There were some important takeaways from the Council on Foreign Relations roundtable discussion I presided over with Mark Florian of BlackRock, Dan Reicher of Stanford University and Jeff Gustavson of Chevron on managing the energy transition. What’s the weakest link – regulation, technology, costs? All agreed that there have been meaningful advancements in technology (energy efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear, storage, and transmission) to drive carbon reduction. In addition, there have been increased flows of capital to invest in solutions.

There is clear recognition that with these investments, there must be regulatory and administrative support for the size ($$billions) and duration (think decade for some technologies) of investments needed to curb emissions. While the “BICs” (the Biden Administration’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Inflation Reduction Act, and CHIPS and Science Act) have sent strong policy signals (backed by real dollars) in support of solutions, there must be a stable (meaning long-term) regulatory framework to support stable business/revenue models (with risk-adjusted returns) for sufficient capital investment across the entire energy value chain.

It will be a transition and will require sustained public and private innovation and collaboration. The Phase Out of fossil fuels and Phase Up of clean energy and technology will transform economies, and thus, requires commitment. We must be pragmatic about the pace of the transition but ambitious and aggressive in the solutions being brought to bear to address the climate challenge.