Climate science, policy, politics, and action
The 2009 EIA conference is being held April 7-8 at the Washington Convention Center.
Please register onsite at the Walter E Washington Convention Center starting at 7:30am on Tuesday, April 7th.
Wednesday agenda
| 7:30 AM | Registration and Badging | ||||||
| Concurrent Sessions | |||||||
| 9:00 AM |
|
||||||
| 10:30 AM | Break | ||||||
| 11:00 AM |
|
The 2009 EIA conference is being held April 7-8 at the Washington Convention Center.
Please register onsite at the Walter E Washington Convention Center starting at 7:30am on Tuesday, April 7th.
Tuesday agenda
| 7:30 AM | Registration and Badging | ||||||
| 9:00 AM | Plenary | ||||||
| Welcome – Howard Gruenspecht Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration Keynote Address – Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy Energy and the Macroeconomy – William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World – John W. Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation |
|||||||
| 10:30 AM | Break | ||||||
| Concurrent Sessions | |||||||
| 11:00 AM |
|
||||||
| 12:30 PM | Lunch Break | ||||||
| 1:45 PM |
|
||||||
| 3:15 PM | Break | ||||||
| 3:30 PM |
|
||||||
| 5:00 PM | Adjourn |
From the Wonk Room.
President-elect Barack Obama’s
reported selection of Dr. Steven
Chu
as Secretary of Energy is a bold stroke to set the nation on the path to
a clean energy economy. Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, is the
sixth director of the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, a Department
of Energy-funded basic science research institution managed by the
University of California. After moving to Berkeley Lab from Stanford
University in 2004, Chu “has emerged internationally to champion science
as society’s best defense against climate
catastrophe.”
As director, Chu has steered the direction of Berkeley Lab to addressing
the climate crisis, pushing for breakthrough research in energy
efficiency, solar energy, and biofuels technology.
At Berkeley Lab, Chu has won broad praise as an effective and inspirational leader. “When he was first here, he started giving talks about energy and production of energy,” Bob Jacobsen, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007. “He didn’t just present a problem. He told us what we could do. It was an energizing thing to see. He’s not a manager, he’s a leader.” In an interview with the Wonk Room, David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at UC Berkeley, described Chu as a “very distinguished researcher” and “an extremely effective manager of cutting edge technology initiatives.” Roland-Holst praised Chu’s work at Lawrence Berkeley, saying “he has succeeded in reconfiguring it for a new generation of sustainable technology R&D, combining world class mainstream science with the latest initiatives in renewable energy and climate adaptation.”
Under Chu’s leadership, Berkeley Lab and other research institutions have founded the Energy Biosciences Institute with $500 million, ten-year grant from energy giant BP, and the Joint BioEnergy Institute with a $125 million grant from the Department of Energy. The BP deal has raised questions and protests about private corporations benefiting from public research. At the dedication of JBEI last Wednesday, Chu “recalled how the nation’s top scientists had rallied in the past to meet critical national needs, citing the development of radar and the atomic bomb during World War II”:
The reality of past threats was apparent to everyone whereas the threat of global climate change is not so immediately apparent. Nonetheless, this threat has just got to be solved. We can’t fail. The fact that we have so many brilliant people working on the problem gives me great hope.
Chu’s leadership extends beyond this nation’s boundaries. As one of the 30 members of the Copenhagen Climate Council, Chu is part of an effort to spur the international community to have the “urgency to establish a global treaty by 2012 which is fit for the purpose of limiting global warming to 2ºC,” whose elements “must be agreed” at the Copenhagen summit in December, 2009.
Last year, Dr. Chu co-chaired a report on “the scientific consensus framework for directing global energy development” for the United Nations’ InterAcademy Council. Lighting the Way describes how developing nations can “‘leapfrog’ past the wasteful energy trajectory followed by today’s industrialized nations” by emphasizing energy efficiency and renewable energy.
It’s hard to decide if the selection of Dr. Chu is more remarkable for who he is – a Nobel laureate physicist and experienced public-sector administrator – or for who is not. Unlike previous secretaries of energy, he is neither a politician, oil man, military officer, lawyer, nor utility executive. His corporate ties are not to major industrial polluters but to advanced technology corporations like AT&T (where he began his Nobel-winning research) and Silicon Valley innovator Nvidia (where he sits on the board of directors). Chu is a man for the moment, and will be a singular addition to Obama’s Cabinet.
From the Wonk Room.
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports that there’s “buzz” that the Obama transition is “looking hard at some scientific types” to lead the Energy Department. Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is reportedly a dark horse candidate.
In a presentation at this summer’s National Clean Energy Summit convened by the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Dr. Chu described why he has moved from his background in experimental quantum physics to tackling global warming:
Consider this. There’s about a 50 percent chance, the climate experts tell us, that in this century we will go up in temperature by three degrees Centigrade. Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F. Chicago changes by 30° F in half a day. But 5° C means that … it’s the difference between where we are today and where we were in the last ice age. What did that mean? Canada, the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, was covered in ice year round.
Five degrees Centigrade.
So think about what 5° C will mean going the other way. A very different world. So if you’d want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we’re doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We’re not talking about ten thousand people. We’re not talking about ten million people, we’re talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently.
As Dr. Chu explains in the above video, the optimal way to reduce greenhouse emissions is to waste less energy, by investing in energy efficiency. He demolished the myth that we can’t reduce our use of energy without reducing our wealth by offering numerous counterexamples, or, in his scientist’s jargon, “existence proofs.” Applause broke out when he described how companies, after claiming efficiency gains and lowered costs were impossible, “miraculously” achieved them once they “had to assign the jobs from the lobbyists to the engineers.”
Chu continued by discussing what he has done to develop “new technologies to transform the landscape.” He discussed the Helios Project, the research initiative Berkeley Lab launched for breakthrough renewable energy and efficiency technology. In addition to research into energy conservation, Berkeley Lab researchers are pursuing nanotech photovoltaics, microbial and cellulosic biofuels, and chemical photosynthesis.
Dr. Chu concluded his address with a reminder why this challenge is so important:
I will leave you with this final image. This is – I was an undergraduate when this picture was taken by Apollo 8 – and it shows the moon and the Earth’s rise. A beautiful planet, a desolate moon. And focus on the fact that there’s nowhere else to go.
In the late 1970s, a series of studies was produced that surveyed America’s energy situation, including the landmark book “Energy in America’s Future” by scholars at Resources for the Future. Thirty years later, this symposium will provide a retrospective assessment of the 1970s experience in order to extract lessons for current policy. In what ways is the past a prologue? Which projections materialized and which policy concerns proved justified? Which did not? With what confidence or humility should this retrospective inform current visions of our energy future, given the emerging challenges of energy security and global climate change?
A distinguished group of academics and policymakers will draw on their extensive experience with U.S. energy policy to put the current energy landscape into historical perspective. Panelists include:
Note: Registration for this event is closed. We invite you to view the live webcast available via this page on October 29th
Registration and continental breakfast will begin at 8:30 a.m.
Resources for the Future 1616P Street, NW First Floor Conference Center Washington, DC 20036
David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn International Strategies LLC and chair of GEEI, will lead this forum “The Energy Economy in Transition: Mega Trends for the Year Ahead.”
Sponsored by the SAIS Global Energy and Environment Initiative.
For more information and to RSVP, contact 202.663.5786 or [email protected].
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Kenney Auditorium 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C.
From the Wonk Room.
A major new study of the success of California’s green economy by economist David Roland-Holst finds that “California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000.” Today, California’s per-capita electricity demand is 40 percent below the national average:
Total electricity use, per capita, 1960-2001
Instead of household income being lost to the capital intensive energy sector, Californians have enjoyed the benefits of their wages being plowed into job creating sectors, such that “induced job growth has contributed approximately $45 billion to the California economy since 1972.”
Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California, by David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, is the first study of how the savings from California’s energy efficiency standards affected its economy through “expenditure shifting” away from the energy sector. The author explains:
When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries, for example, one dollar is removed from a relatively simple, capital intensive supply chain dominated by electric power generation and carbon fuel delivery. When the dollar goes to groceries, it animates much more job intensive expenditure chains including retailers, wholesalers, food processors, transport, and farming. Moreover, a larger proportion of these supply chains (and particularly services that are the dominant part of expenditure) resides within the state, capturing more job creation from Californians for California. Moreover, the state reduced its energy import dependence, while directing a greater percent of its consumption to in-state economic activities.
Join USCHPA for a strategy session featuring policymakers, practitioners, financiers and pundits discussing the future of clean energy technologies and offering guidance on ways to maximize the role of clean heat and power as a solution to climate change.
Tentative Agenda
7:00 AM – 8:00 AM
8:00 AM
8:00 AM – 9:00 AM
Session Leader: Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies This session will address the future of clean heat and power from the C-level perspective. Where are the big opportunities? Will increasing climate change sensitivities, carbon reduction initiatives, and fuel prices align to create the perfect opportunity for energy efficient technologies? If so, what do CEOs need and want from Wall Street?
9:00 AM – 10:00 AM
Session Leader: Justin Rathke, Director, Policy and Business Development, Capstone Turbine Corporation
Policymakers, industry, and the general public are all talking carbon reduction; what’s the financial impact? How is industry reacting to, and where does Wall Street stand on a potential U.S. carbon trading regime? This session will focus on industry trends for clean heat and power from an investor perspective.
10:00 AM – 10:15 AM
10:15 AM – 11:15 AM
Session Leader: Richard Brent, Government Affairs, Solar Turbines, Inc The U.S. could learn a thing or two about combined heat and power (CHP) deployment from our peers on the world stage. Panelists in this session will focus on best practices and lessons learned from international leaders in the deployment of CHP, and recommend strategies for U.S. industry and policymakers to follow to realize the levels of CHP success achieved in other countries.
11:15 AM – 12:00 PM
Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies
12:00 Noon
DoubleTree Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia
At Climate Progress, Joe Romm reviews the full text of the draft “Gang of Ten” energy legislation, now unofficially co-sponsored by ten Democrats and ten Republicans. The original ten senators are conservative and industry-friendly. Highlights of Romm’s review:
Title II makes clear that the “consumer tax credits for advanced vehicles” is focused on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), see Section 202 (page 17). The tax credit is “$2,500, plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt hours” with a cap at $7,500. A midsized PHEV might consume 0.3 to 0.4 kilowatt-hours per mile when it runs on electricity (yes, Toyota may well do better than that, but I doubt GM will).
So a PHEV20 (one with a 20-mile range running only on electricity) might have a battery capacity 7 kwh, and get a $3700 tax credit. The Chevy Volt is supposed to be 40-mile electric range and get about $6500.
Section 254 (page 114) has a geothermal heat pump tax credit up to $2000 and Section 282 (page 168) has a 2-year accelerated depreciation period for geothermal systems.
Title IV, Subtitle B “Coal-to-Liquid” (page 191) is a tad confusing, but it doesn’t look to me like it’s going to jumpstart the industry, since it requires carbon capture and storage and requires lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from liquid coal to be no greater than that from conventional petroleum — a very high bar to jump.
Subtitle C “Nuclear Power” (page 203) has a bad provision that says the Secretary of Energy “shall begin construction of a spent fuel recycling research and development facility not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.” Recycling is of course a euphemism for reprocessing.
Subtitle D “Tax Provisions” (page 218) has a short section on enhanced oil recovery that I think is the worst provision in the bill.
Download the full draft.
According to E&E News, Democratic leadership plans to unveil an “all of the above” energy package today or tomorrow which likely has the following components:
E&E also reports that Pelosi indicated “the energy bill might include support for automakers’ retooling to make more efficient vehicles.”
This could also be part of an economic stimulus package being prepared or the continuing resolution to extend government spending beyond the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, she said.