How will businesses finance the future of energy?

A new report outlines business challenges and policy challenges thwarting the growth of the advanced energy sector, in order to identify policy improvements that could overcome these challenges.

Ajit Solanki/AP/File
Indian workers walk past solar panels at the Gujarat Solar Park about 155 miles from Ahmadabad, India. Financing of emerging technologies is one of the most significant business challenges the energy sector faces.

In April, the Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI) released the synthesis of a survey of executives in the advanced energy sector conducted by PA Consulting to suggest priorities for U.S. energy policy.

The report, Accelerating Advanced Energy in America, outlined business challenges and policy challenges thwarting the growth of the advanced energy sector, in order to identify policy improvements that could overcome these challenges.

The most significant business challenges identified were:  financing of emerging technologies, scaling technologies from development to commercialization, declining electricity prices (primarily owing to the natural gas boom), and recruiting a qualified and skilled workforce.

The most significant policy challenges identified were:  regulatory/policy uncertainty, “static definitions” of technologies qualifying for support, inadequate R&D support, and politicization of advanced energy. 

From these challenges, AEEI summarized the respondents’ observations to make the following suggestions on sound energy policy:

  • Business leaders want stability and predictability in market structures.
  • They want a level playing field with their competitors – with traditional energy, and with each other.
  • They want government to support research across a wide range of technologies.
  • They want subsidies that make new technologies more competitive to be limited in duration, and phased out in a gradual, predictable manner, not maintained forever or cut off after arbitrary deadlines.
  • They want government policies crafted around broad problems, rather than pre-ordained solutions so that the market can identify the best ways forward.

It’s a reasonable wish list to ask of policymakers.  But, then again, when did “reasonable” last prevail in Washington DC?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.