This post was co-authored by Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Teryn Norris, President of Americans for Energy Leadership

In the aftermath of the debt ceiling crisis and as the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction seeks a second budget deal, many public interest groups are working hard to ensure that even while Congress cuts wasteful spending, it preserves vital public programs and expands smart investments in the nation’s future.  In the energy and climate policy community, a broad range of groups are fighting to defend clean technology investment programs – such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) – that have taken years to establish and offer a glimmer of hope amidst a largely bleak political and policy landscape.

Other organizations are taking a different approach.  This week, two progressive groups – the environmental Friends of the Earth and consumer advocacy group Public Citizen – drew attention when they joined the libertarian Heartland Institute and deficit-hawk Taxpayers for Common Sense in releasing a spending cut plan.  In a report called “Green Scissors 2011,” the groups call for $380 billion in spending they identify as “wasteful government subsidies” and “environmentally damaging.”

These types of collaborations are rare, and the report marked a unique opportunity for traditionally opposed organizations to take a leadership role and break the gridlock on budget, energy, climate, and environmental policy.  Unfortunately, the report not only fails to realize this opportunity, but makes fundamentally misguided choices that would be counterproductive to reducing the budget deficit and could potentially exacerbate America’s climate and energy challenges.

At the heart of “Green Scissors” is a collection of $380 billion in “wasteful [federal] government subsidies that are damaging to the environment and harming taxpayers,” which the groups believe should be targeted for cuts or elimination.  The proposed cuts include:

  • Eliminating $61.275 billion in conventional fossil fuel subsidies and tax incentives.
  • Eliminating $49.615 billion in nuclear energy programs for R&D, loan guarantees, environmental cleanup, and nuclear waste liability funds.
  • Eliminating $95.817 billion invested in renewable energy loan guarantees, corn ethanol subsidies, R&D, the FutureGen carbon capture demonstration project, and fuel technologies development among others.  The report also targets the elimination of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E).
  • Eliminating $56.655 billion in agriculture subsidies.
  • Cutting over $106 billion in selected transportation programs and projects including transfer payments to the Highway Trust Fund.
  • Eliminating $15.290 billion in selected land and water subsidies and programs.

At first glance, the proposal correctly identifies some unproductive spending that should indeed be eliminated. For example, corn ethanol subsidies do little more than prop up an uncompetitive alternative fuel that offers little to no carbon emission reductions (its initial intended goal) and doesn’t represent a future, robust economic growth opportunity.  In this way, the proposal appears to open a more nuanced budget debate that the United States desperately needs.  Instead of across the board slash-and-burn budget politics, policymakers should be examining the entire federal budget with a fine-tooth comb and differentiate between vital public investments – such as programs aimed at solving our key economic, energy, climate, and environmental challenges – from government spending on unproductive programs.  Like Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald lamented, “Here’s a crazy thought: Maybe we should spend more on good things and less on dumb things.”

But this potential is never fully realized, and the report ends up making several factually incorrect statements, misguided recommendations, and errors of omission.  These recommendations are often supported by ideologically-driven economic myths and backed by shallow analysis and evaluative criteria. In particular, the report makes three major errors:

(more…)

This is the second article in a series by Alex Trembath detailing opportunities for bipartisan cooperation on energy policy.

In the wake of cap-and-trade’s defeat, and as we begin a new session of Congress, common ground must be found on policy to renovate America’s energy infrastructure. Now may be the time to explore the possible benefits of renewing America’s once vigorous nuclear power production. Notably absent in recent advances in America’s energy portfolio has been nuclear power. Public safety fears stemming from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have left nuclear policy in stasis for decades, but as our President aims to launch a new industrial policy and our nation trends towards a new national energy policy, it may be time to revive our commitment to this method of zero-emissions baseload power generation.

Nuclear power is unique among clean energy technologies in that Democrats tend to be more hesitant towards its production than Republicans. Indeed, it has a reputation for its appeal to conservatives -Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman included provisions for nuclear technology in their ultimately unsuccessful American Power Act (APA) with the ostensible goal of courting Republican support. The urgency with which Democrats feel we must spark an energy revolution may find a perfect partner with Republicans who support nuclear power. But is there anything more than speculative political evidence towards its bipartisan viability?

If there is one field of the energy sector for which certainty of political will and government policy is essential, it is nuclear power. High up front costs for the private industry, extreme regulatory oversight and public wariness necessitate a committed government partner for private firms investing in nuclear technology. In a new report on the potential for a “nuclear renaissance,” Third Way references the failed cap-and-trade bill, delaying tactics in the House vis-a-vis EPA regulations on CO₂, and the recent election results to emphasize the difficult current political environment for advancing new nuclear policy. The report, “The Future of Nuclear Energy,” makes the case for political certainty:
(more…)

Tagged with:
 

The term ‘energy efficiency’ usually brings to mind better-insulated homes and smart power meters. But emerging thermoelectric technology could give energy efficiency a whole new meaning by tackling the huge energy waste that happens before the watts even reach our homes.  Yet, to reach market, thermoelectics will have to overcome a number of technological and policy related barriers.

The Promise

Thermoelectric devices, which enable the conversion of heat into electricity, are still at an early stage in the energy innovation chain, but the principle behind how they work can help to highlight a crucial aspect of energy waste across the world that is often ignored in the policy realm.

You may have heard that homes in developed countries waste 25-35 percent of their energy due to insulation problems and inefficient devices. But the lion’s share of energy waste actually comes at the early stages when the electric power is generated in power plants and carried across transmission lines.

(more…)

Published by National Journal
Energy & Environment Expert Blog

By Teryn Norris
November 16, 2010

In the aftermath of the mid-term elections, it’s unlikely that Washington can overcome the crippling gridlock in Congress. Yet one critical opportunity for bipartisan compromise stands out among the rest: energy policy.

Addressing the country the day after elections, President Obama signaled a clear opening by pressing the reset button on cap and trade and calling for a new agenda. “I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to, that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence,” he declared. “And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about… how do we move forward on that agenda.”

Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quickly agreed. “I think energy is an area where there is potential for a bipartisan accomplishment of some consequence,” Senator McConnell told the Wall Street Journal. “There are a variety of other things there could be pretty broad agreement on… Nobody thinks it is a bad idea to reduce carbon emissions, the question is how do you do it.”

(more…)

Guest op-ed by Alex Trembath:supply-and-demand image

Most of us are familiar with the basic economic principle of supply-and-demand. Economists tend to envision the intersection of the supply and demand of goods and services as the “equilibrium point,” where consumer need for a product meets the ability of producers to provide it. That point is what governs fundamental economic indicators and attributes, especially price and market quantity.

Recently, however, a new supply-versus-demand debate has begun to take shape in the minds of activists and policy-makers alike. Put simply, this new paradigm concerns the supply and demand of clean energy technology.

Conventional wisdom, as it has evolved among global warming activists, tells us that society already has the requisite technology supply to decarbonize the economy. Al Gore has said that “we have all the tools we need to solve three or four climate crises,” and influential climate blogger Joe Romm maintains that “we have all the technologies we need and just lack the political will.” This would suggest that the current supply of clean energy technological is sufficient, and that “political will” should come in the form of demand-side, deployment policies.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Climate Movement at the Crossroads

Published by National Journal at the Energy & Environment Expert Blog

By Teryn Norris

When future scholars document the history of global warming, one of the watershed years will almost surely be 2010. For over a decade, the primary goal of U.S. climate policy advocates has been to establish a strong carbon pollution cap and a binding global emissions treaty. Armed with large war chests and major electoral victories, climate advocates had one of the best opportunities to achieve these goals.

This agenda has collapsed. In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate negotiations and recent developments in the Senate, it is clear that carbon caps in the U.S. and globally will not happen for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the IEA projects global CO2 emissions will skyrocket 40% above 2007 levels by 2030, and the EIA predicts China’s emissions will more than double over the next 25 years – which would make its emissions greater than the rest of the world combined.

What happens next? The upcoming lame-duck session in Congress could be one of the last opportunities for national reform before 2013. There are a number of incremental proposals worth pushing, from the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, to Senator Alexander and Senator Dorgan’s Electric Vehicle Deployment Act, to Senator Kerry’s latest Clean Energy Technology Leadership Act. Some still hope for a Hail Mary lame-duck pass on cap and trade, but when asked whether it could be revived, Senator Reid recently said, “It doesn’t appear so at this stage. It doesn’t have the traction that a lot of us wish it had.”

(more…)

 

oil_rigAmerican fossil fuel subsidies can be traced to the rise of OPEC and the 1973 oil embargo. At the time, these subsidies raised fears that the United States was too dependent on foreign oil and needed to increase domestic energy production. But policies that might have made sense when Richard Nixon was president and oil was $3 a barrel are drastically outdated today. The Environmental Law Institute conducted a comprehensive report on the cost of these subsidies – a smorgasbord of tax and royalty relief measures – during fiscal years 2002-2008 and contrasted it with government support for renewable energy during the same time period:

Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers. Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period… Most of the largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Empowering Women for the Clean Energy Revolution

Undersecretary of Energy Kristina Johnson discusses the importance of women in energy fields

Undersecretary of Energy Kristina Johnson is emphasizing the importance of women in energy fields

On Tuesday, U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary Kristina M. Johnson announced a new initiative at the Clean Energy Ministerial to promote the participation of women in clean energy science and engineering fields called the “Clean Energy Education and Empowerment (C3-E) Initiative.”  The C-3E Initiative will encourage young women to pursue careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields by supporting workshops and speeches from clean energy leaders to inspire students, and officials in participating countries will lead outreach events and make scholarship funds available for women pursuing advanced degrees in clean energy.

Today, women make up only 20 percent of the professional energy workforce. Many capable and talented women are not joining the effort to promote clean energy technologies due to a variety of factors.  As Under Secretary Johnson stated:

“The clean energy revolution will progress farther and faster if it draws on the brightest minds everywhere. Every young woman who is discouraged from studying science and engineering represents potential innovation lost. The world will be better off — men and women alike — if those who have succeeded in these fields share their own stories, and inspire young women to follow in their footsteps.”

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

BP’s Necessity, America’s Opportunity

gas liens

In the world of technology innovation, 86 days is the blink of an eye.  Most companies are looking months or years down the road when they invest in research and development.  But when barrels of oil began pouring into the Gulf from BP’s Deepwater Horizon, the equation changed.  Suddenly, research and development wasn’t optional, it was essential.

BP is the perfect model of what the United States should not do. The American citizen has paid the price for fossil fuel dependence for decades now and we can’t wait for another disaster to strike the US.  Eighty-six days is almost nothing when you talk about technology innovation, but when you are trying to plug an oil spill, rescue workers from a collapsed coal mine, or end an OPEC embargo, 86 days is an eternity.  We need to jump-start the clean energy R&D process now.  We need to invest like we mean it.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

The Americans for Energy Leadership summer policy fellows, who we recently highlighted here, have three new posts at our fellows blog about energy innovation and competitiveness. Excerpts of these articles are included below, and full articles can be accessed at our AEL Fellows Blog.

Yingli Solar at the World Cup by Clifton Yin

“China did not participate in this year’s World Cup and has actually qualified for the tournament only once, in 2002. Nevertheless, 2010 saw a solar energy company – Yingli Green Energy Holding Company – become the first firm from that country to secure global marketing rights to the sporting event.”

Leading the Clean Energy Industry Requires Public Investmentby Yan Zhu

“While carbon pricing has polarized the U.S. energy and climate policy debate, the governments of some Asian nations are investing heavily to develop clean technology manufacturing and form innovation clusters. As a result the United States lags far behind its economic competitors in clean technology manufacturing.”

Understanding the Energy Innovation Lifecycle by Jeremy Cohn

“Understanding the process of energy innovation and investment is an important next step towards taking the necessary actions to ensure energy independence and security.  By recognizing the innovation gap between what is best for a firm versus what is best for all firms we can ensure that American-made products and technologies dominate the marketplace in the years to come.”

Tagged with: