was surprised when I was alerted by a friend in the renewable energy practice of the Akin Gump law firm that Treasury renewable energy grants in lieu of future tax credits would also be subject to sequestration. The federal low-income heating energy subsidy (LIHEAP) would be cut, too, along with the budget for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which administers offshore oil, gas and renewable energy leases. Together they amount to just over $3 billion in reductions from the roughly $44 billion appropriated for energy-related activities this year.
Across-the-board cuts should never be management's first choice for reducing expenses, because they hack away at necessary and useful functions along with the wasteful ones. However, these cuts are occurring because the administration and Congress couldn't agree on setting priorities for where to cut. After seeing the reactions to the threat of cuts from almost every interest group in America, are we in any position to blame them? When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. That's what the sequester reflects, nor is it without precedent.
Because of where I live, some of my relatives, friends and neighbors will feel the direct impact of sequestration. They have my sympathy. I'm sure it would be little consolation to them to know that I spent several stretches of my own corporate career under various across-the-board budget cuts, pay freezes, and similar programs that frustrated me, too, because I saw so much muscle cut along with the fat. Parts of the private sector have been through their own versions of sequestration numerous times, some quite recently. It's never ideal, but sometimes it's the only workable option to rein in spending.
With respect to energy the numbers above suggest that, if given some flexibility in how to allocate cuts on this scale, the government should be able to fund all the core functions of the Department of Energy in promoting energy security and helping to develop new technology, while preserving its key organizational capabilities. That might not be true of the department's recent efforts in industrial policy. It remains to be seen whether the Congress and White House can agree on providing that kind of flexibility in the execution of a sequestration policy that now looks virtually certain to go into effect this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)