From Left: Jeffrey Marqusee, Cathy Zoi, Arun Majumdar,  Alexis Madrigal (Image Credit: Andrew Revkin)

From Left: Jeffrey Marqusee, Cathy Zoi, Arun Majumdar, Alexis Madrigal (Image Credit: Andrew Revkin)

On Wednesday, several of the country’s leading energy experts gathered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC for the Energy Innovation 2010 conference. Their purpose? Reframing the national energy discussion in the aftermath of cap and trade and beginning the transition to a new federal clean energy strategy.

Hosted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and Breakthrough Institute, and co-sponsored by a large coalition of think tanks across the political spectrum, the conference drew hundreds of attendants for a day of presentations and panels. Speakers and moderators included ARPA-E Director Dr. Arun Majumdar, DOE Under Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, Nobel Laureate Burton Richter, Andrew Revkin of New York Times, Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine, and many others.

For forty years, the federal government has failed to implement a strategy for cutting U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. And for over a decade, cap and trade has defined the federal policy vision of the U.S. clean energy and environmental community, only to collapse in summer 2010.

This context framed the central question at Energy Innovation 2010: where does the United States go from here, and what kind of approach can finally forge the consensus we need to build a clean energy economy? And what key lessons can the U.S. take from the role of federal policy in driving previous technological and economic transformations?

Throughout a wide range of discussions — including scientists, business leaders, think tankers, policymakers, and administration officials — the overarching consensus was clear: the U.S. must leverage its innovative capacity to drive down the price of clean energy technologies as rapidly as possible through targeted investment across the innovation pipeline, including institutional reforms to the national innovation system.  Just as importantly, this alternative approach has the potential to garner unique and powerful bipartisan support.

This position builds on a growing national consensus, recently represented by U.S. business titans in the American Energy Innovation Council, as well as President Obama’s chief science and technology advisors.  The conference also marked the release of the Energy Innovation Tracker website, and a new Breakthrough Institute report, “Where Good Technologies Come From.”

“The promise of a clean, secure, and prosperous energy future continues to disappoint because it has been, for four decades, premised on the notion that the technologies necessary to deliver that future are close at hand. They are not,” wrote the hosts Dr. Rob Atkinson, Ted Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger.  ”It’s time to change that.  It’s time to drive energy innovation… [federal] commitment needs to be stronger, and more strategically built around particular technology pathways and policies focused on innovation.”

This perspective was echoed by nearly all the participating energy scientists and policy experts.  According to Dr. Nate Lewis, a leading energy scientist and director of Caltech’s Energy Innovation Hub, the U.S. cannot unleash an energy technology revolution with the current federal R&D budget.   William Bonvillian, director of MIT’s DC office and author of Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution, warned that without a serious energy technology strategy, the U.S. could miss the next great wave of global innovation.  Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, said the U.S. has seemingly forgotten the critical federal role in technology innovation and needs a new political movement on this front.  Indeed, as Jesse Jenkins and Dr. Daniel Sarewitz presented, U.S. technological leadership has historically depended in large part on public investment.

A similar consensus emerged that the next federal clean energy agenda must break out of the highly polarized climate change debate in order to succeed.  Nobel Laureate Burton Richter argued that advocates have excluded potential allies by focusing so exclusively on climate change as the primary reason for action.  He stressed the importance of the recent “Post-Partisan Power” report from scholars at Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, and Breakthrough Institute for its ideas and bipartisan potential. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. and Steven Hayward, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that an energy innovation strategy could be justified even without belief in climate change, given the other public benefits.

Energy Innovation 2010 essentially represented the first major national conference focused on discussing a serious federal alternative to cap and trade. As some panelists emphasized, this is the beginning of a long-term discussion and consensus-building effort that will take years to accomplish.

The near-term political challenges for any serious federal energy agenda are considerable. This reality was especially clear in the final panel, “A New Centrism: Making Clean Innovation Policy Bipartisan,” including leading Senate energy staffers and think tankers from the center, left, and right. Despite the benefits of federal energy innovation investment, the current appetite for new spending of any kind makes it highly unlikely in the upcoming Congress.

The measure of success in the near-term, then, should not be whether this type of approach can immediately advance, although advancing specific incremental pieces is an urgent cause.  After all, it took 10 to 15 years for cap and trade to get a real hearing in Congress.  Rather, the measure of near-term success should be whether this approach can continue building consensus among advocates, thought leaders, and committed policymakers, with an eye toward medium and long-term implementation.

Overall, the conference was a display of new optimism and direction for the U.S. clean energy movement.  Transforming the U.S. and global energy industry is a daunting task, and the road to establishing a new national energy consensus will be long.  In many ways this is only the beginning of a different energy and climate dialogue, and much work is left to be done.  But a new framework has finally emerged into the center of discussion after years of effort, and with enough committed thinking and leadership, the United States might just achieve the energy revolution we need.

More coverage:

Tagged with:
 

9 Responses to “Energy Innovation 2010: A New Beginning for U.S. Energy Policy”

  1. AndrewW says:

    Is there any video available?

  2. Teryn Norris says:

    Andrew, I believe ITIF will be posting a video soon but not 100% sure. Watch out for it on their Innovation Policy Blog: http://www.innovationpolicy.org/

  3. David Lewis says:

    If enough methane leaks into the atmosphere as a result of getting natural gas from the ground to the consumer, its climate impact is greater than coal.
    See: http://www.theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47794/gas-bridge-nowhere

    The EPA is revising its reference document on what the climate impact of gas is.
    See: http://www.theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-gas-leakage-rates

    GAO recently issued a report on methane leakage from the US gas industry, and industry inadvertently confirmed that it is leaking gas 30 times as much as they have ever admitted to in the past.
    See: http://www.theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48325/big-gas-fumbles-gao-report-leaking-methane

    Shale gas in the US is being extracted from what the Atomic Energy Commission found was the largest uranium resource in the US. The same geological processes that concentrated the gas also concentrated uranium. The companies prospect for gas by looking for the most radioactive shale. It can be a lot more radioactive than any gas that has ever been used before. See: http://www.theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/47970/shale-gas-some-it-hot

  4. It is key to remember the, “A similar consensus emerged that the next federal clean energy agenda must break out of the highly polarized climate change debate in order to succeed.” You can be right all day, but if it does not turn into real action, there will be no success. Both sides need to be considered. Different outlooks are okay, in fact they can help make eventual legislation stronger. Do not leave out the politically conservative in this debate and plan. One interesting example of how a different approach worked for a more conservative area: http://sedougherty.blogspot.com/2010/10/energy-conservation-information-for.html

    Think outside of the box in both technological innovation and innovation in how we approach and discuss the issues.

  5. [...] to drive down to price of clean technologies and enable their affordable deployment (see “Energy Innovation 2010: A New Beginning for U.S. Energy Policy“).  This begins with a new U.S. domestic strategy, which must be extended abroad through a [...]

  6. [...] consensus on the need for increased federal investment in clean energy RD&D (see AEL’s previous coverage), but there was also debate about the merits of allocating resources to innovation or to [...]

  7. [...] course, as we recently noted, many critical pieces of a new federal energy agenda are unlikely to advance in the next Congress. [...]

Leave a Reply