Can smart grid survive deficit hawks?
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s 2012 budget request for his department reveals a forward-thinking approach toward energy, with proposed spending boosts for smart-grid technology, electric cars and renewables, and cuts for fossil fuel research and development, and hydrogen technologies.
But will that sort of philosophy — which undoubtedly takes the right direction given our current energy and climate concerns — fly in an era that values austerity over investment?
The energy budget proposal will be a tough sell, given the loud drum-banging over deficit reduction above all else. A large number of new Republicans swept into Congress on just such a platform, while many Democrats who survived the last election might fear further alienating anti-tax types with any support for new spending.
Which is a problem, because if any time demands new spending, or at least a new set of priorities to guide spending, now is that time. And Chu’s budget request does a pretty good job of delivering on that while keeping the actual increase in spending fairly restrained: $29.5 billion versus $26.4 billion for 2010. It does so by, among other steps, eliminating $3.6 billion in fossil-fuel industry subsidies, reducing fossil-fuel energy program spending by $418 million and cutting $70 million for research and development for hydrogen — certainly a longer-shot technology than solar or wind.
On the flip side, it makes room for significantly more investment in electric cars ($588 million), solar energy technology development ($425 million), home weatherisation ($320 million) and both nuclear and renewable energy. Smarter energy also gets a leg up with double-digit spending increases proposed for clean-energy transmission and reliability research, smart-grid research and development and energy storage.
The trouble is, these are areas which too many lawmakers see as nice-to-haves rather than must-haves. US Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska), for example, said officials need to draw a line between “the programs we want to fund and the programs we need to fund.” It should come as no surprise, however, that many in Washington still consider consider fossil fuels research to fall under the “need to fund” column.
Is there hope, in this environment, that Chu’s proposed investments in clean and smart technologies can survive the budget ax? Now would certainly be the time for the big technology companies that tout clean, smart energy to step up and put their mouths where they say their money is.
