14 Sep 2001 14:6 AR ar143-14-ho.tex ar143-14-ho.sgm ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJBAnnu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2001. 26:391–434Copyrightc° by Annual Reviews. All rights reservedTHE PCAST ENERGY STUDIES: Toward aNational Consensus on Energy Research,Development, Demonstration, andDeployment PolicyJohn P. Holdren1and Samuel F. Baldwin2,∗1John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts 02138, and2US Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585;e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Words energy efficiency, fossil energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy,fusion■ Abstract During the period 1995–1999, the President’s Committee of Advisorson Science and Technology (PCAST) produced three major energy studies, at Presi-dentClinton’srequest.Thepanelsthatconductedthesestudieswerebroadlyconstitutedfrom the academic, industrial, and NGO (nongovernmental organization) sectors, andtheir recommendations were unanimous. These efforts (a) helped lay the foundationfor several major energy initiatives of the second Clinton term, including the ClimateChange Technology Initiative, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, and the Inter-national Clean Energy Initiative; (b) helped launch energy R&D activities on methanehydrates and geological sequestration of carbon dioxide; and (c) strengthened relatedactivities, such as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the Partnershipfor Advancing Technologies in Housing, the fossil power Vision-21 Program, and theNational Bioenergy Initiative. Federal budgets for research, development, demonstra-tion, and deployment of advanced energy technologies have increased substantiallyover the past four years, but they still fall short of PCAST’s recommendations; and anumber of the PCAST recommendations on matters other than budget have yet to befully implemented. The PCAST energy studies demonstrate the possibility of forgingconsensus around key energy issues and provide a foundation on which, it is hoped,the continuing pursuit of a coherent national policy on energy innovation will be ableto build.∗The work discussed here was done while Dr. Baldwin was on detail from the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory to the National Science and Technology Council and priorto service at the Department of Energy (DOE). This article does not necessarily reflect theposition of the DOE.1056-3466/01/1022-0391$14.0039114 Sep 2001 14:6 AR ar143-14-ho.tex ar143-14-ho.sgm ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJB392 HOLDREN¥BALDWINCONTENTSINTRODUCTION ..................................................... 392PCAST-95—THE US PROGRAM OF FUSION ENERGY R&D ................ 395Context ............................................................ 396Process ............................................................ 397Content ............................................................ 398Impact ............................................................ 400PCAST-97—FEDERAL ENERGY R&D FOR THECHALLENGES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ...................... 401Context ............................................................ 402Process ............................................................ 405Content ............................................................ 407Impact ............................................................ 414PCAST-99—POWERFUL PARTNERSHIPS: THE FEDERAL ROLEIN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ONENERGY INNOVATION .............................................. 418Context ............................................................ 419Process ............................................................ 421Content ............................................................ 422Impact ............................................................ 427CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 430INTRODUCTIONIn response to successive requests from President Clinton, the President’s Com-mittee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) conducted three majorenergy studies during the period 1995–1999. The resulting reports (1–3) were“The U.S. Program of Fusion Energy Research and Development,” July 1995 (1);“FederalEnergyResearch andDevelopmentforthe Challengesof the Twenty-FirstCentury,” November 1997 (2); and “Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role inInternational Cooperation on Energy Innovation,” June 1999 (3). They are denotedhere as PCAST-95, PCAST-97, and PCAST-99, respectively.ThesethreePCAST studies,eachbroaderand moreambitiousthan thelast,werenot a package foreseen from the outset; they emerged individually, each shapedby the circumstances of its time. In the first Clinton-Gore term (1993–1996),the administration’s energy activities included launching a number of importantinitiatives—notably thePartnershipforaNewGenerationofVehiclesin September1993 (4) and the Climate Change Action Plan in October of the same year (5)—aswell as work to lay the foundations for later initiatives for advanced technologyin housing and for bioenergy.1A review of the overall energy R&D strategy of1Particularcreditfortheseeffortsgoes to WhiteHouseenergyexpertsHenry Kelly,AssistantDirector for Technology in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); John H.Gibbons, Director of OSTP and the President’s Science and Technology Advisor; and Vice14 Sep 2001 14:6 AR ar143-14-ho.tex ar143-14-ho.sgm ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJBTHE PCAST ENERGY STUDIES 393the Department of Energy (DOE) was being undertaken in 1994–1995 by theSecretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), and consequently, initiating a broadenergy R&D review by PCAST at that time would have seemed duplicative. Therequest that PCAST received, shortly after its formation in 1994, to study the USfusion R&D program was motivated not by any perception that fusion was anespecially important part of the government’s energy R&D portfolio, but ratherby congressional insistence that the administration should review fusion researchwith an eye to how its budget could be reduced.The PCAST fusion panel took the opportunity, however, to preface its review ofthe fusion program with a summary of the case for investments in the developmentof advanced energy technologies overall. Its argument on this was reinforced bythe appearance, in the same year, of the superb report of the SEAB Task Force onStrategic Energy R&D (6) and, subsequently, by a December 1996 letter reportfrom PCAST to the President on the science-and-technology-policy issues