Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders, alumni, and approved guests only
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
CGEP scholars reflect on some of the standout issues of the day during this year's Climate Week
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
Industrial policy, supply chain security, and economic competitiveness are central to how we think about clean energy deployment. As the Trump administration pulls back federal support for the...
Find out more about our upcoming and past events.
Join us for a virtual information session focused on career pathways at the United Nations.
Commentary by Richard Nephew, Tim Boersma & Tatiana Mitrova • January 26, 2017
[DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMMENTARY HERE]
On January 10, 2017, a bipartisan group of 10 U.S. senators introduced new legislation (known as S.94) that would impose statutory sanctions against Russia with respect to its cyber activities, particularly their involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections, their interference in the internal Ukraine crisis, and their continuing role in the Syria conflict.
In a new commentary from the Center on Global Energy Policy, researchers Richard Nephew, Dr. Tim Boersma, and Dr. Tatiana Mitrova assess and analyze the potential impact of the legislation, potential responses to its adoption by Russia and the broader market, as well as the likelihood of its passage in Congress.
The authors first outline the U.S. President’s considerable executive discretion over the legislation and how it could be enforced. They then address what impacts S.94 would have on Russia specifically, noting that the Russian economy would face tremendous damage. While Russia would still be permitted to sell oil and gas, Russia’s foreign partners would have to decide whether their investments and activities in Russia are sufficiently profitable so as to be worth the risk of effective exclusion from the U.S. market.
They note that the immediate impact on global energy markets would be marginal, linked to enhanced perceptions of overall risk. However, if Russia responds by cutting off or curtailing oil and gas supplies, market effects could be considerable as Russia is responsible for roughly 35 percent of Europe’s natural gas and 30 percent of Europe’s crude oil.
Though it seems plausible that some new form of Russia sanctions will pass Congress, the authors indicate it is unlikely S.94 will pass, noting that this legislation will raise concerns from foreign policy experts, business interests, as well as from governments in Europe, Asia, and Russia itself. They also cite Trump’s continued calls for closer relations to Russia as a deterrent to passage.
Finally, the commentary asserts that it is hard to tell how the international community would react. European countries afraid of Russian intervention could welcome sanctions legislation and Middle East oil and gas players would view it as a positive development to improve their own position in the sector. However, countries dependent on Russia for their energy security, or those fearful of what the Russian government could do in response to harsher sanctions, could react negatively and reject the sanctions.
CGEP scholars reflect on some of the standout issues of the day during this year's Climate Week
Plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) are reshaping the transportation energy landscape, providing a practical alternative to petroleum fuels for a growing number of applications. EV sales grew 55× in the past decade (2014–2024) and 6× since 2020, driven by technological progress enabled by policies to reduce transportation emissions as well as industrial plans motivated by strategic value of EVs for global competitiveness, jobs and geopolitics. In 2024, 22% of passenger cars sold globally were EVs and opportunities for EVs beyond on-road applications are growing, including solutions to electrify off-road vehicles, maritime and aviation. This Review updates and expands our 2020 assessment of the scientific literature and describes the current status and future projections of EV markets, charging infrastructures, vehicle–grid integration and supply chains in the USA. EV is the lowest-emission motorized on-road transportation option, with life-cycle emissions decreasing as electricity emissions continue to decrease. Charging infrastructure grew in line with EV adoption but providing ubiquitous reliable and convenient charging remains a challenge. EVs are reducing electricity costs in several US markets and coordinated EV charging can improve grid resilience and reduce electricity costs for all consumers. The current trajectory of technology improvement and industrial investments points to continued acceleration of EVs. Electric vehicles are increasingly adopted in the USA, with concurrent expansion of charging infrastructure and electricity demand. This Review details these trends and discusses their drivers and broader implications.
US tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil may stem more from frustrations in US-India trade negotiations than from a concern about funding Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Full report
Commentary by Richard Nephew, Tim Boersma & Tatiana Mitrova • January 26, 2017