The group of 23 oil-producing countries known as OPEC+ announced a cut in production at its recent meeting in Vienna. The move sparked a sharp backlash from leaders in Washington amid concerns about high energy prices and their impact on the global economy.
OPEC+ countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, defended the decision by pointing to the weak economic outlook depressing oil demand. Others concluded geopolitics may have been at play given the relationship between OPEC+ countries and Russia.
In Washington, calls for retaliation were immediate. Proposals included a cessation of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, legislation to strip OPEC+ of its immunity from antitrust lawsuits, or new releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Was the market in need of a production cut? And how much did geopolitics play a role in OPEC+’s decision?
This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Amrita Sen.
Amrita is the co-founder and chief oil analyst at Energy Aspects. She leads their analysis and forecasting of crude and products markets. Amrita was formerly the chief oil analyst at Barclays Capital. She holds a masters in economics from the University of Cambridge and a PhD in economics from SOAS University of London.
Amrita’s deep understanding of the complexity of the global energy sector, along with a wealth of industry contacts and experience, gives her a unique perspective on market outlook. Earlier this month, she warned clients that U.S. shale output could peak in 2024.
Together, Jason and Amrita discuss the rationale behind the OPEC+ cuts and the influence of geopolitics. They also talk about the U.S. response and production outlook for the next few years.
In the months since Russia invaded Ukraine, world leaders have struggled to implement a global response that punishes Russia for its aggression, while simultaneously minimizing the war’s impact on energy prices. In the United States, the Department of the Treasury has been at the center of this effort. Officials there have been negotiating with international partners over a proposal to implement a price cap on Russian oil. Their goal? To reduce Russia’s energy revenue while keeping vitally needed oil on the market.
A price cap would allow those transporting Russian oil to use western services if buyers pay below a set price. But some experts are skeptical. Can the United States really punish Russian aggression while protecting the economies of consumer countries? What are the chances of Russian retaliation? And how would a global price cap affect energy prices for American consumers in the months ahead?
This week, we’re airing a conversation between host Jason Bordoff and Wally Adeyemo at the recent Columbia Global Energy Summit.
As deputy secretary of the Treasury, Wally has been at the center of the Biden Administration’s Covid recovery effort, its response to Russian aggression, and its stewardship of the American economy.
Prior to taking over as deputy secretary, Wally served as deputy national security adviser for International Economics and deputy director of the National Economic Council for the Obama Administration. He was also the first chief of staff of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Jason and Wally discuss the price cap proposal, the outlook for energy markets, and how the Department of the Treasury is using its economic policy levers to address the climate crisis.
We need more energy infrastructure.
But energy permitting regulations — primarily established through the National Environmental Policy Act — are not matching the pace of the transition needed if we’re to meet our net-zero goals.
Sen. Joe Manchin has been trying to pass permitting reform for more than 20 months, and his most recent proposal catapulted the issue into the national spotlight. Manchin’s bill aims to reform environmental review and permitting processes. Most notably, it would reduce the time it takes to get an energy project approved.
The bill faces opposition from both the right and the left. Some Democrats have criticized the bill as a sop to big oil. And some conservatives argue that it lacks clear and meaningful implementation requirements.
Since Manchin couldn’t muster enough support for the proposal, it was ultimately pulled.
Without permitting reform, the U.S. will struggle to build new energy projects, putting climate targets and energy security at risk. What will it take to pass bi-partisian legislation? And how can regulatory review balance environmental protection and infrastructure development?
This week host Bill Loveless interviews Katie McGinty and Jim Connaughton.
Katie is the vice president and chief sustainability and external relations officer for Johnson Controls. She was the first woman to serve as chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and as deputy assistant to President Clinton.
Jim Connaughton is the chairperson of Nautilus Data Technologies. He served as the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality for the George W. Bush administration as well as the director of the White House Office of Environmental Policy. He is a member of the advisory committee for Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Last year, Katie and Jim co-authored a report for the Aspen Institute titled “Building Cleaner, Faster.” It concluded that environmental review and permitting reform were necessary to decarbonize the economy.
Bill talked with Katie and Jim about permitting reform, Sen. Manchin’s proposed bill, and why new legislation is so important for building new energy infrastructure.
Europe is in the throes of a severe energy crisis, with oil, gas, electricity, and coal prices skyrocketing this year. As the continent braces for winter, its leaders face difficult questions about whether or not there will be enough energy to heat homes and power the economy into 2023 and beyond.
Meanwhile Europeans are contending with the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. As they try to pressure Russia economically, they’re attempting to minimize how much they squeeze their own energy sectors.
This energy crisis is occurring against the backdrop of an unfolding climate crisis. It has taken a toll on Europe this summer, inflicting major heat waves and drought across much of the continent. European governments, which have accelerated their efforts to fight climate change through the European Green Deal, must now balance the need for reducing carbon emissions with the need to meet current fossil fuel demand.
How can Europe’s leaders find a compromise? How can they meet the current energy demands of their constituents? And what does a long-term energy security plan look like for Europe?
This week we are airing host Jason Bordoff’s recent interview with Frans Timmermans from Columbia’s World Leaders Forum. They sat down for a conversation titled, “Staying the Course in a World of Turmoil.”
Frans is the executive vice-president of the European Commission for the European Green Deal and the European commissioner for climate action. He has an extensive background in Dutch politics, serving as a member of the House of Representatives, the State Secretary of Foriegn Affairs, and, most recently, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Jason and Frans talk about how the European Union can balance decarbonization, affordability, and energy security in the upcoming months. They also discuss what this crisis means for energy planning in the long-term.