As lawmakers continue to make headway on climate change legislation, and as the EPA weighs in on the likely costs and implications of a cap-and-trade system as outlined by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a new clean-energy initiative has recently crossed onto my radar. The “Gigaton Throwdown,” as its called, is a group of leading CEOs, venture capitalists and academics who have come together to identify scalable clean-energy technologies. Specifically, their new report centers on technologies that are each believed capable of delivering by 2020 a billion tons — or, a gigaton — in greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Members of the initiative were in Washington, DC yesterday to brief policymakers on their findings.

Researchers identified seven technologies/measures that could be scaled up over the next decade to achieve “gigaton” status: biofuels, building effeciency, concentrating solar power, contruction materials, nuclear, solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind. The group identified an eighth technology — geothermal — that “could scale up after additional research and development and deployment of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS).” As noted on the Gigaton Throwdown website, “[o]f the 8 technologies, only one, wind power, is currently growing fast enough to achieve gigaton scale.” Finally, researchers noted that, while plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) show promise, ten years is not a realistic time frame over which to deploy such technologies in meaningful numbers.

Now, it’s clear these technologies won’t just crop up overnight. Nor, for that matter, will they be free — a LOT of investment (read: cash) will be needed. As outlined by the Gigaton report, “[a]nnual private investment must grow by more than three times in the next 10 years to scale up renewable energy technologies to meet climate stabilization goals. This level of growth is feasible, but policy action is needed immediately to support it.” Currently, the cleantech industry is expected to attract about $4 trillion in such investment over the next decade, about $4 trillion short of what the group views as necessary to have chance at stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 450 million parts per million, a level advocated by many climate scientists.

The timing of the report is interesting, especially given the EPA’s new analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (see link above). As reported on WSJ Environmental Capital,

According to page 27 of the analysis, published Tuesday, the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, would actually result in slightly less new renewable energy generation capacity by the year 2020 than if the U.S. continued on a business-as-usual path with no emissions caps. The reason for this, the EPA says, is twofold.

First, the bill’s efficiency measures – such as those that requiring more efficient buildings and appliances – would reduce overall electricity demand “significantly.” Less demand means less need for new generation, including power from the wind, sun and biomass.

The bill also won’t sufficiently drive up the price of dirty fossil fuels to encourage a big switch to renewables, the analysis says. (Here’s how that sounds in untranslated EPA-speak: “Allowances prices are not high enough to drive a significant amount of additional low or zero-carbon energy . . . in the shorter term.”)

There’s some irony in here somewhere… to avoid run-away costs and convince stakeholders to get on board, lawmakers are doling out free emissions allowances. In doing so, however, they may be eroding one of the main incentives to invest in clean-energy technologies — namely that of pricey fossil fuels.

Anyway, check out the Gigaton Throwdown — it’s founded on the kind of public-private thinking and funding that, in my opinion, is desperately needed to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.