Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 3 Years Publication Year within 5 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from State-Owned Enterprises: A Preliminary Inventory

Author:
Alex Clark and Philippe Benoit
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) play a major role in the production of goods and services across many of the world’s largest economies, particularly in electricity generation, oil and gas, and heavy industry. SOEs (defined in this report as companies for which 50 percent or more of voting shares are held by a government) are also major sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The governments that control these SOEs are also signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change. State ownership provides these governments with a major direct point of control over the climate and energy outcomes of these companies, both in terms of reducing emissions and directing future investment into low-carbon technologies and infrastructure. Improving the measurement of SOEs’ contribution to both national and global-level emissions provides important information to help understand to what extent SOEs should be targeted and to design strategies to maximize their potential role in the broader energy transition. This report provides an accounting of direct emissions associated with SOEs globally. It is challenging to comprehensively identify every SOE, as the total is estimated at well over 100,000. In addition, most identified SOEs do not disclose their emissions nor are estimates of these emissions available in the public domain. Despite these limitations, data compiled for this report covering almost 300 major SOEs suggest that SOEs globally are responsible for at least 7.49 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) annually in direct (Scope 1) emissions. While the true scale of SOE-related emissions is likely to be substantially higher, particularly when accounting for national oil companies and iron and steel manufacturers that do not currently report their emissions, this figure is over 1 GtCO2e greater than various previous estimates, and larger than the total annual emissions of any country except China.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, and Green Technology
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Global Focus

3. Tallying Updated NDCs to Gauge Emissions Reductions in 2030 and Progress toward Net Zero

Author:
James Glynn, Kristin Smith, Melissa Lott, Lilly Yejin Lee, Jordan Shenhar, and Pekun Bakare
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The Paris Agreement included two particularly crucial innovations for supporting greenhouse gas emissions reductions: a voluntary, bottom-up nationally determined contribution (NDC) and a ratchet mechanism. The latter change meant that, in the run-up to the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Glasgow last fall, countries prepared updated NDCs—specific commitments to reduce emissions by 2030—that outlined their increased ambition. After the adoption of the Glasgow Climate Pact, many observers have focused on what these NDCs, as well as countries’ pledges to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by certain dates, could mean for the world’s ability to limit global temperature rise to well below 2° Celsius—the central goal of the Paris Agreement. But another critical question remains: how would these targets and ambitions drive near-term emissions reductions. Understanding the answer can provide insights to investors, utilities, or others with decision time horizons of 10–15 years and that wish to align with net-zero ambitions. This report, part of the energy systems modeling program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, aims to assess the alignment between updated NDCs and current net-zero pledges for policy makers and industry leaders to gain insight into their own national and corporate decarbonization outlooks. It considers all classes of NDCs, including: 1) percentage reduction in emissions relative to a historical base year level, 2) percentage reduction compared to a 2030 business-as-usual scenario, and 3) reduction in emissions intensity of gross domestic product. It presents an estimate of the percentage reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from 2015 to 2030 for all commitments outlined in NDCs for countries that also have a net-zero target. Overall, this analysis finds that the NDCs of economies with 2050 net-zero pledges would lead to a 27 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, relative to 2015. However, countries with post-2050 net-zero pledges are projected to increase their emissions by 10 percent between 2015 and 2030, lowering the net global emission reduction to 9 percent over this period.
Topic:
Environment, Green Technology, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. US-China Roundtable on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage

Author:
David B. Sandalow, Sally Qiu, and Zhiyuan Fan
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On November 17, 2021, New York time/November 18, 2021, Beijing time, the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and Energy Foundation-China convened an online roundtable on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in the United States and China. Scholars, industry officials and policy makers exchanged information and ideas concerning CCUS development in each country. Participants discussed the role of CCUS in achieving net zero emissions, focusing on three topics in particular: CCUS costs, strategies for utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) and CCUS policies. This report summarizes key points made by participants at the roundtable, which was held under the Chatham House Rule.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

5. Carbon Pricing During an Energy Crisis

Author:
Harrison Fell and Pierre Noel
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The European energy crisis, aggravated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, amplifies the tension between climate mitigation action and energy affordability. Introducing a more effective safety valve to the EU carbon market could reduce affordability concerns and the political pressure associated with extreme price spikes, making the system more resilient. It could be accompanied by a more effective price floor too.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Conflict, Carbon Emissions, and Energy Crisis
Political Geography:
Europe

6. Venezuela Oil Sanctions: Not an Easy Fix

Author:
Luisa Palacios and Francisco J. Monaldi
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has upended global energy markets and brought energy security issues back to the forefront of global attention. The unexpected visit of a US government delegation to Caracas for talks with Nicolas Maduro on March 5th may be considered an example of official recognition of this imperative.[1] The visit led to speculation that sanctions on the Maduro regime could be lifted and that a rapid ramp up of Venezuelan oil production and export could result.[2] This commentary makes three arguments concerning these recent developments. First, rather than potentially leading to the lifting of US sanctions on the Maduro regime, the visit could result in – provided certain conditions are met – an easing or softening of existing oil sanctions via licenses for some of the international oil companies (IOCs) that still operate in Venezuela.[3] Second, in the short term, it is unlikely that this scenario, should it come to pass, would offer any meaningful relief to global oil markets, as substantial increments in oil production from Venezuela would require overcoming many obstacles and risks, even with a potential softening of oil sanctions. However, the latter would likely lead to the redirection of Venezuela’s existing oil exports to the US market. Third, Venezuela has already seen a recovery of oil production, albeit from historically low levels. In a context of no sanctions relief, continued recovery is not guaranteed and might depend on how geopolitical events impact Russian oil exports and the outcome of the Iranian nuclear negotiations.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
South America and Venezuela

7. Energy Markets and the Design of Sanctions on Russia

Author:
Christof Ruhl
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Sanctions against the citizens, institutions, and products of the Russian Federation are evolving rapidly. Energy sanctions started late, but the number of countries embargoing oil, gas, or coal imports from Russia is expanding. These sanctions are likely to increase global fuel prices while depressing the price of the sanctioned fuel. The experience to date suggests that the current, gradual approach of reducing oil and gas imports from Russia one country at a time may have room to go further. Before the invasion of Ukraine, the sweeping and unprecedented sanctions promised in the event of a Russian invasion were often conceived as a two-pronged pincer movement. The idea was to isolate Russia from the global financial system while limiting its commodity and energy exports. Both moves were aimed at the source of the financial strength of “fortress Russia,” namely, its persistent balance of payment surplus.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Sanctions, Financial Markets, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

8. Sanctions and the Economic Consequences of Higher Oil Prices

Author:
Christof Ruhl
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Sanctions against the Russian Federation are developing so fast that it is hard to keep track of them and even harder to see a consistent narrative as events unfold. But there is one. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of energy and commodities. A persistent balance of payment surplus is the source of its financial strength, in terms of both current income and the financial assets previously accumulated by “fortress Russia.” Oil, gas, and coal exports constitute the most valuable revenue streams and are therefore prime targets of sanctions policy.[1] The problem is that energy sanctions will backfire badly if they lead to price increases large enough to derail the economic performance of sanctioning countries.
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Hydrogen: A Hot Commodity Lacking Sufficient Statistics

Author:
Anne-Sophie Corbeau
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Hydrogen has become one of the most debated topics in the energy industry. As an energy vector,[1] hydrogen has been touted as a possible path to decarbonize energy sectors that are considered difficult to electrify, such as heavy-duty transport. While hydrogen expansion faces challenges associated with introducing it into new sectors and decreasing the cost of green (or low-emission) hydrogen, major economies such as China, the EU, and the United States have been looking to integrate its use into their decarbonization strategies.[2] Demand for hydrogen could more than quintuple in a global net-zero-carbon-emissions scenario.[3] Given that hydrogen’s role is expected to increase significantly over the coming decade and expand into new sections of the energy system, it is essential to have more clarity on its current and future demand profile. The energy community is used to relying on statistics for more traditional fuels such as oil or natural gas; they enable analysts and investors to follow market developments, identify trends, and anticipate investment needs and opportunities. For policy makers, they can help to measure progress toward decarbonization objectives or against targets set within their hydrogen strategies as well as help them compare their activity with other countries’ developments. Understanding demand, production, and trade through data transparency is also a key element in energy security.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Science and Technology, Decarbonization, and Hydrogen
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. To Bring Emissions-Slashing Technologies to Market, the United States Needs Targeted Demand-Pull Innovation Policies

Author:
Varun Sivaram, Matt Bowen, Noah Kaufman, and Doug Rand
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
President-elect Joe Biden has called climate change one of the four most important crises facing the country and pledged ambitious climate action.[1] At the heart of his strategy to slash US and global emissions is a focus on developing new and improved technologies to make clean energy transitions more affordable. During the campaign, Biden pledged a “historic investment in clean energy innovation.”[2] Indeed, boosting funding for energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) is widely popular among both Republicans and Democrats and represents a rare legislative opportunity for advancing climate policy under a razor-thin Democratic majority in Congress.[3] In December 2020, Congress passed the most sweeping energy legislation in a decade, attached to the $900 billion COVID-19 stimulus package, and authorized boosting clean energy RD&D funding.[4] Yet such investments alone may not be sufficient to successfully commercialize critical clean energy technologies. Today’s energy industry presents daunting barriers that impede the swift adoption of newer, cleaner technologies. As a result, the private sector underinvests in scaling up promising technologies and building out clean energy infrastructure.[5] Therefore, in addition to funding energy RD&D (“technology-push” policies), government policies should bolster market demand for clean energy to encourage private investors and firms to scale up and commercialize new technologies (“demand-pull” policies). Still, there are steep political obstacles in the way of many ambitious demand-pull policies. For example, President-elect Biden has called for economywide measures such as a clean electricity standard and $400 billion of public procurement of clean products such as electric vehicles.[6] These policies would create large markets for mass deployment of clean energy and speed a clean energy transition. But enacting them requires substantial new regulations and appropriations from Congress, a challenging feat even given the new Democratic control of both chambers of Congress. Fortunately, there is a set of targeted demand-pull measures that the Biden administration can immediately use—with existing statutory authority and without requiring massive new appropriations—to create early markets for promising clean energy technologies. These measures, which we call “demand-pull innovation policies,” fill a niche between RD&D investments that create new technology options and policies that support the large-scale deployment of clean energy. Demand-pull innovation policies focus narrowly on creating and shaping early markets for emerging technologies. For example, targeted government procurement, prize competitions, or milestone payments can provide early markets for clean energy technologies that have been developed with the aid of public RD&D funding. The government can also coordinate private procurement or otherwise catalyze private market adoption through certification and standard-setting processes. Such demand-pull innovation policies have extremely high leverage and have transformed limited public investment into flourishing private commercial markets across the space, medical, and energy fields.[7] Coherently pursuing demand-pull innovation policies will require coordination across the federal government. To this end, the incoming Biden administration should consider creating a new government office, the Energy Technology Markets Office (ETMO), to spearhead the scale-up and commercialization of promising clean energy technologies. The ETMO could be housed within the Department of Energy (DOE) to take advantage of the DOE’s deep expertise in energy technologies and markets. Indeed, in the recently passed Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021), Congress directed the DOE to build its capabilities to pursue demand-pull innovation policies.[8] In the same legislation, Congress also authorized the DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions, which could alternatively lead the demand-pull innovation agenda. Regardless of whether the administration creates a new office or augments an existing one, in order to maximize their potential impact, demand-pull innovation policies should not be the domain of only the DOE. Rather, the DOE should collaborate with a range of federal agencies—many of which, such as the Department of Defense, have sizable resources to invest in emerging technology procurement—to enact policies and pursue public-private partnerships to build market demand for the innovations critical to decarbonization. In concert with new RD&D investments in clean energy innovation, demand-pull innovation policies could be a powerful tool to speed the adoption of new technologies and cultivate advanced energy industries that can manufacture and export US innovations.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Science and Technology, Green Technology, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

11. Forging a Path Forward on US Nuclear Waste Management: Options for Policy Makers

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Nuclear power is considered in many countries a critical facet to maintaining reliable access to electricity during a global transition to low-carbon energy sources. One challenge to its potential in the United States, however, is the current standstill regarding a disposal pathway for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from commercial reactors. This impasse has a negative bearing on nuclear energy’s ability to supply more zero-carbon electricity and may cost US taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in government liability for failing to meet contractual obligations to take possession of the waste from utilities. Despite the scientific community assessing that commercial SNF and other high-level radioactive waste (HLW), such as from defense activities, can be safely isolated in deep underground repositories, US efforts to license and operate one have flatlined. The original plan for siting at least two repositories for such waste was abandoned first by DOE and then by Congress. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designated in law as the nation’s sole potential disposal site by Congress in 1987, fomenting the state’s opposition to the project. As a result of that opposition, Congress has not funded the project since 2010. Still, progress has been made over the last few decades in nuclear waste disposal programs in countries such as Finland, Sweden, and Canada. And the United States has seen the successful opening and operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico to dispose of generally less radioactive but long-lived transuranic nuclear waste from defense activities. Such programs offer insights for how the United States can try to resolve the challenges with commercial nuclear waste disposal and potentially alleviate one obstacle to wider adoption of nuclear energy to decarbonize the US economy. This report, part of wider work on nuclear energy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, explains how the United States reached its current stalemate over nuclear waste disposal. It then examines productive approaches in other countries and a few domestic ones that could guide US policy makers through options for improving the prospects of SNF and HLW disposal going forward
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Power, and Nuclear Waste
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. Energy Transition Fact Sheet: Pathways to 100% Clean Electricity

Author:
Center on Global Energy Policy
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In order to decarbonize the US economy at a reasonable cost and on an accelerated timeline, the country needs to both grow and rapidly decarbonize the power sector. This process will require many new technologies that support an affordable, equitable, and achievable transition. Expanding the clean-electricity focus beyond variable renewable technologies to include other types of zero-carbon power—as well as investing in the transmission and distribution grid that delivers this power to communities around the country—will allow the US to build a reliable, secure, and sustainable zero-carbon power system.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. The Role of Corporate Renewable Power Purchase Agreements in Supporting US Wind and Solar Deployment

Author:
James Kobus, Ali Narshallah, and Jim Guidera
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In recent years, many of the world’s biggest corporations, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple, have pledged to power their businesses with increasing amounts of renewable energy in order to reduce their carbon footprints and contribute to efforts to address climate change. Such efforts have had an encouraging impact on US power sector decarbonization, with a material and increasing share of US wind and solar deployments now driven by the procurement preferences of corporate customers. The vast majority of corporate procurement of renewable energy has been secured via power purchase agreements (PPAs). Going forward, a wider universe of companies is expected to look to such PPA agreements as a means of contributing to a low-carbon future, raising the question of how substantial these initiatives might be in supporting the overall transition to zero-carbon electricity. Indeed, a number of positive underlying trends are likely to facilitate continued growth in the corporate renewables PPA market. For example, electricity demand in the technology sector continues to grow rapidly, while renewables PPA penetration in the commercial and industrial sectors more broadly remains low, with room to grow. Additionally, expectations of continued declines in the costs of solar and wind technologies are likely to facilitate more procurement. Lastly, US companies are facing increased pressure from customers, employees, and institutional investors to improve their greenhouse gas emissions profiles. At the same time, certain factors may constrain the size of the PPA market, such as market regulations that limit the feasibility of PPAs in certain regions and the need for renewable PPA prices to be competitive relative to wholesale power prices. Scale and creditworthiness requirements can also limit the universe of potential corporate buyers, and the financial risks brought about when signing long-term contracts may further deter some market participants. Finally, companies increasingly have alternative emission reduction mechanisms at their disposal, such as renewables energy credits (RECs), carbon offsets, and green tariff programs. This student-led paper, from the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, explores the drivers influencing the renewables PPA market and assesses whether these procurement initiatives by nonutility corporations are likely to continue growing in the United States at a rapid enough pace to support power sector deep decarbonization goals. The analysis finds that while robust private sector participation in recent years has been encouraging, the potential market size going forward may be smaller than previously projected, highlighting the need for comprehensive policy frameworks to support power sector decarbonization.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Renewable Energy, Wind Power, and Solar Power
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. The Role of Corporate Renewable Power Purchase Agreements in Supporting US Wind and Solar Deployment

Author:
James Kobus and Ali Nasrallah
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In recent years, many of the world’s biggest corporations, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple, have pledged to power their businesses with increasing amounts of renewable energy in order to reduce their carbon footprints and contribute to efforts to address climate change. Such efforts have had an encouraging impact on US power sector decarbonization, with a material and increasing share of US wind and solar deployments now driven by the procurement preferences of corporate customers. The vast majority of corporate procurement of renewable energy has been secured via power purchase agreements (PPAs). Going forward, a wider universe of companies is expected to look to such PPA agreements as a means of contributing to a low-carbon future, raising the question of how substantial these initiatives might be in supporting the overall transition to zero-carbon electricity. Indeed, a number of positive underlying trends are likely to facilitate continued growth in the corporate renewables PPA market. For example, electricity demand in the technology sector continues to grow rapidly, while renewables PPA penetration in the commercial and industrial sectors more broadly remains low, with room to grow. Additionally, expectations of continued declines in the costs of solar and wind technologies are likely to facilitate more procurement. Lastly, US companies are facing increased pressure from customers, employees, and institutional investors to improve their greenhouse gas emissions profiles. At the same time, certain factors may constrain the size of the PPA market, such as market regulations that limit the feasibility of PPAs in certain regions and the need for renewable PPA prices to be competitive relative to wholesale power prices. Scale and creditworthiness requirements can also limit the universe of potential corporate buyers, and the financial risks brought about when signing long-term contracts may further deter some market participants. Finally, companies increasingly have alternative emission reduction mechanisms at their disposal, such as renewables energy credits (RECs), carbon offsets, and green tariff programs. This student-led paper, from the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, explores the drivers influencing the renewables PPA market and assesses whether these procurement initiatives by nonutility corporations are likely to continue growing in the United States at a rapid enough pace to support power sector deep decarbonization goals. The analysis finds that while robust private sector participation in recent years has been encouraging, the potential market size going forward may be smaller than previously projected, highlighting the need for comprehensive policy frameworks to support power sector decarbonization.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Renewable Energy, Wind Power, and Solar Power
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. Investing in the US Natural Gas Pipeline System to Support Net-Zero Targets

Author:
Erin Blanton, Melissa Lott, and Kristin Smith
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The Biden administration’s move to bring the United States back into the Paris Agreement and lower greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change will, if carried through, lead to a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Cutting back on the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas will be critical to transitioning the country to the lower-carbon energy system it needs to achieve decarbonization targets. But while it may seem counterintuitive, investing more in the domestic natural gas pipeline network could help the US reach net-zero emission goals more quickly and cheaply. Fortifying and upgrading the system could prepare the existing infrastructure to transport zero-carbon fuels as they become available and, in the meantime, reduce harmful methane leaks from natural gas. Studies by energy agencies, universities, and the industry that model future US natural gas consumption consistently show continued use of natural gas for at least the next 30 years, even in scenarios where the country achieves net-zero targets by midcentury. There is no quick replacement for gas in the US energy mix. And for many of the needs natural gas currently meets, the eventual replacement may be zero-carbon gaseous fuels (e.g., hydrogen, biogas). These fuels may play a significant role in supporting reliability and making the energy transition more affordable—but they, too, will require a pipeline network for efficient delivery to markets and end users. Building new pipelines is a time-consuming and costly process, especially when added to all the other infrastructure needs associated with the energy transition. When possible, adjusting existing infrastructure—already permitted and built—can help minimize the costs and accelerate the speed of the transition. The US has 2.5 million miles of natural gas pipeline infrastructure across the country, which, with investment, could be upgraded to cut emissions and be retrofitted for future transport of cleaner fuels. However, investments in pipeline infrastructure have drawn concern that they would lock fossil fuels into the US energy mix for a longer period of time and work against the energy transition. Such concerns are understandable given the contribution of fossil fuels to the global climate crisis. But retrofitting and otherwise improving the existing pipeline system are not a choice between natural gas and electrification or between fossil fuels and zero-carbon fuels. Rather, these investments in existing infrastructure can support a pathway toward wider storage and delivery of cleaner and increasingly low-carbon gases while lowering the overall cost of the transition and ensuring reliability across the energy system. In the same way that the electric grid allows for increasingly low-carbon electrons to be transported, the natural gas grid should be viewed as a way to enable increasingly low-carbon molecules to be transported. This paper, part of the work by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy on natural gas and the energy transition, examines projections of continued natural gas use and the zero-carbon fuels that are poised to become a bigger part of the energy mix. It details the state of the existing US natural gas pipeline network and trends within this segment of the market, as well as technical considerations for moving new, zero-carbon fuels through the system. The findings, combined with potential net-zero goals, lead to recommendations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions caused by leakage in the existing network, as well as opportunities to refurbish sections to carry increasing levels of cleaner fuels. It focuses on policy options that will minimize environmental impacts and maximize economic benefits. These options fall into two main categories: changing regulations on methane leak detection and repair to make the existing pipeline network as low emissions as possible while it still transports natural gas, and expanding on existing regulatory authority to allow for retrofitting the system for more hydrogen usage, along with increased R&D funding to test the integrity of the pipeline system with greater levels of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Energy Dependence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

16. Opportunities and Limits of CO2 Recycling in a Circular Carbon Economy: Techno-economics, Critical Infrastructure Needs, and Policy Priorities

Author:
Amar Bhardwaj, Colin McCormick, and Julio Friedmann
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Despite growing efforts to drastically cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and address climate change, energy outlooks project that the world will continue to rely on certain products that are currently carbon-intensive to produce but have limited alternatives, such as aviation fuels and concrete. Recycling CO2 into valuable chemicals, fuels, and materials has emerged as an opportunity to reduce the emissions of these products. In this way, CO2 recycling is a potential cornerstone of a circular carbon economy that can support a net-zero future. However, CO2 recycling processes have largely remained costly and difficult to deploy, underscoring the need for supportive policies informed by analysis of the current state and future challenges of CO2 recycling. This report, part of the Carbon Management Research Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Policy, examines 19 CO2 recycling pathways to understand the opportunities and the technical and economic limits of CO2 recycling products gaining market entry and reaching global scale. The pathways studied consume renewable (low-carbon) electricity and use chemical feedstocks derived from electrochemical pathways powered by renewable energy. Across these CO2 recycling pathways, the authors evaluated current globally representative production costs, sensitivities to cost drivers, carbon abatement potential, critical infrastructure and feedstock needs, and the effect of subsidies. Based on this analysis, the paper concludes with targeted policy recommendations to support CO2 recycling innovation and deployment.
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Infrastructure, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. 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

18. Will COVID Drive an Early Peak in Transportation Activity and Oil Demand?

Author:
Marianne Kah, Lew Fulton, Amy Myers Jaffe, Mark Schwartz, and Mark Finley
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
A critical question to emerge from the oil demand crash in 2020 caused by the global pandemic is whether it marked the beginning of an inexorable decline in consumption of the fossil fuel that could significantly speed up government efforts to meet net zero carbon targets. The changes in government policy, technology, consumer behavior, and shipping during COVID-19 have been profound. Electric vehicle sales increased in a number of countries, while overall automobile sales declined. The use of digital technology accelerated with a sharp rise in telecommuting, teleshopping, and teleconferencing, cutting into transportation oil use primarily in passenger and air travel. However, some aspects of the COVID experience increased oil use. There was significant substitution away from mass transit to greater use of personal vehicles and there is some evidence that people left large cities in the United States for the suburbs and smaller cities where there is less mass transit available and people drive more for non-commuting activities. There was also a large increase in e-commerce deliveries in the US and other nations that buoyed short-haul truck vehicle miles traveled. While unrelated to transportation, there was also an increase during COVID in petrochemicals used for personal protection equipment and packaging for take-out food and e-commerce deliveries. Because of fossil fuels’ greenhouse gas emissions, understanding how oil demand might return and when it could peak will be factors in governments’ strategies for addressing climate change. In the summer and fall of 2020, Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy and the University of California, Davis Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis) conducted an oil demand scenario study out to 2030. The goal was to understand how COVID, in combination with other political, economic, social, and technological drivers, may impact long-term transportation activity and global oil demand and to try to determine whether oil demand has already peaked. Forty-four leading energy and transportation experts developed four scenarios that varied by the pace of economic recovery, the level of government intervention in energy markets, and the stickiness in the mobility trends that were set in motion during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns. ITS-Davis then modeled the impacts of these scenarios on transportation energy and oil use. Other sectors less impacted by COVID were modeled with lesser detail. Global oil demand grows through 2030 in three out of the report’s four scenarios, which is generally in line with forecasts by agencies such as the International Energy Agency and others for that period. The one scenario that bucks the trend, named Forced Revitalization, is characterized by strong government intervention in green stimulus, acceleration of digital mobility technologies, and a slower economic recovery—the result being oil demand falling after 2025. The greater competitiveness of alternative fuels and the weaker economy in that scenario contribute to lower oil use overall. The study finds that while great uncertainty remains about the speed and strength of the world’s recovery from COVID, the current state of government climate policies and technology innovation are unlikely to reduce global oil demand fast enough to help the world keep within a 1.5°C temperature rise along the net zero carbon trajectory. Both government climate policies and technology innovation would need to move well beyond what was contemplated in this study’s scenarios.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, Transportation, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. Evaluating Net-Zero Industrial Hubs in the United States: A Case Study of Houston

Author:
Julio Friedman, Mahak Agrawal, and Amar Bhardwaj
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
New legislation, corporate action, and public interest have created both an imperative and opportunities associated with rapid and profound CO2 reduction and removal. Net-zero industrial hubs present a pathway to focus investment, innovation, and public policy to create industries and infrastructure toward achieving that goal. Such a hub would require building facilities, plants, and linked infrastructure that would reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions through the application of advanced clean energy, emissions control technology, and possibly CO2 removal technology. This concept, while relatively new, has already gained interest from some nations and companies, most notably in the United Kingdom around net-zero hubs like the Teesside collective. This paper, part of the work from the Carbon Management Research Initiative of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, examines Houston as a potential net-zero hub location. Houston, a major US refining and petrochemical center, possesses a high concentration of industrial sites and fossil-fueled power plants. Regional CO2 storage capacity, low-cost energy, infrastructure like the Port of Houston, and a large skilled labor pool also suggest a possible opportunity for investment, trade, and greenhouse gas reduction in this area. The paper also makes recommendations for policy makers should they seek to pursue a net-zero hub in the Houston area.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Industry, Carbon Emissions, and Energy Dependence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

20. The Carbon-Neutral LNG Market: Creating a Framework for Real Emissions Reductions

Author:
Erin Blanton and Samer Mosis
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
As governments and companies consider options to decarbonize their energy systems, addressing greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas and liquified natural gas (LNG) will inevitably become a greater concern. Natural gas is viewed by some as potentially providing a bridge in a broad energy transition from dependence on fossil fuels to lower-emission sources. Even with advancements in renewable energy, many forecasts show natural gas will remain core to meeting global energy demand for some time, including as a backup fuel source for renewables.[1] But as the emissions profile of the natural gas value chain has become clearer, estimates of its footprint have increased, raising questions about natural gas’s transitory function. While gas will continue to have a prominent role in the energy mix,[2] without action to better account for, reduce, and offset natural gas and LNG emissions, the breadth and length of its use will increasingly come into question—including by countries with growing energy demand who see diminishing incentive to favor natural gas over high-emitting but fiscally cheap fuel sources, such as coal. Amid these considerations, discussions of value chain carbon intensity and greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting are becoming an important component of LNG trade, giving rise to the concept of “carbon-neutral LNG.” In the trade of carbon-neutral LNG, GHG emissions from supply and/or consumption are accounted for and offset by procuring and retiring carbon credits generated through GHG abatement projects, such as afforestation, farm/soil management, and methane collection.[3] Currently, carbon-neutral LNG makes up a slim portion of global LNG trade, with just 14 cargoes traded transparently since the first was sold in 2019, compared to over 5,000 cargoes of LNG being delivered globally in 2020 alone.[4] By examining the efficacy of the market at this early stage, as this commentary does, areas for improvement in the carbon-neutral LNG trade are highlighted. Procurement of carbon credits does not negate the emissions from natural gas and LNG, and accordingly, adoption of offsets should be paired with a broader and deeper reduction in the emissions intensity of these fossil fuels to ensure they remain conducive to meeting growing energy demand without needlessly jeopardizing global, national, and corporate efforts to reduce emissions. When considering this alongside the important role LNG and natural gas are likely to continue to play in meeting energy demand in key parts of the world during the transition period, it becomes clear that efforts must be made to scale GHG emissions mitigation throughout the value chain, such as through leakage reduction and employment of less carbon-intensive liquefaction technology, as well as to offset remaining emissions through the procurement and retirement of high-quality carbon credits. Serious questions remain about scaling the carbon-neutral LNG trade, including which emissions are accounted for, what methodology is employed in the emissions measurement and verification, and how the emissions are priced—either through a carbon credit or a carbon tax. If these questions are sufficiently addressed, natural gas and LNG may align better with global policy direction and emissions requirements. That is to say, GHG verification and mitigation will be critical to the sustainability of LNG in the decarbonizing global energy stack in the coming decade, with knock-on impacts on long-term LNG contract structure, trade flows, and market pricing. While this commentary does not prescribe policy to meet carbon neutrality or Paris Agreement goals specifically, it does examine an existing and growing market trade behavior that has the potential to assist countries dependent on natural gas in meeting their climate targets during this transitory period for the global energy system. Section 1 outlines the current state of the carbon-neutral LNG trade, while section 2 suggests a structure for LNG GHG accounting based on existing accounting methodologies. Section 3 discusses the different forms through which emissions mitigation can be integrated into the LNG trade, including a discussion on the risks of greenwashing. Section 4 highlights the implications of the growing carbon-neutral LNG market and provides recommendations to market participants and policy makers.
Topic:
Energy Policy, International Trade and Finance, Natural Resources, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
Global Focus