Event Information

The Brookings Doha Center (BDC) hosted a panel discussion on May 30, 2016, about the security of energy exports and energy transit from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The panelists were Robin Mills, nonresident fellow at the Brookings Doha Center; and Colonel Giuseppe Morabito, director of the Middle East Faculty at the NATO Defense College. Sultan Barakat, senior foreign policy fellow and director of research at the BDC, moderated the event, which was attended by members of Qatar’s diplomatic, academic, and media community.

Barakat introduced the session by stating that the current unsettled environment in the Middle East raises concerns over energy security, both within the region and amongst energy consumers in Europe, the United States, India, China, and elsewhere. Threats to energy infrastructure exist at all scales, from individual acts of crime, sabotage, and terrorism to major regional wars and conflicts. We have seen large swaths of land fall under the control of non-state actors while states struggle to protect their territories. The Middle East houses some of the most important chokepoints in the energy transit, but also happens to be one of the most unstable regions in the world. 

Mills started his remarks by highlighting paradoxes in the oil and gas markets today, where low global oil and gas prices are juxtaposed with high levels of global disruptions to energy transits. Concern over energy security is lacking as markets appear to pay less attention to risks, even though energy security faces some unprecedented challenges. Such indifference, he noted, may be appropriate for now given the oversupply and abundance of energy in the market. But even in the current market, some possible threats may have very severe effects on global energy supplies, threatening the economies of consumers, producers, and the global market alike.

Mills proceeded to list different risk scenarios. At the local level, he highlighted the threat of sabotage, where communities demanding a greater share of natural resources may block a pipeline or attack an export terminal; piracy, which, he argued, could emerge in regions beyond the coast of Somalia; and attacks by extremist groups, who are eager to get a hold on new sources of income. On a state level, there is the threat of major interstate wars between major exporters, which thankfully haven’t erupted yet.  Past interstate wars, however, have had very significant impacts on energy security. The 1973 war between Israel and Egypt lead to an embargo that triggered the first oil crisis. The 1980s Iran-Iraq war resulted in severe damage to the oil production facilities of both countries and involved a tanker war which destroyed tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in an intervention by both the United States and the Soviet Union to protect shipping.

Hormuz, Mills continued, is one of numerous chokepoints—narrow channels along widely-used global sea routes that are crucial to the energy business. Given their narrowness, they tend to be obvious disruption targets. Hormuz carries about 17 million barrels per day (more than 20%) of oil exports. It is also the sole route for LNG export from Qatar, a crucial source of gas for East Asia and Europe. Other important chokepoints in the region are the Suez Canal, the southern entrance to the Red Sea, and the Bosporus Straits in Turkey. Any interruption of transit along those key areas would be highly detrimental.

Mills argued that, beyond attacks and wars, there is a broader and more diffuse threat to energy security, which has to do with investment. While it is true that investors can handle some level of risk in countries with moderate levels of insecurity like Nigeria, not all levels of insecurity can be worked with. At some point, insecurity can become too severe, deterring investment or even preventing it entirely. In the long term, this deters the development of promising new sources of oil and gas.

In response to a question from Barakat about NATO’s perspective on energy security in the Middle East, Morabito argued that NATO is particularly concerned about its gas supplies from the region, as most NATO countries rely on the region for gas. He argued that NATO’s policies, however, are primarily reactive, driven by events. No major events have interrupted energy supplies in recent times, so energy security is hardly on the agenda of NATO policymakers. There are more pressing issues these days, such as the threat of the Islamic State group (IS) and that of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In fact, Morabito continued, it is difficult to focus NATO’s attention on the issue because there doesn’t seem to be one. In the past, oil prices went up simply due to a war in Lebanon, which isn’t even an energy exporter. Today, however, we have a war that involves Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer, but prices have been declining. The markets are very different today, mainly due to the development of shale technologies.

Nevertheless, Morabito noted that he thinks NATO, or some NATO nations, have intervened to secure their energy interests by training interstate groups such as the Kurds in Iraq or paying tribesmen in Algeria to protect pipelines that flow towards Europe. He noted that protecting pipelines is a costly business. A pipeline of 1,000 kilometers requires the presence of at least two soldiers every 50 meters; those two would have to work in shifts which necessitates hiring yet another two. Even then, an attack by only 50 militants would likely see the pipeline destroyed. This high cost makes it crucial to cooperate with local groups if proper security is to be insured.

Mills noted that European countries have become far less vulnerable to interruptions in supply, which were historically mainly caused by conflicts with Russia. He attributed that to interventions by the European Union to mitigate those vulnerabilities. He noted that in addition to institutional interventions, infrastructural development and market forces are also key in mitigating risks to the energy transit. When it comes to infrastructure, pipelines can be developed to bypass chokepoints, strategic storage can be built to provide countries with an emergency stock of oil and gas, and in some rare cases spare capacity can be employed to fill gaps in supply. Additionally, too often, government action to impose price controls, rationing, and export bans has proven to be counterproductive. It is important to allow the market to correct itself freely, although market mechanisms could be aided by better data.

After a Q&A session that asked about whether there truly are any real threats to Hormuz, the role that multi-national corporations can play in securing energy security, and threats to energy transit stemming from outside the MENA region.  Barakat concluded by thanking the guests and stating that energy security is yet another reason why the region should work to resolve its differences and put an end to regional wars and rivalries.

Video

• Risky routes: Energy transit in the Middle East

Event Materials

• EnergyTransitTranscript0516doc

This election cycle, what will separate Democrats from Republicans on energy policy and their approach to climate change? Republicans tend to be fairly strong supporters of the fossil fuel industry, and to various degrees deny that climate change is occurring. Democratic candidates emphasize the importance of further expanding the share of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels, and agree that climate change is a real problem—with some saying the challenge trumps most, if not all, other U.S. security concerns.

Now that there are presumptive nominees for both major political parties, it’s an important moment to outline, in broad strokes, the positions of Secretary Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump. We realize that Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has not dropped out of the race, but note that it is fairly unlikely at this point that he would clinch the nomination.

Clinton: Building on the Obama legacy 

Secretary Clinton has laid out the most comprehensive and detailed energy and climate policy proposals of the candidates to date. They are in essence a continuation, and in some cases a further expansion, of existing White House policies under President Obama. The Secretary has stated that she wants the United States to be the “clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”

This starts with the notion that climate change is an existential threat, which the global community has to address as soon as possible. In order to do that, in her view, the United States needs to continue to show leadership on the international stage, as the Obama administration sought to do surrounding the Paris agreement in December 2015. This will require substantial reforms to expand low-carbon options, including nuclear energy to some degree, while tightly regulating fossil fuels (and gradually phasing them out). 

[S]he wants the United States to be the “clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”

The first casualty of this transformation is the coal industry, which Clinton has explicitly acknowledged. She presented a $30 billion plan to revitalize communities where coal production is currently an important industry and job creator, for example, and has campaigned with this message in various state primaries. Implicitly, Secretary Clinton does not seem to believe in the economic viability of carbon capture and sequestration in the United States—this is despite the fact that most analyses, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggest that this technology could be a cost-efficient tool in a wider carbon emission mitigation portfolio. 

Clinton sees natural gas as a bridge fuel, though at this point it’s not clear how long that bridge is. Questions remain about the role that natural gas can play in scenarios of deep decarbonization in 2030 and beyond. At the moment, the gas industry is rather nervous of the Secretary’s statement that she’d increase regulations on, in particular, the fracking industry—if her conditions came to fruition, there would very few places where fracking would continue. 

Secretary Clinton believes that oil consumption has to be cut substantially in the coming years, and she has suggested that new drilling in places like the Arctic, off the Atlantic Coast, and on federal lands would be discouraged or banned. She has previously opposed crude oil exports, though we would not anticipate a roll-back of existing policies (in December 2015, the Obama administration lifted the decades-old ban). 

Clinton foresees a new energy economy built on rapidly increasing shares of renewable energy, which should comprise 25 percent of the U.S. fuel mix by 2025 according to her plan (solar energy would be a key focus, with half a billion panels to be installed by the end of her first term). To facilitate this transition, she presented an elaborate energy infrastructure plan to modernize the U.S. grid and improve efficiency in reviewing and approving projects. 

Tax credits to support renewables would be continued under a Clinton White House, whereas fossil fuel subsidies would be phased out. Increased energy efficiency, including harmonization of vehicle efficiency and fuel standards, are high on her agenda as well. The Secretary also supports the Clean Power Plan that the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration has launched, and which is currently on hold in the Supreme Court. 

On the international stage, Clinton supports the Paris agreement on climate change. Should she win the presidency in November, she would make an effort to take this Treaty to the next step, thus continuing U.S. leadership. That would mean reinforcing U.S. leadership along the lines described above, while helping address current uncertainties about finance, transparency, and accountability, to name only a few challenges that remain.

Trump: Drill, baby, drill

Although Donald Trump’s candidacy remains highly controversial, he is now the presumptive Republican nominee for president. To the extent that we know any detailed plans, quod non, it is safe to say that his views on energy and climate change are diametrically opposed to most of Clinton’s. Broadly speaking, Mr. Trump has come out as a fervent supporter of the fossil fuel industry, and has expressed skepticism about the economic viability of renewable energy.

Mr. Trump’s views start with the belief that climate change is not man-made. In the past, the controversial businessman has suggested that climate change might be a hoax invention from China, in order to undermine U.S. industrial interests and job creation. This starting point allows Mr. Trump to be extremely supportive of existing industrial interests (if carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, the thinking goes, then business as usual is the way to go). 

In a speech in North Dakota in late May, Mr. Trump laid out some broad initial ideas for his energy policy. He declared that under his presidency the United States would “accomplish complete American energy independence,” leaving unaddressed arguments about what that would mean for existing international energy trade. 

It is probably safe to say that Mr. Trump would like to further expand oil, gas, and coal production in the country. The latter, in particular, is remarkable: even coal executives have declared that market forces (particularly very competitive natural gas) have been the primary threat to the coal industry. Since Mr. Trump is also a strong supporter of the natural gas industry—and considering the challenges of building new bulk terminals for exports—it is unclear how a revitalization of the coal industry would occur. 

If climate change is a hoax, it will come as no surprise that Mr. Trump will not support efforts to mitigate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Contrary to his opponent, Mr. Trump would also like to revoke restrictions on drilling for oil and gas, and would permit production on federal lands. He also supports further expansion of energy infrastructure, and would, if elected, ask Trans Canada to resubmit a permit application for the Keystone pipeline, which he’d approve. He has caveated his support for projects like these by demanding that a portion of the revenues from oil and gas flows be redistributed to local communities, to compensate them for intrusion on their private property. Mr. Trump has also indicated that he wants to use revenues from oil and gas production to rebuild U.S. infrastructure more broadly.

If climate change is a hoax, it will come as no surprise that Mr. Trump will not support efforts to mitigate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. The candidate has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan “stupid,” and when asked what he would do about the Paris agreement on climate change, he said he’d cancel it. 

Though Trump says the United States must pursue all forms of energy—including renewables—he has expressed skepticism about their economic viability, calling solar energy “very expensive.” Wind energy received similar pejorative feedback, since Trump says it kills eagles and is noisy. During one of the few debates about renewable energy during the Iowa primary, he voiced his support for blending biofuels in vehicles. 

To the polls

The 2016 U.S. presidential election will have a profound impact on global affairs. Not only will it affect a range of security and economic issues in important ways, it also means a lot for global energy and climate policy. Will the United States continue on the trajectory that President Obama has started and continue a major energy transition strategy? Or will it shift course, potentially undermining existing domestic policies and investments, as well as international obligations? In November 2016, the American people will decide.

The debate surrounding net energy metering (NEM) and the appropriate way to reform this policy is under scrutiny in many U.S. states. This is highly warranted since NEM policies do indeed need reforming because NEM often results in subsidies to private (rooftop) solar owners and leasing companies. These subsidies are then “paid for” by non-NEM customers (customers without private rooftop solar installations). The fundamental source of the NEM subsidy is the failure of NEM customers (customers with private rooftop solar installations) to pay fully for the grid services that they use 24/7. These subsidies are well-documented and underpin much of the regulatory reform efforts underway across the United States.[1]

In a recent Brookings paper, “Rooftop solar: Net metering is a net benefit,” Mark Muro and Devashree Saha contend that net metering is a net benefit for non-NEM customers.[2] I fundamentally disagree with their findings, and argue that NEM is not a net benefit; it is, in fact, a tariff that much of the time results in a subsidy to NEM customers and a cost shift onto non-NEM customers. As Executive Director of the Institute for Electric Innovation, a non-lobbying organization focused on trends in the electric power industry, I have followed this debate and written about it for several years.

Much of the talk about NEM focuses too often on the “value” of the energy that is sold back to the grid by a NEM customer. In reality, the amount of energy sold back to the grid is relatively small. The real issue is the failure of NEM customers to pay fully for the grid services that they use while connected to the grid 24/7, as shown in Figure 1.[3] Customers need to constantly use the grid to balance supply and demand throughout the day, and the cost of these grid services can be sizeable. In fact, for a typical residential customer in the United States with an average electricity bill of $110 per month, the actual cost of grid services can range from $45 to $70 per month–however, the customer doesn’t see that charge.[4] That means, in the extreme, if a customer’s energy use “nets” to zero in a given month because the customer’s private solar system produced exactly what the customer consumed, that customer would pay $0 even though that customer is connected to the local electric company’s distribution grid and is utilizing grid services on a continuous around-the-clock basis.[5]

Although exactly netting to zero energy in a month is highly unlikely, this example demonstrates the point that the customer would pay nothing, despite using grid services at a cost ranging from $45 to $70 per month. Over the course of one year, this customer could receive a subsidy resulting from NEM of between $540 and $840. Over the life of a private rooftop solar system, which ranges from 20 to 25 years, this is a significant subsidy resulting from NEM.

Granted, this is an extreme example, and most NEM customers will pay for some portion of grid services. However, the fundamental source of the NEM subsidy is the failure of NEM customers to pay fully for the grid services that they use 24/7, and the cost of these services can be quite substantial. When a NEM customer doesn’t pay for the grid, the cost is shifted onto non-NEM customers.[6] It is a zero-sum game; plain and simple. This is the elephant in the room.

This issue was directly addressed by Austin Energy when the company implemented a “buy-sell” arrangement for the private rooftop solar customers in its service territory. The rationale for the buy-sell approach is that the customer buys all of the energy that is consumed on-site through the electric company’s retail tariff and sells all of the energy produced by their private rooftop solar system at the electric company’s avoided cost. This addresses the “elephant in the room” because, by buying all energy consumed at the retail tariff, the customer does pay for grid services that are largely captured through the retail tariff. It is an unfortunate fact that under ratemaking practices today in the United States, the majority of fixed costs (i.e., grid and other costs) are captured through a volumetric charge.

Hence, I fundamentally disagree with the Muro/Saha paper–NEM does need to be reformed. NEM is not a net benefit; it is a tariff that the much of the time results in a cost shift onto non-NEM customers. One of the first studies to quantify the magnitude of the NEM subsidy was conducted by Energy+Environmental Economics (E3) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2013. There was no mention of this analysis for the CPUC in the Muro/Saha paper. The E3 study estimated that NEM would result in a cost shift of $1.1 billion annually by 2020 from NEM to non-NEM customers if current NEM policies were not reformed in California.[7] A cost shift of this magnitude–paid for by non-NEM customers–was unacceptable to California regulators. As a result, California regulators set to work to reform rates in their state; many other states followed suit and conducted similar investigations of the magnitude of the NEM subsidy.

In reviewing NEM studies, Muro and Saha chose to focus on a handful of studies that show that net metering results in a benefit to all customers. In this small group of NEM studies, they included a study that E3 conducted for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in 2014–perhaps the most well-known and cited of the five studies included in the Muro/Saha paper. Very soon after the E3 Nevada study was published, the cost assumptions for the base-case scenario which showed a net benefit of $36 million to non-NEM customers (assuming $100 per MWh for utility-scale solar) were found to be incorrect, completely reversing the conclusion. The $36 million benefit associated with NEM for private rooftop solar turned into a $222 million cost to non-NEM customers when utility-scale solar was priced at $80 per MWh.[8] Today, based on the two most recent utility-scale contracts approved by the Nevada PUC, utility-scale solar has an average lifetime (i.e., levelized) cost of $50 per MWh, meaning that the NEM cost shift would be far greater today. In February 2016, the Nevada PUC stated that “the E3 study is already outdated and irrelevant to the discussion of costs and benefits of NEM in Nevada…”[9] Hence, because the E3 study for the Nevada PUC that the Muro/Saha paper included has been declared outdated and irrelevant to the discussion and because costs for utility-scale solar have declined significantly, that study does not show that NEM provides a net benefit.

No doubt there is an intense debate underway about NEM for private rooftop solar, and much has changed in the past two years in terms of both NEM policies and the growth of private solar projects:

• First, several state regulatory commissions now recognize that the NEM cost shift is both real and sizeable and that all customers who use the grid, including NEM customers, need to pay for the cost of the grid. As a result, many electric companies have proposed and state regulatory commissions have approved increases in monthly fixed charges over the past few years; this partially addresses the issue of NEM customers paying for the cost of the grid services that they use.
• Second and related, getting the pricing right for distributed energy resources of all types is important because we expect those resources to grow significantly in the future. Work is underway in this area and it is one focus of the New York Reforming the Energy Vision proceeding; but there is still much to be done.

By focusing on a select group of studies that show that NEM benefits all customers (as stated by the authors); by excluding the E3 study for the CPUC which was fundamental to the NEM cost shift debate; and by not providing an update on the NEM debate today, I believe that the Muro/Saha paper is misleading.

In the second part of their paper, Muro and Saha suggest some helpful regulatory reforms such as moving toward rate designs that “can meet the needs of a distributed resource future” and moving “toward performance-based rate-making (PBR).” Some electric companies have already implemented PBR or some type of formula rate and PBR is under discussion in several states.[10] Lawrence Berkeley National Labs is looking closely at this and related issues in its Future Electric Utility Regulation series of reports currently underway.[11]

Mura and Saha also suggest decoupling as a way forward–I disagree. In my view, decoupling is a not solution for private rooftop solar. Revenue decoupling is currently used to true-up revenues that would otherwise be lost due to declining electricity sales resulting from electric company investments in energy efficiency (EE). Decoupling explicitly shifts costs from participating EE customers to non-participating EE customers causing the same cost-shifting problem that is created by NEM. However, a fundamental difference is that the magnitude of the cost shifting onto non-NEM customers is on a much larger scale than the cost shifting due to EE. A recent study revealed that decoupling rate adjustments for EE are quite small–about two to three percent of the retail rate.^[12] In contrast, as described earlier in this paper, a NEM customer could shift a significant cost onto non-NEM customers (and the NEM cost shifting is essentially invisible to customers, which is one reason that NEM customers do not believe they are subsidized).[13]

Finally, Muro and Saha suggest that electric companies should invest in a more digital and distributed power grid. In fact, electric companies across the United States are doing just that. In 2015, electric companies invested $20 billion in the distribution system alone and this is expected to continue. Over the past five to six years, electric companies invested in the deployment of nearly 65 million digital smart meters to about 50 percent of U.S. households. In addition, electric companies are investing in thousands of devices to make the power grid smarter and more state-aware. Today, in states such as California, Hawaii, and Arizona, electric companies are investing to enable and integrate the distributed energy resources that are growing exponentially. And, in some states–where regulation allows–electric companies are offering rooftop solar or solar subscriptions to their customers.

No doubt, the electric power industry is undergoing a period of profound transformation–our power generation resource mix is getting cleaner and more distributed; the energy grid is becoming more digital; and customers have different expectations.[14]

Collaboration, good public policy, and appropriate regulatory policies are critical to a successful transformation of the power sector. In the context of this paper, this means reforming NEM so that private rooftop solar customers who use the energy grid pay for the grid. One straightforward approach is to require NEM customers to pay a higher monthly fixed charge thereby reducing the cost shift.[15] Ultimately the challenge is to make the transition of the electric power industry–including the significant growth in private rooftop solar and other distributed energy resources–affordable to all customers.

Lisa Wood is a nonresident senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at Brookings. She is also the executive director of the Institute for Electric Innovation and vice president of The Edison Foundation whose members include electric companies and technology companies.

Editors’ Note: Science diplomacy can help countries solve on-the-ground challenges and improve standards of living for their citizens, writes David Hajjar. But it can also lay groundwork for improving relations through functional, scientific cooperation that is less politicized. This post originally appeared on Lawfare.

In the Middle East, governments and non-state actors alike have tried all forms of diplomacy to solve the challenges they face, with mixed results: shuttle diplomacy by the United States between the Israelis and Palestinians worked for a time, great-power diplomacy over the Syrian civil war largely hasn’t, and direct negotiations with unsavory groups like the Taliban have moved in fits and starts. 

But progress can come from unlikely sources, and science diplomacy—whereby experts collaborate scientifically to address common problems and build constructive international partnerships—has more potential than is often recognized. Science diplomacy can of course help countries solve on-the-ground challenges and improve standards of living for their citizens. But it can also lay groundwork for improving relations in a region often defined by tension (if not outright conflict) through functional, scientific cooperation that is less politicized. 

Efforts in science and technology, on the one hand, and diplomacy on the other, can achieve more if they are thoughtfully merged—rather than siloed. Science diplomacy, therefore, can contribute to peace- and security-building in the Middle East (and with the United States) in unique ways. 

Science and global governance

Across the world, science diplomacy has helped set the stage for advancing foreign policy and global governance goals.

The 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 illuminated how negotiating over and collaborating on science and technology issues can be an important gateway to achieving significant foreign policy goals. Direct (and often very technical) diplomacy between U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, was key to achieving the framework agreement, as was collaboration between Iranian and Western nuclear scientists more broadly. Provided that the agreement is thoroughly enforced, it’s a major victory for global nuclear nonproliferation efforts—and much credit goes to effective science diplomacy. 

Global efforts to combat climate change are another area in which science diplomacy has had a real impact on policy. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become a model for critical science policy research and recommendations. The 2015 conference in Paris brought together hundreds of political leaders and experts to examine the scientific evidence that the globe is warming, discuss remedies, and chart a path forward that can help slow environmental damage. So, science diplomacy was again central—this time in shaping and implementing the global climate governance framework. 

Another area where we have observed substantive gains from science diplomacy is the global management of infectious diseases. The Zika outbreak in Latin America, Ebola epidemic in West Africa, dengue in the Caribbean and Asia, MERS in the Gulf region and in South Korea, and the global threat of pandemic influenza all underscore that international cooperation is key to fighting modern plagues, which spread more rapidly in an era of constant global travel. In some cases more than in others, political leaders have devoted considerable resources to promoting international scientific cooperation—whether in clinical monitoring, medical interventions, research into pathogen biology and diagnostics, and treatments (including vaccine development). In fact, the global response to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an example where international collaboration helped identify affected populations and coordinate treatment through the WHO Global Alert and Response System (which has identified new cases in Europe, the Middle East, Australia, Canada, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Hong Kong). The system’s main goal is to send supplies and medical specialists (including epidemiologists), design clinical trials, provide diagnostic tests, identify modes of transmission, and provide treatment. This coordinated response effort has controlled the pandemic.

Science in a fraught region

In the Middle East, opportunities abound for science diplomacy. Not only can this type of approach help solve practical, quality-of-life challenges—from energy to health and beyond—it can bring together expert communities and bureaucracies. In the process, it can contribute to more normalized people-to-people and government-to-government relations. Even at the height of the Cold War, for example, U.S. and Russian nuclear scientists and other experts worked together to monitor each other’s nuclear facilities; even though Moscow and Washington had nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed directly at each other, bureaucratic cooperation on technical issues became a normal part of the relationship and helped enhance transparency and trust.

In the energy sector, for example, innovation in science and technology will play a crucial role in helping to transition Middle Eastern states in the region away from a dependence on fossil fuels—a broad goal of the Paris accords and a specific strategic goal of states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Notwithstanding the sectarian disagreements between Iran and Saudi Arabia, both need to address their fast-growing demand for electricity; they need not be in competition with each other. Saudi Arabia currently fuels its own 10 percent annual rise in electricity needs with crude oil, owing to domestic natural dry gas reserves. Iran’s vast gas reserves could be used to meet the kingdom’s growing energy needs, but Iran’s decaying gas fields need $250 billion in major repairs. Many think that if Saudi Arabia used its investment power to revitalize Iran’s gas industry, it would secure the energy it needs to meet demands. The economic benefits of cooperation on energy could promote better relations. Another area of cooperation that can drive the local economies is the Arab Gulf’s first major cross-border enterprise, the Dolphin Gas Project, which was started in 2007. The project involves the transportation of natural gas from Qatar to Oman and to the UAE. Finally, international cooperation between Oman and Iran is developing, where Oman intends to import natural gas from Iran for industrial development. This would require investing in an underwater pipeline from the Iranian coast to Oman. The UAE could do the same to build its economy: import natural gas from Iran, since the pipelines exist. The technical know-how for all these initiatives already exists—to date the main stumbling block has been overcoming regional politics.

Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah (L) and Dolphin Energy Chief Executive Ahmed Ali Al Sayegh hold a news conference about the inauguration of the Dolphin Energy plant in Doha May 12, 2008. Photo credit: Reuters.

In health, there is also room for mutually-beneficial cooperation. Back in 1996, the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs helped establish the Middle East Cancer Consortium—that effort continues to help train the next generation of scientists and medical professionals in cancer biology in the region. Other programs have focused on vaccine development for childhood diseases; preventing HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis infections; ending childhood malnutrition; and managing unwanted pregnancies. Programs like these have yielded important advances in public health and have enhanced cooperation between countries like the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Cyprus, Turkey, and Israel with the United States.

And in a unique cross-sectoral approach, Jordan is host to a promising initiative called the Synchrotron Light for Experimental Science and Application in the Middle East (SESAME). Modeled after the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), SESAME is a partnership between Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Turkey that aims to create research career opportunities that will limit “brain drain” from the region and serve as a model for scientific collaboration.

STEM education: The root of science diplomacy

Science diplomacy has the potential to deliver real dividends that extend beyond the science and technology spaces themselves. When states cooperate on functional, non-politicized (or at least less politicized) issues—whether at the level of non-state scientific communities or at the level of state bureaucracies focused on energy, health, or other issues—they become more accustomed to working together and trusting each other. This can gradually have spillover effects into politics and security arenas.

Science diplomacy doesn’t just happen, though—it requires real efforts on behalf of policymakers and experts. One crucial step is advancing STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) to build more robust and diverse expert communities. This is something that President Obama emphasized in his speech at Cairo's Al-Azhar University in 2009. He identified possible areas of cooperation, both within the region and with the United States, including researching and piloting new sources of energy, creating “green” jobs, enhancing communication and informatics, sharing medical information, generating clean water, and growing new crops. 

In some countries in the region, particularly in the Gulf, there are signs of new investment in STEM education and related efforts. For example, Qatar has pledged to spend 3 percent of its GDP on scientific research, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has decided to create the world’s first sustainable city. Saudi Arabia created the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) with a $20 billion endowment, $200 million of which has been used to attract scientists and educators from the West. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE continue to build and sustain partnerships with European and American universities. 

Interest in science among students and the general citizenry in many Middle Eastern countries remains low, which is problematic at a time when the region’s young people need to compete in a world increasingly centered around STEM. More governments in the region—perhaps with U.S. help—need to increase efforts to attract their young people to STEM education and careers.

International cooperation on STEM issues—led by science diplomats—can strengthen relationships between Middle Eastern states and with the United States. Science and technology disciplines transcend politics, borders, and cultures, and are thus an important bridge between nations. During a time of strained geopolitical relationships, we can focus on making progress in health and disease, food and water security, and other areas—and thereby enhance domestic stability and international security in the process. 

When the Volkswagen emissions control scandal broke into the headlines in September, I wrote here how I felt like my lifelong love affair with VW had been violated. As an environmentalist, owning a Jetta that zipped along for 42 miles on a gallon of diesel was the best of both worlds. And it was a lie. My wife, Holly Flood, said she felt like she’d been “duped,” and since then she’s vowed never to buy another VW.

I’m not so sure. But I was pleased this week to see the agreed terms for the nearly half million of us who own the smaller diesel engine cars in the U.S. This was the largest car settlement in U.S. history.

What I like is the combination of individual and collective compensation for this crime.

On the individual side, if this deal is approved by the judge in early October, my family will get our 2009 Jetta TDI sedan fixed for free (if the Environmental Protection Agency approves the fix), and we’ll get a check for $5,100. Holly says that’s perfect timing for a down payment on a new car (which will not be a VW).

I’m pushing for a plug-in electric hybrid, which we can charge with renewable energy we get off the grid from our local provider, People’s Power & Light. In our case, for every electron we use, they pay to have one electron put in from wind power somewhere right here in New England. Hopefully we’ll have variable pricing of electricity by then, allowing us to charge the car when the juice is cheapest, like when the wind blows at night but few people are using much electricity.

The unknown for us is whether the VW fix will noticeably harm the performance of the car. I’m guessing it will, perhaps in its remarkable torque, in its gas mileage, or both. But at this point the car has tons of my wife’s commuting miles on it, so we’re hanging on to it as the in-town backup car. Under the settlement we could get an extra $7k and give up the car entirely. That may be tempting, as it’s at that point where it’s getting substantially more expensive to maintain, and the Kelley Blue Book value is around $6k. They apparently aren’t lowballing us.

The collective part of this agreement is actually more interesting.

VW agreed to pay $4.7 billion  into environmental programs, which in my estimation will eliminate more harm than they created. One estimate guessed that scores of premature deaths occurred in the U.S. from VW’s “defeat devices” that shut off emissions controls when they were not being tested. Most of the deaths were probably in California, where there were many more sales of diesels than elsewhere in the country. (Of course in Europe the concentration of diesels is much greater and the Guardian put the number of deaths at thousands in the U.K. alone.) 

One part of this fund will go to replace diesel buses with electric ones. This will measurably improve air quality in inner cities, the precise places where extra sooty VWs were causing ill health and premature deaths with their NOx emissions. Another part will go to install electric vehicle charging stations in California. This helps overcome the “chicken and egg” problem of people not being willing to switch to electric vehicles for fear of running out of juice. The settlement says that “Volkswagen must spend $2 billion to promote non-polluting cars (“zero emissions vehicles” or “ZEV”), over and above any amount Volkswagen previously planned to spend on such technology.” That counterfactual will probably be impossible to prove, but the idea here is fairness.

Sociologically, this is a fascinating case, because it reveals how our society resolves scandals that killed people through knowing contamination of the environment. As Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates harshly put it, "By duping regulators, Volkswagen turned nearly half a million American drivers into unwitting accomplices in an unprecedented assault on our environment." There are individuals inside this company who deserve criminal prosecution, but apparently most of the thousands of other employees did not know what was going on.

The corporate response has been interesting, and seems to vary sharply from how most U.S. auto firms have dealt with similar lawsuits and scandals in the past. VW did not drag out the battle, but set aside $16 billion immediately as a loss, and then settled rather generously with us. (This spring they had already given us a $500 gift card and $500 in repairs in what was essentially hush money.)

VW’s response to this crisis was creative, forward-looking, and ultimately pro-social. Just a week or so ago they announced that their new business model was to be in electrics: They announced they’d be rolling out 31 electric vehicles in the coming years. This is a remarkable turn for a company that pushed diesels for decades as the solution to climate change. This is what it looks like when a massive corporation whose reputation was built on trust and belief in the integrity of a brand seeks to battle its way back into a changing market.

Spending billions on charging stations and replacing diesel buses may make immediate sense—can we say if this is helping avoid premature deaths or it is merely crass self-interest? Does it matter? 

Of course it does. But my first impression of what VW did this week was of a fair deal that was not just lining my pocket. It was helping us get off fossil fuels as a society and benefiting human health and the environment in a substantial way. And by rebuilding a major employer in Germany, the U.S., and around the world into one that might be a part of the solution to climate change, this is a significant and fairly brilliant business move to position the company for the next half century.

Or am I merely a sucker for my old flame?

Renewable energy is an important source to tackle against climate change, as the latest IPCC report has pointed out. However, due to the existence of multiple market failures such as negative externalities of fossil fuels and knowledge spillovers of new technology, government subsidies are still needed to develop renewable energy, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) cells. In the United States, there have been various forms of subsidies for PV, varying from the federal level to the state level, and from the city level to the utility level. California, as the pioneer of solar PV development, has put forward the biggest state-level subsidy program for PV, the California Solar Initiative (CSI). The CSI has planned to spend around $2.2 Billion in 2007–2016 to install roughly 2 GW PV capacity, with the average subsidy level as high as $1.1/W. How to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and incentive pass-through of this program are the two major research questions we are pursing.

Our cost-effectiveness analysis is based on a constrained optimization model that we developed, where the objective is to install as much PV capacity as possible under a fixed budget constraint. Both the analytical and computational results suggest that due to a strong peer effect and the learning-by-doing effect, one can shift subsides from later periods to early periods so that the final PV installed capacity can be increased by 8.1% (or 32 MW). However, if the decision-maker has other policy objectives or constraints in mind, such as maintaining the policy certainty, then, the optimally calculated subsidy policy would look like the CSI.

As to the incentive pass-through question, we took a structural approach and in addition used the method of regression discontinuity (RD). While in general, the incentive pass-through rate depends on the curvature of the demand and supply curve and the level of market competition, our two estimations indicate that the incentive pass-through for the CSI program is almost complete. In other words, almost all of the incentive has been enjoyed by the customer, and the PV installers did not retain much. Based on the RD design, we observe that PV installers tend to consider the CSI incentive as exogenous to their pricing decision.

The relative good performance of the CSI in terms of both the cost-effectiveness and the incentive pass-through aspect are tightly related to its policy design and program management. International speaking, the biggest challenge for the design of any PV subsidy program is the quick running out of the budget, and in the end, it looks like customers are rushing for the subsidy. Such rushing behavior is a clear indication of higher-than-needed incentive levels. Due to the policy rigidity and rapid PV technological change, the PV subsidy policy may lag behind the PV cost decline; and as a result, rational customers could rush for any unnecessarily high subsidy.

Due to the high uncertainty and unpredictability of future PV costs, the CSI put forward a new design that links the incentive level change and the installed capacity goal fulfillment. Specifically, the CSI has designed nine steps to achieve its policy goal; at each step, there is a PV capacity goal that corresponds to an incentive level. Once the capacity goal is finished, the incentive level will decrease to the next lower level. Furthermore, to maintain the policy certainty, the CSI regulated that every step-wise change in the incentive level should not be higher than $0.45/W, nor smaller than $0.05/W, together with other three constraints.

A good subsidy policy not only requires flexible policy design to respond to fast-changing environment, but also demands an efficient program management system, digitalized if possible. For the CSI, the authority has contracted out a third-party to maintain a good database system for the program. Specifically, the database has documented in detail every PV system that customers requested. Key data fields include 22 important dates during the PV installation process, customers’ zip code, city, utility and county information, and various characteristics of the PV system such as price, system size, incentive, PV module and installer. All information is publicly available, which to some extent fills in the information gap held by customers and fosters the market competition among PV installers. For customers to receive the incentive, their PV systems have to pass the inspection of the local government, and also to be interconnected to the grid. On the supply side, the CSI has also certified and created a list of PV installers that every customer can choose from.

Although the CSI has ended in 2014 due to fast PV cost reduction starting from 2009, its experience has been transferred to other areas in the United States and in Europe. It is highly possible that other similar new technologies and products (e.g. the electric car and the battery) can adopt the CSI policy design, too. In summary, a good and successful policy may need to be simply, clear, credible, foreseeable, flexible, end-able, and incentive-compatible. The PV subsidy policy in China still has a long way to go when compared to the CSI.