A huge thank you to our moderator,
Andy Revkin of the New York Times, and
panelists for what was a lively and insightful discussion. I can only assume that others in the audience were as inspired as I was by the obvious passion our panelists had for their respective work.
Summarizing the key issues and take-aways from a panel that touched on (and not always with panelist agreement) everything from U.S. competitiveness with China to government’s role in the innovation ecosystem, is a difficult task. So, I enlisted the help of my father who joined me at the conference and, as a former journalist, is much better equipped to rise to the challenge. He had this to say in summary:
The globe needs revolutionary change in both energy technologies and infrastructure, but the United States lacks a clear, long-term vision on where it wants to go and how to get there, a panel of energy experts agreed.
That lack of clarity makes it difficult for U.S. companies to make long-term investments in urgently needed cleaner energy sources, said the experts at Business & Society Conference at Dartmouth University’s Tuck Business School. It also impedes international agreement on clean energy incentives, they said.
“You need some clear, long-term vision,” said Michael Horn, Renewable Energy Policy Modeling Leader for GE Energy. Government should set policies and incentives for long-term transition to new forms of energy, suggested Horn and other panelists. But, stated Owen Barwell, chief operating officer of the Loan Programs Office in the U.S. Department of Energy, “We don’t have a precise and articulated policy.”
“Culturally, this country’s not there yet,” agreed Tom Zarrella, CEO of SustainX, Inc, a renewable energy company. While Europeans have long paid $5 or $6 per gallon for gasoline, U.S. consumers have not. In the U.S., heavy reliance on oil, for instance, “is not hurting us, we do not see it in our pockets.”
Panelists said private sector investment should lead the transition to renewable and less polluting energy, but they noted the absence of market incentives to pursue certain public goals—such as reducing carbon emissions that are widely thought to be changing global climate.
The Tuck panelists agreed that energy changes will be critically needed in the next 10 or 20 years, as the global economy builds vast numbers of new electric generation plants that will last 40 to 60 years. GE’s Horn made clear that most of these will be built in developing countries such as China. “They need new power and they’re going to build it from scratch.” The U.S., in contrast, faces relatively little need for new power, but must scrap many old generation plants and replace them with new sources of energy.
Though the U.S. tends to innovate well, panelists said, China appears better prepared to develop cleaner generating plants. Phil Giudice, undersecretary for energy in the Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said China is building the world’s most efficient coal plants and 30 nuclear power plants. Speaking of cleaner energy plants, David Wells, of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said “they are going to develop it and sell it to us.”
How can U.S. policymakers promote cleaner energy? While some panelists wanted to raise the cost of carbon emissions with cap-and-trade policies or taxes, none of them thought these were currently feasible politically.
Some panelists praised the use of “feed-in tariffs” in Europe—guaranteeing high rates of return for renewable energy—to quickly expand investment in clean power. But they noted those could cause distortion of markets and also face resistance in the U.S.
Giudice said states like his are leading the way by mandating that power companies get a growing share of their power from renewable energy.
“We need government to be the grownup here,” said Wells. Few panelists, however, expected federal leadership to issue a clear, comprehensive energy policy anytime in the near future.
