In political circles where everything is
polarized, it can be difficult to find common
ground. But in the real world where there are no
clear answers, such diplomacy is a must. And it is
especially true when it comes to developing energy
policy and when leveraging public and private funds.
That’s the general finding of a paper issued this
week by the
Milken Institute. The economic and policy think
tank tries to determine a balance between government
and markets, realizing that innovative energy ideas
often take years -- even decades -- to be deployed.
To that end, the public sector can serve as a
partner, not by replacing private initiative but by
aiding those risk takers along the way.
“While it is true that government failures make
news, the bigger truth is that public policy, when
correctly applied, can lead to breakthroughs with
lasting, positive effects,” write Joel Kurtzman and
John Bartlett, in the Milken study.
Consider the shale gas phenomenon: Private investors
are keen on accessing those unconventional natural
gas deposits. As such, they are making capital
investments, buying equipment and hiring workers.
But what’s less known is that the U.S. government
helped to finance and to develop the technologies
that serve to ply loose that shale gas from the
rocks where they are embedded deep underground.
Devon Energy is quick to give credit. In 1977, its
now wholly-owned unit called Mitchell Energy
demonstrated the first massive “hydraulic
fracturing” drilling project along with the U.S.
Department of Energy, which provided technical and
financial assistance.
With that, the Milken paper discusses some criteria
that similar evaluations should have. Namely, the
authors are suggesting that there be a fair
allocation of the risks and rewards between the
public and private sectors. At the same time, they
say that all policies should establish stable
incentives and regulations while providing clarity,
certainty and a degree of flexibility.
After policies are critically measured, the authors
then say that any subsequent decisions should be
benchmarked and scored. Government investment in an
energy technology is to facilitate the private
sector, they say, adding that long-term public
support is critical because it takes a while for
ideas to commercialize. With each step, though, such
assistance should decline.
“Government has to be looking down the road,” says
Dan Steward, formerly with Mitchell Energy and a
self-described conservative, in an interview with
the
Breakthrough Institute. “And politicians are
often looking for their next election.”
Fair Assessment
The goal, in any case, is to ensure a fair
allocation of risks and rewards. Government will
want to help develop those technologies that have
the potential to make human existence better. But
Milken’s authors say that as projects go from basic
research to applied research to an actual
demonstration that government must relinquish its
role.
Doing so would then allow the private sector to
assume the risk, which if successful, would also get
many of the benefits. A broad range of incentives
that include cash grants are awarded, all of which
have been leveraged during hard times. But one wind
farm in Oregon, called Shepherds Flat, put up just
11 percent of the project’s cost -- electricity that
it sold into California at a premium price, says the
Milken paper.
Government’s subsidies, taxes and mandates, though,
must be certain while the rules that govern the
playing conditions must be reliable. If the
incentives or regulations are short-lived and
wish-washy, financiers won’t commit capital. Here,
of course, the institute notes the uncertainty of
the production tax credits given to wind and solar
developers -- incentives that should remain in place
long enough to allow those industries to stand up,
but not indefinitely.
Along those same lines, the rules and regulations
need to be clear otherwise they will create
confusion, scaring off private investors.
Legislation that is overly broad or too vague only
invites litigation, say the authors, which means
that capital is tied up in the court system and not
on business development. They point specifically to
the New Source Review under the Clean Air Act in
which coal and environmental interests battled for
years in the courts.
The rudiments of Milken’s analysis is that research
and development is a long-term endeavor.
Government’s commitment must therefore not waiver.
But, nevertheless, such support should gradually
decline as projects inch their way to market. With
that, success should be measured not on how any one
deal fares but on how the overall public-private
portfolio performs.
While all are reasonable ideas and approaches, the
legislative process is highly politicized and is
remiss to credit or award opposing concepts. But if
polar opposites could attract, then the nation's
energy platform would become more durable.
EnergyBiz Insider has been awarded the Gold for
Original Web Commentary presented by the American
Society of Business Press Editors. The column is
also the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category
awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein
has been honored as one of MIN’s Most Intriguing
People in Media.
Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com
Copyright © 1996-2013 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energybiz.com
http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/03/polar-opposites-must-attract-when-it-comes-energy-policy