2016 Energy Innovation Policy

Energy Innovation Policy:
Priorities for the Trump

Administration and Congress
VARUN SIVARAM, TERYN NORRIS, COLIN MCCORMICK, AND DAVID M. HART
By investing in energy
innovation and
infrastructure, the
United States could
wrest back cleanenergy markets,
creating thousands of
jobs in advanced
manufacturing and
improving its
trade balance.
Energy is an enormous and vital economic sector, and clean energy in

particular is growing rapidly in much of the world. Countries that have
seized this market opportunity, valued at over $300 billion globally in
2015, are fueling economic growth at home and expanding exports
abroad. 1 Asian countries have vaulted to the forefront of global trade in
clean-energy technology. In particular, China is the world leader in the
production of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, and it is quickly
taking the lead in next-generation nuclear power and technologies to
capture carbon. The United States is losing this race because Asian
countries are out-investing the United States and dictating the terms of
competition, often flooding the market with low-cost,
unimaginative products. 2
But the race is not yet lost. By investing in energy innovation and infrastructure, the
United States can wrest back clean-energy markets, creating thousands of advanced
manufacturing jobs and improving its trade balance. 3 Moreover, it will take innovation to
make cleaner energy truly cost competitivesans subsidiesenabling widespread adoption
that enhances U.S. energy security, improves the environment, and protects public health.
The United States has a strong foundation for rapid progress. U.S. universities and national
laboratories have developed many of the most promising new technological options on the
horizon, and American companies such as Tesla, General Electric, and First Solar have
successfully commercialized innovative products.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016
PAGE 1
However, the United States is not doing enough to seize the energy-innovation
opportunity and capitalize on its progress to date. Federal funding for energy research and
development (R&D) lags well behind funding for space, health, and defense R&D. 4 Eleven
other countries around the world spend more on energy R&D as a percentage of GDP
than the United States. China spends three times as much. 5
Private investment in energy innovation has been weak as well. Venture capital and privateequity investment in American renewable-energy companies, for instance, peaked in 2008
at $5.4 billion and slipped to $2.2 billion in 2015. 6 Only a handful of U.S. companies
developing advanced nuclear reactors and carbon-capture technologies have raised enough
private investment to scale up their innovations; meanwhile, China is sponsoring an all-out
push on all of these technology fronts. 7 As a result, researchers, entrepreneurs, and
companies lack sufficient funding to invent new technologies; investors are wary of funding
technology scale-up; and slow-moving incumbents continue to dominate energy markets.
Only a handful of U.S.

companies developing
advanced nuclear
reactors and carboncapture technologies
have raised enough
private investment to
scale up their
innovations;
meanwhile, China is
sponsoring an all-out
push on all
technology fronts.
There is a second reason for the next administration to focus on spurring energy
innovation. Climate change is extremely unlikely to go away. As its observable effects, such
as king tides that regularly flood streets in Miami Beach, make the scientific consensus on
climate change more salient to the general public, the pressure on the United States to do
something, both domestically and internationally, will increase. But trying to combat
climate change with only existing energy technologies would be expensive, complicated,
and unpopular. 8 Instead, by investing in affordable and effective low-carbon energy
innovations, America will be able to lead the world in the fight against global warming
without imposing onerous regulations that limit consumer choice or alter our way of life.
President-elect Donald Trump and the 115th Congress should make energy innovation a
high priority and address the obstacles to developing and deploying new technologies. To
do so, they will need to reform a sprawling set of institutions to increase the commercial
impact of federal energy R&D and maximize taxpayer return on investment. These reforms
should draw inspiration from experiences in other sectors, including life sciences,
semiconductors, electronics, and agriculture, where breakthrough technologies have been
successfully commercialized. 9
We distill these lessons into five principles for institutional change that should be applied
to key federal agencies, especially the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE):
Connect basic science with technology priorities,

Reorient the national labs to pursue commercially relevant RD&D,
Encourage more private investment in energy innovation,
Support demonstration projects, and
Complement supply-push policies with demand-pull policies.
These reforms will help focus federal energy-innovation resources on urgent and coherent
needs. We put forward six candidates for these Technology Missions:
Nuclear power;
PAGE 2
Solar energy;
Energy storage;
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage;
Advanced cooling and thermal energy storage; and
Smart energy management and connected vehicles.
Accelerating energy innovation to accomplish these missions will require significant new
funding as well as more effective use of existing resources. Recognizing this fact, 20
countries around the worldrepresenting the vast majority of energy R&D investment
and led by the United Statesrecently committed to a Mission Innovation pledge to
double public-energy R&D funding over a five-year period. 10 Anticipating this increase, a
group of large investors led by Bill Gates has announced a new effort called
Breakthrough Energy Ventures that will invest more than a billion dollars in
innovative energy technologies.
The Trump administration, in partnership with Congress, should seek to meet the United
States Mission Innovation commitment. Dedicated revenue sources for federal energyinnovation investments would provide private investors with confidence that these
investments will be sustained and avoid the stop-and-start pattern that has plagued energyinnovation policy in the past. We close the paper with a set of funding options that merit
more careful exploration.
INSTITUTIONAL REFORM: GETTING MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK

The federal governments $6.4 billion clean-energy RD&D investment was spread across a
dozen agencies in fiscal year 2016 (Figure 1). About three-quarters of this funding was
channeled through the Department of Energy (DOE). 11 Continued federal investment in
such programs is essential for improving American energy security and making energy
production and use less harmful to public health and the environment.
Figure 1: Federal funding for clean energy R&D in fiscal year 2016 12
Billions of USD
2
3
Department of Energy
National Science Foundation
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Transportation
Other Agencies
PAGE 3
But U.S. federal investment can produce more bang for the buck. Too much of it is spent
today on a plethora of disconnected projects that lack focus. Reforming the sprawling
federal energy-innovation infrastructure should be an important priority for the Trump
administration and the 115th Congress. In doing so, they can build on initiatives
conceived and piloted under the Bush and Obama administrations that currently represent
only a small fraction of federal investment. The following five principles should guide the
reform effort.
1. Connect basic science with technology priorities
DOE has historically emphasized basic scientific research that is excessively insular,
uninspired by end uses, and disconnected from applied research, development,
demonstration, and commercialization. 13 Explicitly linking basic energy-science funding to
broader technology initiatives can more efficiently guide science without stifling it.
DOE has historically

emphasized basic
scientific research
that is excessively
insular, uninspired by
end uses, and
disconnected from
applied research,
development,
demonstration, and
commercialization.
Experience in health, defense, and other sectors suggests that it is possible to tread a middle
path between focusing on applications and supporting breakthrough science and
technology. The life sciences, for example, have benefited from steady federal support for
basic research, which accounts for over half of the National Institutes of Healths (NIH)
$30 billion research budget. 14 Yet, NIH requires every proposed research project to be
linked to a practical purpose. 15 This approach has helped bring about a broad array of
application-relevant discoveries and the development of powerful enabling technologies,
such as rapid genetic-sequencing methods, which have sped up the pace of
technology commercialization. 16
DOE might draw on NIHs experience by requiring most basic energy-science programs to
identify a Technology Mission or another applied initiative to which they expect to
contribute. However, another lesson from NIH is that steady funding (in contrast to
historically volatile energy investments) nurtures vital communities and institutions, so this
transition should occur gradually. DOE should refrain from abruptly cutting off funding to
current projects. The Trump administration should work with Congress over several years
to increase the proportion of new appropriations for basic energy science that are explicitly
tied to broader initiatives to develop commercially relevant advanced-energy technology.
DOEs Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), which were designed during the
George W. Bush administration and funded initially in 2009, took a step in the right
direction. These 36 centers address interdisciplinary scientific questions that emerged from
gatherings of academic, government, and industry researchers. 17 More of the federal
governments basic energy-science research should be conducted at EFRCs, which should
be linked institutionally to downstream technology activities, such as Technology Missions.
Similar linkages should be encouraged to drive energy R&D at other federal agencies, such
as the National Science Foundation (NSF), which provides nearly $400 million
in funding. 18
The Obama administration also experimented with new institutions that create greater
connectivity along the energy-innovation chain. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-
PAGE 4
Energy (ARPA-E), which is modeled on the extraordinarily successful Defense Advanced

Research Project Agency (DARPA), funds end-use driven research programs. Entrepreneurs
supported by ARPA-E have raised more than $1.25 billion in follow-on funding from
private investors. 19 The Manufacturing USA innovation institutes, which were authorized
by a bipartisan congressional majority in 2014, link government laboratories and academic
researchers with regional industrial clusters. Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT)
in Detroit, which works with the aerospace and automotive industries, and PowerAmerica
in Raleigh, North Carolina, which advances semiconductor materials, are among several
energy-focused manufacturing innovation institutes. 20 Such experiments warrant further
refinement and expansion.
Greater autonomy,
stronger incentives to
collaborate, and better
connections to external
partners, especially
geographically
proximate industrial
clusters, could amplify
the national labs
impact on energy
technology.
At the administrative level, DOE has linked science with technology priorities through the
creation of the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy (S4) and the Office of
Technology Transitions (OTT) within it. These organizational innovations, along with
Tech-to-Market Offices that have been established within some of DOEs major program
offices, advance the reform agenda articulated jointly by the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the Center for American Progress, and the Heritage
Foundation in 2010. 21 President Trump, in partnership with Congress, should further
elevate and fund S4 and OTT, and advance budget requests that continue to integrate the
departments narrow technology stovepipes and atomized funding streams.
There will be legislators and interest groups that oppose strengthening the link between
basic energy science and energy-technology priorities. Basic science research can and should
produce unexpected results with unanticipated applications. In fact, DOE and other
federal research agencies can do more to encourage researchers to take risks and pursue
longer-term projects, following the example of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
which funds people rather than projects. 22 But the administration has a strong case to make
to its partners in Congress that this middle path is the best one to advance innovation and
meet U.S. economic, security, and environmental objectives.
2. Reorient the national laboratories to pursue commercially relevant RD&D
DOE oversees 17 national laboratories, with a collective annual budget of $12.3 billion. 23
These labs are extraordinary repositories of scientific and technical capabilities that have
made great contributions to the nation since World War II. Many of these contributions
have been in the fields of defense and pure science; surprisingly few have been in energy.
One key reason is that the labs energy activities are too often disconnected from missiondriven, industry-relevant technology development, demonstration, and deployment.
Moreover, DOE delegates the labs limited autonomy to marshal their considerable
resources as coherent technology centers. Greater autonomy, stronger incentives to
collaborate, and better connections to external partners, especially geographically proximate
industrial clusters, could amplify the national labs impact on energy technology.
The president and Congress should empower them to prioritize this objective.
PAGE 5
The most impactful formula for lab-industry relationships centers on well-resourced, longterm RD&D collaborations that tackle commercially relevant problems. Many national
labs already possess a critical mass of relevant capabilities, such as Argonne National
Laboratory for energy storage and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for solar fuels,
and others could develop comparably focused capabilities. Such locations are natural homes
for collaborations targeted at specific Technology Missions. These labs can also make
important but hard-to-quantify contributions by providing analysis, sharing information,
and convening relevant science and technology communities.
In order to build these partnerships, the private sector must have access to clear and
comprehensive information about the assets that each national lab can bring to bear on
technical challenges, such as research results, intellectual property, facilities and equipment,
modeling resources, and technical expertise. DOE has improved its reporting on these
assets in recent years by creating an Innovation Portal and Facilities Database, but there is
much more left to do. Likewise, the labs must work harder to solicit industry input to
better understand market needs and prioritize R&D activities for downstream impact.
It is vital that the

national labs engage
with small businesses
and start-ups as
well as large energysector firms.
These information flows must be backed up by incentives for collaboration. Lab-to-market

programs that support the translation of R&D results into practical applications help to
provide such incentives. For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have established
demonstration facilities that allow companies to try out innovative technologies at low risk
in highly applied settings. Lab Bridge and the Technology Commercialization Fund
provide financial and legal resources for collaborative RD&D. 24 The Trump administration
should substantially expand these efforts. Moreover, there is a pressing need for R&D into
manufacturing processes to rapidly scale up discoveries made at the labs. Limited efforts
have been made (e.g., the Materials Engineering Research Facility at Argonne) to address
this gap to date.
It is vital that the national labs engage with small businesses and start-ups as well as large
energy-sector firms. Entrepreneurial firms are key sources of innovation, taking risks that
big firms eschew and thinking outside the proverbial box. 25 Regional industrial clusters,
such as Silicon Valleys semiconductor industry, thrive when they have a mix of firms of
different sizes and vintages. 26 Recent lab initiatives have taken promising steps in the right
direction. Cyclotron Road at Lawrence Berkeley Lab hosts external entrepreneurs who can
draw on its resources, and Lab Corps encourages internal entrepreneurs to develop their
ideas. Small businesses may now apply for vouchers that support work on the labs
premises. 27 These exciting initiatives should be replicated, scaled up across the system, and
integrated into the broader regional energy-innovation partnership program.
For the national labs to become more innovative and thus more effective at contributing to
industries that produce and use energy, they will need more autonomy than they are
currently delegated. Under the Trump administration, DOE should increase the scale of
Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD)which represents less-restricted
PAGE 6
funds that lab directors can allocate toward priorities of their choosingfrom 4 percent to
6 percent or more of total spending on national labs (Figure 2). 28 And more of the
oversight over research projects should reside within the labs rather than in DOE
headquarters, so that the labs can determine the best ways to mobilize their resources
toward commercializing new technologies. 29
Figure 2: DOE Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD) budgets 30
700
$581m $579m $569m
$541m (4.72%) (4.76%) (4.64%) $527m $542m
$515m
(4.15%)
(4.58%)
$499m $513m
(4.15%)
$476m (5.05%) (4.86%) (4.7%)
(5.21%)
Millions of USD
600
500
400
$384m
(4.29%)
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Year
3. Encourage more private investment in energy innovation

Private investment in energy innovation has hit a rough patch over the past decade. The
rate of new company formation has slowed. Venture capital investment has receded (Figure
3). Corporate expenditure on both in-house and external R&D has stagnated. 31 A top
priority for the new Congress and administration should be to reverse these trends.
DOE initiatives that provide seed-stage support for advanced-energy start-ups, such as
EEREs National Incubator Initiative for Clean Energy and the Cleantech University Prize,
are not enough to enable entrepreneurs to acquire follow-on funding from venture
capitalists or corporate partners. A more effective Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program, which provides federal funds to support commercially-relevant R&D at
firms with 500 employees or fewer, could help fill the gap. Research suggests that SBIR
funding doubles the chance that a recipient will receive follow-on venture investment. 32
But DOE program offices have not integrated SBIR into their broader strategies for
technology development. Limited funding constrains its impact as wellespecially for
SBIR Phase II and III grants. A review of SBIR could generate options to scale it up,
enabling better integration with RD&D funding, or guide DOE to concentrate on
alternative solutions. 33
Although advanced-energy venture investing has slumped recently, considerable latent
interest remains, which the federal government can seek to draw out. Investors such as the
PAGE 7
Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a 28-member group led by Bill Gates, will put substantial
capital into attractive opportunities. Recently, several of them announced the Breakthrough
Energy Ventureswith an initial capitalization of over $1 billion and plans to growthat
will invest in refining and scaling technologies emerging from federally funded research. To
make it easier to do so, DOE should continue to build out its Clean Energy Investment
Center (CEIC), which seeks to simplify the confusing array of federal resources for
prospective investors, and could focus their attention on the departments technology
priorities. 34 In addition, DOE should expand its Annual Merit Review process, in which all
recipients of applied R&D funds must present their results, to include energy-oriented
investors. Such gatherings could foster matchmaking between researchers and investors and
accelerate initial due diligence.
25
20
15
3
10
1
0
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Percent of Total U.S. VC Investment
VC Investment (Billions, 2014 USD)
Figure 3: U.S. venture-capital investment in clean-energy companies 35
Year
U.S. Clean Energy Venture Capital Investment (Billions of 2014 USD)
Percentage of Total U.S. VC Investment
Agencies other than DOE should also explore opportunities to support early-stage
advanced-energy companies. For example, SBAs Small Business Investment Company
(SBIC) program should support private funds committed to investing in advanced-energy
technology start-ups. 36 And on the regulatory side, the Treasury Department should issue
additional guidance to institutional investors and charitable foundations, clarifying for
example that program-related investments in innovative energy companies qualify for
favorable tax treatment. 37 DOE should better support the Treasury Department in
developing guidance for energy technologies that qualify for tax incentives, linking those to
Technology Mission goals wherever possible.
4. Support demonstration projects to de-risk private-sector investment
Demonstration is a vital phase in the innovation process for many advanced-energy
technologies. Demonstration projects seek to establish the safety, reliability, and
affordability of technologies under real-world conditions, thereby reducing the risk facing
PAGE 8
later investors. Unfortunately, such projects have been woefully underfunded in recent
years. President Trump and the new Congress should explore new models for judiciously
filling this gap with federal resources to unlock private investment.
One model for financing large-scale energy-technology demonstration projects is an
independent, federally chartered corporation. This corporation would fund projects that
are unattractive to private investors but have the potential to stimulate massive follow-on
investment. Because it would be outside government, it would be able to employ flexible
hiring practices and provide project assistance on a commercial basis. 38
A second approach would organize demonstration projects regionally, taking advantage of
the diversity of natural resources and public attitudes across the country. A set of new
hybrid institutions would have to be created to oversee the selection and management of
such projects. This approach would combine state funding linked to energy use with
federal support. 39
Demonstration
projects have been
woefully underfunded
in recent years.
President Trump and
the new Congress
should explore new
models for judiciously
filling this gap with
federal resources to
unlock private
investment.
A third mechanism to incentivize private investment in demonstration projects would rely

on prizes. Many federal agencies have the authority to offer prizes. NASA has used this
authority quite effectively, for instance, to induce private space-launch companies such as
SpaceX to meet its demanding standards. 40 Prizes limit the governments risk by providing
payment only after proven performance, although the length and cost of some energydemonstration projects may require a set of payments for hitting carefully designed
intermediate milestones. Public prizes in this field would complement philanthropic
efforts, such as the Carbon X Prize. 41
Finally, a recent proposal calls on DOE to create and help fund 10 public-private
consortia. Each of these entities would commit $10 million per year for 10 years (10-1010) to commercialize a technology. 42 The consortium approach has proven successful in
other sectors, most notably in semiconductors, in which SEMATECH, a partnership
between the Department of Defense (DOD) and American semiconductor firms, helped
the United States retake leadership in the industry in the 1980s. 43
Each of these models presents institutional and administrative challenges, and the past
record of large-scale energy-demonstration projects in the United States is mixed at best.
Further analysis will be required to refine them. Whichever model is chosen, it is essential
that the demonstration phase is well integrated with applied R&D programs such as
ARPA-E and covers a variety of scales, from small pilot plants to large
commercial-scale facilities.
5. Complement supply-push policies with demand-pull policies
The success of energy innovation depends ultimately on meeting the test of markets.
Subsidies of indefinite duration are not acceptable. The creation of temporary protected
market niches, however, may be vital in bringing costs down while production ramps up,
and in providing working capital to early-stage firms. Such demand-pull policies have
PAGE 9
been shown to be vital complements to the supply-push provided by federal RD&D for
many transformative innovations in the past. 44
DOD has long experience pairing supply-push and demand-pull. It virtually created the
computing industry, midwifing the discipline of computer science even as it bought early
computers for uses such as air defense in the 1950s and 1960s. Similar stories can be told
about other major high-tech industries, including aircraft, software, and semiconductors.
Once the markets for these products took off, federal procurement fell to a small fraction of
total sales. 45
The success of energy

innovation depends
ultimately on meeting
the test of markets.
Subsidies of indefinite
duration are not
acceptable.
DOD has already begun to play a similar role for energy innovations that meet its
operational needs and provide the military with reliable and secure energy services. 46 The
General Services Administration, which serves as the acquisition agent for federal civilian
agencies, has also provided demand-pull for energy innovations in areas such as green
buildings and alternative-fuel vehicles. Such efforts sometimes bump up against legal and
regulatory barriers that should be dismantled. However, it is also essential that
policymakers are vigilant about preventing such procurement preferences from being
captured by non-innovative incumbents.
DOE is not in the business of procuring energy on a large scale, so the demand-pull that
complements its RD&D investments will have to arise from other sources. Tax incentives
are one such source. They can help drive innovation by encouraging early adoption by end
users. Like procurement, however, such incentives must be regularly reviewed, so that they
dont become subsidies for mature technologies. Environmental and energy-efficiency
regulations may also drive demand for energy innovation. At its best, the regulatory process
engages technically savvy regulatory staff with industrial experts in order to set aggressive
but feasible targets on a time frame that allows industry to plan ahead to meet them.
Although DOEs own regulatory role is relatively small, it should play a larger role in
providing technical support to other agencies that regulate energy production and use. For
example, DOE could increase funding for technical experts at national labs to provide
impartial technical input to rulemaking processes conducted by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Department of the Interior, state utility and transportation
regulators, and others.
State, local, and private-sector initiatives may well be more important in providing
demand-pull for energy innovation than federal policies. State renewable portfolio
standards, for instance, have helped to drive down costs for wind and solar power in recent
years. Many large corporations have added momentum to this trend by voluntarily
committing to purchase renewable energy.
In fact, in large part because of the growth of renewables, the electric power market is in
the midst of an historic transition from a centralized, one-way system to an interactive,
dynamic one. State regulators, and regional planning organizations under the purview of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), are on the front lines of this complex
PAGE 10
process. DOE, drawing on the national labs, should be engaged to provide technical advice
and support to these bodies as they navigate this uncharted territory. A combination of
bottom-up experimentation and federal information-sharing and coordination is more
likely to yield a 21st-century grid that enables innovation than either level acting alone.
PRIORITY SETTING AND "TECHNOLOGY MISSIONS"

Improved priority-setting must go hand-in-hand with institutional reform. A more efficient
system is no more valuable than an inefficient one if it is not focused on the right goals.
The federal government, led by DOE, has recently adopted new priority-setting processes
for energy innovation, but a gap remains between short-term goals and very long-term
ones. New Technology Missions should be adopted to fill this gap and focus the
departments efforts in the medium-term.
DOEs Sunshot Initiative lies at the incremental end of the spectrum. It seeks
technological, financial, and regulatory tweaks to make solar power cost-competitive by
2020 without fundamentally changing the product. 47 Grand Challenges, with which the
Energy Frontier Research Centers are aligned, occupy the other end of the spectrum. They
involve fundamental questions about matter, energy, and information that will be answered
over a period of decades. 48
The Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) and the Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR),
both of which were established pursuant to the advice of the Presidents Council of
Advisers on Science and Technology, have the potential to set medium-term priorities. 49
The QER, which was run for the first time in 2015, is a government-wide process that
yields recommendations for RD&D investments to support energy innovation. The QTR,
created in 2011, requires DOE to identify important advanced-energy technology
opportunities across energy supply and end use.
These priority-setting processes have helped to orient federal energy-innovation activities
and policies, but they could go further by identifying a set of Technology Missions. Such
missions would build on promising next-generation breakthroughs that have emerged from
academic and public laboratories, but require policy support and collaboration with the
private sector to successfully bring to market. The missions would leverage existing basic
and applied-science initiatives, direct new sources of public RD&D funding toward
innovation goals, and support private-sector efforts to develop and demonstrate new
products and services.
We put forward six proposed Technology Missions for consideration in the remainder of
this section. They represent urgent priorities that have the potential to advance very rapidly
and would have big payoffs if they did. The Technology Missions are not meant to
monopolize federal energy-innovation investment. In particular, it is vital to sustain
enabling technologies, such as new materials and supercomputing, and crosscutting
priorities, such as grid modernization and the energy-water nexus, that do not fit neatly
into Technology Missions. But establishing such missions, whether those on this list or
others, would bring much-needed focus to an effort that has lacked it.
PAGE 11
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power plants are by far the largest sources of zero-carbon energy in the United
States, supplying about 20% of the nations electricity. That is about three times as much
power as hydroelectric sources provide.
But the U.S. nuclear-power industry faces significant challenges. Although new plants are
under construction for the first time in decades, several older plants have shut down or are
scheduled to do so in the near future. These aging plants are expensive to maintain and run
compared with natural-gas plants in a period of very low gas prices and to wind and solar
plants that have received capital subsidies and have no fuel costs at all. A significant
number of nuclear operators argue that they can no longer cover their costs in current
wholesale electricity markets. Moreover, the costs of new plants have not fallen over time
and may have even increased, rendering them less competitive. 50
Generation IV nuclear
reactors would have
safety, cost, and fuel
cycle advantages over
the dominant currentgeneration technology,
light-water reactors.
Innovation in nuclear power is needed to address these challenges. Next-generation, or

Generation IV, nuclear reactors can play a pivotal role in stabilizing and decarbonizing the
power grid by serving as flexible baseload. These plants would be able to vary their power
output to compensate for variable generation from renewable sources, a vital system
function provided mainly by natural-gas plants today. 51 Moreover, these reactors would
have safety, cost, and fuel-cycle advantages over light-water reactors, the dominant currentgeneration technology.
The Generation IV International Forum has selected several designs for development and
demonstration, each of which has both promising features and technical challenges. 52
Molten-salt thermal reactors appear to strike a good balance between delivery of benefits
and feasibility of commercializationthey could be cheaper, more efficient, and much
safer than existing reactors. They may also provide a pathway to develop fast reactors,
which bring fuel-cycle advantages. 53
A Nuclear Energy Technology Mission focused on next-generation nuclear reactors should
advance gas-cooled and salt-cooled thermal-reactor technology and investigate other
technological options, taking into account private-sector activities already underway to
commercialize various designs. It should also investigate designs that operate at high
enough temperatures to enable hydrogen coproduction, which would supply fuel for uses
that cannot be electrified. 54 Finally, it should support efforts to develop small modular
reactors, a crucial step toward making private-sector investment in nuclear generation
more viable.
Solar Energy
Solar energy is the most abundant renewable energy source on the planet by multiple
orders of magnitude. By the second half of the 21st century, it should serve most of the
worlds energy demand.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is by far the fastest-growing method for harvesting solar
energy today. But for solar PV to grow quickly enough to outcompete fossil fuels without
PAGE 12
subsidies, allowing the United States to meet its stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 80 percent by mid-century, the fully installed average cost will need to fall to
25 cents per watt (12 cents per kilowatt-hour). 55 This low target is a result of the falling
value that solar can deliver to the power grid as its penetration increases. Currentgeneration silicon PV technology is very unlikely to hit this cost target, even assuming
aggressive cost declines as greater production yields learning benefits for manufacturing
and deployment.
Innovative new solar technologies have the potential to surpass the performance and
functionality of todays PV technology. They may cost less than the 25 cents per watt
target well before mid-century and open up new applications, such as building-integrated
systems, solar-coated windows, and portable generators. In particular, over the past five
years, researchers around the world have discovered that perovskite PV coatings have the
potential to be lightweight, flexible, colorful, and more efficient than silicon PV
technology, while using earth-abundant materials and cheap printing processes. 56 Other
approaches, such as organic and quantum-dot devices, are also promising.
Researchers around
the world have
discovered that
perovskite PV coatings
have the potential to
be lightweight,
flexible, colorful, and
more efficient than
silicon PV technology,
while using earthabundant materials
and cheap printing
processes.
The Solar Energy Technology Mission should also encompass approaches that can address
the roughly 40 percent of primary energy usage that cannot easily be electrified with
todays technological options. 57 These uses include aviation, heavy shipping, and heavy
trucking, which primarily rely on liquid fuels derived from petroleum. Decarbonizing these
uses will likely require clean drop-in replacement fuels. Researchers have made substantial
progress harnessing sunlight to split water and generate hydrogen, which can then be
combusted to produce heat, power a fuel cell to generate electricity, or serve as an input for
synthetic fuels. 58 Like more conventional forms of energy storage, which are discussed
below, solar fuels avoid the intermittency of solar PV, even as they provide flexibility in
end use.
A Solar Energy Technology Mission should aim to commercialize (a) highly efficient,
versatile, and cost-effective solar PV technologies such as perovskite, organic, or
quantum-dot devices; and (b) a robust, efficient, safe, and cost-effective solar-fuel generator
that uses earth-abundant materials for electrodes to harness sunlight and catalysts to
produce hydrogen.
Energy Storage
Energy storage is an increasingly vital function for electricity systems in the 21st century.
Variable renewable generation and increasingly flexible demand are already raising the
value of storage, and it may rise further as baseload-power generation declines and
transportation end uses expand.
Pumped hydroelectric systems dominate large-scale energy storage in the United States at
the moment, but no new capacity has been added to the system in the past decade, and
there are relatively few suitable sites for future additions. Most new storage capacity has
used lithium-ion batteries. 59 This technology is an extraordinary success story, powering
the mobile electronics that we have come to rely on as well as todays electric vehicles.
PAGE 13
But it also has important limits. Lithium-ion batteries are not optimal for long duration
grid-scale services, for instance. They are also heavier than one would like for powering
vehicles. Moreover, this family of battery chemistries appears to be approaching its
theoretical limits on performance metrics such as energy density. 60
New materials for battery components, coupled with careful system integration and
attention to manufacturability, could yield superior batteries for grid and vehicle
applications. Combinations of innovative components such as sulfur cathodes, lithiummetal anodes, solid electrolytes, and ceramic separators could exhibit higher energy density,
better safety, longer lifetimes, and faster power discharge. 61 For electric vehicles, such
technologies could yield performance and functionality superior to those of existing
internal combustion engines. For long-duration grid-scale applications that are currently
served by pumped hydro, an alternative architecture, the flow battery, could be ideal if
researchers can successfully manufacture it with earth-abundant materials. 62
Ultimately, there will

not be one silver
bullet for energy
storage; rather,
transformative
advances in energy
storage would make
it considerably easier
to decarbonize both
the electricity and
transportation sectors.
Ultimately, there will not be one silver bullet for energy storage. Rather, a range of different
batteries should be devised that offer a menu of different attributes from which to select the
appropriate solution for energy-storage services in the electricity and transportation sectors.
Moreover, batteries are only a subset of energy-storage technologies; alternative approaches
such as fast-charging supercapacitors made of advanced materials such as graphene could
complement batteries and further broaden the menu.
Transformative advances in energy storage would make it considerably easier to
decarbonize both the electricity and transportation sectors. An Energy Storage Technology
Mission should produce next-generation storage technologies that improve on various
aspects of lithium-ion battery performance as well as drive costs down even further.
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS)
Fossil fuels are cheap and abundant. Even if the costs of their health and environmental
externalities are fully factored in, it will be important to continue to make use of them. The
cost of mitigating climate change could more than double this century if carbon-dioxide
emissions from fossil-fuel use are not captured, utilized, and stored. 63 And turning fossil
fuels into stranded assets on a monumental scale, as the keep it in the ground movement
calls for, would surely provoke massive resistance from the countries and communities
where they are found.
Current-generation technology for capturing and storing emissions from fossil-fuel power
plants is expensive. Researchers have been exploring several methods for capturing carbon
dioxide from advanced coal plants, including pre-combustion, post-combustion, and oxycombustion. To date, none of these technological pathways has emerged as optimal. In
fact, the cost of capture may actually have increased over the last decade. 64 DOE forecasts
only modest cost decreases of 20 to 30 percent in the near future. 65
Utilization has the potential to dramatically change these economics if the carbon that is
captured can be monetized. Enhanced oil recovery is the only viable use at the moment,
PAGE 14
but new technologies are emerging that would provide additional options. Near-term
opportunities include cement curing and building-material manufacturing. In the longer
term, manufacturing of industrial chemicals, plastics, biofuels, and carbon fiber could all
use captured carbon dioxide. 66 Although these uses may not account for a very large
fraction of carbon emissions, they could provide a vital economic incentive for increased
private investment and early adoption of carbon-capture technology.
Carbon storage on a large scale presents a variety of technological and societal challenges.
The long-term security of sequestration in specific geological formations must be
demonstrated, for example. Once that has been done, an equally secure pipeline system for
transporting captured carbon dioxide from power plants and industrial facilities to
appropriate formations must be constructed.
A CCUS Technology
Mission should not
only focus on
upstream capture
technologies but also
on downstream
industrial process
technologies that
could use carbon
dioxide and systems
for transporting and
storing it securely.
Thus, a CCUS Technology Mission should not only focus on upstream capture
technologies but also on downstream industrial process technologies that could use carbon
dioxide and on systems for transporting and storing it securely. Additionally, the mission
should encompass investigation of power-plant designs that promise dramatically lower
CCUS costs, such as integrated gasification fuel-cell plants and generators that use
supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid. 67 As a long-term goal, this mission might
extend to processes to harness sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into clean fuels (in
partnership with the Solar Energy Technology Mission described above). 68
Advanced Cooling and Thermal Energy Storage
Energy efficiency complements low-carbon electricity generation and fuel production,
reducing emissions and providing economic savings. Even though energy-efficiency
opportunities may be more cost-effective than fuel-switching, they are often overlooked in
technology assessments. 69 Cooling is a particularly promising end use on which to focus,
since more than 90 percent of the worlds primary energy generation is either consumed
or wasted thermally, and enormous latent demand for this service exists in
emerging markets. 70
Cooling applications consume energy directly through air-conditioning and refrigeration
and indirectly through the need to provide heat rejection in power plants, engines, and
industrial processes. Rapid growth in global demand for these end uses, particularly airconditioning and refrigeration in industrializing countries, is adding to the problem. A
further complication is that HFCs, the primary refrigerant in use today, have a global
warming potential that is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide.
Although treaty negotiations to phase out HFCs globally were concluded successfully this
year, next-generation technological alternatives are needed to execute this agreement. 71
Possible options include HFOs (a related family of chemicals), ammonia, carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons, and non-vapor-compression-based systems, such as magnetic,
thermo-elastic and membrane-based technologies, and passive radiant cooling from
nanostructured surfaces. 72
PAGE 15
Thermal energy storage allows the heat energy rejected from cooling to be used for valuable
purposes such as desalination and water heating. The current lack of robust systems for this
function means that an enormous amount of energy is simply lost. 73 Advanced materials
and systems that could be used for thermal storage could also improve the efficiency of
nuclear, fossil, solar thermal, and geothermal power generation and extend the range of
electric vehicles by reducing cooling and heating demand on traction batteries.
An Advanced Cooling and Thermal Energy Storage Technology Mission should focus on
developing drop-in alternatives to HFCs, new cooling and refrigeration technologies that
do not rely on working fluids, and thermal energy-storage materials.
Cooling is a
particularly promising
end use on which to
focus, since more
than 90 percent of the
worlds primary energy
generation is either
consumed or wasted
thermally, and
enormous latent
demand exists for
this service in
emerging markets.
Smart Energy Management and Connected Vehicles

Information technology has revolutionized many sectors of the economy, yet it still has
much further to go. 74 Energy management across all the major carbon-emitting sectors is
ripe for IT applications. IT can raise the energy efficiency of buildings and industrial
facilities and facilitate the use of renewable and storage technologies. The smart grid
must ultimately interconnect transportation and electric power if the nation is to transition
to a low-carbon energy system at a reasonable cost.
Most buildings use ten times the amount of energy theoretically needed to deliver
services, such as lighting and space heating. 75 Many building components, such as
windows, appliances, and insulation, contribute to energy waste. IT systems can provide
insights into the specific sources of waste and help identify potential solutions. Smart
buildings can be networked into smart districts that optimize energy use collectively. 76
The expanded application of IT to energy management in buildings and districts will add
momentum to the ongoing shift toward decentralized and flexible electricity production
and use. Variable wind and solar generation, increasingly diverse storage technologies, and
novel demand-response capabilities are placing extraordinary new demands on utilities to
balance their systems at multiple levels of aggregation and on multiple time scales. In order
to do so, utilities will need the technologies and skills to be able to handle massive amounts
of information and act on it in real time.
The transformation of transportation is yet another driver for applying IT to energy
management. The transportation sector is currently undergoing three interlinked
technology revolutions: the electrification of power trains, the shift to ridesharing and
pooling, and the introduction of autonomous driving. 77 The uncontrolled rise of these
trends could have harmful effects: Electric vehicle charging could overburden the power
grid, and the falling costs of transportation could increase congestion and emissions. 78 But
public and private actors, working in close coordination and with the aid of powerful IT
tools, could harness these trends for public good. Utilities could compensate electric
vehicles for providing storage and other energy services for the grid. And cities could
partner with private companies such as Uber to intelligently dispatch, route, and pool
connected and autonomous vehicles to reduce wasteful idling and congestion while
improving safety.
PAGE 16
A Technology Mission for Smart Energy Management and Connected Vehicles should
embrace innovations in hardware, software, institutions, and behavior. It should facilitate
large-scale demonstration and experimentation to create smarter and smarter grids at the
district, metropolitan, and regional levels.
FUNDING ENERGY INNOVATION
The Trump
administration should
work with Congress to
increase
appropriations for
energy RD&D to
roughly $13 billion,
consistent with the
U.S. Mission
Innovation pledge.
Institutional reform and priority-setting will make federal energy-innovation investments at

current spending levels more productive. Increasing the scale of this investment is
nonetheless important, as a wide variety of authoritative reports have argued. 79 The Trump
administration should work with Congress to double appropriations for energy RD&D to
roughly $13 billion, consistent with the U.S. Mission Innovation pledge.
This funding should support an extended pipeline from basic research through
deployment of new technologies, focusing particularly on Technology Missions. Table 1
provides an illustrative breakdown. It allocates roughly two-thirds of RD&D resources to
projects related to Technology Missions, including large-scale demonstration projects. The
remaining third of funding is divided evenly among other technology applications,
enabling technologies, and ARPA-E and other institutions that fund crosscutting priorities.
Table 1: U.S. Federal Energy RD&D - Illustrative Allocation
$Billions
$Billions
%Total
Technology Missions
4.0
30%
Other Road-Mapped R&D [1]
1.5
11%
Off-Road Map R&D [2]
1.5
11%
Mission-Related Demonstrations
5.0
37%
Advanced Nuclear
CCUS
Other
Other Enabling Technology
Total
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
11%
13.5
[1] Including geo geothermal, building technologies, offshore wind, power electronics, fuel
cells, hydro-tidal, etc.
[2] "Off-road map" here refers to technologies and tech development pathways beyond DOE's
multi-year program plans, including opportunistic, high-risk/high-reward initiatives such as

ARPA-E's programs.
Although expanded federal funding for energy innovation, especially in tandem with
institutional reforms that improve the return on public investment, should be a bipartisan
PAGE 17
priority capable of securing congressional support, annual appropriations have proven to be

unstable in the past. Innovation is best supported with steady public investments that
provide confidence to entrepreneurs, researchers, and established firms that their own
investments will yield results. A source of federal revenue that is dedicated to energyinnovation funding would provide this much-needed stability. Below we lay out several
potential revenue streams, ordered in descending magnitude, that are worthy of
further exploration. 80
Innovation is best
supported with steady
public investments
that provide
confidence to
entrepreneurs,
researchers, and
established firms that
their own investments
will yield results.
A source of federal
revenue that is
dedicated to energyinnovation funding
would provide
this much-needed
stability.
1. Carbon tax
A carbon tax has been widely recognized on both sides of the aisle and by key energyindustry players such as ExxonMobil as a prudent and efficient mechanism to account for
the externalities of greenhouse gases. 81 A small carbon tax would be sufficient to fully fund
expanded energy-innovation efforts. For example, a $5.00 per ton of carbon-dioxide tax on
the U.S. electric power sector would raise approximately $9.4 billion annually. A tax of
$7.00 per ton would raise $13.0 billion annually, enough to fully fund a doubled federal
energy RD&D budget.
2. Electricity wires fee
Congress could enact a small, nationwide surcharge on U.S. electricity sales that pass
through the electrical power grid, known as a wires fee. A wires fee of just $0.001 (one
tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour on U.S. electricity generation available to the grid would
generate approximately $4 billion annually.
3. Proceeds from sale of petroleum reserves
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) holds a vast store of value that could be
unlocked through the creation of a public-private partnership to operate the SPR, which
would generate a one-time windfall to fund energy innovation. Congress could require oil
companies to purchase the oil in the SPR and hold it in reserve, as other countries do, for
use in emergencies to counteract a shock to the oil market. Given oil prices of
approximately $50 per barrel, this strategy could raise over three-quarters of the additional
funding required to meet the U.S. Mission Innovation commitment over the next
five years. 82
4. Oil and gas extraction royalties
By harmonizing the rate at which the federal government charges onshore and offshore oil
and gas production, the Trump administration could raise substantial funding to support
energy innovation. According to the Department of the Interior, total federal revenue from
oil and gas extraction on federal lands in 2013 was $10.9 billion (onshore and offshore),
dominated by the roughly $7.5 billion coming from production in the Gulf of Mexico,
where the royalty rate is 18.75 percent. 83 By contrast, the federal government charges a
royalty of just 12.5 percent for oil and gas extraction from onshore public lands, a rate that
has not been updated since 1920. 84 Over $1 billion could be raised annually for federal
energy-innovation investments by harmonizing these rates. Raising the federal royalty rate
PAGE 18
is an executive action that does not require congressional approval. Current law states that
the rate should be not less than 12.5 percent, but it does not set an upper limit.
5. Fossil-fuel export fee
Congress could levy a small fee on U.S. fossil fuels that would apply only to exports. This
fee would neither raise prices for American consumers nor materially impact the viability of
U.S. exports. 85 An export fee of $1 per short ton of coal, $1 per barrel of crude oil, and
$0.10 per thousand cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) would have raised
approximately $250 million in 2015. With the projected growth in LNG exports, the
LNG fee alone could raise $250 million by 2020.
CONCLUSION
President-elect Trump has an opportunity to make good on his campaign promises to
create well-paid advanced-manufacturing jobs, protect the environment, embrace a diverse
energy mix that includes fossil fuels, and boost the flagging U.S. trade balance. Seizing that
opportunity, in cooperation with the 115th Congress, will require investing in energy
innovation, a priority that both sides of the aisle can get behind. But the obstacles to
bringing advanced-energy technologies to market are formidable. Institutional reforms are
sorely needed that focus federal energy-innovation institutions such as DOE on technology
commercialization and on supporting innovation through all stages of the extended
innovation pipeline. By organizing the energy-innovation effort around overarching
Technology Missions, the administration and Congress will be able to demonstrate to
taxpayers a superior rate of return on the publics investment. Dedicated and expanded
federal funding will help to induce private investment, so that the United States not only
has clean, affordable, reliable, and safe energy for its own needs, but also becomes a much
more effective player in the burgeoning global advanced-energy market. To be sure, this
agenda is a substantial undertaking, but the prize is easily worth the effort.
PAGE 19
ENDNOTES
1.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Clean Energy Defies Fossil Fuel Price Crash to Attract Record
$329BN Global Investment in 2015, news release, January 14, 2016, https://about.bnef.com/pressreleases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/.
2.
Ben Miller and Robert D. Atkinson, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant II (Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, July 27, 2015), https://itif.org/publications/2015/07/27/rising-tigers-sleepinggiant-ii.
3.
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Committee on Comparative National Innovation
Policies, National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy
(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012), 89.
4.
John F. Sargent et al., Federal Research and Development Funding: FY 2017 (Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, June 24, 2016), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44516.pdf.
5.
American Energy Innovation Council, Restoring American Energy Innovation Leadership: Report Card,
Challenges, and Opportunities (Bipartisan Policy Center, February 2015),
http://americanenergyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AEIC-Restoring-American-EnergyInnovation-Leadership-2015.pdf.
6.
Joseph Byrne et al., Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016 (Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre
and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2016), http://fs-unepcentre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2016lowres_0.pdf.
7.
Richard Martin, Fail-Safe Nuclear Power, Technology Review, August 2, 2016,

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/; Naomi Mapstone, Chinas
Interest in Carbon Capture and Storage Scheme Grows, Financial Times, April 19, 2015,
https://www.ft.com/content/da9a6dd6-d927-11e4-b907-00144feab7de.
8.
Varun Sivaram and Teryn Norris, The Clean Energy Revolution: Fighting Climate Change With
Innovation, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2016.
9.
Rebecca M. Henderson and Richard G. Newell, eds., Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from
Multiple Sectors (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2011).
10.
Mission Innovation: Accelerating the Clean Energy Revolution, accessed December 9, 2016,
http://mission-innovation.net/.
11.
Office of Management and Budget, Advancing Clean Energy Domestically and Abroad and Taking
Action on Climate Change (The White House, February 2017),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/fact_sheets/Advancing%20Cle
an%20Energy%20Domestically%20and%20Abroad%20and%20Taking%20Action%20on%20Climate
%20Change.pdf.
12.
Abdullah Hasan, FACT SHEET: Advancing Clean Energy Research and Development in the
President's FY 2017 Budget The White House Blog, October 13, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/12/factsheet-advancing-clean-energy-research-anddevelopment-presidents-fy-2017-budget.
13.
Daniel Sarewitz, Saving Science, The New Atlantis 49 (Spring/Summer 2016): 440,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160816_TNA49Sarewitz.pdf.
14.
National Institutes of Health, About NIH: What We Do: Budget, last modified April 4, 2016,
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget.
15.
Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall, Lost in TranslationBasic Science in the Era of Translational
Research, Infection and Immunity 78, no. 2 (February 2010): 563566,
http://iai.asm.org/content/78/2/563.full.
PAGE 20
16.
Iain M. Cockburn and Scott Stern, Finding the Endless Frontier: Lessons From the Life Sciences
Innovation System for Technology Policy, Capitalism and Society 5, no. 1 (2010): 16,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208693.
17.
Office of Science, Energy Frontier Research Centers, U.S. Department of Energy, August 31, 2015,
http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/centers/.
18.
National Science Foundation (NSF), FY 2016 Budget Request to Congress (Arlington, VA: NSF, February
2, 2015), https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2016/.
19.
Mike Orcutt, Why ARPA-E Needs to Grow Up, MIT Technology Review, March 1, 2016
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600896/why-arpa-e-needs-to-grow-up/.
20.
National Economic Council, Revitalizing American Manufacturing (Washington, DC: The White
House, October 2016),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/NEC_Manufacturing_Report_October_2
016.pdf.
21.
Matthew Stepp et al. Turning the Page: Reimagining the National Labs in the 21st Century Innovation
Economy (Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Center for American Progress, and
Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2013), http://www2.itif.org/2013-turning-page-national-lab-innovationeconomy.pdf.
22.
Pierre Azoulay, Joshua S. Graff Zivin, and Gustavo Manso, Incentives and Creativity: Evidence From
the Academic Life Sciences, RAND Journal of Economics 42, no. 3 (September 2011): 527554,
http://pazoulay.scripts.mit.edu/docs/hhmi.pdf.
23.
Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2017 Congressional Budget Request: Laboratory
Tables Preliminary (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, February 2017),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/FY2017BudgetLaboratoryTable_0.pdf.
24.
Ali Zaidi and Lynn Orr, Advancing the Frontiers of Clean Energy Innovation The White House Blog,
October 13, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/10/12/advancing-frontiers-clean-energyinnovation; U.S. Department of Energy, Technology Transfer Execution Plan, 20162018
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, October 2016),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/10/f33/TTEP%20Final.pdf.
25.
Richard K. Lester and David M. Hart, Unlocking Energy Innovation: How America Can Build a Low-Cost,
Low-Carbon Energy System (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2012).
26.
Mark Muro and Bruce Katz, The New Cluster Moment: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can
Foster the Next Economy (Brookings Institution, September 2010), https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/0921_clusters_muro_katz.pdf.
27.
U.S. Department of Energy, Small Business Vouchers Pilot, accessed December 9, 2016,
https://www.sbv.org/.
28.
TJ Glauthier, Jarod L. Cohen, et al., Securing Americas Future: Realizing the Potential of the DOE
National Laboratories: Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National
Energy Laboratories (Washington, DC: Department of Energy, September 4, 2015),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/09/f26/DOE%20Lab%20Commission%20draft%20Final%20R
eport%20Volume%201.pdf.
29.
Stepp et al., Turning the Page; Laura Diaz Anadon et al., How to Fix the National Laboratories,
National Interest, October 25, 2016, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-fix-the-national-laboratories18181.
30.
Budgets are expressed in nominal dollars in bold and as a percentage of total spending on national
laboratories in parentheses below. U.S. Department of Energy, LDRD reports to Congress, various years,
accessed December 9, 2016, http://www.energy.gov/cfo/reports/laboratory-directed-research-anddevelopment-annual-reports .
PAGE 21
31.
Benjamin Gaddy, Varun Sivaram, Francis OSullivan, Venture Capital and Cleantech: The Wrong
Model for Clean Energy Innovation (working paper, MIT Energy Initiative, Cambridge, MA, July
2016), https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MITEI-WP-2016-06.pdf.
32.
Sabrina T. Howell, Financing Constraints as Barriers to Innovation: Evidence From R&D Grants to
Energy Startups (working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, May 5, 2015),
http://scholar.harvard.edu/showell/home.
33.
Stephen Ezell and Scott Andes, Localizing the Economic Impact of Research and Development: A
Primer for the Trump Administration and Congress (Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation and Brookings Institution, December 2016).
34.
U.S. Department of Energys Clean Energy Investment Center, U.S. Department of Energy, accessed
December 9, 2016, http://energy.gov/technologytransitions/us-department-energys-clean-energyinvestment-center.
35.
American Energy Innovation Council, Restoring American Energy Innovation Leadership; U.S.
Cleantech and Investment Insights (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2015),
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-us-cleantech-investments-and-insightsq4-2015.pdf.
36.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Power of Change: Innovation for
Development and Deployment of Increasingly Clean Electric Power Technologies (Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press, 2016).
37.
Sarah Kearney, Alicia Seiger, and Peter Berliner, Impact Investing in the Energy Sector: How Federal
Action Can Galvanize Private Support for Energy Innovation and Deployment (PRIME Coalition,
MIT Sloan School of Management, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, and Mission
Investors Exchange, October 2016), http://law.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/753322/doc/slspublic/Impact_Investing_in_Energy.pdf.
38.
John M. Deutch, An Energy Technology Corporation Will Improve the Federal Governments Efforts
to Accelerate Energy Innovation (The Hamilton Project, May 2011),
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/05_energy_corporation_deutch
_paper_1.pdf.
39.
Richard K. Lester and David M. Hart, Closing the Energy-Demonstration Gap, Issues in Science and
Technology 31, no. 2 (Winter 2015), http://issues.org/31-2/closing-the-energy-demonstration-gap-2/.
40.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Space Exploration Technologies
Corporation (SpaceX), Space Act Agreement Between National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
Demonstration (COTS) (Washington, DC: NASA, Summer 2006),
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf.
41.
NRG COSIA Carbon Xprize, XPRIZE Foundation, accessed December 9, 2016,

http://carbon.xprize.org/.
42.
Arun Majumdar et al., Energy Innovation Needs New Private-Sector Push, Bloomberg View, February
11, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-11/energy-innovation-needs-new-privatesector-push.
43.
David C. Mowery, Federal Policy and the Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and
Computer Software: A Policy Model for Climate Change R&D? in Accelerating Energy Innovation:
Insights from Multiple Sectors, edited by Rebecca M. Henderson and Richard G. Newell (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2011), 1517.
44.
Varun Sivaram, Pairing Push and Pull Policies: A Heavy-Duty Model for Innovation, Council on
Foreign Relations, September 27, 2016, http://blogs.cfr.org/sivaram/2016/09/27/pairing-push-and-pullpolicies-a-heavy-duty-model-for-innovation/.
PAGE 22
45
Mowery, Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and Software.
46.
About ESTCP, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), accessed December 9, 2016,
https://www.serdp-estcp.org/About-SERDP-and-ESTCP/About-ESTCP; Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board, Task Force on Federal Energy Management, Final Report, September 14, 2016, accessed
December 9, 2016, http://energy.gov/seab/downloads/draft-report-task-force-federal-energymanagement.
47.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, SunShot Vision Study (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Energy, February 2012), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/47927.pdf.
48.
Office of Science, Research: Grand Challenges (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy,
September 29, 2016), http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/research/grand-challenges/.
49.
Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President on
Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy
(Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, November 29, 2010),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-energy-tech-report.pdf.
50.
Nathan E. Hultman et al. What History Can Teach Us About the Future Costs of U.S. Nuclear
Power, Environmental Science & Technology (April 1, 2007): 20882093.
51.
Fernando J. de Sisternes et al., The Value of Energy Storage in Decarbonizing the Electricity Sector,
Applied Energy 175 (2016): 368379.
52.
John E. Kelly, Generation IV International Forum: A Decade of Progress Through International

Cooperation, Progress in Nuclear Energy 77 (November 2014): 240246.
53.
Ted Nordhaus, Jessica Lovering, and Michael Shellenberger, How to Make Nuclear Cheap: Safety,
Readiness, Modularity, and Efficiency (Breakthrough Institute, June 2014),
http://thebreakthrough.org/images/pdfs/Breakthrough_Institute_How_to_Make_Nuclear_Cheap.pdf.
54.
Giorgio Locatelli, Mauro Mancini, and Nicola Todeschini, Generation IV Nuclear Reactors: Current
Status and Future Prospects, Energy Policy 61 (2013): 15031520.
55.
Varun Sivaram and Shayle Kann, Solar Power Needs a More Ambitious Cost Target, Nature Energy 1
(2016).
56.
Varun Sivaram et al., Perovskite Solar Cells Could Beat the Efficiency of Silicon, Scientific American,
July 2015, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/perovskite-solar-cells-could-beat-the-efficiency-ofsilicon/.
57.
Nathan S. Lewis and George Crabtree, Basic Research Needs for Solar Energy Utilization: Report of the Basic
Energy Sciences Workshop of Solar Energy Utilization (Washington, DC: Office of Basic Energy Science,
U.S. Department of Energy, April 2125, 2005),
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/reports/files/Basic_Research_Needs_for_Solar_Energy_Utiliza
tion_rpt.pdf.
58.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Liquid Fuels: Fisher-Tropsch Synthesis (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Energy), http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energysystems/gasification/gasifipedia/ftsynthesis; Nathan S. Lewis, Research Opportunities to Advance Solar
Energy Utilization, Science 351, no. 6271 (January 2016),
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6271/aad1920; Matthew R. Shaner et al., A Comparative
Techno-Economic Analysis of Renewable Hydrogen Production Using Solar Energy, Energy and
Environmental Science 9 (2016): 23542371.
59.
David M. Hart and Alfred Sarkissian, Deployment of Grid-Scale Batteries in the United States
(unpublished case study prepared for DOE Office of Energy Policy and Strategic Analysis, Washington,
D.C., September 19, 2016), http://davidhart.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Grid-ScaleBatteries-GMU-case-study-final-9-19-16.pdf.
PAGE 23
60.
Jrgen Janek and Wolfgang G. Zeier, A Solid Future for Battery Development, Nature Energy
(September 8, 2016), http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016141.
61.
Mukul D. Tikekar et al., Design Principles for Electrolytes and Interfaces for Stable Lithium-Metal
Batteries, Nature Energy (2016), http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016114; Quan Pang et al.,
Advances in Lithium-Sulfur Batteries Based on Multifunctional Cathodes and Electrolytes, Nature
Energy 1 (2016), http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016132; Yong-Sheng Hu, Batteries: Getting
Solid, Nature Energy (2016), http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201642; Hun Lee et al., A
Review of Recent Developments in Membrane Separators for Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Batteries,
Energy and Environmental Science 7 (2014): 38573886.
62.
Wei Wang and Vince Sprenkle, Energy Storage: Redox Flow Batteries Go Organic, Nature Chemistry 8
(2016): 204206.; Tobias Janoschka et al., An Aqueous, Polymer-Based Redox-Flow Battery Using
Non-Corrosive, Safe, and Low-Cost Materials, Nature 527 (2015): 7881.
63.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for
Policymakers (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf .
64.
Edward S. Rubin, John E. Davidson, and Howard J. Herzog, The Cost of CO2 Capture and Storage,
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015): 378400.
65.
Kristin Gerdes et al., Current and Future Power Generation Technologies: Pathways to Reducing the
Cost of Carbon Capture for Coal-Fueled Power Plants, Energy Procedia 63 (2014): 75417557.
66.
XiaoZhi Lim, How to Make the Most of Carbon Dioxide, Nature, October 28, 2015
http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-make-the-most-of-carbon-dioxide-1.18653; The Global CO2
Initiative and CO2 Sciences, A Roadmap for the Global Implementation of Carbon Utilization
Technologies (November 2016),
https://www.globalco2initiative.org/documents/CBPI_Roadmap_Executive_Summary_Nov_2016_web.
pdf.
67.
Energy Sector Planning and Analysis for SEAP and OPPB, Techno-Economic Analysis of Integrated
Gasification Fuel Cell Systems (Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy, November 24, 2014), https://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/temp/FY15_Techno-EconomicAnalysisofIntegratedGasificationFuelCellSystems_112015.pdf;
Yoonhan Ahn et al., Review of Supercritical CO2 Power Cycle Technology and Current Status of
Research and Development, Nuclear Engineer and Technology 47, no. 6 (October 2015): 647661.
68.
Chong Liu et al., Water Splitting-Biosynthetic System With CO2 Reduction Efficiencies Exceeding
Photosynthesis, Science 352 (2016): 12101213.
69.
Charlie Wilson et al., Marginalization of End-Use Technologies in Energy Innovation for Climate
Protection, Nature Climate Change 2 (November 2012): 780788.
70.
Ilan Gur et al., Searching for a Better Thermal Battery, Science 335 (2012): 14541455.
71.
Stephen Seidel et al., Not-in-Kind Alternatives to High Global Warming HFCs (Center for Climate
and Energy Solutions, October 7, 2016), http://www.c2es.org/publications/not-kind-alternatives-highglobal-warming-hfcs.
72.
W. Goetzler et al., Research & Development Roadmap for Next-Generation Low Global Warming
Potential Refrigerants (Building Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, November 2014),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/12/f19/Refrigerants%20Roadmap%20Final%20Report%202014
.pdf.; William Goetzler et al., Energy Savings Potential and RD&D Opportunities for Non-VaporCompression HVAC Technologies (Building Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, March 2014),
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f12/NonVapor%20Compression%20HVAC%20Report.pdf.; Aaswath P. Raman et al., Passive Radiative
Cooling Below Ambient Air Temperature Under Direct Sunlight, Nature 515 (2014): 540544.
PAGE 24
73.
Gur et al., Searching for a Better Thermal Battery.
74.
Luke A. Stewart and Robert D. Atkinson, Looking for Jobs? Look to IT in 2012 and Beyond
(Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, August 2012), http://www2.itif.org/2012-jobsit.pdf.
75.
Henry Kelly, The Potential of More Efficient Buildings, Issues in Science and Technology (Summer
2016): 21.
76.
Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Technology and the Future of Cities
(Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, March 2016),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_cities_report___final_3_20
16.pdf.
77.
Levi Tillemann and Colin McCormick, Get Ready for the World of Driverless, Electric, Shared Cars,
Slate, June 2016,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/06/driverless_electric_shared_cars_will_rev
olutionize_our_transportation_system.html; Laura Vimmerstedt et al., Transformative Reduction of
Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Opportunities for Change in Technologies and Systems (Golden,
CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 2015),
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62943.pdf.
78.
Zia Wadud, Don MacKenzie, and Paul Leiby, Help or Hindrance? The Travel, Energy and Carbon
Impacts of Highly Automated Vehicles, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 86 (April
2016): 118.
79.
See, for example, American Energy Innovation Council, A Business Plan for Americas Energy Future
(Bipartisan Policy Center, June 2010), http://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/default/files/AEIC_REPORT_Final.pdf; PCAST, Accelerating.
80.
Data for these revenue streams were collected from databases hosted by the Energy Information
Administration and the International Energy Agency, unless otherwise cited.
81.
Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil and the Carbon Tax, Energy Factor by ExxonMobil, December 12, 2015,
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/corporate-citizenship-sustainability/exxonmobil-and-the-carbontax/.
82.
Heather L. Ross, Turning Rainy Day Oil Into Clean Energy Gold: Funding Mission Innovation With a
Strengthened Strategic Petroleum Reserve (discussion paper, Resources for the Future, April 2016),
http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-DP-16-14.pdf.
83.
United States Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Revenue (explore data, revenue; accessed
December 9, 2016), https://useiti.doi.gov/explore.
84.
Center for Western Priorities, A Fair Share: The Case for Updating Oil and Gas Royalties on Our
Public Lands (Center for Western Priorities, June 18, 2015), http://www.westernpriorities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Royalties-Report_update.pdf.
85.
For a more detailed proposal, see Melissa Carey and Josh Freed, How a Fee on Fossil Exports Can Make
the U.S. a Clean Energy Super Power (Third Way, March 11, 2014),
http://www.thirdway.org/memo/how-a-fee-on-fossil-exports-can-make-the-us-a-clean-energysuperpower.
PAGE 25
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank David Victor, Joshua Freed, Sagatom Saha, and Quinn
Marschik for providing input to this report, as well as the Sloan Foundation for
its generous support. The recommendations herein, as well as any errors or
omissions, are the authors alone.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Varun Sivaram is the Douglas Dillon Fellow and acting director of the Program
on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Sivaram is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, and he serves on
the advisory boards of the Stanford University Woods Institute for the
Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy.
Teryn Norris is a director at PIRA Energy Group, an international energy
consultancy, where he co-leads the firms services covering alternative-energy
technologies. Norris was previously a special advisor to the U.S. Secretary of
Energy, where his portfolio included overseeing finance and technology
commercialization initiatives across $10 billion in R&D programs.
Colin McCormick is partner and chief technologist at Valence Strategic, a
consulting firm providing research and strategy services in transportation,
energy, and robotics. McCormick was previously senior adviser for R&D to the
Undersecretary of Energy at the U.S. DOE and a professional staff member with
the House Committee on Science and Technology.
David M. Hart is a senior fellow at ITIF and director of the Center for Science
and Technology Policy at George Mason Universitys Schar School of Policy and
Government, where he is professor of public policy. He is also a member of
ITIFs board. Hart is coauthor (with Richard K. Lester) of Unlocking Energy
Innovation (MIT Press).
ABOUT ITIF
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan research and educational institute focusing on the intersection of
technological innovation and public policy. Recognized as one of the worlds
leading science and technology think tanks, ITIFs mission is to formulate and
promote policy solutions that accelerate innovation and boost productivity to
spur growth, opportunity, and progress.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT US AT WWW.ITIF.ORG.
PAGE 26

2016 Energy Innovation Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Energy Innovation Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Energy Innovation Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Innovation Policy:

Priorities for the Trump

Energy is an enormous and vital economic sector, and clean energy in

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Only a handful of U.S.

Connect basic science with technology priorities,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM: GETTING MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

DOE has historically

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Energy (ARPA-E), which is modeled on the extraordinarily successful Defense Advanced

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

It is vital that the

These information flows must be backed up by incentives for collaboration. Lab-to-market

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

3. Encourage more private investment in energy innovation

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Percent of Total U.S. VC Investment

VC Investment (Billions, 2014 USD)

Figure 3: U.S. venture-capital investment in clean-energy companies 35

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

A third mechanism to incentivize private investment in demonstration projects would rely

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

The success of energy

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

PRIORITY SETTING AND "TECHNOLOGY MISSIONS"

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Innovation in nuclear power is needed to address these challenges. Next-generation, or

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Ultimately, there will

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Smart Energy Management and Connected Vehicles

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

FUNDING ENERGY INNOVATION

Institutional reform and priority-setting will make federal energy-innovation investments at

Other Road-Mapped R&D [1]

Off-Road Map R&D [2]

cells, hydro-tidal, etc.

multi-year program plans, including opportunistic, high-risk/high-reward initiatives such as

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

priority capable of securing congressional support, annual appropriations have proven to be

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Richard Martin, Fail-Safe Nuclear Power, Technology Review, August 2, 2016,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

NRG COSIA Carbon Xprize, XPRIZE Foundation, accessed December 9, 2016,

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Mowery, Development of Semiconductors, Computer Hardware, and Software.

John E. Kelly, Generation IV International Forum: A Decade of Progress Through International

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

Gur et al., Searching for a Better Thermal Battery.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | DECEMBER 2016