Mission Innovation Roundtable Colleges and Universities · Mission Innovation Roundtable Colleges and Universities Friday, March 18, 2016 2:30 pm Secretary’s Conference Room (7E-069)

Mission Innovation Roundtable

Colleges and Universities

Friday, March 18, 2016

2:30 pm

Secretary’s Conference Room (7E-069) and via Webinar

https://powerpedia.energy.gov/wiki/File:DOE_Logo_Color.svg

https://powerpedia.energy.gov/wiki/File:DOE_Logo_Color.svg

Kevin Knoblach

Chief of Staff

U.S. Department of Energy

College and University Stakeholder Meeting

Implementation Planning

March 18, 2016

The Need for Innovation

The Linkage of Innovation to Economic Growth

• The 2016 Economic Report of the President notes that ½ of the growth in productivity between 1948-2014 came from improvements in total factor productivity associated with innovation.

• A recent study of the U.S. manufacturing sector estimates that much of the aggregate total factor productivity growth from 1992 to 2002 came from innovation.

The Linkage of Public R&D Investment to Innovation

• The American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) noted that: “Public investment is critical to generating the discoveries and inventions that form the basis of disruptive energy technologies. Private companies cannot capture the full economy-wide value of new knowledge and thus systematically underinvest in research and development relative to the benefits it produces.”

• AEIC concluded “The costs of RD&D are tiny compared with the benefits. But today’s investments are simply too small; they will not offer an expanded range of economic, security, and environmental options in the future.”

• AEIC recommended a tripling of government investment in energy R&D. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology endorsed this.

4

• 60% of the world’s population (and the top 5 most populous countries)• 67% of the total greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 75% of the CO2 emissions from electricity• 70% of global GDP• 85-90% of all government investment in clean energy R&D

Mission Innovation: Global Scope

Diverse Electricity Generation Portfolios:• 4 countries generate 60-92% of electricity from hydro• 6 generate 30-91% from natural gas (UAE 98%)• 6 generate 40-76% from coal (China, 76%, India, 74%,

Australia, 68%, Indonesia, 49%, Germany, 46%, US, 40%)

5

United States

Canada

Mexico

Brazil

Chile

NorwaySweden

UKFrance

Germany

ItalySaudi Arabia

India

ChinaJapan

Indonesia

Australia

UAE

South Korea

Denmark

Mission Innovation

5-Year Doubling

Breakthrough Energy Coalition

committed to Expand

Investment into Earlier Stages of

Innovation Through

Commercialization

Expand the Innovation Pipeline

Breakthrough Energy

Coalition

Venture Capital

Institutional

Investors

Businesses

• 20 countries, (80% of Global Clean Energy R&D,) will seek to double funding over 5 years

• U.S.: Double investment from $6.4B in FY 2016 to $12.8B

• DOE: $1B (21%) increase from $4.8B to $5.9B in FY 2017

DOE

Other Federal

Agencies

19 Other Countries

MISSION INNOVATION

6

Support U.S. economic and environmental objectives; enable U.S. role in expanding global markets; improve global standard of living

What’s Special?

• 27 (of 28 total) investors pledging personal funds - - not currently connected to any existing investment funds (or subject to their investment thresholds)

• Investments will be at earlier stage and be end-to-end (e.g. angel investment through commercial deployment)

• BEC will invest only in Mission Innovation partnership countries

How will it operate?

• BEC’s efforts are separate from DOE; BEC will self-organize one or more investment vehicles

Interface with DOE?

• DOE will use existing mechanisms, e.g. ARPA-E T2M, Clean Energy Investment Center, OTT, National Laboratory tech transfer offices; no preferential access

Breakthrough Energy Coalition

http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html

7

http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html

Dr. Franklin (Lynn) Orr

Under Secretary

Office of Science and Energy


$11.6B $12.8B $13.1B $5.1B $5.3B $5.7B

$4.2B$4.7B

$7.2B

$5.9B $6.2B $6.1B

$0.7B

$0.7B $0.7B

---

$2B

$4B

$6B

$8B

$10B

$12B

$14B

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY15 FY16 FY17

$9.3B

$10.1B

$12.9B

Nu

cle

arSe

curi

ty

Nu

cle

arSe

curi

ty

Nu

cle

arSe

curi

ty

Scie

nce

Scie

nce

Scie

nce

Ene

rgy

Ene

rgy

Ene

rgy

Envi

ron

men

tal

Man

age

men

t

$6.5B$6.9B $6.8B

21st Century Clean Transportation Plan Investments

$5.8B

$1.3B

Envi

ron

men

tal

Man

age

men

t

Envi

ron

men

tal

Man

age

men

t

$11.5B

EM - Mandatory$0.67B

Science -Mandatory

$0.10B

Energy -Mandatory

$1.49B

Nuclear Security

13.1B40%

Science5.7B17%

Energy7.2B22%

Other0.7B2%

Energy7.2B22%

Environmental Management

6.1B19%

FY 2017 Budget is a 10% increase from FY 2016Builds from 8% increase achieved in FY 2016

9

DOE Mission Innovation Budget

• Scope of Mission Innovation is based on the Clean Energy R&D

crosscut established by OMB

• Clean energy technology is defined as any process, product or system

of products and processes, that can be applied at any stage of the

energy cycle from production to consumption, whose application will

reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, and can meet one or more of the

following characteristics: reduced demand for water resources, reduced

waste, reduced emissions of other air pollutants, or reduced

concentrations of contaminants in wastewater discharges.

• Mission Innovation base consists of RD&D elements of existing DOE

programs, but not deployment

• FY 2016 government-wide base is $6.4 billion; DOE base is $4.8 billion

(75%)

10

DOE Mission Innovation Budget $ millions

FY 2016 FY 2017 % Increase

TOTAL Mission

Innovation

% MI TOTAL Mission

Innovation

% MI TOTAL Mission

Innovation

EERE 2,073 1,406 67.8% 2,898 2,108 72.7% 39.8% 49.9%

OE 206 153 74.4% 262 177 67.5% 27.3% 15.5%

FE 632 533 84.3% 600 564 94.0% -5.1% 5.8%

NE 986 862 87.4% 994 804 80.9% 0.8% -6.7%

ARPA-E 291 291 100.0% 350 350 100.0% 20.3% 20.3%

SC 5,350 1,577 29.5% 5,572 1,853 33.3% 4.1% 17.5%

TOTAL 9,538 4,823 50.6% 10,676 5,857 54.9% 11.9% 21.4%

11

Examples of Building on Successful Applied R&D Programs

• Super Truck II

• New Desalination Hub

• New NNMI

• 2 new advanced carbon capture FEED studies (oxy combustion, chemical looping)

• 2 new advanced carbon capture pilot plants (post combustion, including natural gas)

• Upgrades to ATR and TREAT research reactors

• Downselect to final candidates for FORGE

• Synthetic biology foundry

• Low GWP HVAC R&D

• Offshore wind R&D consortium

Mission Innovation Portfolio

12

Dr. Cherry Murray

Director

Office of Science


Examples of Building on Successful Science Programs

• 5 new EFRCs

• Increased funding for 3 existing BRCs; plans for new competition in FY 2018

• Expand National Laboratory user facilities operation to 100% of optimal use

• Expanded multi-year exascale computing initiative


14

Dr. Ellen Williams

Director

Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E)


• Path to $1 Billion as recommended in the National Academies of Science ‘Gathering Storm’ Report that led to the formation of ARPA-E

• Combination of increased annual appropriations and proposal for 5-year mandatory spending authority

• Growth will build on ARPA-E’s proven model:

- for accelerating high-potential, novel technical approaches to address existing and emerging US energy challenges

- for supporting technology development that is too early stage for private sector investment and moving it toward readiness for private sector investment

- of an operational approach that emphasizes nimble assessment and rapid execution

• Discretionary appropriations will support expansion of core activities:

- Expand dynamic portfolio of focused investments

- Supplement highly successful existing projects to advance investment readiness

• Mandatory spending will add a coordinated focus on innovations to overcome technological barriers in introducing emerging technical advances into commercially viable application:

- Technical challenges in Manufacturability and Scale-up

- Integration of Multiple Technical Advances to Create New Functionality

- Innovation through cross-sector and cross-disciplinary integration

- Technological Innovation to Drive the Creation of New Business Models

Expanded ARPA-E

16

Jetta Wong

Director

Office of Technology Transitions



New Clean Energy Technology Crosscutting Initiatives

• National Laboratory Small Business Partnerships –Expansion of EERE small business voucher pilot program across all clean energy

technologies and laboratories ($20M)

• National Laboratory Energy Technology Innovation Accelerators–Provide clean energy entrepreneurs with seed funding, technical support, and

access to lab researchers and capabilities; modeled after LBNL Cyclotron Road Partnership ($25M)

• Regional Clean Energy Innovation Centers–Establish regionally-based innovation centers focused on regional innovation

capabilities, needs and opportunities ($110M)

–Encompass all clean energy technologies, with priorities set on a regional rather than federal level

18

Melanie Kenderdine

Director

The Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis


Regional Clean Energy Innovation Partnerships

Regional Clean Energy Innovation Partnerships

Three Key Issues

Rationale for regional-level innovation initiatives

Number of regions, and method for establishing regions

How partnerships should be formed within each region

and how they should function

21

Rationale for Regional-Level Innovation Initiative

• The National Research Council’s 2012 Report, Rising to the Challenge, articulated the rationale:

“Historically, federally funded R&D has not been connected to state and regional industrial development. Bridging that gap can create the local talent and technology base needed to convert these U.S. investments into domestic companies, industries, and jobs.”

“Private businesses and local education institutions and economic-development agencies are in the best position to identify opportunities, gauge competitive strengths, and mobilize wide community support for regional cluster initiatives.”

“Regional innovation cluster initiatives should be built upon existing knowledge clusters and comparative strengths of a geographic region.”

• Existing regional ecosystems in New England, the Chicago region and Silicon Valley have led the way in creating the template for regional partnerships

22

DOE Support for Clean Energy R&D Proposals

DOE will consider partnership proposals that support any clean energy technology process, product or system of products and processes, that can be applied at any stage of the energy cycle from production to consumption, whose application will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, and can meet one or more of the following characteristics:

• reduced demand for water resources,

• reduced waste,

• reduced emissions of other air pollutants, or

• reduced concentrations of contaminants in wastewater discharges.

23

Partnerships as Regional Ecosystems

Scope of work for each Regional Partnership would be regionally-based, reflecting regional needs and regional capabilities

• Scope can be anywhere within the clean energy R&D space

Partnership Boards serve critical role in integrating regional issues

Partnerships can partner with collateral activities outside scope of DOE funding, e.g.

• Breakthrough Energy Coalition and other investors• Other clean energy financing entities (e.g. Green Banks)• Other related programs, e.g. education and training

24

Regional Innovation Partnerships: Possible Activities

Issue R&D grants / contracts

Support regional competitions/prizes

Encourage/support regional public-private partnerships and consortia

Offer credit enhancements

Help attract private patient capital to spin off companies

Provide analysis / data, education and training, facilities, project management

Provide training infrastructure, sharing early prototypes and production facilities, assisting with startups

Regional Partnerships are not research performers, they are research coordinators!25

Regional Criteria Example Details References

Geographical continuity/linkage

Presence of Major InnovationActivity

DOE National Labs, NNMI, Hubs/BRCs, ARPA-E grants, EFRCs

DOE, NNMI

General Alignment to Market/Energy Regions

ISO/RTOs, Interconnections, NERC regions

FERC, NERC

Similarity of Energy Use and Resources

EIA state metrics, NREL renewables resource maps

EIA, NREL

Commonality of Industry/EconomicCharacteristics

Initial bin of top 100 metropolitanareas by advanced industry – e.g. service or manufacturing (additional analysis not yet complete)

Brookings: America’s Advanced Industries

DemographicsPopulation, GDP, GDP per capita (not yet complete)

Census, BEA

InfrastructureOil & gas midstream infrastructure (not yet complete)

EPSA QER datasets

Determining Regions: Notional Criteria

DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION26

Notional Clean Energy Innovation Partnership Regions

Northeast

Mid-Atlantic

Southwest/Central

North Central

MidwestNorthwest

West

Universities with highest and

higher research activity2Manufacturing-Oriented Services-Oriented Both Manufacturing

and Service-Oriented

Not Specialized

in Either

Metro Area - Advance Industry Base Characteristics1

1. Brookings Institution “America’s Advanced Industries” report 2015

2. Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education 2015

3. EFRC = Energy Frontier Research Center

4. BRC = Bioenergy Research Center

5. NNMI = National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

Alaska/Arctic

Hawaii/Islands

Southeast

DOE Hub/BRC4

NNMI5

DOE LABS

EFRC3

(spatial overlap)

DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL - NOT FOR REPRODUCTIONEXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING POSSIBLE REGIONAL ALIGNMENT

27

Biomass

Wind

Concentrating Solar Thermal

Photovoltaics

Tidal2

Wave

Hydropower

Geothermal1

Resource

Dark = Higher

Light = Lower

1 Does not

include Alaska

or Hawaii

2 Does not

Include Hawaii

Source: NREL 2006, 2012

U.S. Renewable Resources Overlay on 10 Regions

DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION28

Regional CO2 Sources with Access to Sequestration Options or Associated Infrastructure

DRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

29

Most Least

Water Withdrawal Southeast, Midwest Alaska/Arctic, Northwest

Water Intensity Hawaii, Midwest Northwest, Alaska/Arctic

30Sources: EIA, 2014 data from “Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923),” October 21, 2015. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/USGS, EIA data via Maupin, M.A. et al., 2014, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405, 56 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1405

1 Includes Wind, Solar, Biomass, Geothermal

2 Includes Petroleum, Other Fossil Fuel Gases, Pumped Storage, Non-Biogenic Municipal Solid Waste, Batteries, Hydrogen, et al.

Northeast

SoutheastSouthwest/Central

North Central Midwest

West NETL

SNL

NETL

40,840 Mgal/day16,780 gal/MWh

200 Mgal/day370 gal/MWh







Mid-Atlantic

Northwest

Coal

Natural Gas

Nuclear

Hydroelectric Conventional

Non-Hydro Renewables

Other

KEY (GENERATION SOURCE DATA)

1

2KEY (WATER DATA)Water Withdrawal for Power

Generation (Mgal/day)Water Withdrawal Intensity of Power

Generation (gal/MWh)

656 Mgal/day22,097 gal/MWh

Alaska/Arctic

Hawaii

60 Mgal/day3,130 gal/MWh

Power Generation Source/Water WithdrawalsDRAFT - PRE-DECISIONAL - NOT FOR REPRODUCTION

EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATING POSSIBLE REGIONAL ALIGNMENT

30

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1405

In FY 2017, DOE could solicit and competitively select up to 10 Regional Partnerships that will:

Competitively select RD&D projects for financial assistance based on technical merit and, generally, connecting innovators in their regions with RD&D funding.

Provide analysis, data, access to federal RD&D facilities, and project management.

Support development of early prototypes. Encourage and support collaborative RD&D, regional public-private

partnerships, and consortia of innovative clean energy entities. Develop in collaboration with stakeholders regional energy innovation

roadmaps to facilitate RD&D planning and inform annual plans submitted to DOE.

Coordinate with other Regional Partnerships on best practices and technology projects relevant to multiple regions.

How Partnerships Might Work

31

Suggested Design of Regional Partnerships

Not-for-profit entities (e.g. 501c(3))

Broad-based consortia• Investors; National Laboratories; other federal laboratories; state;

local; regional governmental entities; colleges and universities; non-profit R&D and Regional development organizations; private industry

Partnerships responsible for planning, management, and

coordination• No federal funding for brick and mortar • Partnerships are not R&D performers

32

The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs


Brad Crowell

Assistant Secretary

and

Chris King

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

APPENDIX

Break through Energy Coalition 27 Investors & University of California

• Mukesh Ambani

• John Arnold

• Mark Benioff

• Jeff Bezos

• Alwaleed bin Talal

• Richard Branson

• Ray Delio

• Aliko Dangote

• John Doerr

• Bill Gates

• Reid Hoffman

• Chris Hohn

• Vinod Khosla

• Jack Ma

• Patrice Motsepe

• Xavier Niel

• Hasso Plattner

• Julian Robertson

• Neil Shen

• Simmons & Baxter-Simmons

• Masayoshi Son

• George Soros

• Tom Steyer

• Ratan Tata

• Meg Whitman

• Zhang Xin & Pan Shiyi

• Mark Zuckerberg & Priscilla Chan

Collective Net Worth: $300+ Billion35


Regional Innovation Centers

• Large-scale multi-state regions (perhaps up to 10)

• Not-for-profit entities (preferably consortia modeled after RPSEA)

• Partnerships can include state and federal governments, universities, industry and national laboratories

• Serve as planning and funding entities; no brick-and-mortar or in-house R&D

• Broad latitude to set priorities across all clean energy technologies based on regional needs, opportunities and R&D capabilities

• Single annual DOE funding stream based on annual program plans; use of flexible funding vehicles (e.g. Other Transactions Authority)

• Capability to establish cost-sharing partnerships with the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and other federal and non-federal funding entities (e.g. State Green Banks)

36

Documents

Mission Innovation Roundtable Colleges and Universities · Mission Innovation Roundtable Colleges and Universities Friday, March 18, 2016 2:30 pm Secretary’s Conference Room (7E-069)