Search

Begin New Search Topic Energy Policy Political Geography North America Content Type Commentary and Analysis Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Nuclear Waste Policy Actions for the 117th Congress and Biden Administration

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In the 117th Congress, the United States Senate is evenly divided, 50-50, between the two major political parties, and the margin for control of the US House is small. One nonpartisan—and overdue—policy issue that Congress and the executive branch could focus on is the US nuclear waste management program. The US is currently paying billions to utilities to house spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at operating and shutdown facilities, and high-level waste (HLW) remains at former nuclear weapons complex sites around the country. Add to this the potential for greater future reliance on nuclear power in a decarbonizing economy, and the need to finally get a handle on managing radioactive waste is clear. An earlier report from the Center on Global Energy Policy on the US nuclear waste management program examined larger structural changes that the federal government could pursue to help the program make progress, such as fixing the funding mechanism and updating regulatory standards.[1] This commentary discusses the US program as it stands in the 117th Congress and proposes a series of comparatively smaller actions that could be considered and perhaps pursued on a bipartisan basis in the next few years.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Nuclear Waste
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. The Venezuelan Oil Industry Collapse: Economic, Social and Political Implications

Author:
Rafael Ramírez
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Venezuela’s hydrocarbons industry has completely collapsed. Seven years of mismanagement and political purges, the dismantling of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.’s (PDVSA) managerial structures and deviations in longstanding company policy implemented by the government of Nicolás Maduro since 2014 have undermined the sector and destabilised the national economy.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, Economy, and Industry
Political Geography:
Venezuela, North America, and United States of America

3. Building an Energy and Climate Coalition with Latin America and the Caribbean: An Agenda for the Biden Administration

Author:
Mauricio Cardenas and Laurie Fitzmaurice
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The initial months of the Biden administration’s foreign policy have underscored the importance of defining the type of relations with China (cooperative in some areas, adversarial in others) and revamping relations with Europe on areas of common interest. However, the United States should look closer to home, where it can find some major opportunities for international policy advancement. The Biden administration has a window of opportunity to rethink its relations with and policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). In particular, there are very good reasons—political and economic—for putting the energy and climate change agenda at the center of the hemispheric partnership. On the political front, building a hemispheric bloc will increase the influence of its members in global negotiations. On the economic front, the countries in the region offer significant opportunities for trade and investment for the United States. Canada, which earlier in the year pledged to work with the United States on addressing climate change,[1] could also have an interest in promoting and potentially participating in this initiative. Prior to the arrival of the pandemic, the economies of LAC had already been confronting a complex series of economic growth challenges after the end of the commodities supercycle. Many countries in the region faced high levels of public indebtedness, currency depreciation, credit rating risk, insufficient tax revenue bases, and low investment rates.[2] The appearance of the COVID-19 crisis only served to exacerbate these conditions. The LAC region contains 8.4 percent of the world’s population but represents 30 percent of COVID-19 fatalities to date.[3] Forecasts now predict that per capita GDP will remain below the 2019 level at least until 2023.[4] The continuing surge of undocumented immigration into the southern border of the United States, the social and economic impacts of COVID-19, and the growing influence of China in the region could increase political pressure on the United States to develop a coherent policy toward LAC. These urgent and competing dynamics represent an opportunity for the United States to recast its policy toward the region as one of engagement. The United States could utilize the tools of technology and financing focused on energy and climate to put the region on a path toward sustained economic growth and social progress. LAC needs technology and financing to build clean infrastructure, develop alternative energies, and reduce energy poverty.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Regional Cooperation, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Latin America, Caribbean, North America, and United States of America

4. The New US-EU Energy Security Agenda: Roundtable Report

Author:
Jonathan Elkind
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On June 3, 2021, Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) and the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs), in cooperation with the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the European Union (EU) Delegation to the US, cohosted a private virtual roundtable focusing on energy security issues during a period of heightened action on climate goals. This document summarizes the June 3 roundtable, which was conducted on a not-for-attribution basis. Participants in the roundtable included just over 50 senior corporate executives, civil society representatives, academic and think tank experts, energy analysts, and government officials from the European Union and United States. In June 2021, President Joe Biden traveled to Europe, his first overseas trip since his inauguration as president, and he met with European heads of state and government in the context of a British-hosted G7 meeting, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, and a US-EU Summit.[1] The journey signaled a concerted effort by the United States and the European Union to rebuild bilateral relations, which were battered during the Trump administration. Protecting the global climate and accelerating the transition to clean energy are objectives that unify top leaders on both sides of the Atlantic today. The European Union has a legislated mandate of climate neutrality by the year 2050 and is implementing its comprehensive European Green Deal and elaborating a corresponding legal and regulatory framework for an enhanced 2030 target. In the United States, the Biden administration reentered the Paris climate agreement and announced plans to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury, though climate protection still faces significant political challenges in the US Congress and in certain states. If the European Union and the United States proceed as these plans indicate, their energy systems face a period of accelerating, unprecedented, and sustained change—new technologies, new supply chains, new business models, and new interdependencies between economic sectors.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, International Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

5. Methane Emission Controls: Redesigning EPA Regulations for Greater Efficacy

Author:
Robert Kleinberg
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Natural gas holds a critical role in the US energy economy, providing 32 percent of primary energy evenly distributed among electric power generation, industrial use, and residential and commercial consumption (LLNL 2020). As countries set targets to minimize climate change, however, widespread reliance on fossil fuels, with their attendant greenhouse gas emissions, is being scrutinized. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is second only to carbon dioxide in its contribution to greenhouse gas warming (Kleinberg 2020). It holds the potential to be a primary driver of global average temperature change between now and 2050—no matter what progress is made in controlling increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the next thirty years (Shindell et al. 2012). Half of global methane emissions come from natural sources, such as swamps and seeps, and half from anthropogenic sources, such as agriculture and fossil fuels. Regulations curbing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are essential to mitigating global climate change over the next three decades. In the United States, current regulations were devised at a time when the technology for the measurement of natural gas emissions was relatively immature. Comprehensive performance-based regulations were not an option, and because of this, many regulations put in place were highly prescriptive. Data show these regulations have been largely ineffective. This commentary examines the potential to reduce emissions of methane from oil and natural gas infrastructure. It begins with a brief history of natural gas regulations and the effectiveness of rulemaking, before exploring unregulated and underregulated sources of methane. This is followed by a discussion about improvements in measurement capabilities and how regulations could be used to more effectively address methane emissions. This work shows the complexities of oil and gas production do not lend themselves to prescriptive regulation. Performance-based regulation, including quantitative compliance monitoring, would engage the talents of thousands of engineers, encouraging them to solve problems using locally appropriate solutions rather than relying on a prescriptive checklist approach that cannot anticipate every eventuality. The key to performance-based regulation is accurate measurement, and this capability has improved rapidly in recent years. Aircraft-based, facility-scale measurements encompassing tens of thousands of facilities spread over tens of thousands of square kilometers are economically viable and increasingly common. Permanently installed continuously monitoring sensors show promise in detecting intermittent sources; oil field pilot studies are underway. However, aircraft- and ground-based facility-scale measurements are not compliant with the current regulatory regime, which focuses on individual components. Therefore, the current regulatory regime must be completely rethought. (A comprehensive exposition of this topic, with evidentiary support, has been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency [Kleinberg 2021b].)
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Methane
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. How the ESG Investing Framework Applies to National Oil Companies: Workshop Report

Author:
Luisa Palacios and Hon Xing Wong
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On November 16, the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University SIPA convened a private workshop to discuss the applicability of the current ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing framework on national oil companies (NOCs). The workshop brought together representatives from NOCs, international oil companies (IOCs), international organizations, multilateral banks, private banks, institutional investment firms, ESG rating agencies, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations, as well as academics. The group discussed the types of ESG pressures that NOCs face, how NOCs are responding to these challenges, whether all the components of ESG are equally relevant when it comes to NOCs, the challenges associated with ESG reporting and ratings, how investors are integrating ESG considerations into their investment process in relation to NOCs, and the risks of future access to financing
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Privatization, Natural Resources, and Private Sector
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Turkey, Libya and the Mediterranean Carve Up

Author:
Paul Rivlin
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies
Abstract:
The civil war that has prevailed in Libya since the fall of the Qaddafi regime in 2011 has become increasingly internationalized. Foreign powers have taken sides in the war, supplying weapons, mercenaries and other support. In recent months, Turkey’s increased intervention in support of the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) has added another element to the internationalization of the conflict. In order to obtain military support, the GNA has allied itself with Turkey’s plan to gain control of access to the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas-fields. This poses a threat to Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, who are all cooperating in the utilization of those fields and the possible development of pipelines to Europe.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Libya, and North America

8. The Battle Heats Up: Climate Issues in the 2020 US Presidential Election

Author:
Arnault Barichella
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Environmental issues have frequently enjoyed bipartisan support in American history: the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1963 under Democratic President Johnson, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 under Republican President Nixon. This began to change in the 1980s under President Reagan, due to the rise of neoliberal economic theories pioneered by Republicans. Conservatives increasingly viewed environmental regulations as economic impediments. Partisanship on this issue then accelerated throughout the 1990s and 2000s, subject to the influence of powerful lobbying groups. President Bush Jr. refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, actively promoted fossil fuels, and his administration attempted to cast doubt about the science of climate change. Climate partisanship somewhat abated during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections, since both McCain and Romney were ‘moderate’ Republicans.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Elections, Legislation, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Costly Options: Will India Keep Buying the Iranian Oil After US Sanctions?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The Indian energy sector faces a dilemma amid the US administration plans to impose the second batch of sanctions on Iran in November. The US exerts pressure on the main buyers of Iranian oil, including India, to stop importing it in the coming period. For India, Iranian oil is one of the indispensable options for its energy security because of the preferential terms granted by Iran. Despite the Indian stance rejecting the US sanctions, Indian refineries have decided to halt the Iranian oil shipments starting from next November, and hence they may turn to other producers to fill the potential gap, but at a higher cost.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Sanctions, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Iran, South Asia, Middle East, India, North America, and United States of America

10. The Energy Boom and Manufacturing in the United States

Author:
William R. Melick
Publication Date:
06-2014
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
This paper examines the response of U.S. manufacturers to changes in competitiveness brought about by movements in the price of natural gas. I estimate the response of various measures of manufacturing activity using panel regression methods across roughly 80 industries that allow each industry's response to vary with its energy intensity. These estimates suggest that the fall in the price of natural gas since 2006 is associated with a 2 to 3 percent increase in activity for the entire manufacturing sector, with much larger effects of 30 percent or more for the most energy intensive industries.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Industrial Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Manufacturing
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America