The United States has fallen far from its position as the leader in clean energy in the 1970s. Today, China, Japan, South Korea and Germany have committed to policies and investments that put them in the lead. Whichever country or countries emerge as the leaders of clean energy will get the greatest economic benefits. If the U.S. doesn’t act, it will find itself as permanent consumer, rather than producer of these new clean energy technologies.
In Creating a Clean Energy CenturyThird Way examines clean energy innovation policy and investment in the U.S. and abroad and offers a policy roadmap to jump start America’s private sector economic growth, transforming how the country produces and consumes energy.
President Obama’s re-election was not the only important issue on the November 2012 ballot. Several states’ voters faced important initiatives with possible national implications, and the results of those votes are listed below.
Here’s a Quick Overview:
Of the 4 marriage votes, 3 supported marriage (ME and MD legalizing, MN not banning) and in 1 it is too soon to tell (WA).
Of the 2 abortion votes, 1 restriction passed (MT) and 1 restriction failed (FL).
Of the 2 immigration votes, 1 went in favor of immigrants (MD DREAM Act) and 1 went against immigrants (MT proof of citizenship).
In the 1 affirmative action vote, the practice was banned (OK).
In the 1 dying with dignity vote, it is too soon to tell (MA).
Of the 6 marijuana votes, 3 passed (MA, CO, WA), 2 failed (AR, OR), and in 1 it is too soon to tell (MT).
Experts, executives, and journalists gathered for a discussion about the future of America’s energy mix, as well as to identify post-election action areas for the president and Congress.
This event was produced by The Christian Science Monitor’s Publishing Group and sponsored by AREVA.
WATCH: Third Way’s Josh Freed, Vice President for the Clean Energy Program, discusses the importance of government investment in the private sector to develop innovative technology for clean energy.
Last week, two next-generation battery manufacturers in the Boston area announced major investments from Chinese firms.
Good news?
Yes, if your goal is to grow the Chinese economy. The deals for A123 Systems and Boston-Power will result in major technology transfers to China and likely lost American jobs. The deals are the result of a campaign by Tea Party Republicans to kill the U.S. clean energy industry in its cradle. That’s because the GOP Congressional leadership appears more interested in turning clean energy into a wedge issue than in having America win what energy market analysts see as a $2.3 trillion dollar global market within the next decade.
Don’t take our word for it.
In late 2011, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of a powerful House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, said the U.S. “can’t compete with China” on clean energy. Rep. Stearns was eventually forced to walk back this statement. But actions speak louder than words. His proposed “No More Solyndras Act” would not only end government support of emerging energy technologies, it is having a chilling effect on domestic private capital. That makes it difficult for promising American clean energy companies to secure funding. That’s a problem American workers and entrepreneurs are experiencing first hand.
Stearns and fellow Republicans moved quickly to bolster their attack on clean energy with a self-contradicting condemnation of A123’s announcement. Even at a time when politics is not known for having much regard for facts, the new salvos are stunningly illogical. In separate statements, the Republican National Committee and Stearns derided the government’s $249 million investment in A123 and called the company a failure in one breath, and then bemoaned the government’s failure to block the Chinese from gaining access to strategic American technology in the next.
Republicans can’t have it both ways. Either the company was a bad investment or it created valuable technological advances. The Chinese obviously think it was the latter, and think those technologies are worth $450 million.
At a time when the United States needs to increase domestic energy production and leaders of both political parties say they support an “all of the above” energy strategy, Congress should level the playing field and give all sources of domestic energy — renewable and non-renewable alike — a fair shot at success in the marketplace.
The federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy market, but for nearly 30 years, that’s exactly what it has been doing with a provision in the tax code that authorizes the formation of master limited partnerships (MLPs). An MLP is a business structure that is taxed as a partnership, but whose ownership interests are traded like corporate stock on a market.
By statute, MLPs have only been available to investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. These projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly effective at attracting private investment. Investors in renewable energy projects, however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a growing portion of America’s domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow.
The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act is a straightforward, powerful tweak to the federal tax code that could unleash significant private capital into the energy market.
The legislation, which is just over 200 words long, would level the playing field between traditional and new energy businesses by helping energy-generation and transmission companies form master limited partnerships, which combine the funding advantages of corporations and the tax advantages of partnerships.
By allowing additional forms of energy development to access this market tool, we can go beyond political rhetoric and start delivering an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) say a small change to the U.S. tax code would provide a big boost to renewable energy projects.
The duo is floating legislation that would allow investors in green-power projects to use the “master limited partnership” tax structure, which is already available to investors in fossil fuel projects.
The lawmakers call it a “powerful tweak” to the tax code that would help steer capital into solar, wind, biofuels and other projects.
Coons, in a statement, said their “MLP Parity Act” will help “level the playing field by giving investors in renewables and non-renewables access to the same highly attractive master limited partnership business structure.”
MLPs are limited partnerships that are also traded on U.S. exchanges — a structure that the lawmakers call well-suited to getting capital into the energy space.
“In order to grow our economy and increase our energy security, sound economic tools like the MLP should be expanded to include additional domestic energy sources,” Moran said.
A summary, from the lawmakers’ offices:
By statute, MLPs have only been available to investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. These projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly effective at attracting private investment. Investors in renewable energy projects, however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a growing portion of America’s domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow.
Whether it’s major Capitol Hill mediaWeb sites or Congressional hearings, many in Washington seem consumed these days by the question of whether the clean technology sector is viable. The real issue is not whether solar, wind, biofuels or other cleantech will succeed. They will not only succeed; globally, these new technologies will come to dominate the power sector on a long-term basis. The issue is whether the U.S. will lead or follow and whether the jobs and economic growth represented by these industries will be here or elsewhere.
The Department of Defense is the largest consumer of liquid fuels in the world, and as this digest makes plain, its fuel costs are rising at an alarming rate.
Fuel efficiency is a national security priority. Without it, DOD will spend an ever-increasing percentage of its budget on fuel at the expense of other priorities. In this digest, we:
Outline the fiscal challenges to DOD posed by rising fuel costs; and
Identify solutions that can help the Department cut fuel consumption while preserving, and even enhancing, mission capability.
Given the stakes, Congress should use its budgetary and oversight functions to ensure that the Pentagon is proceeding aggressively with an effort to cut its consumption of fuel.
Yes, but not as much as four years ago, the last time gas prices averaged over four dollars a gallon. In June 2008, when gas hit $4.01 a gallon, 51% of Americans said gas prices were causing them “serious hardship.” Now, 33% say they are. The sharpest decline was among Democrats.
Partisanship? Actually, no.
Independents are also less likely to feel gas prices are causing serious hardship now compared to four years ago. Why is the crisis less painful this year than it was in 2008? For one thing, the price increase is less steep this year. Gas prices have gone up 22% since December. In 2008, they went up 35% in six months. And adjusting for inflation, $4.00 a gallon gas now is equivalent to $3.72 in 2008. The pain is also less severe because Americans are driving more fuel-efficient cars. And driving fewer miles.
But politics does seem to be affecting the way Republicans feel. They haven’t changed at all since 2008. Four years ago, 41% of Republicans said gas prices were causing a serious hardship. George W. Bush was President, and Republicans were then the least likely to complain. Now 40 % say gas prices are causing severe hardship. Barack Obama is President, and Republicans are the most likely to complain.
The fact that Republicans are complaining just as much as before doesn’t sound like hardship. It sounds like partisanship.
Moreover, at the moment when a new technology approaches and crosses the tipping point—when it is out-selling the old—the new technology is almost always more expensive. This was true for digital vs. film cameras in 2005, CrT vs. lCD televisions in 2007, wireless vs. wireline phones in 2008, and lPs vs. CDs in 1990. History shows us that the new technology’s price will drop very rapidly as unit volumes in sales increase. It will then quickly reach parity or a lower price point than the old technology.
