Grounding Our Innovation Policy Debate

On 02.23.11, In Opinion, By Tucker Willsie

grouding our innovation debateAs Congress begins to debate whether the DOE deserves a funding increase to support innovation initiatives, a look at its record over the last two years will become a key point of contention. Organizations such as ARPA-E and the Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) will come under particular scrutiny with regard to their cost and effectiveness.

Programs of any nature, whether public or private, will always have a mixed record of successes and failures. It is equally inevitable that proponents and opponents of a given program will focus on certain elements of that program in order to make the strongest possible case for their position. This disagreement can be healthy when it helps policy makers to get a complete and revealing assessment of that program. Once each argument is made in full, a productive debate can begin and the most effective policy can be crafted. However, the increasing polarization between proponents and opponents of government financial support for innovation is, at times, preventing this healthy debate from occurring.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
 
6 Comments
Leave A Response

Nuclear Power and the Future of Post-Partisan Energy Policy

On 02.04.11, In Columns, By Alex Trembath

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: • • •
 
5 Comments
Leave A Response

How Energy Reform Can Break the Partisan Stalemate

On 11.16.10, In Columns, By Teryn Norris

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…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

A New Era of “Post-Partisan Power”?

On 10.13.10, In News, By Daniel Goldfarb

Written by Daniel Goldfarb and Clifton YinPost-Partisan Power Thumbnail-thumb-200x257

“Post-Partisan Power,” a report released today by the unlikely triumvirate of the Breakthrough Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and Brookings Institution, provides the most compelling argument to date for a bipartisan energy agenda.  National hyper partisanship has made it difficult to bring the right and left together on any issue.  But the death of cap and trade this summer provides a renewed opportunity for a united American energy agenda. The report’s press release lays out a list of policy goals that both sides of the aisle can get behind:

“The new report calls for increasing federal innovation investment from roughly $4 today to $25 billion annually, and using military procurement, new, disciplined deployment incentives, and public-private hubs to achieve both incremental improvements and breakthroughs in clean energy technologies.”

Most Americans can agree on the appeal of innovating clean energy technologies, creating new jobs in America, staving off environmental catastrophe, and freeing our nation from dependence on foreign sources of energy.  Where cap and trade went wrong was insisting that these goals could only be accomplished by raising the price of carbon emitting energy sources.  But not only was cap and trade not the only means of accomplishing these goals, according to the New York Times’s assessment of “Post-Partisan Power”, it may not have even been the most effective:

(more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Building the Energy Innovation Consensus

On 06.29.10, In News, By Sydney Baloue

As the national debate on federal energy and climate legislation continues to unfold, Americans for Energy Leadership has been working to advance energy innovation and education investment as a critical component, adding to the growing “energy innovation consensus.”   These efforts have been recognized by a number of outlets and experts.  Some recent examples include:

In Time Magazine’s Special History Cover Issue, “The Electrifying Edison,” Bryan Walsh wrote:

“Even when America’s scientific preeminence was threatened by the Soviet Union’s Sputnik launch in 1957, the U.S. only came back stronger. “The federal response to Sputnik was an overwhelming investment in science and engineering education,” says Teryn Norris, director of Americans for Energy Leadership. “That had spillover benefits across the board.”

At the National Journal, in “Bill Will Slight Technology Innovation,” Mark Muro from Brookings Institution wrote:

“As we and many others have been saying for years, the nation badly needs to sign up for a new push for energy system innovation that seeks countless efficiencies but also triples to quintuples today’s anemic baseline level of federal energy innovation R&D. (For some great discussion of this need see recent posts by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a group of 34 Nobel Laureates, NYT Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin, and Teryn Norris of Americans for Energy Leadership).”

At New York Times Dot Earth, in “Quantum Dots, Obama and the Energy Quest,” Andrew Revkin wrote:

“I asked Dan Kammen, along with Teryn Norris, an energy policy blogger affiliated with the Breakthrough Institute… to assess the energy innovation report. Their views are appended below.  Interestingly, there’s a decent amount of agreement between Norris and Sean Pool, the author of the Center for American Progress report. Here’s Norris’s take on the innovation analysis, followed by Kammen’s:”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

News Roundup on White House Energy and Climate Meeting

On 06.29.10, In News, By Clifton Yin

President Obama hosted a bipartisan meeting on comprehensive energy and climate legislation Tuesday morning. Roughly 20 senators from both parties attended the West Wing gathering and although it was scheduled to last less than an hour, the meeting ran overtime at 90 minutes. Discussion centered on the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act, an analysis of which can be seen here.

While the president held firm in his calls for a price on carbon and provisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reactions from Republicans were more mixed. The Hill noted that Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) said, “Republicans would work with the White House on legislation to boost electric vehicles, nuclear power, and boosting energy research and development.”

Continuing disagreement ensures that a window remains open for a serious alternative agenda. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) quoted the president as encouraging attendees to “forget partisan politics” and “aim high.” On that note, Americans for Energy Leadership has laid out a bipartisan strategy to wean the nation off its addiction to fossil fuel and move towards clean energy independence.

Below is a roundup of news coverage of the White House meeting to date:

(more…)

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

A Bipartisan Strategy for Energy Leadership

On 06.28.10, In Columns, By Teryn Norris

By Teryn Norris & Clifton Yin
Published by The Huffington Post

When President Obama and key Senate leaders meet today to reach a compromise on energy and climate legislation, they should strongly consider increasing federal investment in clean energy technology to at least $15 billion annually. This is a comprehensive third way strategy to improve U.S. energy independence, economic competitiveness, and climate security, and it deserves bipartisan support.

We are a Democrat and Republican. One of us campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, the other as a delegate for John McCain. One of us worked on energy and climate policy for the progressive Breakthrough Institute, while the other worked on similar issues for the conservative American Enterprise Institute. We disagree on a wide range of issues, and we hold different economic philosophies.

Despite our differences, we are strongly united behind a serious federal agenda for clean energy innovation. Regardless of the future of cap and trade, robust federal investment in clean energy technology can effectively tackle both energy and climate policy reform. In addition to reducing our oil addiction, it can help build new export-oriented and manufacturing-intensive industries, seize global market share, drive down the price of clean energy technologies, and accelerate the transition to a cleaner, low-carbon economy.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »