CFR Presents

Energy, Security, and Climate

CFR experts examine the science and foreign policy surrounding climate change, energy, and nuclear security.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

The Clean Energy Ministerial: What I Learned about Solar PV and Global Governance

by Michael Levi
April 26, 2012

On April 25 and 26, I had the good fortune to participate in parts of the third annual Clean Energy Ministerial (known informally as the CEM), a forum launched by U.S. Energy Secretary Steve Chu in 2010. The initiative brings together energy ministers from most G20 countries, along with a handful of others, to learn lessons from each others’ clean energy efforts, and, critically, to identify places where intergovernmental initiatives could boost the odds of success. One thing that distinguishes the forum from other international initiatives is the integral role that the private sector has played from day one. The first afternoon of the CEM was spent in a series of small public-private dialogues that brought together ministers, regulators, operators, investors, and experts in science and technology to discuss areas ranging from smart financing tools to support energy efficiency investment to integration of variable renewable sources in the grid.

I had the privilege of chairing the public-private session on solar photovoltaic (PV) energy yesterday afternoon, and summarized highlights of our deliberations for the collected ministers this morning. The session itself was held under the Chatham House Rule, but the readout to ministers wasn’t. Here’s what I told them:

  • The PV industry is maturing. People are slowly shifting from a mentality where their goal is to sell solar cells to one where they are thinking about providing solutions to specific consumer needs. This recognition that there is no such thing as “the solar market” should help promote innovation in multiple directions. It should also inform policymaking: there is no one-size-fits-all scheme that government should use to give solar the chance to thrive.
  • People understand that government support for solar will not be “stable” – falling solar costs and tight government budgets both point toward a shift in the government role. What people do want – and need – is that support be “predictable”.  This is different from stability and should be easier to achieve.
  • Everyone is in agreement that the solar PV market is currently oversupplied. But most people don’t seem to see a need for supply-side policy to rectify the situation. Instead, they’re focused on getting the demand side right.
  • When we talk about innovation, we’re too focused on widgets. Solar panels themselves are improving. It’s the balance of the system – including installation and innovative financing – where we may need the biggest gains. These are also areas where innovations tend to spread slowly across borders, simply because the firms pioneering them often operate in limited markets. There’s an opportunity here for policy to help speed up diffusion.
  • Quality assurance is critical. We’re at a point where solar PV is becoming widespread enough that significant quality problems will have broad and lasting consequences for consumer confidence. Quality control and related standards are a perfect area for international coordination – without it, markets get fragmented, pushing up costs for everyone.
  • Integration of large-scale variable renewables with the grid is no longer just a theoretical question to debate – it’s becoming a real challenge in several countries. (Did you know that Germany recently experienced peak electricity prices below off-peak ones? Think about that.) We should all be learning lessons, technical and regulatory, from how different countries are handling the challenge, so that others can deal with it as effectively as possible.

I also want to add a broader reflection. I was struck by the quality of the discussions, and, in particular, by the connections (intellectual and personal) that I saw made. Indeed in many ways this sort of event is, or at least should be, a big part of the future of global governance. It doesn’t make headlines when ministers agree, for example, on efforts to boost super-efficient appliances (I know, you’re already asleep). But these sorts of steps help multiply the power of individual markets, innovators, and governments to help drive down costs and improve performance, helping consumers and the environment in the process. Ultimately, of course, they’re no substitute for solid economy-wide policy. But to focus on that misses the point. And, of course, I’ll be most impressed if, come the next CEM, some of the lessons that have emerged from this one are reflected in new or intensified initiatives. Regardless, though, what I saw over the last couple days struck me as considerably more productive than what goes on at most global gatherings that claim to be solving our climate and energy problems.

Post a Comment 4 Comments

  • Posted by MW

    Just to highlight the situation of peak prices in Germany: Today prices at noon were considerably lower than during the morning hours: http://www.eex.com/de/Marktdaten/Handelsdaten/Strom/Stundenkontrakte%20|%20Spotmarkt%20Stundenauktion/Stundenkontrakte%20Chart%20|%20Spotmarkt%20Stundenauktion/spot-hours-chart/2012-04-27/PHELIX
    There is also a graph that shows how much solar (and wind) is provided during the course of the day: http://www.transparency.eex.com/de/ – although “conventional” is missing some GW, it becomes obvious why this price drop during the day occurs.

  • Posted by James A. Singmaster, Ph.D.

    Mr. Levi: I made a comment on NYTimes Green posting about this useless meeting. USELESS, because no one recognizes that our massive ever-mounting organic waste messes are going to be wasting are children’s future with spreading pollution of germs, toxics and drugs in the wastes from the way that we presently mishandle this actual resource. A resource for controlling many environmental problems as I outline in my comment #2 on the blog. I indicate there that a process called pyrolysis can be applied to organic wastes especially, biowastes including separated sewage solids sieved out ay treatment plants. The germs, toxics and drugs in the biowastes get destroyed in pyrolysis so that more than half a trillion $$$/year won’t have to be spent by various govt. health and sanitation agencies on getting dump sites properly running by present laws trying to prevent escapes of those hazards from occurring. Pyrolysis also expels an organic chemical mix that can be refined for fuel or used to make drugs. Also you form charcoal, that’s remaking coal and retrapping the energy it gives off, and that will be the way to get control of CC and much more.
    WASTE NOT, WANT NOT, WARM NOT, WATER POLLUTE NOT
    That’s the new adage for a new future for our kids, who are now facing being wasted by our not recognizing our ever-mounting
    organic waste messes. Dr. J. Singmaster, 3rd, Environmental Chemist, Ret., Fremont, CA

  • Posted by Ken Royall

    “Energy Ministers”. That chilling term and the people it describes are a major part of the problem.

  • Posted by Ross Donald

    Regarding appliances, what happened with the $10 Million Golden Carrot Award to design and manufacture the next generation of super efficient refrigerators. Would you like me to tell you? Nothing!

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required