Search

10611. Stronger International Safeguards as a Condition of Supply to Nuclear Energy Programs: Coming to Consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers Group

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Nations that are party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons but are not allowed nuclear weapons under the treaty (“non-nuclear-weapon states”) must have international safeguards applied to civil nuclear energy facilities if they pursue such programs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) applies these safeguards and conducts inspections on nuclear energy programs, and determined in the 1990s that it needed additional capabilities to verify states were not engaging in secret (i.e., undeclared) nuclear activities. Subsequently, the IAEA developed a set of stronger safeguards measures, known as the Model Additional Protocol (“Additional Protocol”), which was approved in 1997. Today, most nations have an Additional Protocol in force, but a few dozen do not. The nations that do not may pose a concern if they pursue nuclear energy as a means of addressing energy and environmental challenges, such as decarbonization to meet climate goals. The greater reporting requirements and inspection measures in the Additional Protocol give the international community assurance that a nation’s declarations about its civil nuclear program are both correct and complete. The enhanced inspections in turn provide greater deterrence against states pursuing illicit nuclear activities. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)—which comprises 48 governments, including those representing the major reactor vendor countries—maintains guidelines governing the export of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology. The NSG has been considering modifying those guidelines for many years to support more universal adoption of the Additional Protocol. But adoption has been hard to come by, in part because of potential disruptions to existing supply relationships given that not all countries participating in the NSG have Additional Protocols in force and some client states of countries participating in the NSG also do not have these upgraded inspections in place. There may be room for consensus building among NSG states, however, since most support requiring an Additional Protocol as a condition of supply to further the nonproliferation regime. The remaining governments may agree if measures are proffered to address challenges that have blocked acceptance to date. This commentary discusses a history of related policy developments in the NSG, examines some of the group’s roadblocks to consensus, and suggests options for making progress on adding stronger international safeguards as a condition of supply to nuclear energy programs.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10612. Oil Intensity: The Curiously Steady Decline of Oil in GDP

Author:
Christof Ruhl and Titus Erker
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Oil is the largest primary fuel, and the trajectory of oil consumption is of great concern and consequence for economic, political, and, not least, for climate change reasons. Anticipating oil prices and production from year to year is not easy; identifying even basic ingredients of aggregate demand and supply schedules, such as price or income elasticities, is notoriously difficult. It’s an additional challenge to model the structure of a market that sometimes appears to be highly cartelized, and at other times populated by a large flock of peaceful price takers. But a remarkably steady metric—and possible tool for projecting consumption into the future—has been identified in this paper: oil intensity. Oil intensity is the volume of oil consumed per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). Measured simply in barrels per dollar, it is often viewed as a broad measure of oil efficiency; it certainly demonstrates the importance of oil in a society. The efficiency of oil use has improved, in other words oil intensity has declined, over the years and decades. In 1973, for example, when oil intensity was at its zenith, the world used a little less than one barrel of oil to produce $1,000 worth of GDP (2015 prices). By 2019 (the last data set before Covid) global oil intensity was 0.43 barrel per $1,000 of global GDP—a 56% decline. Oil has become a lot less important and humanity has become more efficient in making use of it. What is worth a closer look, and is the focus of this paper reporting on oil and gas related research at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, is the pattern by which this progress has been achieved. Since 1984, oil intensity has fallen every year in an almost perfectly linear fashion: the amount of oil used per dollar of global GDP has dropped by roughly the same amount each year. Wars and revolutions, booms and busts, OPEC successes and failures, and every other monumental event in the last 35 years left their imprint on oil markets but didn’t alter oil intensity’s steady, downward crawl. This kind of regularity is very rare in any long-time trend, in economics or in energy. Although oil intensity isn’t a new topic, an attempt to explain its curiously consistent downward progress—or even any discussion about it—is hard to find in the literature. For this paper, the authors explain the trend and cross-validate its predictive potential before delving into possible reasons behind the linear decline in oil intensity. It finally extrapolates what such a continuing trend might mean for oil consumption and policies around it going forward.
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, and GDP
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10613. Green Giants? China’s National Oil Companies Prepare for the Energy Transition

Author:
Erica Downs
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On September 22, 2020, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, made a surprise announcement about China’s climate ambitions during remarks to the United Nations General Assembly. He stated that China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), aims to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. Xi also said that China’s GHG emissions would peak before 2030, a slight revision to China’s pledge under the Paris Climate Agreement to peak emissions around 2030. China’s new climate targets spurred the country’s three major national oil companies (NOCs)—China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group), and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)—to strengthen their climate ambitions. PetroChina (the flagship subsidiary of CNPC), which had already set a goal of achieving near-zero emissions by 2050, intends to peak its carbon emissions by 2025. Sinopec Corp. (the flagship subsidiary of Sinopec Group) also aims to peak its carbon emissions by 2025 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. CNOOC Ltd. (the flagship subsidiary of CNOOC) plans to reduce its GHG emissions by 16 percent between 2020 and 2025 and aims to peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. This report, part of the China Energy and Climate Program at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, provides a baseline for understanding how China’s NOCs are responding to climate change. It examines the activities the three companies identified as part of their emerging energy transition strategies before Xi unveiled the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality targets, and why they didn’t do more. The report then assesses the implications of China’s new climate ambitions for its NOCs and lays out their preparations to date for supporting Xi’s 2030 and 2060 pledges.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Green Technology
Political Geography:
China and Asia

10614. Methane Emission Controls: Redesigning EPA Regulations for Greater Efficacy

Author:
Robert Kleinberg
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Natural gas holds a critical role in the US energy economy, providing 32 percent of primary energy evenly distributed among electric power generation, industrial use, and residential and commercial consumption (LLNL 2020). As countries set targets to minimize climate change, however, widespread reliance on fossil fuels, with their attendant greenhouse gas emissions, is being scrutinized. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is second only to carbon dioxide in its contribution to greenhouse gas warming (Kleinberg 2020). It holds the potential to be a primary driver of global average temperature change between now and 2050—no matter what progress is made in controlling increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the next thirty years (Shindell et al. 2012). Half of global methane emissions come from natural sources, such as swamps and seeps, and half from anthropogenic sources, such as agriculture and fossil fuels. Regulations curbing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are essential to mitigating global climate change over the next three decades. In the United States, current regulations were devised at a time when the technology for the measurement of natural gas emissions was relatively immature. Comprehensive performance-based regulations were not an option, and because of this, many regulations put in place were highly prescriptive. Data show these regulations have been largely ineffective. This commentary examines the potential to reduce emissions of methane from oil and natural gas infrastructure. It begins with a brief history of natural gas regulations and the effectiveness of rulemaking, before exploring unregulated and underregulated sources of methane. This is followed by a discussion about improvements in measurement capabilities and how regulations could be used to more effectively address methane emissions. This work shows the complexities of oil and gas production do not lend themselves to prescriptive regulation. Performance-based regulation, including quantitative compliance monitoring, would engage the talents of thousands of engineers, encouraging them to solve problems using locally appropriate solutions rather than relying on a prescriptive checklist approach that cannot anticipate every eventuality. The key to performance-based regulation is accurate measurement, and this capability has improved rapidly in recent years. Aircraft-based, facility-scale measurements encompassing tens of thousands of facilities spread over tens of thousands of square kilometers are economically viable and increasingly common. Permanently installed continuously monitoring sensors show promise in detecting intermittent sources; oil field pilot studies are underway. However, aircraft- and ground-based facility-scale measurements are not compliant with the current regulatory regime, which focuses on individual components. Therefore, the current regulatory regime must be completely rethought. (A comprehensive exposition of this topic, with evidentiary support, has been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency [Kleinberg 2021b].)
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Methane
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10615. The Global Energy Crisis: Implications of Record High Natural Gas Prices

Author:
Anne-Sophie Corbeau
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The recent spike in energy prices across the globe has led to talks of an energy crisis with far reaching repercussions as the Northern Hemisphere braces for winter. While a significant focus has been on natural gas as gas spot prices in Asia and Europe hit levels unthinkable before ($56/million British thermal unit [mmBtu], or over $320/barrel [bbl] in oil-equivalent terms), the crisis has extended well beyond gas: oil prices are rising, China and Europe are facing record coal prices, and carbon prices in Europe have reached historic levels. As gas-fired plants (or coal in some regions) are at the margin, this is also leading to record power prices in different parts of the world. These circumstances lead to immediate concerns, but also flag important potential lessons for the future. In the short term, immediate concerns include a potential gas supply and power crunch over the coming winter, the impact of record-high gas and electricity prices on end-users’ energy bills, and power shortages. For natural gas, however, the crisis may extend beyond the weather. The role of natural gas in a world looking to slash carbon emissions has been an ongoing topic of discussion, and the potential for a sustained crisis that batters consumers may have critical repercussions for the fuel longer term. Already, at least two schools of thought are emerging from the current situation that reflect the ongoing debate about natural gas: one that views this episode as further proof that the world needs to rapidly get rid of fossil fuels, including natural gas, and one that views it as proof that more gas is needed in the immediate future to satisfy growing global energy demand. Questions of security of supply and affordability are also part of the discussion, especially in a future world with a higher share of renewables but where fossil fuels are still necessary to provide flexibility and are likely to continue to set power prices at the margin until new flexibility tools such as batteries or demand-side management are developed at scale. In addition, there are concerns about another widespread gilets jaunes[1] protest movement triggered by price spikes as governments push their agenda for decarbonization. For the gas industry, it could prove to be a moment of truth. The IEA stated earlier this year that “no new oil and natural gas fields are needed in the net-zero pathway.”[2] Indeed, producers are facing increased scrutiny about future investments, including in upstream activities and liquefied natural gas (LNG), but at the same time are asked to make gas readily available when needed.[3] Meanwhile, developing countries that had been looking favorably at natural gas as a way to complement renewables and decommission coal could be deterred by these high and volatile gas prices from supporting LNG imports. The recent increase in gas prices could impact these decisions in different ways, especially if they remain high for the next few years. This commentary provides a brief overview of the current gas market and examines the potential near- and longer-term impacts for natural gas.
Topic:
Economics, Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Gas, and Energy Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10616. Promoting Energy for Development in a World Accelerating to Net-Zero: Roundtable Report

Author:
Hon Xing Wong, Jonathan Elkind, Philippe Benoit, and Aashna Aggarwal
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On September 14, 2021, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) and Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) co-hosted a high-level virtual roundtable on energy for development and climate objectives, the first of a series of discussions focusing on the intersection between these two policy priorities. Among the roundtable participants were senior leaders representing major international organizations, development finance institutions, civil society, philanthropic foundations, academia, youth activists, and energy and finance industries. Convened a week before the United Nations (UN) High-Level Dialogue on Energy—the first in 40 years—the virtual roundtable occurred at a time when the focus of many decision makers around the globe was on accelerating climate change mitigation to fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement. Amid this sense of urgency to accelerate decarbonization, the roundtable served as a timely reminder of energy’s role in alleviating poverty and promoting growth. With 2.6 billion people (more than a third of the world’s population) lacking access to clean cooking and almost 760 million people (roughly 10 percent of the world’s population) lacking access to electricity, bridging the energy gap by 2030 should remain at the top of the global agenda.[1] Energy access is essential for economic development, especially for the 9.1–9.4 percent of the world that still lives in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $1.90 per day).[2] Moreover, the role of energy extends beyond basic access: it is critical to generating broad-based economic growth to lift people out of poverty and enable quality healthcare, education, gender equity, food security, and other benefits enjoyed by middle-class populations worldwide. Roundtable participants discussed options to promote energy for development and climate change mitigation, considering matters of policy, finance, and technology. This report summarizes the roundtable discussion and presents participants’ key questions. The discussion occurred on a not-for-attribution basis under the Chatham House rule.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Energy Policy, and Green Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10617. The Impact of ESG on National Oil Companies

Author:
Luisa Palacios
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The rise of ESG investing—investment focused on environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and corporate governance—in the 21st century has created significant pressures on oil companies. Some shareholders of international oil companies (IOCs) have pressed them to pay closer attention to ESG goals and diversify their business models away from hydrocarbons and into other sources of energy amid efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions.[1] National oil companies (NOCs)—which currently control about 50 percent of the world’s oil production—have different corporate mandates than their IOC peers that might imply a more complicated relationship with ESG goals. NOCs are mainly owned by governments in the developing world, and thus face vastly different demands than IOCs answering to private sector shareholders.[2] But different does not mean NOCs do not or will not feel pressure to address ESG issues. Given NOCs’ significant share of global oil production—and the fact that this share may increase as IOCs diversify—the pressures they face and changes they make could have a significant impact on the future of the oil and gas industry as well as countries’ abilities to meet climate goals. During the November 2021 COP 26 meetings in Glasgow, Saudi Arabia and India became the latest countries with strong NOCs to pledge to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the next decades.[3] This commentary examines how the ESG agenda is impacting NOCs through the ecosystem of organizations and principles that have emerged from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement as well as from investors and regulators in global financial markets. The piece then describes the three components of the ESG framework in relation to NOCs and the challenges of accurately measuring adherence to them due to insufficient standardization of metrics and the variety of reporting frameworks. Also, because environmental, social, and governance competence are not strictly related to one another, companies may be strong in some areas and weak in others, making it difficult to evaluate their ESG performance as a whole.[4] Finally, while ESG pressures are coming alongside discussions about the energy transition and climate change, ESG assessments do not evaluate companies’ energy transition plans, even if some aspects of ESG scores might provide insights about them. The commentary pays special attention to the importance of corporate governance for national oil companies in achieving overall ESG goals, given the key differences between their ownership structure and that of private sector companies working in the oil industry.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Oil, Natural Resources, and Green Technology
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10618. Market, Policy, and Political Implications of the Global Natural Gas Crisis: Forum Report

Author:
Hon Xing Wong, Erin Blanton, and Samantha Lang
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On October 18, 2021, Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) hosted a special session of the Natural Gas Forum on the global nature of the current unexpected gas crisis, which has sparked chaos in many parts of the world. A number of factors have been put forward to explain the crisis, including a faster-than-expected pandemic recovery in economic demand that has precipitated global supply chain issues, extreme weather conditions around the world, and liquified natural gas (LNG) facility outages. The forum was an opportunity for participants to discuss the underlying causes of the global gas crisis and its long-term market, policy, and political implications. The discussion started with outlooks for the winter across the European Union, Russia, the United States, and East Asia before turning to a debate over any longer-term implications of the natural gas crisis on the energy transition. The forum’s participants included policy makers and senior leaders from major international agencies, energy companies, financial institutions, civil society organizations, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. This summary of the proceeding begins with the broad takeaways of the discussion, which occurred on a non-attribution basis under the Chatham House Rule, and then delves into regional issues and the future of natural gas.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Natural Resources, Global Markets, Gas, Renewable Energy, and Energy Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10619. Advancing Corporate Procurement of Zero-Carbon Electricity in the United States: Moving from RE100 to ZC100

Author:
Melissa Lott and Bruce Phillips
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Corporate pledges to purchase renewable electricity have led to significant new solar and wind capacity investments and driven down the carbon intensity of the power sector in the United States. Participating companies have increasingly procured this power, many with a goal of procuring quantities that are equal or proportional to the amount of electricity that they consume at their facilities on an annual basis.[1] Corporate buyers can reap many benefits from renewables procurement, including hedging against power price fluctuations and enjoying positive brand association, helping them meet shareholder demands around climate or other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. However, the reality is that commitments to buy 100 percent renewable electricity may not equate to a company actually reducing its power carbon footprint to zero. This report from Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy quantifies the mismatch between companies’ contracted variable renewable electricity (VRE) and their actual use of electricity to highlight the degree to which these companies still rely on a partially fossil-fueled power grid to bridge the gap. A modeling exercise and analysis done in collaboration with The NorthBridge Group reveals a significant shortfall between electricity demand and VRE supply, leaving companies that contract for 100 percent renewables to in fact draw between 20 percent and 50 percent[2] of their annual electricity from the regional electric grid, depending on their location, demand profile, and mix of contracted renewable supplies. This disparity presents a number of challenges to corporations that wish to achieve deep decarbonization and are unable to curtail operations to match renewable energy supplies. There are several approaches to get closer to a true zero-carbon power footprint. Installing storage capacity either on-site or at the power plant to provide stored electricity when renewables are not sufficient, such as with a battery,[3] is one option. However, this only reduces the minimum shortfall by half, requiring a customer to continue to rely on electricity from the regional electric grid for 10 percent to 28 percent of its annual load.[4] Resolving the shortfall by procuring extra renewable power (e.g., to 150 percent of annual electricity demand with renewables) can drive costs up substantially without closing the gap.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Environment, Green Technology, Carbon Emissions, and Decarbonization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10620. How the ESG Investing Framework Applies to National Oil Companies: Workshop Report

Author:
Luisa Palacios and Hon Xing Wong
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On November 16, the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University SIPA convened a private workshop to discuss the applicability of the current ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing framework on national oil companies (NOCs). The workshop brought together representatives from NOCs, international oil companies (IOCs), international organizations, multilateral banks, private banks, institutional investment firms, ESG rating agencies, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations, as well as academics. The group discussed the types of ESG pressures that NOCs face, how NOCs are responding to these challenges, whether all the components of ESG are equally relevant when it comes to NOCs, the challenges associated with ESG reporting and ratings, how investors are integrating ESG considerations into their investment process in relation to NOCs, and the risks of future access to financing
Topic:
Energy Policy, Oil, Privatization, Natural Resources, and Private Sector
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America