Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

15431. 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

15432. 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

15433. 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

15434. 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

15435. 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

15436. 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

15437. 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

15438. National Oil Companies and the Energy Transition: Ecopetrol's Acquisition of an Electric Transmission Company

Author:
Mauricio Cardenas and Luisa Palacios
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The energy transition strategies of international oil companies have come under increased scrutiny from investors and the media as countries across the globe grapple with targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[1] It is unclear if national oil companies (NOCs) are going to feel the same pressure given their government-majority ownership and, if so, how they will adjust their business models. This commentary explores recent moves by Colombian national oil company Ecopetrol to adapt to the energy transition, especially its bid to acquire a majority stake in Interconexión Eléctrica SA (ISA), an electricity transmission company, for 14.2 trillion Colombian pesos (equal to about $3.6 billion).[2] The proposed acquisition was met with mixed reactions, with some critics suggesting it was an opportunistic move on the part of the Colombian government (which has a majority interest in both companies) to book some revenues and reduce the ballooning fiscal deficit. But rather than analyzing its fiscal merits, this piece analyzes the potential transaction from the viewpoint of Ecopetrol and whether there are lessons from the deal for other NOCs navigating the energy transition. This commentary begins with a brief background on both companies and the potential benefits for Ecopetrol in pursuing a path that is different relative to what some other oil companies are doing in order to adjust their business models. Ecopetrol faces specific as well as regional challenges that make transition strategies used by the European oil companies less attractive. The piece then discusses how, if part of the goal of the acquisition is to accelerate Ecopetrol’s energy transition and to add shareholder value, a number of complementary actions should be taken to help with the governance aspect of this acquisition while at the same time strengthening Ecopetrol’s pledge to become net zero by 2050. For example, in arranging financing, Ecopetrol could explore issuing an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) bond where the proceeds are earmarked for the purchase of ISA, which is already a net-zero company. In addition, the coupon rate could be linked to specific emissions reductions on Ecopetrol’s oil and gas activities. Tying these targets to the coupon rate could be seen as a credible mechanism to ensure that the company will comply with its ambitious climate goals. In addition, we propose that Ecopetrol maintain ISA’s current governance structure unmodified and preserve its operational independence. This would allow ISA to benefit from its investment grade status (which Ecopetrol does not enjoy) and continue to deploy its capital expenditures (CapEx) plan geared toward investing in Latin America’s electricity sector without interference. To conclude, this transaction by itself does not guarantee a successful energy transition for Ecopetrol’s core business. If Ecopetrol’s goal is to diversify its portfolio of activities and reduce its carbon footprint, then it should ensure the sum of the two companies results in synergies that reduce emissions beyond what each one of them can achieve individually. This is not a guaranteed outcome but one that will depend on how ISA performs under Ecopetrol’s ownership, the extent to which this transaction brings new opportunities in the renewable energy space, and how the revenues derived from this acquisition help to finance the decarbonization of Ecopetrol.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Regional Cooperation, Natural Resources, and Renewable Energy
Political Geography:
Colombia, South America, and Latin America

15439. Getting to 30-60: How China’s Biggest Coal Power, Cement, and Steel Corporations Are Responding to National Decarbonization Pledges

Author:
Edmund Downie
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
In September 2020, China announced its intentions to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. The neutrality goal in particular was a breakthrough for global climate ambitions: a net-zero target from the world’s largest emitter, responsible for around one-quarter of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The two new goals—referred to in Chinese policy discourse as the “30-60” goals—are not China’s first public targets on GHG reduction. They are, however, the centerpieces of a new Chinese climate policy in which GHG cuts are a standalone goal rather than an ancillary benefit of more immediate priorities like energy efficiency and industrial upgrading. Prior approaches had required little engagement from firms in carbon management. Indeed, none of the largest Chinese firms in the coal power, cement, and steel sectors had publicized quantitative targets for reducing or controlling carbon emissions before the government announced the 30-60 goals. They faced little pressure to do so; authorities pressed firms in climate-adjacent areas like reducing air pollution rather than carbon management. The 30-60 announcement appears to mark a break from this era, forcing firms to adjust accordingly. This report, part of the China Energy and Climate Program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, assesses how China’s high-emitting industries have responded to the 30-60 targets and the accompanying elevation of climate within national policy priorities. It focuses on corporate and sectoral emissions reduction targets through June 2021 among 30 major firms in three of China’s largest sources of direct emissions: coal power generation, cement, and steel.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, Coal, Industry, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
China and Asia

15440. Europe and the challenge set by history

Author:
Alain Lamassoure
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
Irrespective of the beatification of Robert Schuman by the Church, many consider the greatest achievement of European construction to be a miracle. Contrary to what is often said, the first success of this process is not peace: it would be childish to claim that, without the Treaty of Rome, a third world war would have started on the Old Continent. Instead, the real success, which can be described as a miracle because it has no historical precedent anywhere else in the world, is the reconciliation between neighbouring peoples who had considered themselves hereditary enemies for centuries. European peace, a profoundly original pax europeana, is not simply the absence of war. It is indeed peace of mind. Our fathers hated each other's guts, our children are now getting married. Not only can no one imagine an armed conflict between our countries, but a kind of informal pacifism has become so natural to the present generations that the mere association of 'Europe' and 'peace' makes them yawn with boredom. To the point, moreover, of complicating the establishment of a European defence system, which we need ... because the rest of the world is not at all resistant to war. But nothing lasts forever in this world, especially not miracles. It is our duty to consolidate and root it. Firstly, this requires handing down the narrative and the lessons to the younger generation. Therefore, by teaching history in school.
Topic:
History, Regional Integration, and Peace
Political Geography:
Europe