We've talked about the past, present and future of diverse energy sources. We've considered key issues in enabling the energy transition and we've identified important questions that must be addressed. Now, we'll be taking that knowledge and using it to design the policies, roadmaps and actions required to create the best possible energy systems of the future. We are joined again by Professor Monica Gattinger, Director of the Institute for Science Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa and share a positive energy. This time she will be sharing positive energies research on what makes for constructive policy and pathways for energy transition. Positive energy has done a great deal of work on these questions, including surveys and research about the drivers of public confidence in government's energy and climate decision-making. Local community views about new energy infrastructure being built nearby. What inspires investor confidence and regulatory frameworks for major energy projects and the need for collaboration among governments, business and society sectors on energy and climate. Monica over to you. >> Thank you Brad, the sessions to this point have set the stage for this module on policy and pathways. On the one hand, energy transition isn't complicated, it's about reducing emissions, a pretty straightforward goal. But as this course is demonstrating, reducing emissions is tremendously complex. It requires a complete transformation of the global energy system. Compared to previous energy transitions, the one before us represents a transformation of a scale, scope, pace and nature that's unprecedented. The International Energy Agency's 2021 report, Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap For The Global Energy Sector puts the scale of the challenge in context. The IEA's scenario lays out a full 400 milestones that would need to be met in order for the global energy sector to reach Net Zero by 2050. To achieve all of these milestones requires bringing together financial resources, innovation activity, market activity. The deployment of a mind boggling amount of new technologies and infrastructure, multiple government policies and major shifts in human behavior. And of course, the IEA's scenario is just that a scenario, no one knows with any certainty how the future is going to unfold. The IEA estimates that fully half of the technologies needed to get to Net Zero don't yet exist or don't yet exist at scale. This is a monumental challenge with multiple moving parts to the puzzle. So where to start. Let's start with policy. It's becoming increasingly clear that to be effective, policies for transition need to solve for more than just emissions reductions alone. Despite sound counterintuitive but there is growing recognition that to get durable emissions reductions, you need approaches that integrate both climate and energy imperatives. In other words, to get lasting change and durable energy transition, policymakers need to bring a broader lens to the problem than one focused on emissions alone. There are three key elements to this. The first is energy security, ensuring that energy is available, reliable and affordable. Making sure that when people, companies and governments switch the lights on or turn the heat up on its cold or need to get from A to B, that energy is there to do that and that it's there at an affordable price. The second element relates to market imperatives ensuring that energy markets function competitively and efficiently. Not only do well-functioning energy markets support energy security, but they ensure energy can support economic activity and competitiveness in economic sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, telecommunications or even countries as a whole. The third element relates to the environment. Here, it's key to remember that environmental imperatives encompass more than just climate. They include the impact of energy production, transportation and energy use on land, air and water. While climate is arguably at the top of many policymakers environmental priority lists, policy also needs to address other environmental impacts of energy. Importantly, there are tensions and tradeoffs within each of these three areas, as well as between them. For policymakers, the ultimate aim is to align or to identify workable balance points between energy security, energy market and environmental imperatives. That secure support from the public and from broader society, including the private sector and that stand the test of time. It's a tall order. Let's look at each of these areas in turn. I'll start with energy security. The International Energy Agency defines energy security as ensuring the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. There are three key elements to this definition. Energy sources of which we've heard a lot in this course, oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind power, biomass, hydrogen and on and on. Availability, which refers to energy being there when we need it. Whether that's gasoline or electricity for our vehicles, or electricity reliability when we flick on the lights. Availability also incorporates resilience in the face of extreme weather, like flooding, hurricanes, heat waves and other events like forest fires that can affect energy infrastructure. The third element of the definition is affordability, ensuring that energy sources are available at a price that people can manage. Of greatest importance for our purposes is that energy security or more specifically, a lack of energy security can take precedence for people, companies and governments over climate action. Energy transition policy needs to solve for both or it's vulnerable to setbacks reversals and political backlash. When it comes to market imperatives, in addition to ensuring energy markets are functional, competitive and efficient. As we already mentioned, one of the key issues for energy transition relates to cost. A tremendous amount of investment is required for energy transition. The IEA estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to increase fivefold in the years to come. Investment is needed for new energy infrastructure, for the development of new technologies and innovations. To expand mining for the critical minerals needed for things like solar panels and batteries, for the deployment of digital technologies and much, much more. Policymakers will need to be forthright and thoughtful about who will be paying for what, when and how for emissions reductions. What costs will governments cover? What expenditures will need to be made by the private sector? Which costs will customers pay? Will there be mechanisms in place to support homeowners to incur large upfront costs like buying electric vehicles, installing heat pumps or purchasing rooftop solar? While some of these expenses will lead to lower annual cost of energy for citizens over time, in the short term, they often involve large upfront costs that people may or may not be willing or able to afford. In short, there are numerous questions on cost that will need to be identified, debated and decided upon in the years ahead. Last but not least, investors also need to have confidence in policy and regulatory frameworks for energy transition. Lack of clarity, certainty and predictability of policy frameworks or inadequate levels of policy support for energy transition will hamper emissions reductions. This is a growing concern in Canada for many industries. For example, in the Canadian oil and gas sector, the federal government expects the sector to reduce its emissions rapidly and substantially. This will require large investments in major projects. And yet there is considerable uncertainty over policy and regulation for things like the federal cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector and how quickly emissions need to be reduced over time. Likewise, there's a lot of uncertainty and lack of clarity over the environmental impact assessment process for major projects like carbon capture, utilization and storage which will be needed to reduce emissions. Lack of clarity and predictability over current and future policies disincentivize is oil and gas companies to make the major infrastructure investments that will be needed to reduce emissions. And some companies and investors also need to have confidence in government decisions and decision-making frameworks. That said in the energy sector that there are no silver bullets. Any source of energy has environmental impacts, whether during exploration, production, generation, transmission, transportation or consumption. The environmental imperative of climate change puts the focus on emissions reductions. But many sources of energy that helped to reduce emissions have other impacts on the environment. Mining for the critical minerals needed for batteries and solar panels has local environmental impacts on the land and ecosystems. Using nuclear energy reduces emissions in the electricity sector. But mining for uranium needs to be done safely and spent nuclear fuel needs to be stored safely for generations. Deploying wind, solar or tidal energy can raise concerns about impacts on land, wildlife and water. It's often lost from view, but addressing global climate change creates local environmental impacts that also need to be addressed in energy transition policy. Communities may prioritize safeguarding local ecosystems over the capacity of a new energy project in their area to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. And some for transition policies to be effective, they need to attend to environmental impacts beyond greenhouse gas emissions. So what does all this mean for the future? How should policymakers think about energy transition policies and the pathways for durable emissions reductions. One thing is clear, we need very robust pathways. They need to encompass the technical and economic dimensions of emissions reductions, but they also need to incorporate the political, social and regulatory dimensions of emissions reductions. We're going to discuss each of these dimensions in turn, but first, a word on modeling. Modeling is a crucial tool in policymakers tool kits. It helps governments develop policy and pathways for energy transition using computer simulations. Simulations model possible energy and economic futures based on desired end states notably achieving emissions reductions, targets committed to by governments. In the case of Canada, for example, the federal government's emissions reductions plan is based on models that stimulate how Canada can achieve a 40% emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2030. Because models are estimates of desired futures, not predictions based on the profile and dynamics of current energy and economic systems, they necessarily estimate many factors. Things like what the energy mix will look like in the future, which sorts of technologies will emerge, mature and be scaled up and what future economic conditions will be. This requires making a lot of assumptions about the timing and nature of innovations to come, the capacity to finance and deploy technology and infrastructure and the level of political policy and social support for energy transition. Given this, there can be a big gap between what happens in the simulated worlds of models and the real worlds of energy and energy transition. Developing successful policy and pathways requires expanding from the what of models to the how of making change happen in practice. The IEA sums up the challenge very well in its Net Zero by 2050 pathway report. Saying that its scenario requires vast amounts of investment, innovation, skillful policy design and implementation, technology deployment, infrastructure building, international cooperation and efforts across many other areas. So how do we do that? There are three key pathways that policymakers need to put in place alongside models. Energy transition requires a tremendous amount of private capital to rapidly plan, finance and construct major energy projects. As we've heard in this course, we're going to need many existing and new energy sources in the years ahead and many technologies and innovations to mitigate emissions. But the requirements of regulatory frameworks for the assessment and permitting of major infrastructure projects aren't always clear. They can be lengthy processes that stand in the way of rapid change and they can become politicized when projects are controversial even projects that are going to reduce emissions. In Canada, there is growing recognition in industry and government that regulatory uncertainty is a barrier to reducing emissions. As we discussed earlier, when private sector investors don't have confidence in the clarity and predictability of decision-making processes for energy projects. Whether electricity transmission infrastructure or new mining projects or CCUS, they will be hesitant to invest. And they may look to investment opportunities in other jurisdictions with more timely, clear and predictable environments. In short, successful transition policy requires regulatory frameworks that secure investor confidence. The second relates to people. This lesson has tried to hammer home that energy transition depends on ongoing support from the public for climate action. In Canada, public opinion surveys reveal that Canadians want to see government action to reduce emissions. That is a good thing. But will Canadians remain committed as governments develop ever more ambitious policy? Will people accept new energy infrastructure in their communities? Will they be willing to change their daily behaviors like how they heat or cool their homes or how they get from one place to another? Pathways need to be viable for people, people as consumers who will need to change how they procure their energy and may be asked to pay more for it in the short term. People as citizens who will be called upon to change behaviors sometimes in ways that are advantageous to them, but sometimes in ways that aren't. Or people as community members who will see their communities transformed in ways that they may or may not agree with. In Canada, a crucial social consideration with legal and political dimensions relates to indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities increasingly want to be transition makers not transition takers and have substantial and growing decision-making authority and power, notably over energy infrastructure projects. Policymakers cannot ignore these social realities. They hold tremendous potential to contribute to the process of reconciliation as well as to reduce emissions. The third pathway relates to politics. Continued political support for emissions reductions is essential, but it's not guaranteed. It will take effort to sustain political commitment to climate action. As we've seen in this course, transition can be politically contentious and different realities inform people's views of the best path forward, whether it's individuals, regions, sectors or country. And as we've seen in this lesson, pathways need to attend to all energy imperatives in order to be politically viable in the long-term. Climate is the obvious one, but we've also talked about energy security, energy market and other environmental imperatives. Insufficient attention to finding politically viable pathways can lead to division and opposition, which can derail emissions reductions efforts. Keeping things on track requires ongoing robust collaboration and consensus building within and across sectors and communities and countries. So what should we make of this discussion of policy and pathways? The bottom line is that energy transition pathways need to align all the factors that contribute to transition innovation, markets, politics, policy and social dynamics. This needs to be done in ways that are mutually reinforcing, not counterproductive. It's a very tall order, but it's essential to achieve emissions reductions that will stand the test of time. Fortunately, there is growing recognition of the importance of taking approaches that integrate energy and climate imperatives, but we can never lose sight of the need for approaches that solve for both. [MUSIC]
