RIP “All of the Above”

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I touted “All of the above” as commonsense energy policy. It began as a pragmatic answer to a renewables-only energy policy paradigm. But more recently, I invoked “All of the above” as a response to today’s anti-renewables backlash.

Now I understand something new: “All of the above” is a reaction, not a strategy. We can do better. This is a key consideration for how you engage the Problem Solvers in The Moment. (The Problem Solvers are your potential partners in The Moment who are still laboring under The Myth of an Easy Energy Transition.)

Both of these things are true:

• “All of the above” once captured a legitimate desire for a diversified, resilient energy mix.

• Today, it has become a meaningless catchall—used more as a rhetorical shield than a real strategy.

The situation

To be clear, this is for inside-baseball energy geeks. If you look at voter surveys, “All of the above” polls well, as noted in the summary to Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira’s excellent The Science vs. the Narrative vs. the Voters: Clarifying the Public Debate Around Energy and Climate. The report states: “That’s the reality. What people want—and need—is abundant, cheap, reliable energy.” Their priorities are summarized in the following figure from the report.

“All of the above” says to voters, “We aren’t going to do crazy stuff that turns your lights off or makes your heat unaffordable.” So there is likely a place for “All of the above” sloganeering in campaigns and politics. But for those of us charged with building and maintaining functioning energy systems, as well as those of us dedicating our lives and livelihoods to affordable, abundant, ever-cleaner energy, it’s probably time for “All of the above” to go.

I have no one but myself to blame.

For me, like many in our industry, the phrase had become shorthand for “Include natural gas.” For a while, we used it as a reaction to anti-fossil-fuel efforts—the water in which we swim. And it made pragmatic sense! Keep the energy toolkit as expansive as possible.

Today, it often means the opposite: “Don’t declare war on renewables.” Or, depending on your business line or niche energy interest: “Make a place for nuclear” or “Support hydrogen” or “Invest in geothermal.” If you’re in California, “All of the above” can mean “Support rooftop solar” or “Keep the refineries in the state!”

In addition to being used reactively, “All of the above” has a second weakness: It suggests that easy solutions are possible, as long as the proponent’s solution of choice is allowed. It’s a lazy shorthand for The Myth. Energy systems are complicated. Every option comes with trade-offs: emissions, surface footprint, water use, wildlife impacts, cost, availability, intermittency. “All of the above” bypasses the difficulty, complexity, and nuance—not to mention expertise.

So, in The Moment, what’s to become of “All of the above” as The Myth of an Easy Energy Transition is increasingly seen as just that—a myth?

Seize the day

Much of the opportunity inherent in The Moment is in having complex conversations about the trade-offs required to grow energy use, while keeping it affordable, reliable, and decarbonizing. Managing those trade-offs ultimately comes down to values. For example, rich blue cities can ban natural gas use if their citizens are willing to pay the price for retrofits and redundant power systems.

There are all kinds of considerations in developing functioning energy systems, from which fuels and infrastructure are available to their localized costs and environmental footprints. In the end, each legislature, public utilities commission, and city council will make values-driven decisions about its own energy, economic, and climate priorities. And those decisions are going to be very context-specific and probably highly divergent.

“All of the above” doesn’t help these values-driven trade-off decisions get made—not at all. So let’s acknowledge that.

Instead of “All of the above,” why not something new, like “Best of the above”? Determining “Best of the above” might start with examining the full suite of available solutions for a given region, sector, or community—and then, because trade-offs are unavoidable, narrowing those solutions down. Trade-offs include affordability vs. emissions, land footprint vs. reliability, wildlife impacts vs. availability.

The Problem Solvers will choose among the trade-offs specific to their situation—choosing the right balance of energy sources, infrastructure, and solutions for them. Done well, “Best of the above” can

• Encourage realistic conversations about trade-offs.

• Tailor solutions to regional and sector-specific needs.

• Anchor energy strategy in both community and company values.

• Ensure that those important partnerships with communities involve co-creating energy solutions.

How can you move toward “Best of the Above”?

• Upgrade your “All of the above” strategy to one that acknowledges complexity and trade-offs.

• Provide useful and honest comparisons of options to articulate why you believe yours are best. For example, provide a simple “trade-off table” for major options in your portfolio.

• Contextualize choices: Make clear why certain solutions work for your geography, infrastructure, and community values.

The Myth and The Moment is here

You can now order my new book! Please do, and then share this link with your colleagues. Official launch is in September.

Reach out for your facilitated leadership team discussion on how to identify the “Best of the above” opportunities in The Moment. Ready for the best of everything? Me, too! Hit that heart button below—it supports my work.

Thank you to Anne Kurtis and Jack Ridilla for challenging my “All of the above” thinking!

To the best of the above,

Tisha