• Energy Research
• Science and Innovation Policy Studi... close

This report compares and contrasts the goals of, and the investments in, the three initiatives, which may provide useful insights for Congress as it assesses and debates the nation's energy policy.

Professional paper for the fulfillment of the Master of Science in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy degree. ; To avoid the most catastrophic effects of global climate change, countries around the world need to rapidly decarbonize their energy systems by deploying current renewable energy sources as well as the next generation of low-carbon technologies. Low-carbon energy sources are the products of innovation systems. The United States (US) and European Union (EU) have robust energy innovation systems that contribute to the development and deployment of renewable energy sources. Many of the institutions in the US’s energy innovation system date back to the 1970s when ambitions of energy independence were heightened by the energy crises of 1973 and 1979. Today, the US spends more on energy research and development than any other nation in the world. Throughout the decades, the US has developed innovative ways to accelerate the commercialization of renewable energy technologies. However, more still needs to be done to strengthen the ties between public research centers, private industry, and academia to foster a more collaborative and efficient innovation system. The EU’s energy innovation system is comparatively modern, having been developed primarily during the previous decade. The EU’s challenge has been to develop an innovation system that complements those of its member states. The EU has been able to reconcile this tension in part by making decarbonization a central tenet of its innovation system. Yet, the EU continues to struggle with the development and commercialization of disruptive next-generation technologies. Both the US and the EU should continue to examine how their multi-level governance structures can be better utilized to aid with the innovation of low-carbon energy sources.

The research question animating this project is ‘what is the nature of neoliberalism’s influence on recent and contemporary US climate change policy?’ Situating itself against several growing bodies of literature which have sought to underscore the fetishism of markets in recent environmental and climate policy agendas under neoliberalism – e.g., the work of Heynen et al (2007) on ‘neoliberal environments’; Paterson and Newell’s (2010) work on neoliberalism and carbon markets; and the work of Dryzek et al (2003) on state forms and ecological modernization – this project argues that any such analysis must be predicated on a considerably more nuanced conception of (a) ‘neoliberalism’, (b) the historic role of states in fostering accumulation, and (c) the nature of policy development within any specific neoliberal context. Applying these theoretical re-conceptualizations to the American context, the project argues that a central tension informing contemporary US climate policy under neoliberalism can be understood a stand-off between two prevailing logics in the federal policy process: on the one hand, Washington’s attempt to build on its tradition of using state power to foster high-tech market development by cultivating the alternative energy realm as a developmental state project, and on the other, the anti-regulationist bent of neoliberalism which seeks to delegitimize the ‘pull’ policies required to ‘creatively destroy’ conventional energy and animate domestic alternative energy markets. Against the general conception of the US as a ‘climate laggard’ whose policy options are restricted market mechanisms and generally anathema to progressive ecological modernization, this body of work shows how the US has managed to develop a robust set of interventionist ‘push’ and ‘pull’ climate policies along ‘alternative policy pathways’, despite the prevailing anti-state rhetoric of neoliberalism.

This study evaluates the effect of complete nationwide lockdown in 2020 on residential electricity demand across 13 Indian cities and the role of digitalisation using a public smart meter dataset. We undertake a data-driven approach to explore the energy impacts of work-from-home norms across five dwelling typologies. Our methodology includes climate correction, dimensionality reduction and machine learning-based clustering using Gaussian Mixture Models of daily load curves. Results show that during the lockdown, maximum daily peak demand increased by 150-200% as compared to 2018 and 2019 levels for one room-units (RM1), one bedroom-units (BR1) and two bedroom-units (BR2) which are typical for low- and middle-income families. While the upper-middle- and higher-income dwelling units (i.e., three (3BR) and more-than-three bedroom-units (M3BR)) saw night-time demand rise by almost 44% in 2020, as compared to 2018 and 2019 levels. Our results also showed that new peak demand emerged for the lockdown period for RM1, BR1 and BR2 dwelling typologies. We found that the lack of supporting socioeconomic and climatic data can restrict a comprehensive analysis of demand shocks using similar public datasets, which informed policy implications for India's digitalisation. We further emphasised improving the data quality and reliability for effective data-centric policymaking.

Residential energy demand can be greatly influenced by the types of housing structures that households live in, but few studies have assessed changes in the composition of housing stocks as a strategy for reducing residential energy demand or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this paper we examine the effects of three sequenced federal policies on the share of new housing construction by type in the U.S., and estimate the cumulative influence of those policies on the composition of the 2015 housing stock. In a counterfactual 2015 housing stock without the policy effects, 14 million housing units exist as multifamily rather than single-family, equal to 14.1% of urban housing. Accompanied by floor area reductions of 0-50%, the switch from single- to multifamily housing reduces energy demand by 27-47% per household, and total urban residential energy by 4.6-8.3%. This paper is the first to link federal policies to housing outcomes by type and estimate associated effects on residential energy and GHG emissions. Removing policy barriers and disincentives to multifamily housing can unlock a large potential for reducing residential energy demand and GHG emissions in the coming decades.

Oil well condition parameters.

Well condition parameters.

(OPJ)

Test comparison results.

Structure size and operating parameters of pumping unit.