You are here
Well thanks, Jason, and thanks to the BPC for hosting this event. It's a great organization and one that is always a pleasure to be here with. I want also to give my greetings to Executive Director Van der Hoeven with whom we've worked closely now for several years. I must say this In-Depth Review took me a little bit of time to get used to, you know, as a career academic, I was accustomed to getting the grades. And so now, we'll see how this goes. I will say a few words to maybe first open this up in terms of a few things that we are doing, and then I look forward to hearing Maria's presentation.
The IEA that Maria heads I think you all are very familiar with. An organization certainly born in the time of energy security concerns around oil, and remains, of course, extremely engaged in the energy security discussion, but now, it is a much broader discussion than it was four decades ago at the founding of the IEA. And I will say a few words about that, and I'm sure Maria will touch on that theme, as well.
We all know about, as Jason eluded, the enormous changes that we've had, not only in the four decades, but also in the six years since the last In-Depth Review was carried out. So I'm not going to try to review all of those, but let me just say a few words about what are clearly some of the priorities of the Administration and -- of the present Administration and the Department of Energy.
First, let me just say a few words on climate policy. Obviously, in terms of the President's approach, you know, we talk often, and in a quite committed way, about pursuing an all-of-the-above approach, which really means making the investments to enable all fuels, all pathways to clean energy future to be part of a low carbon future. So that certainly is what we were doing. Of course, most recently, the big news was the joint announcement in China, again, which you are all aware of -- the United States committing to a pretty ambitious target of 26 percent to 28 percent reduction by 2025, and China putting forward what is also an ambitious plan.
Now, I want to emphasize that one major part, obviously, is their statement about peaking CO2 in the 2030 timeframe. And that's, I would say, extremely significant in terms of the commitment of the Chinese government to pursuing a carbon strategy to clearly take responsibility to be part of the solution. But I do want to call attention to the other part of the initial commitment they made, the one about 20 percent non-fossil energy. You start working the numbers on that, and that is very ambitious. That is a gigawatt -- technically, a gigawatt year-per-year. That is, a gigawatt of energy production equivalently, a gigawatt a week to 2030. And if you put in reasonable capacity factors, that's, you know, every month a gigawatt of nuclear, two gigawatts of hydro, two and half gigawatts of wind, five gigawatts of solar, every month to 2030.
So, I think this really was ambitious. Then when you add, of course, the E.U.'s commitment and their ambitious commitment to 2030, I feel an optimism in terms of the road to Paris that we can really move the ball forward.
Lima took some steps. We always want more, but I think that we have a good foundation for the road to Paris in IEA country. And one of the things, in fact, that Maria and I have discussed is the critical role of continued technology evolution, specifically continued cost reduction of clean energy alternatives to address the issues and then, frankly, to encourage policymakers to be aggressive in the path forward. So, we will continue to keep that focus on technology, on cost reduction, and we will do so, as I said, in looking across the board in terms of fuels and technologies.
Let me say just a few words about energy security. I mentioned that earlier. I will talk about one of the specific initiatives that we are engaged with the IEA and the European Commission. This is clearly stimulated by the Ukraine-Russia situation. The G7 with the E.U. with direct support and collaboration with the IEA started a process looking at energy security, and coming pretty rapidly to the conclusion that energy security is a collective responsibility among allies and friends, as opposed to a purely national activity. So in the United States, with our dramatically increased oil and gas production -- of course, by the way, 26 percent increase in oil production in two years, 2012 to 2014, so we are talking pretty big numbers. That even with that with our enormous gas supplies, et cetera, we should not be complacent and thinking that somehow, energy security is not something in which we have a stake.
We remain coupled to the global oil price, for one thing. But secondly, the energy insecurity of any of our allies and friends is an issue for us. So that I thought was in and of itself kind of an important focal point of a new discussion around energy security. Furthermore, none of this is perhaps new, but putting it together, I think we understand that energy security is also not the discussion of the time when IEA was founded with the first oil embargo. It is a much broader discussion. Clearly, it does involve diversification of supplies and supply routes. There's no question about that.
And right now, in Europe, of course, the discussion on that is principally focused around natural gas, as opposed to oil, but it is a broader statement. But in addition, the development of transparent competitive markets is an important part of energy security.
Addressing climate change because of what it inherently involves is a part of energy security. Enhancing energy efficiency is a part of energy security by working on the demand side. Improving infrastructure resilience is an important part of energy security. And I'll come back to that theme.
Putting in place emergency response systems, including reserves -- again, one of the main functions of the IEA, taking account of the importance of fuel substitution -- all of these are elements of energy security. So what we are doing in our case is taking the charge coming from the G7 leaders. As I say, this is viewed in a much more expansive context with Europe, with partners in other parts of the world like Japan, for example. Going East of the E.U. in some cases, we need to take an integrated view and that is what we are doing as we are putting together a road map to what would be the medium- to long-term directions that we need to plan towards as we look to a clean and secure energy future.
The IEA, as I said, and we've already discussed with Maria, is specifically doing a major effort around the gas markets and that is something we will be integrating into our energy security work.
A third element I just would like to mention is that this Monday, we had a trilateral meeting of the energy ministers of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It was the first time that such a trilateral meeting had taken place in seven years. And just as was said about the six years since last in-depth review, these seven years have similarly changed the energy world completely, and it was certainly time, probably past time, for our three countries to get together.
Let me just say a few words about that. First of all, it was an extremely positive meeting. Among the specific initiatives agreed to and enshrined in an MOU is that we will have an effort on our side led by the IEA to do data integration for North America. Frankly, we just don't have a very good handle on a lot of the data across these three countries. Or when we think we do, it turns out we have different sets of data in the countries. We don't have good maps that, frankly, look at the integrated, let's say, energy infrastructure. And with the very impressive energy reform going on in Mexico, we expect not only in our Northern border, but in our Southern border to see a lot more of that.
I would say that Minister Rickford from Canada and I were certainly very impressed by Minister Joaquin Coldwell's description of the -- I would even use the word “breathtaking” -- scope and ambition of their reform plan. So this is going to be very exciting. And, again, one of the first steps is to get a common integrated data approach that'll be complemented by looking more specifically at the issues of resilient infrastructure across our countries.
Finally, I'll just say -- my last word will be a little update -- some of you have heard this before -- on the Quadrennial Energy Review. This was charged by the President formally in January, although mentioned in the Climate Action Plan of June, 2013. At its essence, the goal is to integrate the equities, the concerns, the capabilities of agencies across the entire government with equities in our energy policy. That list of those with equities in energy is practically the entire Administration. So under White House chairmanship, the Department of Energy functions as the executive secretariat. We carry out the analytical arm of a major effort to integrate all of these threads.
We have no problem saying that a four-year process could be a series of one year processes. So for the first year, we are focusing on energy infrastructure, the transmission, storage and distribution of energy. This will be coming out at the end of January, but just to give a little flavor -- because this is an enormous effort, and we are optimistic that it will be consequential as to how we pursue an integrated energy approach and how we pursue a coherent discussion between the Administration and the Congress in terms of the energy future.
Just to give you a flavor of that, for example, while we have a focus often specifically on energy infrastructure, pipes and wires, let's say, the fact is, what we have found are enormous issues to do with what you might call associated infrastructures: rail, waterways, big challenges. Certainly, the waterway challenges, getting stuff onto the water has a challenge and a dimension that I have to say, I personally had not appreciated until we went through this data exercise and analysis.
On the other side of the coin -- and we'll be posting some of these papers very -- very soon. The other side is in looking at the natural gas transportation infrastructure. What we found is that at the macro scale, the challenge isn't as great as we had thought, although there are clearly regional issues that will have to be addressed. So this is just a little tiny flavor of what will be a very, very broad study around our current challenges of infrastructure and what we need to do to have a 21st century infrastructure going forward.
So that gives you a little bit of a flavor of some of the issues that we are looking at. And I think I would like to now turn it over to Maria van der Hoeven to give us our report card.