Why the Renewable Energy Sector Needs Higher Ed...
The Phase II National Policy Forum, organized by the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), took place a few days ago in the Cannon Office of the House of Representatives, just opposite the Library of Congress, in Washington, DC. Apt the venue was, I’d later find, as the schedule for the Forum was packed with speeches from our nation’s congressmen.
The morning keynotes, back-to-back speeches given by Charlie Bass (R-NH) and Earl Blumenhauer (D-OR), set the tone for the rest of the conference. It was clear that the purpose of the Forum was a chance for experts to convene and talk policy, to talk "America," and to talk renewable energy policy in America with respect to the time period of 2000-2025 (“Phase I, as defined by ACORE, was 1975-2000).
Rep. Blumenhauer gave a galvanizing speech around the importance of renewing Section 1603 Treasury Program, which is best-known (or notorious) for funding Solyndra, but is also responsible for leveraging $22 billion from the private sector to support 22,000+ projects that utilize renewable energy technology. Since Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, the negative press radiated from the company’s downfall to 1603, the source of its funding. Blumenhauer (and the other Representatives that would speak throughout the day) echoed and emphasized the points made by the 1603 Coalition, a group of over 750 companies and associations, urging politicians to vote for the renewal of 1603 on Dec 31, 2011 – less than 20 days from now.
Following the morning keynotes, the conference featured four panels covering (broadly): the financing of renewable energy in the States; the role of renewables in the power market; weening ourselves off of oil; and making renewables more competitive and palatable. Afternoon keynote speakers were Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Peter Welch (D-VT). The Forum undoubtedly featured an impressive array of thought leaders in renewable energy -- from Michel da Capua of Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance to Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary for Installations & Environment at the Department of Defense -- who shared insights that in some cases are just too costly to access, and in others, just too esoteric for those without a profound knowledge of the field to understand.
However, there was little mention of higher education writ large, let alone higher education sustainability. I wasn’t too surprised by this, given ACORE’s primary focus on the financial, policy, and technical aspects of renewables, but the Forum did make me realize that higher ed sustainability leaders have a lot to gain and not much to lose by being an active participant or observer of national and local governmental proceedings on energy policy.
For example, it was “green jobs” -- a common refrain from the current administration since President Obama’s campaign trail -- that was intended to be given weight with the creation of Section 1603. For students looking to break into (and for professionals already) in the renewable sector, any funding money is worthwhile, and the 1603 program, if not renewed, could be a big loss of potential funding. So, getting 1603 renewed mostly likely means an added opportunity to get your idea funded.
But another point I want to make here is that though the word "sustainability" wasn’t used as much as expected in the Forum, the so-called renewable energy or clean tech policies being drafted, voted upon, and rejected or accepted are potential sustainability policies because they have impacts on different industries and institutions. An example is the Farm Bill, which demonstrates the emergence of unanticipated effects from a piece of legislation with good intentions but far-reaching (and long-standing) adverse effects on other industries. At the Forum, the realization that the same holds true for policies that are clearly pro-renewable and nay-oil came to me while listening to John Hofmeister, former President of Royal Dutch Shell Oil North America.
Mr. Hofmeister started off his talk with a stentorian remark and a dramatic pause: “The gas lines will hit.” Gas lines? As in pipelines? Not quite; the gas lines Hofmeister was alluding to were not-so-fond memories of living through the Oil Embargo and waiting for hours at the gas stations to fill the tank. He added a caveat: “This time, it won’t be an oil embargo but a simple supply pinch.”
This was a striking reminder that, especially for those of us working in sustainability, we do have to acknowledge that allies can come in all shapes and sizes; in this case, Hofmeister comes more from a place of anti-oil or perhaps American nationalism, but not so much environmental justice, for instance.
Recognizing where our values and motives align -- and don't align -- could make us more effective at being sustainability leaders. For instance, Hofmeister and his colleagues in the US Energy Security Council are busy working the Hill to “drive home urgency and consistency” to politicians, and “come completely off OPEC oil.” Sounds good, right?
Sure, except that OPEC does not include all of the countries from which the US imports oil (two of the top sources of oil for the US are Canada and Mexico, neither of which are OPEC members), so coming 100% off OPEC oil doesn’t mean we’re getting 100% off oil. Furthermore, the bill that they propose would have strategies such as using 100% flex fuel engines to take advantage of domestic fuel sources, which might mean more corn-based ethanol. And how would this impact other industries that are adversely affected by the far-reaching tentacles of corn at present? And here we are, at that point of confluence between agriculture and renewables, between local farmers and renewables, between Big Corn and OPEC, and so forth, with which the powerful people in the USESC are not necessarily too concerned because, alas, their focus is on getting America energy-independent.
Enter sustainability professionals. With the sharply trained eye to identify and analyze the gaps and omissions that exist in policies that are being developed within silos, and propose ways to fill these gaps, the importance of an education in sustainability can’t be overstated. We all know that higher education institutions are indisputably hubs for innovation, dialogue, and discourse. But there is also this notable opportunity to apply the core concepts that so many are using to integrate sustainability into curriculum and foster cross-discipline dialogue, to the municipal, state, or national governmental level to convey that securing an energy future is a crucial part to sustainability, but not the whole.
Related Resources:
Campus Solar Installations Database
Wind Turbine Installations on Campus
"Energizing the Higher Ed Sustainability Movement -- with Renewables"
Related Blog Posts on Energy
Posted: December 9, 2011, 3:35 PM