(Live)blogging “Energy’s Future is in Technology” (Part II - Politics & Policy)
Unfortunately, my live updates from the Newsweek/American Petroleum Institute panel at Stanford last Thursday were limited to one - mostly because it took me a while to digest all of it, but also because I found that when I was writing, I stopped listening. Fortunately, Maria Surma Manka has been doing yeoman’s work covering the event thus far at Maria Energia and I highly recommend you pay her a visit. With that in mind, I’ll try to add to what she has written, rather than duplicating it.
As I see it, there were several themes threaded throughout the program. And over the next couple of days, I will be addressing each of them in turn. I will first address the politics and policies of our energy future, as raised by the panelists.
Politics & Policy
Although the panel discussion was not exactly intended to center on politics and policy, the discussion was continually being pulled in that direction. It seemed that nearly everyone had something to say about the role of government. And while there may have been clear political and ideological divisions amongst the panelists, they all generally agreed that the federal government has, up to this point, pretty much dropped the ball when it comes to leading the way with effective energy policy programs.
Absolutely we need a national energy policy strategy, said Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Chair of the five-person California Energy Commission. Pfannenstiel, who was appointed to the board by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2004, argued that a uniform policy would be nice, but added, ” you’ve got to start somewhere.”
Paul K. Siegele, Vice President of Strategic Development for Chevron voiced his concern that as a direct result of federal abdication of responsibility, a patchwork of policies in the 50 U.S. states have hampered gasoline distribution and driven up costs for the oil manufacturers. Siegele was very concerned about the absence of federal leadership on climate and energy policy and when pressed by Maria Surma Manka, he admitted that a fair cap and trade policy that would not single out individual industries would be the preferred policy mechanism ( as opposed to a straight carbon tax).
Pfannenstiel, on the other hand, was not as concerned about the patchwork of energy and climate policies that vary from state to state, as was Siegele. She said that good energy efficiency policy in California could presumably set the model for the national picture. Pfannenstiel added that legislating to take advantage of the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency was where policymakers could really lead the way.
Trae Vasallo of the venture capitalist firm, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers said: “The government has not stepped up in terms of investment… private early stage venture capitalists are actually outspending the federal government.” This comment actually drew some audible gasps from the audience.
David Victor, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Affairs did not mince words about his pessimism. Victor noted that it is going to be really hard for the US to lead in global climate change policy, because the federal government has not done particularly well so far, and they have yet to convince the global community that they are serious about addressing climate change. “Over the next few decades I am very pessimistic… I am pessimistic about changing the near-term trajectory…”
But Victor was not only pessimistic about the U.S. government’s ability to affect change, he was also concerned that governments in general were little match against the resource-rich companies that are driving the global economy, adding, “the governments of the world have very little leverage.”
Finally, there was one brief mention of a policy program that got my attention as something that could seriously hamper the construction of new power plants. Apparently, there is a bill in the California legislature that would limit long term power purchase agreements (PPAs) between energy producers using dirty technologies like coal and the utilities that purchase the energy. The problem is that until tougher regulations are adopted on the construction of new coal-fired power plants, utilities will continue to bring those plants on line - mostly because they are required by law to do so (PURPA).
Please stay tuned as I will next address the roles of technology and consumer behavior in shaping our energy future.
Related Posts:
“Liveblogging Energy’s Future is in Technology (Part I)”
“Oil Companies’ Shareholders Reject Activist Proposals”
Photo Courtesy of API
