Looking for Clean Energy "two-fers"
When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 was being put together in response to the financial crisis that hit back then, there was not a lot of time for the Congress to think about how they could knock down two birds with one stone. By that I mean actions they could take that would address the crisis while also fostering something that had been decided to be good public policy, and something that deserved investment.
At that time, I was heading up two different non-profit groups focused on demand response, grid modernization and DER. I was advocating everywhere I could for support for these areas as essential for transitioning the electricity industry into something that would support the modern tech-based economy.
So you can imagine how happy I was to suddenly get a call from a friend of mine on the House Appropriations Committee. She said "Dan, we probably ought to put some money into that 'stuff' you are working on" (that is a direct quote).
I said "I will be right up" and hopped a cab to the Hill.
Over the next hour, we crafted language that was tied to some things in the previous energy bill (EISA) and put in a marker of $4 Billion for grid modernization to go into the stimulus bill. It stayed in and became law.
Not only did grid modernization projects subsequently happen involving money from the bill, but they happened where no money from the bill went. The bill funds not only stimulated some specific projects, it stimulated an entire industry transition.
The situation on the Hill right now is obviously different from back then. Time is of the essence. The financial impact is greater, and getting larger every day.
But that rule should still govern - if you can bag more than one bird and get a "two-fer", without doing any harm to the main objective, you should do it.
As I write this, a stimulus bill to respond to Covid-19 impacts is getting wrapped up and that ship could be said to have sailed.
But it will likely not be the last ship.
And the other bird is climate.
Climate change is different than COVID-19. We don't know a lot about the latter, and are learning more about it every day. But we know it is a clear and present danger, and we are attacking it as such. It appears as though it will become part of our world going forward along with the flu and other viruses. But we are right now confronting the impact in real time and and tying to fix it in real time.
We know a lot about climate change already. We know enough to know that it also is a clear and present danger. But while polling is going up on metrics like awareness, concern, etc, the actions being taken are inadequate to address the crisis.
Climate change is not like COVID. Think about it. Have you ever heard anyone, when discussing climate change, give a timeline for "passing through" climate change and talk about when it will ramp down or go away? I haven't. That's because emissions and metrics like temperature are pretty much only a ramp up. The only question is what the upward slope of the curve is over what kind of timeline.
While emissions may be falling temporarily, they have still been rising, and are likely to return to levels too high to meet the many national, state, and corporate commitments to reduce. Climate change is not taking a break to let us work on the Coronavirus.
So the question is: What might the COVID-19 Crisis impact mean for climate change?
The first thing that jumps out is emissions, which for the moment are falling. That is a good thing from a climate standpoint, even if the reason is economic downturn and job loss, which is never a good thing.
The second thing is that prices on energy markets are dropping as the world's spigots are opened up. That may be a good thing, from the standpoint of matching with hits to consumers' disposable income, but it could be a bad thing if it erodes the introduction of non-fossil energy sources that have increasingly been making strides in capturing market share based on beating conventional energy prices.
It is also a bad thing if carbon trading and offset markets are adversely impacted.
It is also a bad thing if fossil fuel industries are bailed out and made more viable than otherwise.
The big question is: Do we have time to do something that involves more than just handing out money? Can we avoid replicating past crises where quick, massive bailouts of banks and Wall Street firms came and went with little overall change? With COVID, can we do something good for clean energy and climate change as we fight it? Maybe, but certainly not if it delays a COVID response.
Do we have time to make sure that existing jobs in one of the fastest growing areas of our economy - renewable energy and energy efficiency - are sustained and more such jobs created? Maybe, but certainly not if the COVID response is delayed.
Do we have time to use government funding to apply it to a massive deployment of energy efficiency and clean energy in homes and businesses? Something that would help with energy costs and certainly help with the transition to a decarbonized economy? Maybe, but certainly not if it delays a response to COVID.
Do we have time to put carbon-pricing in place, at a time when prices are low, so that it can be slid more easily into the economy? Probably not.
Do we have time to require companies to make emission-reducing commitments or to accept new climate-beneficial regulations in exchange for financial support? Maybe, but not if it delays money getting to workers who have been impacted.
Is there some way that we can use the COVID Crisis as an educational "wake-up" tool that we can apply to climate education and awareness? Can we talk about "flattening the curve" on emissions and other climate data" Probably, but that is something that we can get to later.
We are all watching a never-before-seen situation unfold in real-time. But even in real-time, there is time. Policymakers have to do something, and so why not think, if only only for a moment, about how we might try for a "two-fer" on COVID and Clean Energy.
I would really be interested in your thoughts and ideas on this.
Dan
