This past week on February 18 and 19, the 32 members of the International Energy Agency met for its bi-annual ministerial. Altogether 58 countries participated and there were over 40 at the ministerial level. There were also executives from more than 50 major energy companies including at least five that focus on energy efficiency technologies. This certainly shows how the IEA is viewed globally in addressing the energy transition.
There were eight priorities addressed during the two days: energy security, critical minerals, Ukraine, energy access and clean cooking, nuclear energy, artificial intelligence (AI), innovation and strengthening global engagement. That was definitely a packed agenda for two days.
While there was no communiqué, there were the chair’s conclusions and it provided the following on the energy transition:
A large majority of Ministers stressed the importance of the energy transition to combat climate change and highlighted the global transition to net zero emissions in line with COP28 outcomes. In this context, a wide range of Ministers underlined that energy transitions are a means to enhance energy independence, security and affordability, decarbonisation, health, and other social benefits, and reiterated the importance of energy efficiency and meeting the renewable energy targets. They expressed strong interest in the IEA Secretariat’s continued work on tracking progress of the energy transition and called for a continued focus on energy security, energy efficiency, renewable energy, affordability and emissions reductions, in line with the IEA’s current focus.
Next time, let’s hope all Ministers will stress the importance of the energy transition to combat climate change. And let’s see an acceleration of efforts to meet our 2015 Paris climate objectives.
Leading up to the ministerial, Politico reported that the US was putting pressure on the IEA to stop its net zero energy modelling in the World Energy Outlook. In the press conference, Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the IEA, explicitly confirmed that the current IEA WEO, published only a few months ago, still contains a net-zero pathway. He avoided committing to having it in the next WEO. He said this has to be discussed with his colleagues and with governments.
The IEA has been a leader in the concept of Energy Efficiency First. That was not brought up but no doubt it will be at the next global energy efficiency conference in Montreal in June.
The chair’s conclusions are available here.
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
I have long argued that the IEA needed to be closed. In the period 2005
to +/- 2018 it was a fossil-fan-boys club. The forecasts it provided
both for the growth of renewables and their prices were ALWAYS massively
wrong. This had a policy impact, becuase Euro politicos gave quite a bit
of weight to IEA reports. The reports had a policy impact = slowing down
renewables. Furthrmore, the period 2010 to 2020 saw ultra-low interest
rates, good for renewable development had policies truly taken advantage
of the low interest rates. I knew people who interacted closely with the
IEA in the period 2010 to 2020 and they remarked that the fossil mob in
the IEA did everything they could to undermine IEA renewable reports.
The only org’ producing reports that were reasonably accurate (forecasts
roughly matching outcomes) in terms of renewable growth and cost were
… Greenpeace. I would thus be happy to see the USA defund the IEA and
see it closed. It was useless when it could have been useful and now
with tRump, it has no relevance.
There are arguments on both sides. Since I worked at the IEA, the secretariat has more than tripled. Is it more effective? It certainly has a better PR machine. The US pays a much smaller percentage of the overall budget so I’m told the US defunding would have little impact. Also, now the IEA succeeds on voluntary contributions. It’s not going to leave the scene. Whether it should or not, is another thing.
Typical sabre rattling from Trump’s henchman Wright, the self-styled King of Fracking now moonlighting as the American energy secretary. This isn’t the first time that he has threatened publicly to withdraw funding from the IEA. I suspect it is well worth calling his bluff.
Bwcause Wright is smart enough to know that, were the US to quit, (as it has from so many other international fora) , that would leave the IEA wide open to following exclusively the Net Zero pathway espoused by practically all its other member governments.. Including that of China.
It is hard to know what Wright is smart enough to know. I don’t know how he explains all the climate impact, even only that befalling the US. I don’t know how he can say that more fossil fuels will solve things. No one said it would be smooth sailing for the low/zero carbon energy transition. We knew there would be lots of obstacles. And there are. We have four more countries announced last week that want to increase their relationship with the IEA. It is definitely not because they want more fossil fuels in their energy balances.