Over the past few years, “green jobs” and the “clean economy” have become the growth mantra for a wide variety of energy, climate, and economic policy advocates. Much of this excitement has been productive and justified, but some of it has been misinformed. Few reports have shed more light on this debate than the new study by the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, “Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment.”

The report offers a plethora of data and analysis, and several commentators have already weighed in with various interpretations (see Bryan Walsh at TIME). But one of the key conclusions worth highlighting is that the driving force behind the U.S. “clean economy” over the last decade has been emerging energy technologies –- not in other “green” sectors related to buildings and home weatherization, energy-saving consumer products, or efficient appliances (as some advocates predicted). In other words, emerging energy technologies appear to have the greatest job and export growth potential, and this carries important implications for U.S. policy priorities — a conclusion recently echoed in Google’s energy innovation report.

Brookings defines the “clean economy” as a very broad range of goods and services that provide environmental benefit, including everything from electric vehicle technologies to organic foods and waste management (see list below). As it explains, the report is “the first study of the U.S. clean economy to provide timely information that is both comprehensive enough in its scope and detailed enough in its categorization to inform national, state, and regional leaders on the recent employment dynamics of the U.S. low-carbon and environmental goods and services super-sector…”

According to the data, the highest job growth and export intensity in the overall clean economy between 2003-2010 was primarily in emerging energy technologies. Out of the 39 measured sectors, the top eight with the greatest relative job growth were all energy-related: wave/ocean power, solar thermal, wind, carbon storage and management, solar PV, fuel cells, biofuels, and smart grid.   In terms of export intensity, seven of the top eight sectors were energy technologies: biofuels/biomass, electric vehicle technology, battery technology, wind, solar PV, and fuel cells. The most export-intensive “category” of sectors was renewable energy technologies, at $64,884 in exports per job, compared to only $20,129 for the aggregate clean economy.

(more…)

On Friday, the House of Representatives voted on its final version of the 2012 Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill. In terms of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) — the Department of Energy’s flagship energy innovation program — the good news is that advocates were able to boost the budget from $100 to $180 million with a last-minute amendment, which passed by just one vote.

Americans for Energy Leadership was proud to support this effort, joining dozens of universities and high-tech companies in signing a letter supporting ARPA-E. Now we move on to the Senate appropriations bill, where we expect to achieve a larger budget and eventually come out somewhere inbetween the House and Senate version at conference.

Yet even while we “celebrate” salvaging a $180 million budget for ARPA-E in the House, we recognize this amount falls fall short of what ARPA-E needs to achieve its potential.  Indeed, ARPA-E merits a much larger budget for its investments, which can spur the development of entirely new industries and technological breakthroughs, create high-skilled jobs, support small businesses, improve U.S. energy security, and enhance our competitiveness in the advanced energy industry.  As the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation recently concluded in a report, “A Model for Innovation: ARPA-E Merits Full Funding“:

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Screen shot 2011-05-04 at 2.21.44 PMIn the high-stakes federal budget debate, getting the facts right is critical.  That is why the Heritage Foundation’s recent error-riddled report — which proposed a near-dismantling of the U.S. energy innovation system — demanded an immediate response, which Americans for Energy Leadership has provided with our colleagues at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and the Breakthrough Institute.

Last week, these three organizations released a point-by-point analysis of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations of Heritage’s proposal.  Today, we are releasing a new report on the fundamental misconceptions of Heritage’s approach.

Download: All About the Fundamentals: Three Misconceptions of the Heritage Foundation’s Deficit/Energy Proposal” [PDF]

The report highlights three major problems with the Heritage proposal:

1. The proposal fails to meaningfully reduce the deficit now or in the future.

Even though the proposal advocates cutting DOE research budgets in the name of deficit reduction, the Department of Energy represents a tiny portion of the federal budget and contributes little to the deficit and national debt. Moreover, the proposal fails to distinguish between government spending and productive public investment in science and technology, which drives innovation and economic growth.

2. Heritage fails to understand where technological innovations come from.

Heritage wrongly assumes that “when it comes to energy policy, the free market works” and is best suited to develop new technologies. In fact, the energy sector is anything but free, and has always been characterized by extensive regulations and subsidies, natural monopolies, and other divergences from the free-market ideal held by Heritage. Moreover, Heritage ignores the long history of public support for innovation and assumes the private sector will invest sufficiently in energy innovation. For decades, the energy sector has consistently underinvested in R&D, and market failures plague the energy innovation process at each stage of development, from lab to market launch. There is a broad expert consensus that public investment and public-private partnerships are essential to moving new, innovative technologies into the marketplace.

3. The proposal ignores the immediacy and enormity of U.S. energy challenges.

While Heritage pays lip service to energy security, its recommendations would undermine many of the best efforts underway to achieve it. The Department of Defense has recognized the critical role that innovative clean energy technologies will play in enhancing their strategic and tactical abilities, as well as the nation’s energy security. DOD also views the DOE as a strategic partner in its effort to reduce its own vulnerability from relying on fossil fuels. If Heritage had it their way, DOD would lose a key partner in the long-term effort for greater force effectiveness and security through better energy management.

Download the full report here.

Download the point-by-point rebuttal here.

Critical Materials: Insights from the MIT Energy Conference

lithium ingots photo

Lithium - a critical element for energy? (Courtesy of Treehugger.com)

At the MIT Energy Conference last week, the energy was palpable – literally. The event, which annually attracts hundreds of energy professionals and students (including a number of AEL fellows and authors this year), brought to the table a refreshing mix of hard-nosed analysis, technical insight and unbridled enthusiasm about the challenges and opportunities for the world’s collective energy future.

One of these future challenges lies in the question of strategic materials for energy, which a panel of experts tackled on the second day of the conference. In the process of co-organizing this panel – along with two fellow teammates from the MIT Energy Club - I have grown increasingly aware of the issue of strategic materials and the important role they play in clean energy technologies.

The highlight of the panel was an introduction by MIT professor Robert L. Jaffe to the policy report on Critical Elements for Energy that was recently released jointly by the American Physical Society and the Materials Research Society. As the report describes, rare earth minerals, such as helium and lithium, are becoming increasingly relevant for energy solutions in the 21st century:

“A number of chemical elements that were once laboratory curiosities now figure prominently in new technologies like wind turbines, solar energy collectors, and electric cars. If widely deployed, such inventions have the capacity to transform the way we produce, transmit, store, or conserve energy.”

However, these materials are extremely scarce, unevenly distributed around the globe, and they rarely benefit from stable supply chains:

“The production complexities of elements primarily obtained as by-products create a difficult environment for planning and investment in these elements, as well as in the new technologies that require the unique attributes of the elements themselves. Large fluctuations in price can occur after joint-production options are saturated and before new supplies hit the market.”

The serious economic, environmental, and security-related challenges of these critical elements have yet to be met. In addition to stronger coordination within the US federal government and better information dissemination under the auspices of the US Geological Survey, Dr. Jaffe also advocated for a greater role for R&D:

“A focused federal research and development (R&D) program would enable the United States to both expand the availability of and reduce its dependence on ECEs [energy critical elements]. This federal R&D would be particularly critical to the competitiveness of small U.S. companies that are unable to engage in their own ECE basic research programs.”

Dr. Jaffe’s insights came alongside comments from Diana Bauer, who described the policy role of the US federal government from the perspective of the Department of Energy, as well as Terence Stewart, a trade law specialist who addressed the role of the WTO and international trade in managing critical elements. Finally, Alastair Neill, an executive from the private-sector firm Dacha Strategic Metals, explored the importance of rare earth elements and stressed the role of the private sector in addressing these issues in the long run.

As Bauer, Stewart and Neill shared their own perspectives on the topic, the utter complexity of the critical materials issue came into full view. In particular, the speakers reached a curious disagreement about China’s recent restrictions on rare earth exports, with Neill suggesting that China may actually have done the world a favor while Stewart criticized Beijing for going against its WTO obligations. And as Bauer described the conclusions from a recent DOE report on critical energy materials that she was recently involved in, it became clear that the proper role of the US government in tackling critical materials will turn out to be equally complex in the long run.

The panel at the MIT Energy Conference came as a stark reminder that the US cannot meet the emerging challenge of critical elements for energy without sustained involvement from the private sector, international organizations and the federal government. Much is at stake: our high-performance gas turbines, our hybrid cars, our wind turbines and our energy R&D laboratories all depend crucially on critical elements. This is not an issue we can afford to take lightly.

For more about the MIT Energy Conference, readers can also check out the AEL coverage by my colleague Daniel Goldfarb as well as the post by Tom Zeller on NYT’s DotEarth blog.

__

David Cohen-Tanugi is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project.

Solving the Energy Poverty Problem

solving the enrgy poverty problemIn the age of iPhones, Facebook, and Twitter, we have instant access to information and constant means of communication. It is difficult to imagine life without these luxuries, but they are just that, luxuries. For a large portion of the world these technologies are not only a rarity, but an impossibility, as there is no access to electricity.

1.5 billion people do not have access to electricity; 585 million of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa and 404 million in India. Three billion people, almost half of the world’s population, rely on biomass, such as wood, charcoal, and dung for cooking and heating purposes. Sub-Saharan Africa is an especially dire case. Only 31% of the population has access to electricity and the Sub-Saharan African population (excluding South Africa) of 791 million consumes as much energy annually as New York State, a population of 19.5 million, according to a recent IEA and UNDP report entitled “Energy Poverty: How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal.”

These people are living in energy poverty, the ramifications of which extend far beyond heating and cooking. Instead of children – usually young girls – going to school, they have to spend hours collecting firewood to heat their homes and cook. If the children are able to go to school, they can only do school work during daylight hours because they have no light to study by at night.

Energy poverty is one of the least discussed aspects of our current energy challenge, yet it poses serious threats to economies, national security, the environment, and public health throughout the world. It is unacceptable that such a massive social problem exists, yet here in the U.S. we do little to alleviate it. This article seeks raise awareness about energy poverty and to describe the threats posed by it and what is being done to remedy them. (more…)

Tagged with:
 

Grounding Our Innovation Policy Debate

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:
 

ARPA-E: An Investment in America

ARPA-E, the DOE’s high risk, high reward R&D program, has been in the spotlight the past two weeks in light of recent successes and budget talks. The disparate news about the agency illuminates the Federal Government’s broken approach to innovation. Just last week, the New York Times reported on the success of ARA-E funded programs in finding private capital, but just a week later Josh Freed has had to point out that without Congressional action the crucial agency will have to close shop.

ARPA-E was founded on the idea that technological innovation in energy is an imperative and that the government can play a significant role in helping the private sector thrive. By conducting potentially breakthrough research that the private sector deems too risky, the agency has the potential to open up whole new industries, just as DARPA did with the Internet and GPS. The idea is not a new one, and as Joshua Freed point out, it is rooted in bi-partisan support:

“In 1925, a conservative Republican Congress and President created the first federal aviation research agency. In fact, a Republican president oversaw the very model on which ARPA-E is based, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency within the Pentagon created in 1958 in response to Sputnik.”

Despite its history, ARPA-E will face the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the upcoming budget debate. It is important, at a moment where the mounting deficit has become a point of contention, to distinguish between spending and investing. ARPA-E is in the purest sense an investment in America: (more…)

Tagged with:
 

To Cut or Invest: A Timely Debate

Screen shot 2011-02-07 at 5.40.55 PMRecently, a debate has been raging between those who want government to cut spending and those who want it to invest in the future. Today, ITIF and The Breakthrough Institute brought together the leading voices on both sides of the spectrum at a debate entitled, “Cut or Invest: What’s the Best Way to Grow Our Economy?” With Robert Atkinson of ITIF and Fred Block of Breakthrough Institute supporting investment and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute supporting spending cuts, the debate illuminated the sharp differences that will have to be overcome to achieve forward looking energy policy.

With the Tea Party’s success in the last election and President Obama’s recent focus on re-investing in America’s innovation capacity, the debate between ‘deficit hawks’ and ‘innovation hawks‘ has dominated recent headlines. Today’s event, much like the larger dialogue, focused on the appropriate role of the government in the economy. In Fred Block’s opening statement, he defined a three point argument that became the focal point for much of the debate:

  1. Most of the necessary deficit reductions will have to come from economic growth – a position shared by conservative as seen in their support for Bush’s tax cuts.
  2. Greatly expanded R&D is critical for the rapid economic growth.
  3. Public investment in R&D, especially in energy, is essential because of market failures.

Much, although not all, of the following disagreement focused on point three. Taylor and Kreutzer argued that the government was ill suited to fund R&D because of the inherent politicization of federal funding. Key to this argument was the idea that the free market is most capable of properly allocating funds to R&D projects.

To this Atkinson contended that “short term capital pressures” force bad decisions on R&D in the private sector.  This response brings to bear an important question: can the financial time lines of companies and financiers properly align with the long term horizons of basic R&D?

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

President Obama’s speech at Penn State earlier today was a chance for the administration to laud its energy accomplishments and  further clarify its vision for America’s clean energy transition. The vision, at least that in the speech, was of a federal government that would facilitate innovation and competition to help America “win the future.”

Penn State is a strong example of how federal investment can spur energy innovation. Just last year, a consortium lead by Penn State was awarded $122 million by the DOE’s Energy Innovation Hubs program to research efficient building methods and materials. The consortium will build the hub in the Philidelphia Navy Yard, bringing together scientist, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs. Mark Muro, director of policy at Brookings Metropolitan and one of the nation’s foremost thinkers on hubs and clusters, said of the Penn State proposal the day the DOE announced its funding:

“…a masterstroke. One of multiple truly inventive proposals from around the country, the winning Philadelphia entry epitomizes the power of a new era of smart, region-centered thinking and action about science, innovation, and regional development in America.”

Obama’s speech today reaffirmed the advantages of the DOE’s Energy Innovation Hubs, touting not only the job creation associated with the Penn State project, but its crucial role in a plan to reduce building emissions 20% by 2020 – a plan which could amount to $40 billion a year in savings for businesses. These savings could in turn mean more competitive companies and therefore more money for hiring.

(more…)

As President Obama emphasized earlier this week in his State of the Union address, U.S. clean energy innovation has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change and ensuring the future vitality of the United States economy. However, at least two other factors – creating a demand “pull” for clean energy sources and shifting towards more sustainable lifestyles – are also crucially important and should not disappear from our policy discussions.

As my colleague Teryn Norris has argued here, the Obama Administration’s commitment to U.S. innovation – especially in the clean energy field – is a wise decision, and we can only hope that legislative victories follow. But while energy innovation can indeed boost U.S. economic leadership, it won’t be enough if we also hope to address the further problems of energy independence and climate change. In other words, technological innovation shouldn’t become the only focus of our energy discussion.

With repeated disappointments in climate and energy policy in recent years, it is indeed tempting to give up on conventional policy mechanisms and hope that a new technology will solve the problem. Some thinkers, such as Time magazine’s Bryan Walsh have argued recently that “putting a price tag on pollution isn’t solving our climate-change woes. It’s time to invest our muscle—and money—in breakthrough innovation.” Although I would be the last person to question the benefits of technological breakthroughs, I believe we shouldn’t overlook how policy, economics and human behavior ultimately determine how much we’re able to take advantage of these breakthroughs.

(more…)