Topic: electricity

Proposed Shale Gas Lifecycle Process Map

Kevin Lustig — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:04:15 -0500

Shale Gas

Kevin Lustig — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:10:56 -0500

WRI is providing insight into this issue by:

Creating guidance on how to define the life cycle of shale gas projects, in order to better assess their impacts
Studying how shale gas development in China affects the energy picture in the U.S. and internationally
Taking a detailed look at how we produce and consume energy in U.S. states and regions
Assessing the risk to water resources posed by shale gas development

Shale gas is a game-changer for global energy supply. It is already transforming the U.S. energy outlook (see figure below), and is expected to deliver over 40% of domestic gas production by 2025. Opinion is bitterly divided, however, over the environmental risks and benefits of this abundant new source of energy – so much so, that the different sides struggle to agree even on basic facts. The debate is raging over two key issues – on-the-ground impacts to water, air, communities, land use, wildlife, and habitats; and the broader energy and global warming implications of developing shale gas.

Upcoming Event
April 4, 2013
Launch of a new WRI working paper Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems

COP 18: Doha

Kevin Lustig — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 09:09:59 -0400

WRI Experts at COP 18

WRI Events at COP 18

COP 18 Commentary

From November 26 to December 7, 2012, the United Nations will host the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Qatar.

WRI experts will be in attendance at this latest meeting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to help inform the talks. Here, you can find a variety of materials from the World Resources Institute that shed light on key areas of international climate policy.

WRI Resources for COP 18

An Updated Response to EEI’s Timeline of Environmental Regulations

Kevin Lustig — Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:48 -0400

This fact sheet updates the analysis done in our earlier response to EEI’s timeline of environmental regulations.

EPA remains on track in issuing rules that provide a path to a cleaner power fleet.

After years of delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to reduce dangerous and toxic pollutants released to the air and water by electric power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other statutes. Four key points about EPA’s actions are clear:

Clarifying EEI’s Timeline

Figure 1: Edison Electric Institute’s Timeline of Environmental Regulatory Requirements for the Utility Industry (Click to enlarge)

Figure 2: Modified Edison Electric Institute Timeline, Removing All But New Compliance Obligations (Click to enlarge)

Figure 3: Timeline of Actual Compliance Obligations for Electric Power Plants (Click to enlarge)

Contrary to assertions by industry groups, EPA is pursuing a realistic timeline over the next five to ten years to bring the electric power industry into compliance with the law.
In most cases, the electric power sector has been on notice for several years (in some cases several decades) that these pollutants would be regulated.
Without new regulations, these pollutants will continue to impair America’s waterways, heat the planet, perpetuate acid rain, and lead to preventable hospital visits and premature deaths.
In each of its rulemakings, EPA provides for an extensive, open, and evidence-based public process. This leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector. As EPA finalizes each rule, it will establish an increasingly clear pathway for investments in an American electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

CEOs and other representatives of major electric power corporations have suggested that EPA’s regulatory timeline is unworkable. The largest industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), produced a slide in 2010 (updated in May 2011) that purports to display an onslaught of new requirements for power plants. EEI has distributed this slide (reproduced in Figure 1) widely on Capitol Hill, where it presumably hopes to win lawmakers’support for additional delays in EPA rules or even a stripping of EPA’s regulatory authority.

WRI has identified four categories of EPA activities on the EEI timeline that are potentially misleading. When these activities are removed, only the timing of actual new compliance obligations is left. In Figure 2, “X”s (color coded for each filter in the screening process) have been applied to remove events from EEI’s timeline that are not consequential from a compliance standpoint.

Rules that have been remanded or vacated by court decisions that do not impose compliance obligations.
Rules that were already in effect when EEI circulated its chart, representing compliance obligations that already exist; there are no new requirements imposed by these rules.
Public input through the rulemaking process (which leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector, and should not be conflated with new compliance obligations).
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) rules for various pollutants that set standards for states to achieve. They do not establish new requirements for electric generation units.

The EPA regulatory process is far from a “train wreck.” EEI’s misleading timeline consists mostly of procedural events and activities that will not impose a direct compliance obligation on power plants. This serves only to spread confusion about EPA’s actual regulatory schedule.

Figure 3 shows a more accurate picture of the timeline for new requirements applicable to electric power plants.

EPA is carrying out the intent of Congress (through the passage of the bipartisan Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and subsequent amendments) to clean the nation’s air and water. These rules can help the United States transition to cleaner and more efficient power plants by establishing a clear pathway for investments in an electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

The CAA requires EPA and states to regulate and reduce harmful pollutants from major emissions sources, including power plants. To date, this framework has delivered substantial improvements in air quality and significant public health benefits estimated between $82 and $556 billion annually. Over the next decade, power plants will be subject to new rules under the CAA as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to control substances that cause serious health problems and substantial damage to America’s natural resources. These rules will take effect after long lead times; in most cases industry has been on notice for years that these pollutants would be regulated.

Many of the regulations under consideration by EPA have been in the regulatory pipeline for over a decade. Due to administrative delays and litigation resulting in court decisions remanding or vacating previous rules, many of these rules have not been finalized or the final rules were reversed. In many cases Congress has set statutory deadlines for EPA to act, EPA has missed the deadlines, and courts have ordered EPA to act.

Download the complete fact sheet (includes additional figures, footnotes, and references) (PDF, 476 Kb)

Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions from the Power Sector under the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, S. 2146

Nicholas Bianco — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:50:26 -0400

This analysis provides an assessment of the projected power sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions from S. 2146, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 (CESA), introduced by Senator Bingaman and eight cosponsors on March 1, 2012. CESA establishes a standard for clean energy generation in the United States through 2035. In 2035 covered utilities must supply 84 percent of their total annual sales of electricity from clean sources. CESA defines “clean” on the basis of a generator’s greenhouse gas emissions intensity, and thus can drive significant reductions in emissions.

Download the Complete Analysis (PDF, 646 Kb) (includes footnotes and references)
More WRI Bill Analysis

Findings

CESA can reduce GHG emissions from the power sector approximately 12-18 percent (295-428 million metric tons CO2e) below 2005 levels in 2020 and 49-56 percent (1,194-1,357 mmtCO2e) below 2005 levels in 2035, assuming that affected utilities meet their obligations under the program by generating electricity from clean sources or purchasing credits from other clean sources. The figure also compares the projected reductions from CESA to the power sector reductions that were predicted to occur under the American Clean Energy Security Act (ACESA, or Waxman-Markey), which is the only comprehensive climate bill to pass either house of Congress and would have reduced total U.S. GHG emissions (i.e., economy-wide) 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020.
The GHG reductions from CESA are significant, but not sufficient to reduce U.S. economy-wide GHG emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 without ambitious greenhouse gas abatement measures from other sectors.

Fact Sheet: U.S. Electricity Markets Increasingly Favor Alternatives to Coal

Kevin Lustig — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:20:35 -0400

The U.S. electric power system is gradually shifting toward cleaner forms of generation. One sign of this transition is the declining use of coal for electric power production.

In 2011, use of coal for U.S. power generation dropped to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to the federal government’s independent U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). In fact, the EIA reported1 earlier in 2012 that coal’s share of total U.S. electric power generation dropped below 40% for the last two months of 2011, the lowest level since 1978.

To understand the cause of this decline, it is important to examine contributing market forces. Doing so provides important context for recent coal plant retirement announcements, particularly given that some companies have attributed retirements to EPA rules that are still years away from going into force. For example, FirstEnergy Corp. announced in late January 20122 that it would retire several of its smaller coal-fired power plants, explaining that the decision was “based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were recently finalized, and other environmental regulations.” FirstEnergy, however, had previously cited a range of reasons3 for its decision to reduce operations at many of its smaller coal plants.

Furthermore, available evidence does not support the notion that regulations are the primary driver behind recent coal plant retirement announcements. These business decisions4 are heavily influenced by such market forces as lower natural gas prices, declining growth in electricity demand, rising coal prices, and increased cost-competitiveness of renewables.

Download the fact sheet to keep reading and see full citations.

ADVISORY: Press Teleconference: Launch of Online Almanac of U.S. Midwest Energy

James Anderson — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:08:02 -0400

National and regional energy experts will team up to launch the Power Almanac of the American Midwest, a dynamic online platform to support decision-makers and analysts in the region. Drawing on more than 50 sources, the Power Almanac will be the most comprehensive online resource for energy data in the Midwest.

The Power Almanac of the American Midwest can now be found online: www.wri.org/midwest-almanac

On the call, experts will discuss the energy challenges in the region and explain how the Power Almanac can assist in responding to a range of regional and state-level energy initiatives.

The Midwest is home to a diverse mix of energy resources, including significant generation from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, as well as a growing renewable energy sector. However, this mix is subject to change with shifting relative costs, aging power plants, and new state and federal standards.

States included in the Power Almanac are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

WHAT

Press call to launch the online Power Almanac of the American Midwest

WHO

Nicholas Bianco, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute

Bill Grant, Deputy Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce

Rolf Nordstrom, Executive Director, Great Plains Institute

Doug Scott, Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission

The presentations will be followed by a Q&A session.

WHEN

Thursday, April 26, 2012

11:00 a.m. EDT//10:00 a.m. CDT

CALL-IN

(888) 455-0064 (Toll Free); or

(212) 519-0819 (U.S. and International)

Access Code: WRI

For more information, contact: Michael Oko; email: moko@wri.org; tel. (202) 729-7684; or Mike Niles; email: nmiles@gpisd.net; tel. (612) 278-7159

Summary of EPA Proposed Performance Standards for Power Plant GHG Emissions

Nicholas Bianco — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:22:30 -0400

This summary provides an overview of EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. It was drafted in partnership with the Pace Energy and Climate Center.

On June 21, 2012, WRI submitted an official comment to the EPA on its proposed NSPS. Read the full comment below.

Download the Complete Summary (PDF, 221 Kb)
Download the Full NSPS Comment

Power Almanac of the American Midwest

Kevin Lustig — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:07:40 -0400

Fact Sheet: EPA Mercury Rules and Power Reliability

Kevin Lustig — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:30:45 -0500

Recent Electricity Reliability Assessments

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). (November 2011) 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.

M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC; Analysis Group. (November 2011) Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability; Fall 2011 Update.

DOE. (December 2011) Resource Adequacy Implications of Forthcoming EPA Air Quality Regulations.

Bipartisan Policy Center. (June 2011) Environmental Regulation and Electric System Reliability.

CERES. (November 2011) New Jobs-Cleaner Air Part II: An investment in American Businesses and American Jobs.

Edison Electric Institute. (January 2011) Potential Impacts of Environmental Regulation on the U.S. Generation Fleet.

Electricity generation capacity adequacy and transmission and ancillary services reliability are difficult to quantify and forecast due to the inherently local scale of power flow modeling. However, the lack of reliability problems over decades of previous Clean Air Act regulation and the flexibility of the standards suggest that the U.S. can keep the lights on while cost effectively removing toxic pollutants from power plant emissions.

Power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions to the air. This mercury eventually makes its way into water, and can cause neurological problems for people who eat contaminated seafood. Because of the dangers of mercury emissions, especially to children and pregnant women, a court order mandated that the EPA issue a final set of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) by December 16, 2011.

Recent modeling assessments have typically focused more broadly on the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations, including: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the 316 (b) Cooling Water Intake Structures rule, and the yet-to-be announced New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases. Recent studies have varied largely based on assumptions regarding the stringency of pending regulations, the costs of compliance measures, and the legal flexibility of regulatory enforcement.

Rules Are Flexible, and States Are Prepared

While there are modeling and forecasting limits for assessing long-term electricity system reliability, recent studies indicate that MATS and other EPA rules can be effective and implemented in a timely way while allowing for a range of compliance outcomes. The feasibility of cost-effectively complying with new regulations while maintaining electricity system reliability is supported by four key points:

Both state and federal regulators have a suite of flexible enforcement options, which they have been using for decades, to delay power plant closures when this is necessary to preserve grid reliability; for example, the Cooling Water rule requires states to first consider reliability in implementing new regulations;
While states often have the authority to set more protective pollution control standards in the interest of public health and welfare, there is no evidence that they would do so at the risk of grid reliability. Many states have already exercised this authority without imperiling electricity reliability — as of 2011, 17 states have already imposed rules on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, including Montana;
Adequate new plant capacity is in the pipeline to replace the majority of potentially affected power plants; most American power companies are on record as already having prepared for expected environmental regulations;
In terms of compliance, the MATS rule allows for temporal and technological flexibility. As this fact sheet goes to press, the final rule has not yet been published but is expected to allow three years for compliance, with an optional 4th year extension from the EPA or additional security-based extension from the President. A wide range of commercially viable, proven compliance technologies from Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) to Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) are available to help reduce toxic air emissions and can be installed in 10 to 30 months, providing ample time for America’s skilled engineers, manufactures and technicians to conduct plant upgrades within the legally allotted time frame.

Download the fact sheet to keep reading and see full citations.

Inside Stories on Climate Compatible Development: China

Kevin Lustig — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:48:27 -0500

Key messages

A clear expression of political will, backed by a set of effective policy measures, has been key to China’s success in building the world’s largest wind power market.
The establishment of a stable and favorable pricing mechanism is crucial for the development of wind power, because it increases the chances for profitability and growth.
A strong domestic market contributes to the growth of local wind power equipment manufacturing.

Inside Stories on Climate Compatible Development

Kevin Lustig — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:11:27 -0500

Briefs in this series:

Fact Sheet: The Power of Innovation: Meeting our Energy Challenges through Accelerated Innovation

Micah Ziegler — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:44:38 -0500

Innovation can close the gap between the low-carbon technologies of today and the low-cost, high performance technologies the world needs.

Download PDF (PDF, 920 Kb) (includes additional references)
More WRI Climate Fact Sheets
Read more on WRI Insights: Want Low-Cost Clean Energy? Bank on Innovation

This fact sheet is based on the WRI working paper Two Degrees of Innovation — How to Seize the Opportunities in Low-Carbon Power.

Download Fact Sheet (PDF, 920 Kb)

We are facing two urgent energy challenges. We need to maintain modern energy services and expand energy access to another 1.4 billion people.¹ We also need to mitigate further climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.² Low-carbon technologies such as wind and solar power exist and have the technical capacity to meet global energy needs,³ but they are expensive compared to high-carbon alternatives and face performance challenges like requiring large quantities of water or land. They are new to the energy system and can create integration headaches. Innovation—improvements in cost and performance—will close the gap between the low-carbon technologies of today and the low-cost, high performance technologies the world needs.

These infographics demonstrate how innovations in solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power over the past thirty years have dramatically improved performance and reduced cost, creating the technologies we recognize today. They also project the target costs that experts estimate are necessary to reach our energy goals, highlighting how much more we need to innovate.

For example, if we built the solar PV installations necessary by 2050 using technology from 1982, we would spend US$53.5 trillion (2010$). Building the same solar capacity with 2008 technology would only cost US$8.46 trillion. If we meet the cost goal set by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) we would spend just US$1.58 trillion. Similarly, between 1982 technology and ARPA-E’s goal technology, the total land area required for solar panels would drop by 64 percent.

Innovation is a powerful, cumulative process but it does not happen automatically in a highly regulated sector like electricity. It is critical that policymakers support innovators by building a robust, dynamic innovation ecosystem. This goes beyond investing in public research and development and creating markets through subsidies. It also includes building collaborative networks, creating stable regulatory environments, providing infrastructure, supporting innovators’ needs for finance, and building capacity in the workforce.

To achieve a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels) the International Energy Agency estimates that 3,155 GW of photovoltaic capacity will be required by 2050, enough to provide 11 percent of global electricity production. Over time, innovations have made reaching this target easier.⁴ Innovations like new materials and improved methods of production, including improvements through learning-by-doing and finding economies of scale, made solar photovoltaic cells significantly cheaper and more efficient between 1982 and 2008. While many factors—such as commodity prices—also impact costs, future innovations can continue to improve solar cells and push toward a competitive cost of equipment, estimated in U.S. electricity markets to be US$0.50/Wp by the U.S. Department of Energy.

To achieve a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels) the International Energy Agency estimates that 2,000 GW of installed wind capacity will be required by 2050, enough to provide 12 percent of global electricity production. Over time, innovations have made reaching this target easier.⁵ Between 1985 and 2010, innovations like new materials and improved methods of production, including improvements through learning-by-doing and finding economies of scale, made wind turbines more capable and their electricity cheaper. While many factors—such as commodity prices—also impact costs, future innovations can continue to improve wind turbines and farms and push toward a competitive position in electricity markets, estimated in U.S. electricity markets to be a levelized cost of electricity of US$.069/kWh by the American Wind Energy Association.

International Energy Agency, “Access to Electricity,” World Energy Outlook, 2010, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/electricity.asp. ↩
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Groups I, II and III, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC Assessment Report (Valencia, Spain, 2007), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. ↩
Ottmar Edenhofer et al., IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - Summary for Policymakers (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011), 7, http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_SPM. ↩
These calculations focus on crystalline silicon photovoltaic technology only, assume photovoltaic cells operate at peak capacity, and only consider module cost. For simplicity, this excludes many other factors that can make solar photovoltaic installations more efficient and cheaper, such as careful siting, improved operations, and reduced maintenance costs. This analysis includes only the solar module cost and omits installation and maintenance costs. ↩
The graphic slightly understates the story; the difference in number of turbines needed is so large that it was necessary to round up to make the comparison visible at all. Each turbine in the graphic represents approximately 1 million turbines. The 50% reduction goal could be met by 1.25 million 1.6 MW turbines and 200,000 10 MW turbines. In addition, these calculations focus on horizontal-rotor, onshore wind turbines and treat the 2,000 GW target as “nameplate” capacity. The cost calculations use estimates of the levelized (or lifecycle) cost of energy (or electricity) and compute the cost of producing 5,200 TWh of wind energy, which is stipulated in the IEA Blue Scenario Wind Goal. ↩

Is the Fit Right? Considering Technological Maturity in Designing Renewable Energy Policy

Kevin Lustig — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:20:52 -0400

Recent studies suggest that the United States can greatly expand its deployment of renewable energy resources beyond current levels. This would reduce emissions of harmful pollutants and enhance energy security by diversifying the nation’s domestic energy supply. This brief describes a number of policy tools that can be employed to drive investment in renewable energy technologies and discusses which policy options may be the best fit based on the commercial maturity of a targeted technology. We examine several policy tools to describe where they have been most effective to advance technology progress along the innovation chain. The findings and recommendations presented are based on a study of the literature on technology innovation and policy best practices, as well as on discussions with experts in the field, policymakers, and private sector companies involved in renewable energy projects.

Key findings:

Grants can be used to fund technologies in their earliest stages—research and development (R&D) and early-stage demonstration. The R&D stage involves significant uncertainty as to whether the concept will ever lead to a viable technology application. Grants help overcome this risk because they provide an important cost share for investment to research and develop the technology further. Technologies in the demonstration stage typically have difficulty accessing commercial investment due to uncertainty on technical performance and the inability to provide performance warranties. It is unclear whether they will eventually be financially profitable, particularly in the near-term. Demonstration grants allow commercial investors time to pilot and evaluate a new technology with appropriate due diligence. This can reduce risk perception and facilitate further investment.
Loan guarantee programs are well suited for technologies in the commercialization and early deployment stages. In these stages, project performance remains uncertain, making it difficult to attract investors. Loan guarantees help attract private investors by sharing the risk of technical failure with a financially secure and credible entity (namely, a government agency).
Tax credits and feed-in tariffs (FITs) can help advance technologies in the later stages of innovation, namely commercialization and early deployment. These policies allow projects to earn more profit for electricity produced so that they earn the revenues needed to offset higher upfront investment costs.
Renewable electricity standards (RES) are most effective for more mature technologies that are in early deployment. An RES creates demand for renewable electricity and allows the market to determine how to most efficiently supply it; thus the market sets the premium paid to renewable resources. RES mandates can allow for open competition among a range of different technologies, or can be tailored with a carve-out to promote specific technologies that are not yet cost competitive with other renewables. The carve-out option can be a good fit for technologies that are still in the commercialization phase.
A favorable regulatory environment is important to ensure that renewable energy technologies do not face inherent disadvantages due to interconnection standards, utility pricing structures, and other legal hurdles. Failing to address regulatory barriers to renewables can increase their cost of deployment and reduce the effectiveness of incentive programs.

PRESS RELEASE: 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum Opens in Manila, Philippines

Michael Oko — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:26:18 -0400

ADB President Calls for “Radical Steps” on Clean Energy

Leaders in government, business, policy and nongovernmental organizations are gathering this week for the 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum in Manila, Philippines. According to the Asian Development Bank, 800 million people in Asia live without access to electricity and a significant push is needed to fast-track new business models and policies for clean energy development. With over 550 participants from 40 countries in attendance, ACEF is being organized the World Resources Institute, the United States Agency for International Development, and ADB to promote efforts to scale up clean energy in Asia and the Pacific.

“Asia is poised to be a world leader in clean energy that can propel the regional economy, while increasing its energy security,” said Manish Bapna, executive vice president and managing director, WRI. “In order to achieve its clean energy potential, leaders in Asia need to make the right policy decisions and increase their investment in clean energy. This forum will inform this important dialogue on Asia’s energy future.”

The year’s forum, from June 22 - 24, will focus on “New Business Models and Policy Drivers: Building the Low-Carbon Future,” including discussions around best practices in energy policy and regulation, financing and investment, innovative business models, and energy access. Parallel sessions will provide opportunities to discuss successful innovation and methods to break down barriers to large-scale clean energy development and deployment. (See the full agenda here)

“Asians have more to lose from climate change than any other people. The climate fight will be won or lost by decisions made in this region,” said Haruhiko Kuroda, ADB President. “An important key to lowering energy intensity is the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and a rapid transition to renewable energy. Asia must also take radical steps to increase energy efficiency and the efficiency of entire economies.”

The opening plenary session, on June 22, will include remarks from Mr. Kuroda; Mohamed El-Ashry, Senior Fellow, UN Foundation and chairman of the Renewable Energy Policy Network (REN21); and Amory Lovins, Co-founder, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute (by video). Jennifer Morgan, WRI’s Director of Climate and Energy Program, will give the closing plenary speech.

“In order to meet the challenge of climate change, we need a fundamental transformation in our global energy system with a rapid increase of renewable energy and improvements in energy efficiency,” said Morgan. “With a significant increase in investment in clean energy, Asia can drive economic growth and innovation as it reduces carbon emissions that are altering the climate.”

WRI is working to support Asian countries in reaching their clean energy potential by drawing on the institute’s technical expertise, research, analytical tools, and stakeholder engagement. WRI experts work in areas such as policy and regulation, finance and investment, innovative business models and energy poverty to help a smooth transition to renewable energy.

“Hundreds of millions of people in Asia still lack access to energy and, meanwhile, energy demands are accelerating in the region,” said Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros, Project Manager of International Financial Flows and Environment Project, WRI. “It’s up to governments, investors and other decision-makers to determine the path ahead for clean energy in the region. More investment is needed to increase energy access and move Asia toward a low-carbon future.”

Get more information about the 6th Asia Clean Energy Forum

Read an Op-ed by Jennifer Morgan and Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros