A need for speed AND guardrails: Some observations from the Global Clean Energy Action Forum

Last week I attended the Global Clean Energy Action Forum (GCEAF) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a new name for the Clean Energy Ministerial and Mission Innovation, where countries, companies, and experts came together to accelerate the deployment of clean energy solutions. Don’t get me started on the acronym, but what an event! 

So many change-makers in one room. There were celebrations of the U.S.’s extraordinary progress in funding for innovation through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the authorizations in the CHIPS and Science Act, and the extensive private equity opportunities (as my team at EDF has written about before). There was an impressive roster of speakers from the public and private sectors, a technology showcase, and a giddy sort of hopefulness. Even the conversations centered on the Ukraine crisis (which echo a dark chapter in my own family’s history) also led to meaningful discussions about how a cleaner energy economy can be designed to enable greater energy security and international stability. Since I’ve dipped my foot in several of these waters over my career, it was a pleasure to see them flow together. Could it be that the United States is back on track to address the climate crisis? And are we really covering all the bases to get there? (Spoiler alert: not quite.)

Participants also brought a strong game – the Ministers committed to $94 billion for clean energy demonstration projects, surpassing the $90 billion international funding goal of the Biden Administration, a remarkable hit to the “valley of death.” 

The Department of Energy, touting the $23 trillion clean energy market expected by 2030, announced a wave of long-awaited items, including the Funding Opportunity Announcement for the $8 billion Hydrogen Hubs program, the Hydrogen Roadmap and Strategy, and the definition of Clean Hydrogen; a new Industrial Heat Earthshot Initiative; an Aviation Fuels Grand Challenge Roadmap; and another $7 billion released for Carbon Management Programs.

(Is it really possible that phrases like “surpassed commitment” and “billions in federal investment” are becoming commonplace? For those of us who follow innovation in particular, it almost felt like “hard to abate” was a thing of the past. In fact, when I used the term, a friend politely corrected me that it was now “out of fashion.”) 

So, what was missing?

We have broken through the first great challenge of securing a generational investment in our future, but the next step is to build out the infrastructure that it requires – arguably the harder step. Many voices around the room emphasized acceleration: build those hydrogen, carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture plants fast, cut red tape, even “acknowledge that climate is THE challenge we need to solve, and stop getting distracted by the others.”

It wasn’t hard to read the implication that the “others” referred to environmental stewardship, and social and environmental justice. From formal talks to cooler talks, equity and justice was mentioned occasionally (special kudos to DOE for its consistency in this arena), but often as a footnote, and one associated with “listening” to frontline communities. Taking the next step – sharing power – didn’t appear to be on the menu. And I didn’t hear a positive reference to environmental stewardship throughout. 

Acceleration, it seemed, was being pitched as the opposite of quality control. Reminded me of Mark Zuckerberg’s famous guidance to “move fast and break things.” He also famously replaced it with the far-less-catchy “move fast with stable infrastructure.” We can guess why, which brings me to my next point: There is a better way.

Addressing climate change is hard, including finding the right blend of speed and care. But we shouldn’t see these two elements as antagonists, but as partners. Plenty of people are watching from the wings to label this next generation of climate investments a failure. As is always the case with innovation, some failures of technical concepts and implementation are unavoidable (even necessary!), but a failure on the ground – the kind that harms people, wastes precious resources, or both – is both unconscionable and sends us back to the drawing board. We need to get better at bringing new climate solutions into the world, and that means embracing and improving -- not avoiding -- the guardrails that make it safe.

That means accelerating deployment, AND exercising caution with public funds where local environmental regulations have been severely weakened. Urging developers to engage communities in authentic, empowering engagement earlier in the process, as modeled by the winners of DOE’s Inclusive Energy Innovation Prize. Tracking air and water pollution in impacted areas and making the data publicly available. Establishing transparent plans to monitor and mitigate leakage of greenhouse gases, and choosing technology pathways that are likely to deliver the greatest benefits.

Good work is happening in this space, but there is a palpable urge to look the other way, to avoid transparency, to suppress critiques. We don’t have much time to get this right and cutting corners doesn’t build trust or guarantee better outcomes. It also raises the risk that our efforts will hit walls and require restarts, which can have ripple effects, tainting the public’s view of an emerging solution. Our best shot is to work in parallel, to get better at building strong and effective environmental and social stewardship from the start, treating it as part of a complete innovation ecosystem. It’s clear that the Biden Administration gets this, given the many references throughout its climate platform. But the next step – getting the details right – is hard work, and it won't happen on its own.

Are we ready to tackle this challenge head-on, to proactively increase our investment and partnerships in translating good ideas into safe, effective, and beneficial programs on the ground? If yes, it just might be the choice that makes acceleration possible.