Turbocharging the Manufacturing Renaissance in an Era of Energy Abundance Accelerate

Council on Competitiveness Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 900 17th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20006, T 202 682 4292 Compete.org

@CompeteNow facebook.com/USCouncilonCompetitiveness linkedin.com/company/council-on-competitiveness/ Accelerate. Turbocharging the Manufacturing Renaissance in an Era of Energy Abundance Accelerate. Turbocharging the Manufacturing Renaissance in an Era of Energy Abundance This publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form beyond copying permitted by sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. copyright law and excerpts by reviewers for the public press, without written consent from the publishers. THE COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS is a nonprofit, 501(c) (3) organization as recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The Council’s activities are funded by contributions from its members, foundations, and project contributions. To learn more about the Council on Competitiveness, visit our home page at Compete.org.

Printed in the United States of America Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Accelerate. Turbocharging the Manufacturing Renaissance in an Era of Energy Abundance Meeting the grand challenges—and even grander opportunities—of the 21st century demands an innovation-driven economy powered by a secure, sustainable, affordable energy portfolio and a robust, agile, advanced manufacturing sector. America’s ability to compete in and lead the global economy through this era of transformation hinges on bold, collaborative policy solutions leveraging America’s total innovation ecosystem—industry, academia, labor and the national laboratories— at the heart of the nation’s productivity and prosperity. 3

Table of Contents

Foreword 4 Letter from the Co-Chairs 5 Executive Summary 7 Call to Action 9 1. Develop next-generation physical and regulatory infrastructure to support 10 the nation’s advanced energy and manufacturing enterprise 2. Fuel the innovation and production economy from idea to implementation 11 3. Catalyze the power and potential of the American worker to thrive 12 in an advanced manufacturing economy Setting the Stage 13 A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 19 The Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 28 Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies 34 Moving Forward 43 Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 45 About the Council on Competitiveness 65 Appendices A. A National Agenda for Cybersecurity 66 B. Innovate America National Innovation Agenda 73 C. Drive. Private Sector Demand for Sustainable Energy 74 Solutions Recommendations D. Make: Five Challenges and Solutions to Make an American 76 Manufacturing Movement E. Council on Competitiveness Membership, Fellows and Staff 78 F. EMCP Steering and Advisory Committee Members 82 G. Dialogue Participants 84 4 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Foreword

Following the success of two major initiatives Our thanks go out to the Council’s members, its staff exploring the U.S. economic opportunity in the and the hundreds of experts who generously contrib- energy and manufacturing spaces, the Executive uted their time to ensuring this report is both sub- Committee of the Council on Competitiveness stantive and impactful. (Council) recommended a new project be under- Sincerely, taken to merge these two policy streams and identify a set of recommendations that could ensure U.S. leadership founded on access to a diverse energy portfolio and the potential of an advanced manufacturing renaissance. Rising to the challenge Samuel R. Allen were a tremendous set of leaders from among the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Council membership who championed this effort, Deere & Company starting with the co-chairs: the Honorable Rebecca Blank, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Mr. Christopher Crane, president & CEO of Exelon Corporation; Mr. Jeff Fettig, chairman of Mehmood Khan Whirlpool Corporation; Dr. William H. Goldstein, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; of Global Research and Development and the Honorable Subra Suresh, former president PepsiCo, Inc. of Carnegie Mellon University. Consistent with the Council’s mission to strengthen U.S. productivity, raise the standard of living for all Americans and expand global markets, its members Michael M. Crow President and staff seek to constantly push the policy enve- Arizona State University lope, asking what’s new on the horizon that holds the potential to either grow or inhibit U.S. prosperity. Accelerate captures the disruptions across the energy and manufacturing sectors and puts forth a road map for policymakers to follow that will allow Charles O. Holliday, Jr. the United States to lead, to capture value from new Chairman technologies and to prepare its citizens to prosper Royal Dutch Shell plc long term. The policy underpinnings of this effort will be a critical springboard for the launch of the National Commission on Innovation and Competitive- Deborah L. Wince-Smith ness Frontiers later this year. President & CEO Council on Competitiveness Letter from the Co-Chairs 5

Letter from the Co-Chairs

In 2004, the Council sparked Today, America has entered a new frontier shaped by the tremendous opportunity of low-cost domestic a national movement to “Innovate energy abundance, the proliferation of game-chang- America,” resulting in passage ing disruptive technologies and the availability of powerful tools from supercomputers to 3D printers of the America COMPETES Act to futuristic biomanufacturing processes. And the and a renewed commitment Council is leading once again. to U.S. creativity, entrepreneurship In Accelerate, we are pleased to share with you the critical findings and recommendations of the and global leadership in emerging Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Part- technologies. Five years later, we nership (EMCP). Led by a C-suite Steering Commit- tee comprising leaders from industry, academia, declared “Energy is Everything” labor and the national laboratories, the EMCP and embraced a broad portfolio brought together more than 300 experts and practitioners to assess the economic opportunity at of energy resources to power the nexus of energy and manufacturing and define America’s innovation engine. a national policy agenda to catalyze the U.S. manufacturing renaissance. Through the leadership of In 2012, the Council galvanized several Steering Committee members, the EMCP an American manufacturing approached America’s diverse industrial landscape not as a monolith, but as a network of distinct but movement centered around the interdependent sectors, each with its own chal- nascent advanced manufacturing lenges and opportunities. Through six diverse regional sector studies encom- renaissance and its critical role passing bioscience, advanced materials, water, agricul- to the vitality of the entire U.S. ture, energy and aerospace, the EMCP explored how cross-cutting factors play out within each sector, economy. identified discrete factors shaping each sector and assessed common threads that span the economy. One such thread that wound itself inextricably throughout every sector was the promise and pitfall of cybersecurity. At the direction of the Steering Committee a related, but separate policy effort was undertaken to develop a national agenda for cybersecurity and a companion report accompanies this one. 6 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Importantly, Accelerate presents a road map We thank the private and public sector leaders and of concrete actions from investments in research experts for their support and contributions and look to regulatory experimentation to educational innova- forward to working together to build a more prosper- tion. And it calls upon all stakeholders in the econ- ous, productive and secure America. omy to engage and leverage the seminal opportunity Sincerely, the current landscape has created and catalyze a new wave of productivity and prosperity. Looking forward, the work of the EMCP provides an important foundation upon which the Council’s National Commission on Innovation & Competitive- Christopher Crane ness Frontiers can build. Formally launching later President & CEO this year, the Commission will continue the Council’s Exelon Corporation thought leadership, pushing the policy envelope to capture the economic potential of emerging technologies and America’s ever evolving innovation ecosystem.

Rebecca Blank Chancellor University of Wisconsin—Madison

William H. Goldstein Director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Executive Summary 7

Executive Summary

For more than two centuries, ing Competitiveness Initiative (USMCI, 2010–2011) and the American Energy and Manufacturing Com- American industry has harnessed petitiveness Partnership (2012–2016). The EMCP, the nation’s abundance of natural a C-suite-directed initiative, focused on the shifting global energy and manufacturing landscape and how resources, energy, talent and energy transformation and demand are shaping ingenuity to power and unleash industries critical to America’s prosperity and security. the most productive economy Over a span of three years, the Council executed an ambitious roadmap to focus national attention in the world. on the intersection of the energy and manufacturing transformations. Recognizing the tremendous Dramatic shifts spurred by globalization, recession, innovation and changing landscape across the manu- regulatory and tax trends, ascendant and increas- facturing sector, from 3D printing to the proliferation ingly advanced industrial activity across Europe and of sensing devices and the use of advanced model- Asia and accelerating changes in consumer demand ing and simulation tools, the EMCP was designed have buffeted America’s industrial and manufacturing to approach the country’s diverse industrial land- enterprises, threatening America’s place as a global scape as a network of distinct but interdependent superpower. Yet today, America finds itself facing a productive sectors, each with its own challenges new, promising frontier shaped by two powerful and opportunities. Through a series of sector studies transformations working in tandem: hosted around the nation by members of the Steer- • The generational re-emergence of advanced and ing Committee, the EMCP identified the salient highly productive manufacturing capacity in the questions and challenges facing the energy-manu- United States; and facturing nexus within key sectors of the economy. Seeking input from leaders throughout the private • The increasing abundance of innovative, sector, academia, the research and scientific commu- sustainable, affordable and domestically- nity, NGOs and government, each of the six sector sourced energy. studies looked at how decision-makers can bolster To capitalize on this convergence, the Council on the critical pillars of competitiveness-technology, Competitiveness (Council) launched the Energy and talent, investment and infrastructure. Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership (EMCP) The picture painted by these sector studies is, from in 2015, which leveraged more than a decade of one perspective, bleak. leadership in the energy and manufacturing fields that began with the seminal National Innovation • The United States is plagued by outdated Initiative (NII) in 2003 and continued most recently regulatory and physical infrastructure that is with the Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainabil- failing to keep pace with innovation in sectors ity Initiative (ESIS, 2007–2009), the U.S. Manufactur- from materials to aerospace and beyond. 8 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

• The absence of a coordinated, defined research “The United States stands at an agenda to guide insufficiently-funded research and development is limiting the potential for economic inflection point where we advancement in key sectors such as bioscience. can either seize the opportunity in • Science has a perception problem that can only front of us or watch others take the be combatted through increased scientific literacy. • The skills gap is growing, and will continue to get lead in critical sectors from AI to worse as workforce demographics shift. big data to additive manufacturing.”

• And, while all this is happening at home in the The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith United States, global competition is ramping up as President & CEO countries around the world realize the advantages Council on Competitiveness of investing in a strong innovation ecosystem. can thrive and compete. Fueling the innovation and Yet, the United States is not without its strengths. production economy from idea to implementation will American innovators—icons of industry, brilliant allow for increased industrial productivity as the scientists and engineers, and everyday geniuses— United States reaffirms its leadership in new knowl- continue the nation’s 150-year legacy of reshaping edge creation and its end-use application. Moreover, entire industries, the marketplace and the world with catalyzing the power and potential of the American breakthrough technologies, products and services. worker to thrive in an advanced manufacturing econ- Hundreds of renowned research institutions and omy will enable the advanced technology-based national laboratories keep the United States at the economy of the next decade to provide higher-paying forefront of knowledge creation and on the cutting jobs for American families. edge of game-changing technologies. The nation’s culture of entrepreneurship, risk-taking and creativ- These key challenges, opportunities and recommen- ity—stoked by venture capital—is unmatched around dations discussed throughout sector studies on the globe. Additionally, America’s transition from water and manufacturing, advanced materials, biosci- energy dependence to energy abundance is of ence, agricultural and consumer water use, energy unparalleled promise. and aerospace—along with findings from a three- dialogue series on American cybersecurity—underpin Wise policies and practices, in many cases, could this report and are the foundation for the Council’s unleash these American strengths, boost manufactur- call to action. ing engines and raise technology commercialization to new heights, driving U.S. economic growth and job The recommendations in this report—and the over creation. Developing next-generation physical and ten years of work they encompass—have the power regulatory infrastructure to support the nation’s to turbocharge America’s manufacturing capabilities, advanced energy and manufacturing enterprise will improve America’s competitiveness and unleash build the foundation upon which America’s economy a new wave of productivity, prosperity and resilience for all Americans. Recommendations 9

Call to Action

Building upon more than a decade of work on energy and manufacturing policy as key enablers of U.S. productivity, prosperity and security, the Council on Competitiveness in 2015 launched the Energy and Manufacturing Competitive- ness Partnership (EMCP). Led by a C-suite group from industry, academia, labor and the national laboratories, the EMCP approached America’s diverse industrial landscape not as a monolith, but as a network of distinct yet interdependent sectors, each with its own challenges and opportunities. Through six sector studies, the EMCP explored how cross- cutting factors play out within each sector, identified discrete factors shaping each sector and assessed common challenges and opportunities that span across the economy— most prominently, cybersecurity, which was explored in-depth through three regional dialogues across the country. Based on the Council’s decade-long leadership and the learnings of the EMCP, this call to action constitutes a national policy agenda to drive America’s future energy and manufacturing competitiveness. If implemented, this agenda would turbocharge the U.S. manufacturing renaissance and drive economic prosperity for the nation and for all Americans. 10 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Develop next generation physical and regulatory infrastructure to support the nation’s advanced energy and manufacturing enterprise.

1. Create a modern, enabling regulatory 2.2. Dedicate a percentage of federal infra- infrastructure to keep pace with innovation structure funding to leapfrog demonstration and spur economic growth. projects that leverage next-generation 1.1. Encourage state and local governments technologies, obviating the “patch and to continue experimenting with new regula- repair” cycle of current infrastructure tory frameworks to test and evaluate the spending. viability of disruptive technologies, from 2.3. Create partnerships between industry and autonomous vehicles to next-generation local governments to develop and propose nuclear power. innovative infrastructure models that sup- 1.2. Review federal regulations to avoid redun- port next generation energy and transpor- dancy and ensure states and other entities tation initiatives. have the flexibility to propose and imple- 3. Bring the United States energy market ment innovative regulatory models and infrastructure and regulatory ecosystem into explore new technologies needed to the 21st century. enable the advanced energy and manufac- 3.1. Secure U.S. leadership and investment turing enterprise. in nuclear technology by leveling the 1.3. Make permanent Executive Order 13771 regulatory playing field, ensuring adequate requiring that, subject to a rigorous cost/ funding for basic nuclear research and benefit analysis, two regulations be elimi- increasing support for nuclear engineering nated before a new regulation can be degree programs. promulgated. 3.2. Modernize the electric grid by reforming 2. Break the cycle of incremental infrastructure state regulations to allow utilities to depre- improvements to spur creative and forward- ciate outdated equipment more quickly. looking approaches to the movement of 3.3. Catalyze innovation in the utility sector goods, services and people. by allowing utilities to recoup a percentage 2.1. Substantially increase federal and state of investments in R&D through rate investment in U.S. infrastructure to repair increases. and modernize the roads, airports, rails and water systems upon which the economy relies. Recommendations 11

Fuel the innovation and production economy from idea to implementation.

4. Reaffirm U.S. leadership in new knowledge 6. Leverage and secure the Internet of Things creation and better align research efforts to to drive industrial productivity. meet the grand challenges facing the nation 6.1. Incentivize the use of sensors and monitor- and the world. ing equipment for energy and water usage 4.1. Increase federal investment in research in public and private sector facilities at the and development across all agencies at a state and local level through tax credits consistent, predictable rate with an overall and other mechanisms. target of one percent of GDP. 6.2. Encourage greater uptake and use of 4.2. Under the direction of the Science Advisor standardized criteria, such as the UL to the President, align the national research Cybersecurity Assurance Program agenda with industrial grand challenges to increase supply chain security. and prioritize disruptive technologies with 6.3. Require that all new technology applied high potential for economic and societal to the electric grid meet widely-accepted impact. security standards to build cyber resilience. 5. Capture the value of investments in research 7. Extrapolate insight and value from the data by supporting and accelerating the tsunami. development of advanced technologies in the United States. 7.1. Create a federal verification system for crowdsourced data to enhance the validity 5.1. Increase federal and state support for and usefulness of knowledge databases regional technology test beds, such as the across multiple sectors. Manufacturing USA institutes. 5.2. Incentivize technology transfer and partnerships between national laboratories, universities and businesses by streamlining intellectual property agreements, consider- ing industry collaboration as part of promotion and tenure decisions, and clarifying that industrial partnerships with national labs are consistent with their mission. 5.3 Close the valley of death in private sector financing to enable startup to scale-up. 12 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Catalyze the power and potential of the American worker to thrive in an advanced manufacturing economy.

8. Develop a workforce capable of succeeding 9. Facilitate greater collaboration, interaction in the hyper-connected, cross-disciplinary, and exchange between industry and advanced technology-based economy of the secondary and higher education institutions next decade. to spur partnerships and highlight workforce opportunities. 8.1. Integrate technical training into K-12 education, including industrial arts programming, 9.1. Reduce state and education institutional to build a better base of technological barriers to allow more practitioners into the understanding by all Americans. classroom and to inspire the next genera- 8.2. Strengthen the lifetime linkages between tion of advanced manufacturing workers. universities and graduates to enable life- 9.2. Encourage industry partnerships with long learning opportunities. educational institutions to enable practitioners to engage with students in K-12 8.3. Develop a multi-stakeholder public awareness campaign to increase scientific and higher education. literacy. 10. Implement the Council on Competitiveness National Cyber Agenda 10.1. See appendix A Setting the Stage 13

Setting the Stage

Throughout history, the great leaps in productivity “Lower cost, clean and abundant and prosperity at the heart of national competitiveness have come through the emergence, adaptation energy from multiple sources and adoption of new processes, materials and tech- have enabled the United States nologies. Innovation—the intersection of invention and insight, leading to the creation of social and to recapture momentum in the economic value—is the life-blood of the global econ- manufacturing sector. We must omy and the catalyst behind these trends. Innovation is deeply embedded in America’s DNA. From birth, make sure policy keeps pace to the United States has been fundamentally about allow the U.S. to capture maximum exploration, opportunity and discovery; about new beginnings; about setting out for the frontier. value from this new reality.”

When the Council began to explore the energy and Mr. Christopher Crane manufacturing nexus back in 2007 through its President & CEO Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability Initia- Exelon Corporation tive, the world looked very different. Energy consumption was rising exponentially, driven by • The generational re-emergence of advanced and worldwide population growth, swiftly developing highly productive manufacturing capacity in the economies, improving global living standards and the United States; and burgeoning use of ever more energy-dependent technologies. America’s growing dependence on • The increasing abundance of innovative, imports to meet energy needs had become a major sustainable, affordable and domestically- factor in the trade deficit, accounting for more than sourced energy. 45 percent, while dependence on foreign oil trans- The ability to capitalize on these transformational lated into an outflow of $439 billion dollars annually. shifts will be paramount for American competitive- At the same time, the growing dependence on ness, now and in the decades to come. foreign sources of natural gas and petroleum was posing a serious challenge to U.S. national and The Manufacturing Engine economic security, and private sector leaders were beginning to embrace the imperative for sustainabil- The U.S. manufacturing sector remains the nation’s ity and transition to a low-carbon world. primary driver of research and development, the largest employer of science and engineering gradu- Today, America finds itself facing a new, promising ates in the country and a central catalyst for tech- frontier shaped by two powerful transformations nology innovation throughout the economy. working in tandem: Manufacturing remains critical to the American economic prosperity and the future of U.S. global competitiveness. As a sector, manufacturing con- 14 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Figure 1. Addressing the Manufacturing Skills Gap: Sharing the Good News to Attract and Retain Top Talent Source: Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute. A Look Ahead: How Modern Manufacturers Can Create Positive Perceptions with the U.S. Public.

anating ha he it e iing the eiting iage an eiting the et taent an he ehae the S anating int an ette enae it t ete in the atae innatie an tanatie tie

e the eiting eetin he highet ne the et he highet ee e at tene e eee tne aeage age than theeate anating ea ate eent a a iateet a iateet eeah an intie eeent ttat an etain e highait taent t anating

tributes approximately 11.6 percent of U.S. GDP,1 is reflected in the decreasing unemployment rate and employs more than 12 million people directly in the United States over the last several years. in addition to supporting 5.4 million more jobs Lowering the 2010 unemployment rate from indirectly.2 As Figure 1 highlights and the Council’s 8.6 percent to 5 percent would have required the Make report made clear, manufacturing jobs are no creation of 21 million jobs. Today, the U.S. unemploy- longer dirty, dumb, dangerous and disappearing, but ment rate hovers around 4 percent—in large part due are high-tech, high-paying and highly sought after to the growth of the manufacturing sector. In addition positions at the forefront of the U.S. manufacturing to its tremendous job creation power, the manufac- resurgence. The effect of this sector’s job creation turing sector adds $1.34 in output from other sectors for every dollar in final sales of manufactured products—the largest multiplier of any sector.3 1 Gross Domestic Product by Industry: First Quarter 2018, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment by Major Industry Sector, October, 2017.

3 Facts About Manufacturing, Manufacturing Institute, MAPI, National Association of Manufacturers. Setting the Stage 15

A Transformation in Production lation using advanced computing will accelerate innovation and product development, while dramati- Today, U.S. manufacturing stands at a critical junc- cally reducing costs and risks. ture. A deep and disruptive transition in U.S. manufacturing has taken place since 2000, with more Autonomous systems are advancing rapidly. Applica- than 60,000 American factories, companies and tions such as drones and driverless vehicles are almost 5 million manufacturing jobs lost from 2001 being applied in factories to detect and react to to 2014. 4 problems, enabling the adaptation of machinery and systems to changing conditions. This is a productiv- However, particularly since the Great Recession, the ity revolution in the making. Investments in smart pendulum has started to swing back in the direction manufacturing could generate cost savings and of the United States. Wages overseas are rising; for productivity gains worth $10-$15 trillion in global example, labor costs in China more than quadrupled GDP over the next 15 years—that is almost as big from 2004 to 2016.5 The shale oil and gas boom as the U.S. economy. has given many American producers a critical cost advantage. Meanwhile, according to the Global Decoupling Energy from Growth Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, a joint effort with Deloitte, industry executives now rank the U.S. Interestingly, American economic growth is picking at No. 2 globally for manufacturing competitiveness, up steam without a parallel increase in energy con- only behind China, and trending up during the past sumption. Since 2008, primary energy usage has decade. shrunk 1.7 percent, even as GDP has accelerated by 15.3 percent (see Figure 2).6 This occurrence of At the same time, U.S. manufacturing is in the midst economic growth without a corresponding increase of an ever-evolving digital disruption. The physical in energy consumption is consistent with a long-term and digital worlds are converging across numerous decoupling trend the United States has seen during dimensions through sensors, networks, additive the past 20+ years. From the years 1950-1990, manufacturing and a data tsunami. Sensing and demand for electricity increased annually at an computing across natural, built and social environ- average rate of 5.9 percent. However, this pattern ments are generating data at unprecedented scale, took a dramatic turn from 1990 through 2007, when complexity and speed. the demand for electricity dropped to 1.9 percent In production alone, companies will have the ability growth per year. Since 2007, however, the United to better understand the operation of every machine States has seen a contraction in electricity demand and device, the cut of every blade, every movement per year by an average rate of 0.2 percent. And in of material and the consumption of energy minute 2017, energy usage shrunk 1.7 percent while U.S. by minute. Virtual design through modeling and simu- GDP increased by 15.3 percent.7

4 Statistics of U.S. Businesses, The United States Census Bureau, 2015 (accessed September 2018). 6 2018 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook, Bloomberg, 2018. 5 Bank of America Merryl Lynch Global Research, January 14, 2016. 7 ibid. 16 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Figure 2. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, EIA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, BNEF. US GDP P E C US E P

INDEXED TO LEVELS TRILLION OF GDPUADRILLION BTU OF ENERGY 2.0 0.20

1.8 0.18 GDP 1.6 0.16 E 1.4 0.14

1.2 0.12

1.0 P 0.10

0.8 0.08

This decoupling of economic growth from energy tion, Economic Growth and Competitiveness, put use can be attributed to a variety of factors, including forth a plan to achieve significant growth in energy an increase in energy productivity—doing more with productivity—which, because of this and related work, less—generating greater economic well-being for the is largely being realized today. amount of energy used, and improving living stan- Another factor that has contributed to the weakened dards and quality of life.8 In response to a presiden- correlation between economic growth and energy tial call to action and in recognition of the importance usage is the increase in energy-efficient technolo- of energy productivity to American competitiveness, gies, processes and practices. This transformation the Council in 2014 partnered with the U.S. Depart- has been driven in large part by the availability ment of Energy and the Alliance to Save Energy of low-cost natural gas, which is three times more to launch a series of public dialogues and executive efficient than electricity in providing energy for end- roundtables to raise awareness, galvanize support use applications and has increased exponentially as and develop the strategies necessary to double the a share of total energy used in U.S. manufacturing. United States’ energy productivity by 2030. The In fact, natural gas comprised nearly 40 percent outcome, Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030: of all energy consumed by the industrial sector in A Strategic Roadmap for American Energy Innova- 2015—up almost 10 percent from 2006.9

8 Accelerate Energy Productivity 2030, U.S. Department of Energy, Council on Competitiveness and the Alliance ot Save Energy. September 9 U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, U.S. Energy 16, 2015. Information Administration, 2017. Setting the Stage 17

A Changing Energy Mix environmental instabilities and extreme weather phenomena and volatility. American advanced manu- Historically, industrial power prices in the United facturing requires a reliable, resilient, diverse and States have been among the most affordable in the flexible energy mix that encourages efficiency and world—second among the G7 nations only to Cana- supports the opportunity for investment in new da.10 Even as exchange rates have brought down the technologies that benefit Americans, underpin dollar cost of energy for consumers in China, Japan national security needs and convey competitive global and Mexico, U.S. energy costs remain competitive, advantage to U.S. businesses. with prices nearly half as low as Japan and Germany. And as the energy mix in the United States contin- From Scarcity to Abundance ues to shift away from its former reliance on fossil fuels, corporations and state and federal govern- Concurrent with the divergence between energy use ments are increasingly driving the energy transfor- and economic growth, the United States solidified mation, demanding cleaner energy and seeking its role as a global exporter of liquefied natural gas to capture gains from energy efficiency. in 2017 when, for the first time, it became a net exporter—rather than importer (see Figure 3)— Meanwhile, the legacy coal and gas-supported of natural gas in each month of the year.11 Enabled electric grid is under tremendous strain due to largely by a 7.2 percent decline in the amount of increasingly diverse energy sources coupled with

Figure 3. Natural Gas Imports Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration 4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000 BILLION CUBIC FEET 0.0

-1,000

10 2018 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook, Bloomberg, 2018. 11 ibid. 18 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

natural gas used to generate gas-fired power, domes- allocated to the nuclear industry. Throughout a tic gas demand decreased by 2.8 percent year-on- recent six year period alone (2011–2016), renewable year. The growth in foreign demand for liquified energy obtained more than 27 times more federal natural gas occurred at the same time as this growth aid in incentives than nuclear energy. Maintaining in efficiency, allowing the United States to become America’s leadership position in nuclear technology a net exporter of natural gas. The United States and innovation is essential for economic competitive- currently exports liquified natural gas to 25 countries, ness in the global energy market. with its primary importers being Mexico, South Korea, 12 The stage is set for the United States to lever- China and Japan. age these transformations in energy and manu- But natural gas is just one piece of America’s energy facturing through a comprehensive public and puzzle. Nuclear power, for example, is an important private sector strategy that capitalizes on the part of the energy sector and provides another clean, nation’s unparalleled competitive assets. An viable energy alternative. In the past thirty years, America that operates in a 21st century infra- operating capacity in nuclear power plants increased structure—with a high-skilled workforce and from 60 percent to over 90 percent.13 Yet even with access to the capital needed to grow and scale this marked increase, regulatory barriers hinder the entrepreneurial businesses—has the potential nuclear industry from reaching its full potential. A become the catalyst for a new wave of produc- recent study by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) tivity and prosperity and to usher in a low-car- found that oil, gas, hydro, solar, wind and biomass bon world. received more than 90 percent of all economic incentives—tax policies, regulation, research and development, market activity, government services and disbursements—provided to the energy industry since 1950.14 And while the government has supported nuclear energy development through research and development programs, over the last twenty years, federal spending on research and development for coal and renewables has exceeded funding

12 2018 Sustainable Energy in America Factbook, Bloomberg, 2018. 13 Nuclear Power in the USA, World Nuclear Association, August 4, 2017. 14 Analysis of U.S. Energy Incentives—1950-2016, Nuclear Energy Institute, 2017. A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 19

A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing

The EMCP builds upon and merges more than a Prioritize: A 100-Day Energy Action Plan for the decade of leadership in the Council’s energy and 44th President of the United States in September manufacturing work streams, including most recently 2008. The plan identified six “pillars” as integral to the Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability U.S. energy transformation and as top priorities for Initiative (ESIS, 2007–2009), the U.S. Manufacturing presidential action upon taking office: Competitiveness Initiative (USMCI, 2010–2011) and • Setting the global bar for energy efficiency; the American Energy and Manufacturing Competi- tiveness Partnership (2012–2016). • Assuring access to clean and competitive energy; Each of these initiatives sought to navigate the ever- • Jumpstarting energy infrastructure investments; evolving currents of national and global economies • Spawning technological breakthroughs and punctuated by technological, demographic and finan- entrepreneurship; cial disruptions. In 2008, the goal was energy security rather than independence, interest rates were headed • Mobilizing a world-class energy workforce; and to near zero and the potential economic impact from • Clearing obstacles to a national transmission technologies like artificial intelligence were more superhighway. theoretical than quantifiable. Today, the United States At that time, the Council stressed that the action plan is an energy exporter, the Federal Reserve is raising recommended in Prioritize marked the beginning, not rates in the face of full employment and rising inflation the end, of a concerted commitment to ensuring the and AI is projected to be a trillion-dollar industry. The United States achieves energy security in a sustain- Council’s policy efforts have adapted, as well. able manner, while driving the competitiveness Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability of its workers, industries and economy. Initiative Following Prioritize, the Council released Drive: In July 2007, the Council launched the ESIS Initiative A Comprehensive Roadmap to Achieve Energy in recognition of the critical linkages among these Security, Sustainability and Competitiveness at the three issues and their profound impact on future 2009 National Energy Summit in Washington, D.C. U.S. productivity, standard of living and global market Drive built upon the energy action plan in Prioritize access. The genesis for the initiative was the Coun- and set forth the next set of integrated building cil’s 2004 groundbreaking report of the National blocks for America’s energy transformation, sustain- Innovation Initiative (NII), Innovate America. The NII ability and competitiveness in a low-carbon world recognized energy security as a significant challenge (see Figure 4). The recommendations presented on the horizon—one that, if left unaddressed, could in Drive sought to unleash a new era of American undermine America’s competitiveness in the years innovation, create new industries, revitalize and ahead (see Appendix B). re-build manufacturing jobs across the nation, keep Drawing upon more than a year’s work of inquiry and and grow high-skilled jobs for this generation and real-time research and analysis, in anticipation of the the next, and accelerate economic prosperity for 2008 change in administration, the Council issued all Americans. 20 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Figure 4. Prioritize and Drive Recommendations

Prioritize Pillar Drive Recommendation

1. Setting the Global Bar for Energy Efficiency Reward Efficiency

2. Assuring Access to Clean and Competitive Use It All and Price It Right Energy

3. Jumpstarting Energy Infrastructure Capitalize Growth and Make it Here and Manufacturing Investments

4. National Transmission Superhighway Build It Fast and Smart and Smart Grid

5. Spawning Technological Breakthroughs Discover the Future and Break the Technology and Entrepreneurship Barriers

6. Mobilizing a World-Class Energy Workforce Bridge the Skills Gap and Train the Talent

Prioritize and Drive laid out the prerequisites that In June 2010, the Council launched the U.S. Manu- must be met to be successful in developing and facturing Competitiveness Initiative (USMCI) to begin deploying large-scale sustainable energy solutions a new dialogue on the policies and practices neces- worldwide. Additionally, Drive set forth, in its compre- sary to ensure the long-term success of American hensive roadmap building upon the six pillars, specific manufacturing. Over two years, this initiative identi- recommendations that, if implemented, would achieve fied critical research, innovation and policy trends the trifecta of simultaneously promoting America’s contributing to the re-emergence of America’s economic competitiveness, enhancing national secu- high-value, advanced and productive domestic rity and improving the global environment (see manufacturing sector. Appendix C). The USMCI culminated in the report Make: An U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative American Manufacturing Movement that identifies Building on the heritage of the NII, the Council also key trends and offers solutions that enable manufac- identified manufacturing as an issue critical to the turing to strengthen America’s competitiveness, stan- preservation and growth of U.S. innovation capacity. A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 21

National Innovation Initiative The National Innovation Initiative (NII) began in under the innovation 2003 as a multi-year effort engaging hundreds platforms: talent, invest- of leaders across the country and from all walks ment and infrastructure. of life to optimize the entirety of American society In August 2007, President for a future in which innovation is the single most George W. Bush signed important factor in shaping prosperity. the America COMPETES In 2004, more than 500 leaders from around the Act into law, which finds world attended the National Innovation Summit in its roots in Innovate Washington, D.C., where the Council released the America and in the work landmark report, Innovate America: Thriving in of the Council’s National a World of Challenge and Change. Innovation Initiative. Innovate America defined innovation as the Along with the America intersection of invention and insight, leading to the COMPETES Act, the NII would underpin the next creation of social and economic value, and called 15 years of Council policy leadership and forms for America to “innovate or abdicate.” The ground- the base upon which this report is built. breaking agenda put forth in the report includes more than 60 detailed recommendations grouped

Talent Investment Infrastructure

Build a National Innovation Revitalize Frontier and Create National Consensus Education Strategy for a Multidisciplinary Research for Innovation Growth diverse, innovative and Strategies technically-trained workforce

Catalyze the Next Generation Energize the Entrepreneurial Create a 21st Century of American Innovators Economy Intellectual Property Regime

Empower Workers to Succeed Reinforce Risk-Taking and Strengthen America’s in the Global Economy Long-Term Investment Manufacturing Capacity

Build 21st Century Innovation Infrastructures—the health care test bed 22 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

COUNCIL CHAIRMEN Mr. F. Duane Ackerman, Chairman & CEO, Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chairman & CEO, DuPont Mr. Samuel R. Allen, Chairman & CEO, Deere & Company Bell South

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

The Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability initiative, led by Mr. James Owens, former Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar, Inc.; Mr. D. Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of America; and the Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson, President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, united industry, labor and academia to present a blueprint for America’s energy future to the private sector and to the incoming president ahead of the 2008 election.

Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability initiative

National Innovation Initiative The National Innovation Initiative, co-chaired by Mr. Samuel J. Palmisano, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, IBM Corporation U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative and Dr. G. Wayne Clough, President, Georgia Institute of Technology, presented a National Innovation Agenda that has been put to action in many ways and underpins the America COMPETES Act signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007. A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 23

COUNCIL CHAIRMEN Mr. F. Duane Ackerman, Chairman & CEO, Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr., Chairman & CEO, DuPont Mr. Samuel R. Allen, Chairman & CEO, Deere & Company Bell South

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Leverage. Leverage. Phase I Sector Study: Phase II Sector Study: Advanced Materials Agricultural and Consumer

Water Use Council on Competitiveness

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Leverage. Leverage. Phase I Sector Study: Phase I Sector Study: Water & Manufacturing Advancing U.S. Bioscience

Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin February 16, 2016

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Leverage. Phase II Sector Study: Aerospace

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Leverage. Phase II Sector Study: Energy

ni n etitiene neg anating etitiene atnehi th treet uite ashington D opeteorg

opeteo faceoocoouncionopetitieness inedincocopanycouncioncopetitieness Secure. ning eiiene eit in a igita n

Council on Competitiveness Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 900 17th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20006, T 202 682 4292 Compete.org

U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative

At the vanguard of the movement to build an American manufacturing renaissance, the U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative—led by Dr. Su- san Hockfield, former President of MIT; Dr. George Miller, former Director of U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and Mr. James Quigley, former CEO

Full Report of Deloitte LLP, established an ambitious agenda to bolster America’s manu- December 2011

HOT facturing sector—an agenda which continues to inform public policy in and

UNIFYING THRILLING ROCKIN’

FUN COLORFUL beyond Washington. 24 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

dard of living and national security. Make put forth • Creating competitive advantage through next a comprehensive agenda to solve five critical chal- generation supply networks and advanced lenges facing American manufacturing: logistics and infrastructure. • Fueling the innovation and production economy As a part of the USMCI effort, the Council, in part- from start-up to scale-up; nership with Deloitte, created the Global Manufac- turing Competitiveness Index (GMCI) • Expanding U.S. exports, reducing the trade deficit, , which increasing market access and responding to for- reflects the views of more than 400 senior manufac- eign governments protecting domestic producers; turing executives worldwide. The GMCI, conducted first in 2010 and then again in 2013 and 2016, found • Harnessing the power and potential of American that in order to succeed in the rapidly evolving global talent to win the future skills race; manufacturing landscape, companies will need to • Achieving next-generation productivity through embrace a targeted approach to some of the key smart innovation and manufacturing; and elements of manufacturing competitiveness, including: ensuring talent is the top priority; embracing

Call to Action: Five Challenges and Solutions to Make an American Manufacturing Movement See full text in Appedix D, page 76.

1. Challenge: Fueling the 3. Challenge: Harnessing the power and potential innovation and production U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness Initiative of American talent to win the future skills race. economy from start-up to Solution: Prepare the next generation of innovators, scale-up Full Report researchers and skilled workers. December 2011 Solution: Enact fiscal HOT 4. Challenge: Achieving next-generation productivity reform, transform tax laws ROCKIN’ THRILLING through smart innovation and manufacturing. and reduce regulatory and UNIFYING COLORFUL Solution: other structural costs and FUN Create national advanced manufacturing create jobs. clusters, networks and partnerships; prioritize R&D investments; deploy new tools, technologies and facili- 2. Challenge: Expanding ties; and accelerate commercialization of novel products U.S. exports, reducing the and services. trade deficit, increasing market access and 5. Challenge: Creating competitive advantage through responding to foreign governments protecting next generation supply networks and advanced logistics domestic producers. and infrastructure. Solution: Utilize multilateral fora; forge new agreements; Solution: Develop and deploy smart, sustainable and and advance IP protection, standards and export control resilient energy, transportation, production and cyber regimes to grow high-value investment and increase infrastructures. exports. A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 25

advanced technologies to drive competitive edge; turing. The series illuminated several key findings leveraging strengths of ecosystem partnerships that have informed the Council’s work to date, includ- beyond traditional boundaries; developing a balanced ing: the criticality of infrastructure development to approach across the global enterprise; and cultivat- job creation and competitiveness; the demand for ing smart, strategic public-private partnerships. government policies to address uncertainty and Most notably, in 2016, respondents predicted for the encourage business; the importance of manufactur- first time that the United States will take the top spot ing to America’s ability to compete in the global in the Global Manufacturing Competitive Index marketplace; and the role of superior talent as key (GMCI) by 2020 while China, the manufacturing to America’s competitiveness. competitiveness leader in 2010, 2013, and 2016, American Energy & Manufacturing falls to second place as it transitions toward higher- Competitiveness Partnership value manufacturing and adjusts to rising material Prior to 2009, the tone of the nation’s energy con- and labor costs. This would have significant com- versation was centered on methods for addressing petitiveness implications for the United States and long-standing energy security challenges and scar- the world. city. By 2013, the conversation had shifted and The Ignite 1.0-3.0 report series, another collabora- began to focus on seizing emerging energy growth tion with Deloitte, succeeded the initial GMCI. The opportunities to transform America’s industrial base multi-part, interview-driven project collected insights and job creation outlook—centering on energy abun- from CEOs, university presidents, national laboratory dance and strength. directors and labor leaders, and captured several In this context, the Council and the U.S. Department areas in which these diverse perspectives converge of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renew- on actions needed to invigorate American manufac- able Energy launched the American Energy & Manu- 26 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

oundation of facturing Competitiveness (AEMC) Partnership to tackle two major goals through a multi-year initiative. AEMC Partnership The AEMC Partnership identified means to: • Increase U.S. competitiveness in the production REPORTS of clean energy products—by strategically investing in technologies that leverage American competitive advantages and overcome competitive disadvantages, and • Increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness across the board by increasing energy productivity—by strategically investing in technologies and practices to enable U.S. manufacturers to increase their competitiveness through energy efficiency, combined heat and power, and taking advantage of low-cost domestic energy sources. Over a span of three years, the AEMC Partnership hosted nine regional dialogues and four national summits and obtained insights from industry, academia, national laboratories and government to drive U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing clean energy PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS products, energy efficiency products and advanced manufacturing products. Among the most notable accomplishments of the AEMC Partnership are: • The creation of the High Performance Computing for Manufacturing Program—a program of up to $3 million available to national labs to couple U.S. manufacturers with the national laboratories’ world-class computational research and development expertise to address key challenges in U.S. manufacturing; • The creation of the Clean Energy Manufacturing developed Analysis Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and A Decade of Leadership in Energy and Manufacturing 27

• The launch of a new “Technologist in Residence” to strengthen U.S. clean energy manufacturing competitiveness and enhance the commercial impact of its national laboratories. The Council is proud to trace key accomplishments in manufacturing policy and innovation back to its thought leadership and advocacy, including the America COMPETES Act, Manufacturing USA—centers of excellence formerly known as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation—and the National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Con- sortium (NDEMC) that highlighted the regional importance of advanced computing. Each of these efforts brought together businesses, government and academia to meet grand technological challenges with the potential to unleash generations of American manufacturing innovation, jobs and prosperity. 28 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

The Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership

In 2007, at the launch of the ESIS Initiative, the These two areas of our nation’s economic and social Council declared, “the cost of energy is clearly fabric—manufacturing and energy—are deeply inter- impacting the competitiveness of the United States. connected. America’s ability to compete in the global But the story does not end there. The economic toll economy, to rebuild the middle class and to steward exacted by maintaining the current state of U.S. its natural resources and environmental demands energy, as well as the prospective windfall for ending relies on coordinated, thoughtful policy solutions it, has not been adequately captured or communi- that leverage America’s innovation ecosystem, cated in the context of national competitiveness.” workforce, technology, and business and policy- American energy strength and independence—once making communities. distant aspirations—are now within our grasp, with huge implications for America’s global political, The EMCP Methodology strategic and economic leadership. On March 3, 2015, the Council officially launched the Building on the promise of the ESIS Initiative, the Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership Council’s USMCI identified critical research, innova- (EMCP) at a meeting hosted by Dr. William Powers, tion and policy trends contributing to the re-emer- former president of The University of Texas at Austin. gence of America’s high-value, advanced and The C-suite conversation among 40 executives and productive domestic manufacturing sector—a key experts from industry, academia, the national laborato- driver and beneficiary of these advances in energy ries and labor catalyzed the private sector-driven effort technology, research and development. to deepen understanding of a convergence between two forces essential to America’s long-term productiv- Concurrent with the USMCI, the AEMC Partnership ity and prosperity: energy and manufacturing. utilized dialogues, summits and the creation of public- private partnerships to identify and make recommen- The EMCP was designed to approach the country’s dations to enhance U.S. competitiveness in manu- diverse industrial landscape as a network of distinct facturing energy technologies and strengthen its but interdependent productive sectors, each with its foundations through increased energy productivity. own challenges and opportunities. Through a series of sector studies hosted around the nation by mem- Through the ESIS Initiative, the USCMI, the AEMC bers of the Steering Committee, the EMCP identified Partnership and many other efforts spanning the last the salient questions and challenges facing the three decades, the Council and its members have energy-manufacturing nexus within key sectors as contributed to a tectonic shift not only in how the identified by the Steering Committee. Seeking input United States consumes energy—with energy inten- from leaders throughout the private sector, academia, sity levels steadily flattening and even declining, and the research and scientific community, NGOs and improving relative to our competitors in Europe and government, each sector study looked at the chal- Asia—but also in how the manufacturing sector can lenges and opportunities through the Council’s leverage energy abundance to create a competitive cross-cutting competitiveness pillars—technology, advantage if the right policies are put in place. talent, investment and infrastructure. The Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 29

Pillars of Competitiveness

Technology Talent • What role are energy abundance • What skills will define the 21st century and innovation playing in increasing energy and manufacturing economy? How the productivity and competitiveness is the private sector communicating needs of American manufacturing? What to educators and students? innovations are occurring—or are urgently needed—for manufacturers • What domestic skill shortages and talent to leverage natural gas, renewables deficits hinder America’s ability to achieve and efficiency technologies to improve the full potential of the new energy their competitiveness in the global economy? marketplace? • What formal, alternative and continuing • How is demand for new energy education platforms must be established technologies impacting innovation, or strengthened to ensure a robust talent manufacturability and business outlooks pipeline and domestic workforce in these for domestic technology manufacturing? sectors?

• How are energy and technology regulatory regimes impacting the competitiveness outlook of U.S. manufacturing across these sectors? What regulations and policy interventions could enhance innovation and accelerate the development and deployment of energy technologies and greater industrial energy productivity? 30 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Investment Infrastructure • How are the tectonic shifts occurring • What investments in infrastructure— across today’s energy landscape—as physical, educational, financial and the U.S. moves from “energy weak” to beyond—are necessary to fully exploit “energy strong”—changing the decision- the opportunity of America’s growing making processes and competitiveness energy strength and innovation propositions for domestic and foreign ecosystem? manufacturers? And, what investments are U.S. manufacturers making in response • In efforts to optimize the nation’s full to growing demand for new energy energy potential—and consequent technologies, products, and services? competitiveness—how can policymakers and the nation’s business, research and • How is America’s energy abundance labor communities come together to reflected in the competitiveness of sectors resolve conflicts hindering the build-out downstream from energy-intensive sectors the nation’s energy infrastructure, including of the economy? pipelines, the grid and new technology deployment? • What hurdles do technologists, entrepreneurs and firms across sectors face in commercializing promising technologies and deploying them on a market-scale? What new institutions, mechanisms and knowledge-transfer systems must the investment community create to capture U.S. technology innovation and scale it domestically? The Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 31

Common challenges and opportunities illuminated Advancing U.S. Bioscience key policy gaps and recommendations specific to In July 2016, EMCP members gathered for a dia- each sector, and, equally as importantly, across these logue on the role of bioscience in driving U.S. innova- discrete sectors: tion in sustainable energy, chemical engineering, agriculture and food production. The meeting was Water & Manufacturing followed by a briefing on Capitol Hill the next day, in In February 2016, the Council launched the first which representatives from Council members Pacific phase of regional sector studies with a dialogue Northwest National Laboratory and Lawrence focusing on water and manufacturing. It was co- Berkeley National Laboratory spoke to lawmakers on chaired by Dr. Michael Lovell, president, Marquette the applications for bioscience technologies. University and Mr. Ajita Rajendra, chairman & CEO, A. O. Smith Corporation. This first dialogue brought The Council’s efforts in this space continued, with together more than 50 experts in the water and the release of the fourth EMCP report—Leverage: manufacturing industries for a closed-door conversa- Advancing U.S. Bioscience—at a widely-attended tion at Marquette University in Milwaukee. Common event on Capitol Hill in July 2017. Speakers at the challenges were identified as well as opportunities briefing emphasized the importance of retaining relating to water, energy and manufacturing in the America’s leadership position in bioscience, and Con- United States. Leverage: Water & Manufacturing was gressman Randy Hultgren (IL-14) called for biparti- released at a press conference hosted by A. O. Smith san, bicameral support of science leadership in the Corporation in Milwaukee, WI, in September 2016. United States. These efforts continued into 2018, when the Council headed to Sacramento to present Advanced Materials key findings before the state legislature. Hosted at the Council’s offices in Washington, D.C., and co-chaired by Dr. Laurie Leshin, president of Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Dr. Aziz Asphah- ani, president of QuesTek Innovations, LLC, the April 12, 2016 dialogue focused on challenges and opportunities regarding the design, production and scaling of advanced materials to accelerate the transition from discovery to manufacturing. Leverage: Advanced Materials was released in October 2016, at a briefing on Capitol Hill attended by key policymakers and representatives from industry, academia and the national laboratories. 32 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Agricultural and Consumer Water Use Aerospace In January 2017, the Council launched its second In November 2017, the EMCP returned to Chicago phase of sector studies with a dialogue on agricul- for a dialogue on competitiveness in the aerospace tural and consumer water use hosted by Mr. James sector, hosted by Boeing’s Chief Technology Officer Hagedorn, chairman and chief executive officer of and Senior Vice President, Boeing Engineering, Test the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, at its headquarters & Technology, Dr. Greg Hyslop, in partnership with in Marysville, OH. The dialogue was co-chaired by Dr. Harris Pastides, president of the University Mr. Hugh Grant, chairman and CEO of Monsanto of South Carolina. The final report, Leverage: Company. Leverage: Agricultural and Consumer Aerospace, was released at the South Carolina Water Use, was released on World Water Day at an Aerospace Conference & Expo in October 2018. event hosted by Scott’s Miracle-Gro in Florida and at the U.S. Water Partnership’s annual meeting at Cybersecurity the State Department in Washington, D.C. In February 2018, the Council launched an effort to develop a national agenda on cybersecurity Energy co-chaired by Dr. Steven Ashby, director of Pacific Hosted in Chicago, IL, by EMCP Industry Co-chair Northwest National Laboratory, Mr. George Fischer, Mr. Christopher Crane, president & CEO of Exelon senior vice president and group president of Verizon Corporation, in partnership with Dr. Paul Kearns, Enterprise Solutions and Dr. Farnam Jahanian, director of Argonne National Laboratory, and Dr. Eric president of Carnegie Mellon University. The Barron, president of Penn State University, the National Agenda for American Cybersecurity is Council convened in May 2017 a group of more than informed by three dialogues hosted by the co-chairs, 30 experts to address the competitiveness of Ameri- each of which drew on the expertise of practitioners ca’s energy sector. The report, Leverage: Energy, and policymakers from industry, academia, govern- was released at Penn State’s Energy Days confer- ment and the national laboratories. ence on May 31, 2018, in State College, PA, and will inform the Council’s future work across and beyond energy and manufacturing. The Energy and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 33

Figure 5. EMCP Dialogues and Events

EUA SEPEME API Water & Manufacturing Water & Manufacturing eport elease Cyersecurity: An Issue aree ver . . rra of ational Security a re aa Larar MA Penn State Energy ays e ae ver EME Aerospace: A Sector ialogue of the EMCP API e eg a Catching the et Wave: uilding a lue Economy through Innovation and Collaoration ver aae ar API egislative riefing on the Status of the ioeconomy Laree eree aa Larar a L EUA Cyersecurity: Ensuring Prosperity MA AUA in a igital Economy Energy: A Sector Agricultural and er erre ialogue of the EMCP Consumer Water Use e rra e raer a API CE Advanced Materials: A Sector Steering and Advisory ialogue of the EMCP Committee Meeting ar ee va CE r rra Steering and Advisory Committee Meeting Laree Lverre aa Larar CE U Aerospace: Creating egional Advancing US ioscience Economic pportunities ar LLL LL aa L ver ara

UE Cyersecurity: Engaging overnment and Policymaers arege e ver 34 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies

Outdated Infrastructure to agricultural production across wide swaths of the United States is not water- or drainage-controlled, A healthy modern economy relies on robust physical creating runoff and contamination issues for major infrastructure to support productive economic activity. waterways. In the energy sector, increasing con- Yet, the Council’s annual Clarion Call for Competi- sumption from the industrial sector and a heavy tiveness report card has consistently given policymak- reliance on shale gas creates growing pressure on ers a D on addressing infrastructure needs. Similarly, the extraction infrastructure.16 And America’s aero- the 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers report space industry suffers from the constraints of a card on American infrastructure gives the United technologically- and financially-limited system that States an aggregate grade of D+ across 16 catego- has fallen behind the satellite systems and business ries, estimating that $4.59 trillion will be necessary models of global competitors. to improve critical infrastructure (see Figure 6). The challenges posed by this outdated infrastructure When it comes to America’s water infrastructure, present a threat to U.S. competitiveness. America’s approximately 1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost per infrastructure must be improved if the nation hopes year due to natural deterioration, damage and leaks to achieve its full potential. resulting from aging infrastructure.15 Land devoted

Figure 6. America’s Infrastructure Investment Gap Funding needs of major infrastructure sectors in the U.S., 2016–2025 Source: ASCE

ALL VALUES IN CONSTANT DOLLARS BILLIONS F U F

Surface 2,042 ransportation 46

Electricity 934 81

Airports 157 73

Water & 150 Wasteater 30

Ports & 37 Waterays 59

16 For the First Time, Majority of Americans Oppose Nuclear Energy, Gallup, 15 Challenge and Opportunity, The Value of Water Campaign, 2015. March 2016. Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies 35

Regulation Not Keeping Pace “The national laboratories engage With Innovation industry, academia and other Balancing regulation and innovation opportunity is a challenge constantly at the forefront of American stakeholders, both to help ensure competitiveness. While regulations are necessary success in their missions and to ensure new technologies meet the high safety and ethical standards of American society, smart policies to enable their cutting-edge must be enacted that allow the innovation ecosystem research to have as broad an to develop and thrive. impact as possible.” There are numerous areas of policy that affect or are affected by technology-driven reorganization Dr. William H. Goldstein of the economy. For example, the current regulatory Director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory environment doubles the normal construction time of nuclear plants and offers investors only long- term returns on wind and solar investments. These policies incentivize producers to move to places like China where relaxed environmental regulations The resulting regulatory uncertainty can discourage result in faster construction with higher returns. investment, new business formation and technology In the aerospace sector, which has been driven by adoption, as well as hinder U.S. competitiveness technological innovation since its inception, drones in the long run. and space-based technology present new ethical and security concerns that, if not collaboratively Lack of Coordinated, Defined Research addressed by policymakers and industry, could Agenda hinder America’s competitiveness in space explora- Long-term technology leadership relies on strategic tion and travel. investments in research that push the frontiers of Important steps are being taken. In 2017, Congress knowledge. Yet, many cutting-edge sectors lack passed multiple pieces of legislation, including the clear, community-defined research agendas, often 21st Century Cures Act, the American Innovation resulting in duplication of efforts and inefficient use and Competitiveness Act and the National Defense of limited financial resources. Authorization Act that included provisions to help In the bioscience field, for example, the United eliminate, reduce and streamline research-related States lacks a unifying roadmap, hindering strategic, regulations. But the rate of technological advance- long-term efforts and instead creating uncoordinated ment continues to outpace the ability of regulators and disjointed programs and priorities. In the cyber- to react to innovation, widening the gap between the security space, many in the private sector are calling promise of new technologies and their applications. 36 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

for a consensus-driven prioritization of research Insufficient Research Funding questions and a mechanism for illuminating long- 2018 was just the second time in a decade in which term challenges to better prioritize the allocation federal investment in R&D increased, hopefully of limited research dollars. indicating the reversal of a long-term trend and With limited federal funding available to support representing a step forward for the U.S. to regain basic research, the need for coordination continues its global innovation leadership (see Figure 7). But, to grow. By incorporating a strategic agenda and public investment has not kept pace at a rate that streamlining the innovation process, the United will allow for the optimization of America’s scientific States can better leverage outstanding research assets, especially as companies have moved away into global economic competitiveness. from exploratory research toward nearer-term applied research and technology development.

Figure 7. Trends in Federal R&D as Percent of GDP, FY 2004-2018 Source: AAAS R&D report series, based on OMB and agency R&D budget data. 1.2

1.0 otal & 0.8

0.6 evelopment 0.4 esearch 0.2 acilities 0.0

Note: Includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities. Total R&D figures account for DOD adjustments to rectify differences in total obligational authority and new budget authority. *Beginning in FY 2017, a new official definition of R&D has been adopted by federal agencies. Late-stage development, testing, and evaluation programs, primarily within the Defense Department, are no longer counted as R&D. **FY 2018 figures are AAAS estimates based on omnibus-enacted appropriations. Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies 37

Although federal investment in R&D is higher in the research to market. But, in many sectors, market United States than any other individual country, incentives encourage low-risk, incremental improve- several economies have greater R&D intensity—the ments to technologies rather than the commercial- ratio of R&D expenditure to gross domestic product ization of radically new components and products. (GDP). Over the last decade, R&D intensity in the When it comes to the water sector, affordability and United States has fluctuated only slightly. Yet, the awareness are significant impediments to the uptake U.S. rank in this indicator has been slowly falling of new and smart water and energy system tech- in recent years: No. 8 in 2009, No. 10 in 2011, and 17 nologies. Both the bioscience and advanced materi- No. 11 in 2013 and 2015. als sectors face challenges in linking research A focus on multidisciplinary funding is also critical— to marketable industries and products, which can and tends to be insufficient—often due to structural, lengthen or even halt the discovery-development- political and parochial concerns. This gap is particu- deployment cycle. When it comes to the agriculture, larly troubling as the diverse applicability of research lawn and garden and related industries, new, cuts across multiple industries, including medicine, advanced products such as smart membranes, food, renewable energy and agriculture, among fertilizers and pesticides can improve water effi- others. A lack of investment among cross-disciplinary ciency, but research and development is often cost- fields or in a diverse collection of industries may prohibitive. And in the aerospace sector, it can take inhibit promising advancements, thus hindering 10-20 years for new materials to transition from progress in these industries. design to deployment in the United States. Looking solely at the private sector, while the United The ability to transition research to market is an States maintains a decisive global edge in venture essential leg of the innovation spectrum. Entrepre- capital investment, which amounted to $66.6 billion neurs are the conduits through which innovations and accounted for 86 percent of total venture capital appear in the market and create value. Entrepreneurs investment in the OECD in 2016, the tendency of underscore the need to enable innovators to create funders to allocate resources to projects with low successful startups that drive job creation and risk and short-term payoffs hinders advancement in productivity growth and contribute to America’s areas like the energy sector, where innovation is global competitiveness. often characterized by extended project lifecycles. Insufficient Knowledge Sharing Bringing Research to Market The research and innovation ecosystem in the United While the federal government is the primary funder States comprises a wide variety of stakeholders. of basic research, the private sector, as innovators, Oftentimes, there is limited sharing of information investors and adopters, is pivotal when it comes to across this landscape, which can lead to inefficien- commercializing new technologies and bringing cies and duplication of efforts.

17 Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, 2018. 38 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

In the materials sector, data gathered and entered according to a recent ABC News poll of a random into digital knowledge databases is extremely limited sample of 1,024 adults, 92 percent of Americans favor and under-developed, resulting in a significant mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods and amount of reliable data that cannot be utilized 46 percent do not believe genetically modified foods because it is not connected or curated. Regarding are safe to eat.18 Greater science literacy is vital to bioscience, quick and robust exchanges of informa- combatting uninformed, negative perceptions of tion among industry and government partners, as well groundbreaking new technologies and products. as within agencies of the federal government, remain The challenges around creating an informed, scientif- a challenge despite the extensive infrastructure ically-literate workforce begin with early education in available to support innovation in the bioeconomy. the science, technology, engineering and mathemat- In other cases, the challenge is data collection rather ics fields. The Trends in International Mathematics than knowledge sharing. In the water space, for and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for example, the amount of data available on water International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 data, quality and efficiency is scarce. This lack of informa- for example, show that the U.S. average mathematics tion often means issues go unrecognized until catas- assessment scores were well below the average trophes arise. The United States also lags behind scores of the top-performing education systems. other parts of the world when it comes to developing With regard to science achievement, U.S. fourth and and implementing the technology needed for weather eighth graders have not improved their international forecasting and climate modeling, which hinders the position since 1995—in fact, among the 17 educa- agriculture sector’s ability to manage and mitigate risk tion systems that participated in the 1995 and 2015 associated with changing weather patterns. grade 4 TIMSS science assessments, the United States slipped in rank, from No. 3 in 1995 to No. 5 As the proliferation of data sweeps through modern in 2015.19 industry, the challenges around collecting, validating and then sharing reliable information becomes central At the professional level, insufficient scientific knowl- to America’s industrial efficiency and competitiveness. edge can translate into inefficiency. For example, Collaboration among public and private sector stake- when it comes to sustainable water management, holders will be essential to the United States’ ability neither the average consumer nor corporate leader to maximize the potential of this wave of information. typically understands the environmental and economic impacts of sustainable water use. This creates Scientific Illiteracy a barrier for the implementation of best practices Science has a perception problem. One area in which at the industry and household levels that can carry this is particularly relevant is in the case of genetically significant costs. modified food, which research shows to be safe, yet

18 Poll: Modified Foods Give Consumers Pause, David Morris, ABC News, July 15, 2018. 19 Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, 2018. Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies 39

The Skills Gap “The education and skills Every instance of technological development requires necessary to compete and prosper the workforce to quickly adopt new skills to remain competitive and ensure innovation is leveraged to its are changing rapidly and it’s maximum capacity. With the pace of innovation critical that universities respond accelerating rapidly, the pressure to create a workforce with the skills needed to take on the jobs of and adapt to ensure our students the future is constantly mounting. are prepared to excel in this As one example, curricula at state colleges, junior evolving economy.” colleges and universities are often misaligned with the changing needs of industry pertaining to manag- The Honorable Rebecca Blank ing water in the agriculture, lawn and garden and Chancellor related industries. There is also a growing need for University of Wisconsin—Madison computing and data management skills among professionals in the water and agriculture space. In the bioscience industry, the talent pipeline is con- One particular shift in the United States is the aging stantly evolving and now demands non-traditional of the baby boomer generation. 2017 marked a peak biologists who have trained skills in multidisciplinary in the number of Americans collecting Social Secu- areas, such as computer science and ethics. rity benefits, up nearly 2.4 times the number of total 20 America’s ability to prepare its workforce for current beneficiaries in 1970. Moreover, over 50 percent of 21 and future opportunities is a key aspect of the utility workers are set to retire in the next decade. country’s ability to remain competitive and must be At the same time, the disappearance of industrial collectively addressed by policymakers, industry and arts and vocational training in K-12 education has academia. made it more difficult to find talent for the manufacturing sector. In fact, a 2014 survey by Deloitte The Changing Workforce Demographic revealed that respondents between the ages of 19 As the skills required to participate in the workforce and 33 would be least likely to select a manufactur- 22 change, so does the structure of the workforce—fur- ing career among the options presented. ther complicating the challenges industry faces now and in the future regarding securing the talent 20 Table: Number of beneficiaries receiving benefits on December 31, 1970-2017, Social Security Beneficiary Statistics, Social Security necessary to succeed. Administration. 21 Who will Replace Nuclear Power’s Aging Workforce?, Russell Ray, Power Engineering, February 5, 2015. 22 Overwhelming Support U.S. Public Opinions on the Manufacturing Industry, Deloitte United States (Deloitte Development LLC) and The Manufacturing Institute, 2014. 40 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

While America’s industry executives have made clear The global private sector is becoming increasingly that finding and developing talent is of the highest involved in the funding of R&D as well, with busi- priority, it remains true that without action the skills ness sectors in Germany, China, South Korea and gap is likely to leave up to 2 million American jobs Japan funding as much as 78 percent of R&D unfilled over the next decade (see Figure 8).23 compared to 62 percent in the United States. The strategies for allocating R&D funds vary glob- Increasing Global Competition ally as well. While the United States focuses more Globalization and the increasing technological and heavily than many of its competitors on basic innovation capabilities of countries worldwide are research, with 17 percent of R&D funds to China’s changing the competitiveness landscape drastically. 5 percent, China dedicates 84 percent of its R&D In 2016, worldwide total R&D expenditure grew spending to experimental development and moving 3 percent, indicating that countries around the new technology to market compared to 64 percent world are increasing R&D funding for innovation.24 in the United States.25

Figure 8.

23 2014 Skills Gap Study, Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute. 24 Global Innovation Index 2018. 25 Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, 2018. Challenges Identified by the Sector Studies 41

As the global landscape changes, international Figure 9. Movement in the GII Top 10 competition increases. While the United States Source: The Global Innovation Index 2018: Energizing the World with Innovation, Global Innovation Index Database, Cornell, INSEAD, and WIPO. reached a five-year high rank of No. 4 in the Global Innovation Index (GII) in 2017, the nation dropped to No. 6 in 2018 (see Figure 9). And, in key areas such as regulatory environment, infrastructure and education, the nation ranks No. 12, No. 24 and No. 47 respectively. With regard to investment in specific sectors, more than 40 countries have shown interest in promoting the bioeconomy, and many have strategic plans in place to create a competitive bioeconomy in their respective countries. This includes China, which has called for hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the application of biotechnology in the healthcare sector. When it comes to measuring water quality and scarcity and implementing strategies to mitigate risk in these areas, the U.S. is falling behind countries like Australia and Israel, which have made significant investments in this area. And countries such as Singapore, Portugal and Denmark are becoming leaders in incentivizing and implementing advancements in the aerospace sector. Another indicator of rising global competition is an increase in the number of science and engineering graduates. Between 2000 and 2014, the number of science and engineering (S&E) bachelor’s degrees awarded in China rose more than 350 percent, significantly faster than in the United States and in many other European and Asian regions and economies.26 As nations begin to recognize the advantages of investing in a strong innovation ecosystem, the United States must re-prioritize science and technology to remain a global leader.

26 Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, 2018. 42 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Emerging Cyber Threats reach $2.1 trillion globally by 2019. If stakeholders across government, academia and industry fail to The interconnectedness and openness made pos- implement strong, coordinated cybersecurity strate- sible by the Internet and the broader digital ecosys- gies and practices, the United States will become tem create unparalleled value for society. Over 20 increasingly vulnerable to the growing cyber threat. billion devices are expected to be connected to the Internet by the year 2020. However, these same In response to these challenges, the Council qualities make securing today’s cyber landscape developed, and has put forth in this report, a difficult. Call to Action to turbocharge the U.S. manufacturing renaissance in an era of energy abun- As the United States continually advances and dance (see pages 9-12). In addition, Secure: modernizes its energy systems, efficiency is some- Ensuring Resilience and Prosperity in a Digital times prioritized over security, making grid and Economy is being simultaneously released nuclear plant monitoring a significant concern. In the under separate cover. The Council’s National aerospace sector, the increasing density of aircraft in Agenda for Cybersecurity can be found in the skies leads to a higher need for communication Appendix A on page 66. between the air and the ground, making cybersecurity an area of particularly high importance. Yet, in a 2015 survey conducted by the Airport Cooperative Research Program and sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration, only 34 percent of airport respondents indicated they had implemented a national cybersecurity standard or framework.27 And as more industries see the proliferation of sensors and monitoring equipment, the surface area of connected devices continues to grow exponentially— creating more room for infiltration. Despite the notable risks cyber threats pose to American prosperity, there remains a wide disparity in investment, maturity, coordination and training on cybersecurity across the country’s critical infrastructure sectors. The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that malicious cyber activity cost the U.S. economy between $57 billion and $109 billion in 2016, and estimates costs to

27 Guidebook on Best Practices for Airport Cybersecurity, Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2015. Moving Forward 43

Moving Forward

The United States is at a critical rate management, and are now beginning to focus their attention on new types of organizational struc- moment in time in national innova- tures, and methods to accelerate and optimize tion systems research and action. technology commercialization. New, transformational models The recommendations in this report—and the over ten years of work they encompass—have the power to driven by the democratization and turbocharge America’s manufacturing capabilities, self-organization of innovation are improve America’s competitiveness and unleash a new wave of productivity and prosperity for all Americans. emerging and taking root across But more work remains to be done. U.S. leadership the nation. is under threat. The United States faces now what are perhaps existential challenges to its global leadership These developments, which were called out in the in innovation. America’s role in technology advance- 2017 Council report Transform, are occurring against ment is diminishing globally—now accounting for the backdrop of increasing global, innovation-based only one-quarter of global research & development, competition and growing capacity for innovation in down from two-thirds in 1960. Competitors around countries around the world. Transform went on to the globe are increasing their capacity for innovation. highlight rising internal challenges in the U.S. innova- And rapid technological change and disruption have tion system—such as changing demographics, lack of impacted the workforce and communities. diversity and inequality of opportunity in the U.S. As Figure 10 highlights, there are numerous exciting, education system—that are changing the shape of disruptive technologies and tools just beginning to the U.S. workforce. In response, innovation practitio- impact the global economy that have the potential to ners and stakeholders are facing difficult questions completely change the way people travel, shop, build, about how individuals, teams, communities and explore and interact. And the impact on companies national institutions of knowledge creation and and universities is likely to be just as consequential. innovation will transform to support current and future U.S. innovation. With these challenges in mind, in 2019, the Council will launch a National Commission on Innovation As changes in the process of innovation unfold, & Competitiveness Frontiers to double down on all increasing attention is being paid to the science of efforts to optimize the nation for this new, unfolding the innovation process itself, and how to reduce its innovation reality. The Commission will build on the risk and uncertainty. Researchers and academics Council’s intellectual capital in this space developed have contributed for decades to the field of corpo- over the past thirty years, including the recently 44 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Figure 10. A Snapshot of Exponential Technologies Source: Deloitte, Council on Competitiveness, Singularity University. 2018. Exponential Technologies in Manufacturing.

completed two-year partnership with the National Science Foundation—the Exploring Innovation Fron- tiers Initiative—that culminated in the release of Transform. Organized around three critical competitiveness pillars—capitalizing on emergent and converging technologies; optimizing the environment for innovation systems; and exploring the future of production, sustainable consumption and work—the Commission will acknowledge and respond to the urgency of the challenge at hand, understand and describe this new reality and position the nation to prosper and thrive with a clear set of recommendations that will enhance and expand the nation’s innovation capacities at the heart of competitiveness. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 45

Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations

Leverage: Water & Manufacturing was released Water & Manufacturing in September, 2016 at a press conference hosted by A. O. Smith Corporation in Milwaukee, WI. The event CO-CHAIRS was widely covered by local

Dr. Michael Lovell Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership radio, TV and print media. President Findings and Marquette University Leverage. Phase I Sector Study: Recommendations Mr. Ajita G. Rajendra Water & Manufacturing • Use a stewardship Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin Chairman & CEO February 16, 2016 approach to water A. O. Smith Corporation management in which laws and regulations Water is necessary for industry, society and individu- surrounding water als to survive and thrive. Nearly half of industry water reuse support consumption is attributable to manufacturing prod- natural processes ucts and services.28 As fundamental changes such whenever possible as urbanization and population growth take hold, and treat water as the innovation is needed in infrastructure, technology, limited resources it is rather than a limitless investment and talent to meet the increasing demand commodity. Industry uses approximately 350 for water. This requires taking a stewardship billion gallons of water each day, nearly half of approach in which all sectors come together to look which is attributable to manufacturing products beyond compliance and view water as a finite and services. In some countries, safe water supply resource that must be managed efficiently. has the potential to increase GDP up to 7 percent, making it increasingly important to understand The EMCP sector study dialogue on water & manu- the true value of water and price the commodity facturing, hosted on February 16, 2016 by Marquette appropriately in order to improve efficiency. University in partnership with A. O. Smith Corporation and the Council, gathered national leaders and water • Integrate natural infrastructure, including roof experts from all sectors of the economy to discuss installments, rain barrels and constructed the important issues around water and manufactur- wetlands, into water management approaches ing. The day, broken down into four sections—talent, to improve energy efficiency and water quality technology, investment and infrastructure—featured while reducing overall water infrastructure robust conversations on these key pillars. investment costs. Green infrastructure is often considered a cheaper and more sustainable alternative to water management than traditional gray infrastructure. Operations and maintenance

28 Water and the Economy, Water’s Value, The Value of Water Coalition, 2015. 46 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

costs for natural infrastructure projects such as • Increase federal funding available for constructed wetlands can be dramatically lower water technology test beds to accelerate than those associated with traditional wastewater development and reduce cost and risk treatment alternatives, with green infrastructure associated with deployment of advanced in general presenting a cost savings of more technologies for improving water quality than $1.5 billion. These projects also often have and efficiency. Affordability and awareness are additional ancillary benefits for the community significant impediments to uptake of new smart and environment and help companies comply with water and energy system technologies necessary EPA water discharge requirements. for the water industry. Government funding and • Encourage development and deployment of strategic placement of these testing facilities technologies and microbiological barriers that near the companies investing in new water increase overall water supply by diversifying technologies would de-risk the adoption of these sources and improving quality and efficiency technologies. such as desalinization, nutrient recovery and • Model water consumption and availability wastewater re-use. As America’s population using high performance computing to increases and converges on cities, demand for address gaps in supply and demand and fresh water and dependence on reliable water reduce overall waste and costs associated infrastructure will grow exponentially. The resulting with managing water and energy systems. need to diversify water sources presents a distinct Approximately 1.7 trillion gallons of water are opportunity for these types of innovative solutions lost per year due to natural deterioration, damage such as the development of advanced materials and leaks resulting from aging infrastructure. that can remove specific compounds in a more The use of new sensors and measurements, efficient manner. as well as high performance computers, would • Promote the uptake of sensors and monitoring facilitate collection and dissemination of data in a equipment and aggregation of big data across universally accessible and understandable fashion. sectors and geographies to improve water • Engage government and private sector management and increase information avail- stakeholders in an enhanced public able on water quality and efficiency. Data on awareness campaign to address water efficiency and water quality is scarce. This lack of conservation needs. Given the current pricing information often means issues go unreported until structure of water, neither the average consumer catastrophes arise. Increased access to knowledge nor company fully understands the importance would allow water issues to be addressed proac- of conserving this resource. Social marketing tively before they reach a point of crisis. and public awareness campaigns can elevate the visibility of water-related issues. This would likely include collaboration with existing initiatives to enhance the overall reach and level of knowledge regarding water issues among consumers. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 47

• Address the skills gap in the water and manu- The EMCP sector study dialogue on advanced facturing sector by de-stigmatizing technical materials, hosted on April 12, 2016, by the Council careers, reintroducing hands-on training in on Competitiveness in partnership with QuesTek K-12 and encouraging cross-sector partner- Innovations, LLC and Worcester Polytechnic Institute ships between industry and academia. 2016 convened national leaders and materials experts marks a peak in the number of people on social from all sectors of the economy to discuss how the security benefits, amounting to nearly 2.4 times development and deployment of advanced materials the number of total beneficiaries in 1970. This can increase U.S. competitiveness. The day focused creates a skills gap in which talent is not properly first on the current capabilities in U.S. national labs, matched with available jobs. Partnerships between universities and across the private sector in advanced technical colleges and industry can bring talent materials, barriers and impediments to fully deploying directly onboard and highlight specific skill sets to the promise of advanced materials across the manu- produce a strong talent pipeline. facturing and energy sectors and solutions to these challenges. Advanced Materials Leverage: Advanced

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership CO-CHAIRS Materials was released at a briefing on Capitol Hill in Dr. Aziz Asphahani Leverage. Phase I Sector Study: October, 2016. Panelists Chief Executive Officer Advanced Materials included representatives QuesTek Innovations LLC from the Council, QuesTek Dr. Laurie Leshin Innovations, LLC, Worces- President ter Polytechnic Institute Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who Advanced materials are critical building blocks that shared the key findings can drive significant enhancements in America’s and recommendations energy production, manufactured products and the with policymakers. overall economy. Early adoption of advanced materi- Findings and Recommendations als by manufacturers can differentiate U.S. products • Promote the uptake of more public private from those of competitors by increasing performance partnerships (PPP) between the national and durability, decreasing production and mainte- laboratory system and industry partners, small nance costs and improving energy efficiency over businesses and universities. The development the life cycle use of the product. Use of these new stage of materials is suffering when it comes to materials in commercial products also drives the scaling-up materials for mass production and market for the materials themselves. use. Small and medium-sized businesses must have consistent access to laboratory spaces and 48 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

other critical infrastructure and technologies. • Dedicate area-specific pilot-plant facilities PPPs would allow designers to develop new to collaborate with national laboratories, innovative products, and the gathering of key universities and small and medium-sized university experts to perform fundamental companies to accelerate deployment research in science, engineering and technology and decrease the commercialization time areas under one location would connect American horizon for advanced materials. Industry manufacturers to global markets. access to scientific and technical resources • Develop a national knowledge platform to will help manufacturers develop and deliver ensure that accurate, pedigreed, curated new, innovative products to market and qualify and easily accessible data is developed to materials in faster-paced, more efficient systems. support the creation, processing, modeling Such pilot-plant facilities will help decrease the and manufacturing of advanced materials. The expected deployment time and accelerate the current digital knowledge database on materials is entire discovery-to-deployment cycle. In the extremely limited and underdeveloped. As a result, absence of private sector support of the needed there is a significant amount of usable data that pilot-plant facilities, it is recommended that cannot be absorbed because it is not connected government agencies (e.g., DoE, DoD, NIST) take or curated. The leap forward for technology in the lead by establishing a “Materials Genome the area of advanced materials will likely come Processing Center”, as the first pilot-plant facility from the broad dissemination of tools with that is needed to achieve the Materials Genome interoperability as a key enabler. Initiative (MGI) goal of ensuring a manufacturing infrastructure for materials innovations. • Gather critical masses of materials experts into business groups or entities to work with • Address the skills gap in the advanced materials technologies as a collective effort materials and manufacturing sector by to combine distinct knowledge bases and embracing an interdisciplinary approach to spur unique funding opportunities. Materials education that combines traditional materials experts operate separately from one another, science curricula with data science, modeling which creates gaps in data management and and simulation and computational sciences. further complicates the standardization needed to A recent survey revealed that respondents advance this field. Cross-functional collaboration between 19 and 33 years old would select a throughout and between various small and manufacturing career last. Reintroducing hands- medium-sized businesses can become part of on training at the K-12 level can address the leading expert groups specializing in accelerating misconceptions around the manufacturing sector both discovery and development of materials. and lack of knowledge regarding the emerging opportunities in advanced manufacturing, while partnerships between academia and industry Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 49

designed to nurture cross-disciplinary skill sets at In July 2017, Leverage: Advancing U.S. Bioscience the undergraduate and graduate levels can ensure was released before policymakers, experts, and a strong talent pipeline. representatives from industry and academia at a senate briefing on Capitol Hill,

Advancing U.S. Bioscience Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership where over 100 participants heard from Council CO-CHAIRS Leverage. members as well as Phase I Sector Study: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Advancing U.S. Bioscience Representative Randy Hultgren (IL-14), who Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory underscored the impor- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory tance of U.S. leadership Sandia National Laboratories in this space. The conversation contin- Bioscience is a top manufacturing technology priority ued in April, 2018 when across the federal government and is critical for U.S. the Council partnered competitiveness. While the United States maintains a with the California Life world leadership position in engineering biology and Sciences Association to provide a briefing in Sacra- bioscience technology development, other countries mento to members and staff of the California State are investing heavily in these areas putting the U.S. Legislature on the status of California’s bioeconomy at risk of losing its competitive advantage. and to discuss opportunities to leverage the state’s assets in this space. The EMCP sector study dialogue on advancing U.S. bioscience, hosted on July 27, 2016 by the Council Findings and Recommendations on Competitiveness in partnership with Lawrence • Develop an annual strategic roadmap for Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore the advancement of bioscience and biotech- National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National nologies to meet energy, environmental, agri- Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories gath- cultural, national security and economic goals. ered national leaders and experts on the bioeconomy The Office of Science, Technology and Policy to discuss the importance of bioscience to U.S. (OSTP), research agencies, industry, national labo- competitiveness. The day-long session focused on ratories and academic experts should partner for the actions needed to be taken in the United States the purpose of creating a Bioeconomy Roadmap to capitalize on the capabilities and individual suc- to be implemented as a top economic priority cesses across the bioscience landscape. The follow- of the incoming administration. ing afternoon, the Council and leaders from industry and the national laboratories briefed congressional staffers at a joint program between the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the House Manufacturing Caucus. 50 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

• Create tools and processes that capture and remain ethically grounded to gain public trust. analyze basic applied research data, private Combatting uninformed, negative perceptions sector and government-funded activities, and requires improving U.S. scientific literacy through community feedback on the Bioeconomy an education and outreach program that includes Roadmap’s goals, objectives and milestones. STEM education and progress metrics. With the 2012 National Bioeconomy Blueprint 1 • Provide opportunities and incentives for stake- as its foundation, a performance indicator holders to determine next generation bio-tar- document is needed to review the progress gets that biotechnologists can use to reinvent of various aspects of bioscience research on products and make them marketable to con- a yearly basis. Information pertaining to the sumers. The notion of using biotechnologies to success of policy and science programs such recreate products with next generation applications, as data analysis, workforce development, like chemicals and fuels that release fewer toxic regulatory barriers and future federal activities gases into the atmosphere, simply does not have a will leave researchers better equipped to establish strong enough economic value that will appeal to areas of improvement and increase public aware- the consumer. Biotechnologists need a target with ness of the importance of the bioeconomy. both next generation properties and next genera- • Coordinate investments across government tion values in order to succeed in the market. agencies, broaden disbursement to cross • Develop widespread and easily accessible disciplinary fields, and focus federal knowledge bases of principles, methods, investment in the development of research processes, successes and failures to platforms that more quickly deliver solutions more quickly deliver helpful information to society. The diversity of bio-based products to stakeholders. Industry access to central cuts across multiple industries like medicine, scientific and technical resources will help experts food, renewable energy, agriculture and many develop and deliver new, innovative products more, creating challenges when coordinating to the market. This will improve the maturation investments. A lack of investment among cross- and impact metrics of the bioeconomy and disciplinary fields or in a diverse collection of assist in the technology innovation pipeline from industries may inhibit promising advancements, development in the laboratory to scaling-up in the therefore hindering forward movement for manufacturing plants on to consumer outlets. bioscience as a whole. • Enable bioscience research platforms to • Address the issue of public distrust of science deliver novel and cost prohibitive capabilities and regulation by raising awareness and to industry. From start-ups to large companies, increasing education and outreach efforts academic and agencies’ scientists, federal and to the public and policymakers. The public industry investments in research platforms and perception of bioscience as a whole is incredibly important to moving forward, and scientists must Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 51

bioscience knowledge bases will help overcome American agriculture—including the related industries the steep barriers to entry for biomanufacturing and value-add sectors that fuel and depend upon it— and product development. is a case study in innovation-driven productivity and competitiveness, and one of the United States’ • Address the talent gap in multidisciplinary areas where bioscience has evolved to require largest exports. Since World War II, investment and frequent translation of information, updating R&D in agricultural science, technology, and land of codes, and data management skills in high and resource management have increased the agricultural industry’s energy productivity by nearly performance computing. The bioscience talent 100 percent. Agricultural products and technologies pipeline has significantly transformed and now remain a key component of American exports, and demands non-traditional biologists who have are a key factor in the growth of the domestic ser- trained skills in multidiscipline areas. There must vice and manufacturing economy, supporting restau- be a frank dialogue among industry and academic rants, tourism, apparel, furniture and design. leaders about workforce development so we can reestablish training and employment opportunities Competition for water, climate change and new for graduating students and continue to expand consumer demands are also driving change in the science beyond its current capabilities. agriculture, lawn and garden, and related industries, including greater interest in new products and sus- Agricultural and Consumer tainable production processes. A changing legal Water Use and regulatory environment is facilitating the entry of new products into the market, while increasing the CO-CHAIRS already competitive demand for water and energy. Mr. James S. Hagedorn Inputs across the agricultural value chain are evolv- Chairman and CEO ing, which begs a new set of questions regarding The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company innovation and efficiency in growing and manufacturing processes. Mr. Hugh Grant Former Chairman and CEO The EMCP sector study dialogue on agricultural and Monsanto Company consumer water use gathered national leaders and experts on water as it relates to these industries Dr. Ralph Hexter to discuss the implications for U.S. competitiveness. Former Acting Chancellor The day-long session focused on the role of subsi- University of California, Davis dies in driving or hindering sustainable water use, Dr. Mark Hussey the implications of increasingly unpredictable weather Dean & Vice Chancellor patterns for the agriculture, lawn and garden, and Texas A&M University related industries, and the need for infrastructure— both regulatory and physical—and a workforce appropriately equipped with the skills necessary to manage water quality and quantity. 52 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Leverage: Agricultural and Consumer Water Use • Leverage high-value crops as a test bed was released on World Water Day in 2017 at the for innovation. New, advanced materials such U.S. Water Partnership Annual Meeting at the State as smart membranes, fertilizers and pesticides Department in Washington, can improve water efficiency, but research and

Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership DC, as well as at an event development is often cost-prohibitive. Testing hosted by Scott’s Miracle- smart materials and other high-cost innovations Leverage. Gro in Florida. on high-value crops would promote innovation Phase II Sector Study: Agricultural and Consumer US Council on Competitiveness by reducing the financial risks in the early stages Water Use Findings and Recom- mendations of product development. • Invest in the technol- • Better align subsidies on agricultural products ogy needed to better with water efficiency and conservation goals. model climate data. As Financial incentives and regulations must look an issue that impacts at the entire landscape comprehensively to the competitiveness of encourage smart water management and insulate multiple U.S. industries, against negative externalities, including heavy the government and the water use in water stressed areas and spiraling private sector must invest in the development and commodity prices. deployment of technologies that monitor total soil • Develop industry standards and disclosure health, ocean temperatures and other climate pre- processes for water use. Financial disclosure, dictors to allow farmers and researchers to better and more recently carbon and other climate monitor and model weather patterns. related disclosures, are important aspects of a • Create a verification system for crowdsourced company’s license to operate. Using baseline data related to weather patterns and measurements can improve overall understanding agricultural processes and inputs to of water use and allow for better monitoring of facilitate a trustworthy knowledge database business operations’ effects on the quantity and that comprises public- and private-sector quality of the water they use and return to the information. Collaborative public data can environment. These baselines also encourage significantly increase precision and automation cost-saving efficiency improvements with the co- in water management and improve modeling benefit of positive environmental and community- capabilities and predictive future planning of level impacts. crops, while improving climate forecasting in the • Encourage the use of reclaimed water in critical three to nine month period. A verification place of potable water where possible for system around individually reported data would landscaping needs. Using reclaimed wastewater, filter quality data and allow for better, more which is most commonly used in irrigation, has the efficient convergence of public- and private- potential to significantly lower landscaping costs. sector data. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 53

Increasing urban and industrial use of recycled Energy water can be a cost-effective way to increase water supply without drawing from a limited CO-CHAIRS supply of groundwater and freshwater. Many Dr. Eric Barron states throughout the United States have adopted President guidelines for recycled water use. Penn State University • Better align training and education programs Mr. Christopher Crane to increase the pool of experts with skills in President & CEO water management. Educational requirements Exelon Corporation at state colleges, junior colleges and universities in horticulture and related areas often lack the Dr. Paul Kearns appropriate level of focus on water conservation Director and management. This is in part due to a Argonne National Laboratory lack of state-level funding in the absence of extreme conditions such as drought. Increased Energy is the linchpin of economic growth and alignment between industry and academia at prosperity. In its abundance, low-cost, efficient the undergraduate and postgraduate levels is energy can create a competitive advantage for the necessary to produce a strong talent pipeline. United States, enabling increased productivity and • Train upper-level managers with the efficiency across industries. The country’s commit- skills needed to recognize the technical ment to energy efficiency has helped not only to requirements around water management reduce the negative environmental impacts associ- during the hiring process. While the pool of ated with heavy industrial and consumer reliance on engineers and professionals trained in water energy, traditionally in the form of coal and other management is small, there is also a gap in fossil fuels, but also to reduce costs and drive inno- knowledge among upper-level managers with vation and competitiveness. regard to hiring employees with the proper skills As the world sits on the precipice of a clean energy to implement sustainable water systems and revolution, energy resides as an attractive investment practices. A top-down approach is needed to that both supports preserving the nation’s existing better integrate water management into core zero emission technologies and enables new tech- business strategy, particularly in less densely nologies and innovative strategies to reduce our populated areas where there is increased difficulty carbon footprint and remain sustainable for genera- attracting top talent. tions to come. But America’s energy security is also an issue of national security. As we continue to advance and modernize America’s energy systems, it is important to ensure grid modernization does not occur at the expense of security. Monitoring cyber 54 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

activity and guarding against infiltrations of Ameri- exporter of energy and energy technologies. The ca’s grid and nuclear plants are a significant con- approach of preservation and investment provides cern, and grid security is a national security risk a comparative advantage in many fuel-based of the highest order. sectors of the economy, increases cost-efficiency The Council on Competitiveness hosted the Energy in major manufacturing sectors and promotes and Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership investment in existing and new technologies. (EMCP) sector study dialogue on energy on May 31, Policymakers and regulators in the United States 2017 in partnership with Exelon Corporation, Penn must embrace new scientific discoveries and State University and Argonne National Laboratory to modeling and simulation technologies to maximize address these and other current issues in the energy efficiency for non-renewable energy sources and economy. The dialogue focused on strategies for a increase production of clean energy. sustainable, economically viable energy future that • Direct funding and investment toward satisfies the sometimes-competing needs of con- innovation in energy storage capabilities and sumers, industry and the environment. clean energy technology. It is widely accepted that innovation is responsible for one third of Leverage: Energy was Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership gains in economic growth in the United States. released in May, 2018 For example, by shifting focus toward innovation, at Penn State’s annual Leverage. nuclear plants have been able to increase Phase II Sector Study: Energy Days conference Energy operating capacity from 60 percent to more than in State College, PA. The 90 percent in the past 30 years. Policymakers event was attended by over 200 experts from must create incentives that accelerate the pace industry and academia, of change in the energy sector, which would and included a follow-up allow for more immediate returns on innovation conversation linking the as well as future economic development. This report and recommenda- includes modernizing the energy grid, updating tions to Pennsylvania’s our energy infrastructure, preserving the nation’s energy opportunity to zero emission resources and focusing on clean, create regional prosperity. resilient and renewable energy sources. Findings and Recommendations • Secure America’s critical energy infrastructure from cyber attacks. • Implement regulatory policies that According to the Department encourage the preservation, development of Homeland Security, last year, of the cyber and implementation of more efficient, clean incidents targeting industrial control systems energy solutions. With gains being made in in the 16 infrastructure sectors designated as efficient energy technologies, the United States critical, 20 percent were in the energy sector. is becoming more self-reliant and even an Technological advancements made in favor of Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 55

energy efficiency are outpacing security and • Encourage a multidisciplinary approach to will continue to do so unless we change the education that includes opportunities for way we approach and implement cybersecurity students to learn technical skills, soft skills, strategies and practices. Protecting America’s teamwork and critical thinking skills from energy infrastructure against cyber-attacks is early development through post-graduate an issue of national security, and requires a education. Education must distance from model for valuation of cybersecurity and best teaching by syllabus as this stifles creativity. practices that includes input from a diverse group Policymakers must provide funding for technical of stakeholders from industry, academia and education in high schools and give students government. hands-on training while de-stigmatizing well • Utilize national labs to develop innovative paying “blue collar” jobs. Students should have energy technologies. The national labs, when access to occupational engineers in hands-on provided appropriate funding, have the means to problem solving, and teachers must continue to design improvements for reliable and efficient learn and communicate with industry experts to energy equipment such as wind turbines or oil and evolve science curriculum. gas drills that are cost-effective and less prone • Encourage lifelong learning opportunities to traditional wear. By investing in national labs that allow students to gain more skills and and making their resources available to private stack credentials. Every time a new technology entrepreneurs and innovative startups, researchers is developed, there must be a ripple of new can hope to foster major technological training within the industry so workers can breakthroughs in the areas of energy production operate these new machines and researchers and storage. can build on intermediary technologies to develop • Guide research to the market and provide breakthrough inventions. Utilities, technical guidance on where investment can be most companies and labor unions can ensure their impactful to speed the commercialization of current employees’ skill sets are meeting the new technologies. Building the bridge between evolving needs of the energy industry by providing universities, national labs and the business world education opportunities to people across diverse is critical to ensure research is not stranded ages and stages of their careers. in universities or labs. Universities, companies and the federal government must ensure adequate and predictable R&D spending to foster technological development and the federal government must encourage investments that put the United States in a more competitive position. 56 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

tiveness in the aerospace sector gathered experts Aerospace to identify friction points, ideas and challenges facing Introduction the aerospace sector. During the day- CO-CHAIRS long session, participants focused on the respective Dr. Gregory Hyslop roles of government and industry in funding and Chief Technology Officer supporting basic research and applied research, the The Boeing Company, and need for regulation to keep up with innovation and Senior Vice President the importance of collaboration between industry Boeing Engineering, Test & Technology and academia to fill the growing talent needs in this industry. Dr. Harris Pastides President Leverage: Aerospace was University of South Carolina Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership released in August 2018 at an event hosted by the Leverage. University of South Caro- The United States is on the verge of another golden Phase II Sector Study: Aerospace lina. The event featured age in aerospace. Encouraging innovation the aero- a follow-up conversation space sector goes beyond U.S. competitiveness and which sought to identify is at the core of America’s imagination. Freeing avenues through which people from the confines of terrestrial travel is on the to implement the recom- horizon and will change the world significantly. mendations in a way that Whether aerospace manufacturing will ever reach an would create economic automotive scale, however, is still uncertain. opportunity for South As a critical economic incubator for emerging busi- Carolina’s manufacturing nesses, the aerospace industry can provide job sector. opportunities to help offset the loss of traditional Findings and Recommendations U.S. manufacturing positions. Given the importance • Increase coordination between federal, of aerospace business to U.S. innovation and eco- state and local governments on aerospace nomic progress, the industry receives strong biparti- infrastructure spending. The United States is san support from policymakers. The United States is, falling behind in infrastructure and is now ranked however, at risk of losing a key opportunity to gain an lower than many of its compatriots in airport economic advantage in a growing business sector as efficiency. Many difficult technological problems advancements in technology, talent, investment and must be solved if the aviation infrastructure infrastructure on the part of global competitors needed for the future will provide the level of begins to outpace that of the United States. safety enjoyed today. Much of this stems from In this sixth sector study of the Energy and Manufac- the disconnect of spending, as most airports turing Competitiveness Partnership (EMCP), the are funded by state and local governments, Council on Competitiveness’ dialogue on competi- and there is a lack of federal involvement. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 57

Better coordination and additional government • Build cybersecurity into aerospace technology funding for basic research are needed to reclaim and infrastructure. Given the outstanding safety competitiveness in this sector. record of the aerospace industry and high levels • Reform policy in a way that encourages and of risk aversion, safety must evolve innovation, keeps up with the fast pace of innovation. not after. As the flow of data and sharing of Aerospace has been a technologically driven information becomes crucial to this sector and an sector from its inception. Policymakers must increasing density of aircraft in the skies leads to quickly address potential concerns around certain a higher need for communication across the air technological innovations, such as drones and and to the ground, cybersecurity will continue to space-based technology, in order to avoid the become increasingly more important. wealth of ethical and security concerns that • Encourage sharing of best practices between could arise and regain the global lead in space the aerospace and automotive sectors. It is exploration and travel. unlikely that cars and ground travel will ever be • Capitalize on America’s energy opportunity completely overshadowed by air transportation. to encourage innovation in the aerospace Self-driving car models are now in development sector. As the energy sector innovates and moves at multiple companies, with some already being away from traditional fossil fuels, the aerospace tested for usability. Thus, it is necessary to think sector has the opportunity to innovate its energy with a system-integration approach, where the efficiency. This could include building upon two forms of travel and transport can work in innovations already being implemented in other conjunction for the betterment of society. countries, as well as in other sectors in the United • Promote partnerships between industry and States, including investment in areas from battery academia to increase the talent pool. The powered planes to solar-powered aircraft. current promotion and tenure reward system • Increase the velocity of adoption of new discourages applied research, leaving a void to materials to outpace global competition. be filled by industry. But when viewed against the It takes 10–20 years to take an aerospace backdrop of decreasing federal research funding material from design to deployment in the and shrinking R&D activity in many industries, the United States. In order to maintain a competitive need for cooperation and collaboration to ensure edge, computational techniques and methods innovation and motivation can be effectively must be applied to the qualification of new translated into results and impact. material systems through increased modeling and • Redesign academic curricula at all levels to simulation. This will require an increased focus on create a multidimensional workforce. Creating science investment and commercialization and a talent pool diverse in gender, ethnicity and skill deliberate linkages between academic research will be essential to building competitiveness in and commercial deployment. the aerospace sector. Educators and employers 58 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

alike—as early as K-12 and up to mid-career Advancements in computing, networking and com- professionals—must encourage the pursuit of munications technology permeate through every opportunities in this growing industry. This might sector of the economy and are being made at a include everything from engineering competitions pace that is both breathtaking and unprecedented to opportunities through trade schools, classes in human history. But these same qualities make offered by companies, online courses or securing today’s cyber landscape extremely chal- community college offerings. lenging. Technological advancement is outpacing security and will continue to do so unless we Cybersecurity change the way we approach and implement cybersecurity strategies and practices. CO-CHAIRS With attribution of cyber-attacks becoming more Mr. George Fischer difficult, and with these events happening at increas- Senior Vice President and Group President ing rates, companies and organizations need a Verizon Enterprise Solutions revised tool set to handle cyber-attacks quickly and Dr. Steven Ashby effectively. And as adversarial AI becomes signifi- Director cantly more sophisticated in the next 3-5 years, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory need to promote a cyber moon shot becomes increasingly more urgent. Cybersecurity is no longer Dr. Farnam Jahanian a predominantly tech-related problem—due to the President tremendous financial burden of cyber-attacks Carnegie Mellon University incurred as a consequence of disruption to opera- Cybersecurity for Industry: Ensuring Prosperity tions, loss of data and cost of security among other in a Digital Economy concerns, cyber-attacks have become a risk man- Rapid advancement in agement issue, while strong cyber defense/response can be a productivity enabler.

Counci on Competitiveness cyber technology develop- t Street Suite asinton ometeor

ometeow aceoocomSouncionometitiveness ment is being fueled by Despite the clear importance of cybersecurity in the inedincomcomanycouncioncometitiveness industry modernization, current technological and political climate—and the Cybersecurity e-commerce and con- threat cyber-attacks pose to critical infrastructure for Industry sumer entertainment. The and intellectual property, and therefore to business Ensuring Prosperity in a Digitial Economy interconnectedness and operations and national security—resource con- openness made possible straints, both financial and human, are pervasive. by the Internet and the Small- and medium-sized companies often face broader digital ecosys- budgetary constraints that preclude them from tem creates unparalleled affording the latest security technology. And firms of value for society. all sizes see talent shortages and knowledge gaps that leave them vulnerable to cyber risks and slow to recover from cyber-attacks. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 59

These are just a few of the multidimensional security An overwhelming amount of data creates chal- challenges companies in the United States face in lenges with regard to credibility of cyber threats an era marked by transformational innovation and the and ability to operationalize data. With the volume digitization of an exponential amount of data. These of useful, actionable information greater than ever challenges, while difficult and numerous, are not before, a balance must be struck between informa- insurmountable. They will, however, require collaboration sharing required for legitimate policy interests tion on the parts of both the public and private and guarding private enterprise interests. Standard- sectors to improve America’s mitigation, adaptability izing the gathering and valuation of cybersecurity and resilience to the growing number of cyber data would improve security across all industries, but threats from state and non-state actors building trusted relationships is currently the best Initial Findings way to facilitate sharing of high-quality data on Voluntary, industry-led cybersecurity standards, cybersecurity threats and attacks. created in partnership with the government, are Cybersecurity must be transformed into a com- needed. While risk management frameworks and petitive advantage rather than a sunk cost by industry guidelines around cybersecurity exist, there focusing on the confluence of risk, capabilities is a need for industry-sponsored standards that and resources. By treating cybersecurity as a define basic cybersecurity terms, and set security pre-competitive issue, being proactive in addressing thresholds for products and systems. These stan- threats rather than reactive to attacks, and looking dards could be used to benchmark security posture at cyber technologies and cybersecurity posture as and create a competitive advantage for companies. valued capital rather than as a liability, companies The National Institute of Standards and Technology can raise their security posture and insulate them- (NIST) could act as an umbrella infrastructure for selves from cyber threats. This requires more these standards. research into quantifiable risk that can enable a Security must be integrated into products and meaningful regulatory approach and insurance mar- processes early on in the development cycle, ket that should in time be rewarded by the market. rather than being considered an add-on compo- All organizational levels, including company nent. As the pace of technological advancement boards and C-suite leaders, must be engaged in accelerates at record speeds and products become cyber planning, response and recovery efforts. increasingly connected through the proliferation of Cybersecurity is often considered the job of policy sensors and data, vulnerability to data theft and and IT experts. A shift in organizational culture operational disruption increases. As the threat of across all organizational functions and levels to view cyber-attacks becomes more grave, products and cybersecurity as an issue of larger corporate rel- processes must be designed with cyber resiliency evance, rather than simply a technology problem, is in mind. necessary to improve companies’ ability to protect against, respond to and recover from cyber-attacks. 60 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Industry and academia must work together The United States is facing a steady increase in the to create a baseline curriculum to educate a volume, types and sophistication of cyber-attacks. knowledgeable, cyber-savvy workforce. It is Organizations of all types—including industry, govern- vitally important for the United States to have an ment, academia and adequate, viable cybersecurity workforce with a national laboratories—are Counci on Coetitieness t Street Suite asinton ometeor assailed relentlessly by consistent, baseline level of knowledge. Diversityometeow and aceoocomSouncionometitiveness inclusion will be essential in order to meet theinedincomcomanycouncioncometitiveness bur- efforts from state and geoning needs in this field. Hands-on experience Cybersecurity private entities to disrupt and mentorship programs would also help increase An Issue of National Security operations, steal informa- interest while combatting the slow pace of curricu- tion and increase their lum change. It would also be mutually beneficial for own competitiveness. industry and academia to cross-pollinate and cycle These threats, which practitioners and educators through both worlds. come in the form of traditional cyber-crime, Cybersecurity must be integrated into educa- military and political tional curricula outside traditional four-year espionage, economic universities and post-grad studies, including espionage and cyber high schools and community colleges. The warfare, carry considerable costs for the United responsibility of educating on cybersecurity and States and the world. In fact, a study by Juniper computer science should not rest entirely on college Research suggests the annual cost of data breaches and universities. College-level courses in cyber or will reach $2.1 trillion globally by 2019, an increase computer science at the high school level would help of almost four times the estimated cost of breaches expand the talent pool. Community colleges, with the in 2015. 29 support of industry executives, should also be considered a viable option for students and a viable Cyber-attacks are particularly concerning when it recruitment pool for employers. comes to the 16 critical infrastructure sectors as defined by the Department of Homeland Security30 Cybersecurity: An Issue of National Security —each of which plays an integral role in America’s The digitization of society, proliferation of data and economic and national security. A reliable energy grid, increased connectedness of products and services— for example, is essential for any institution to operate. particularly in America’s critical infrastructure sec- And while the U.S. Department of Energy currently tors— have transformed the ways Americans live and organizations operate. Yet, the tremendous growth in the level of connectivity poses risks to U.S. global 29 The Future of Cybercrime & Security, Juniper Research, March 25, 2017. competitiveness as firewalls become the next front- 30 PPD-21 identifies 16 critical infrastructure sectors: chemicals; commercial facilities; critical manufacturing; dams; defense industrial base; line for battle in the United States. As a result, emergency services; energy; financial services; food and agriculture; cybersecurity has become an issue of national government facilities; healthcare and public health; information technology; nuclear reactors; materials and waste; sector-specific agencies; security. transportation systems; and water and wastewater systems. https:// www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 61

has plans to improve preparedness, response and Effort is needed to connect industry with recovery capabilities, 90 percent of the energy grid laboratory and academic research to ensure is operated by private companies—requiring strong knowledge transfer and reduce duplication. public and private partnerships to ensure these suppli- Discoverability of existing capabilities—both on ers are resilient against and have the tools needed the part of industry and the R&D community—is to respond quickly to potential cyber-attacks.31 a significant challenge. Better coordination would The increasing sophistication of cyber-attacks poses reduce duplication of efforts—both within and across a constant threat to critical infrastructure. And as the these communities—and help better align research availability of networks is called into question every priorities and commercial needs to scale up security day, the economic viability of U.S. businesses and the solutions. freedoms Americans exercise daily are in jeopardy. There must be a clearly-articulated federal Initial Findings model for cyber response to critical infrastruc- Cybersecurity should be built into industry and ture attacks. While numerous government agencies government contracts to incentivize broader are factoring cybersecurity into their programming adoption. Cybersecurity must be better incentivized and funding, there is minimal coordination across using new, innovative market mechanisms. This could these programs. This would decrease duplication of include building security into procurement mecha- efforts and improve resiliency and response capabili- nisms or advancing how technologies are measured ties in the face of cyber threats. for security in order to institutionalize the adoption of There is an opportunity at the state or regional security measures across the supply chain. level to capitalize on the patriotism, altruism and A unified, clear research agenda across industry tech savviness of younger generations to create and government is needed in the cybersecurity coalition(s) of cyber first-responders. Current space. When it comes to cybersecurity research, recovery times from cyber-attacks are long and there is no clear, community-defined research static, threatening American security and economic agenda, resulting in duplication of efforts and inef- interests. The United States needs a coordinated ficient use of limited financial resources. A mecha- first-response effort to further regional cyber protec- nism is needed to organize the research community tion and response. One potential home for this effort and marshal appropriate stakeholders and topics to could be within the National Guard. shape the research agenda. Globally-defined, security baselines are needed and must be informed by relevant stakeholders. Useful and practical security baselines would level the playing field and set basic expectations around how systems and networks can be deployed in recommended, secure configurations. Advances

31 Cybersecurity for Critical Energy Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Energy, 2018. 62 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

must be made through the product lifecycle to Cybersecurity: Engaging Government improve design, default and deployment, thereby & Policymakers building assurance around the resiliency of critical As computing power infrastructure to cyber-attacks and disruption. rapidly increases, the U.S. Applying automated security monitoring to faces the challenge of critical infrastructure sectors would significantly protecting the latest improve cyber defense. When applied to the technology from the observe-orient-decide-act loop, continual evaluation increasing threat of of security through artificial intelligence and machine cyber-attacks. This task learning can enable adversary detection, attribution will only become more and action prediction and improve response in a way difficult given the rising that would reduce the asymmetric advantage of number of devices attackers and level the cyber defense playing field connected to the electric for critical infrastructure providers. grid as smart homes and buildings become the Cybersecurity must be integrated into the aca- norm. Although the United States is pro- demic curricula of related topics. While training gressively making cybersecurity a higher priority for cybersecurity professionals is a valuable endeavor, the nation, there is still much work to be done to cybersecurity must be a key educational component secure critical infrastructure. for computer scientists, engineers and other profes- sions in which security is a foundational concern. Already at a disadvantage in comparison to its This will increase the pool of professionals with adversaries, U.S. policymakers must act to build relevant and applicable cybersecurity skills across resilience to the increasing threat and occurrence of the most critical areas of need and ensure that cyber-attacks. Without a single group or entity within future engineers across all disciplines are able to government designated to take charge in the face of design and build secure systems. a large-scale attack, adversaries are able to maximize their already asymmetric advantage and exploit Barriers prohibiting practitioners to serve as weaknesses in U.S. response capabilities. And while educators must be reduced. While there are agencies like the Department of Energy have taken significant challenges around a mismatch between critical steps to protect America’s energy infrastruc- supply and demand of cybersecurity professionals, ture, coordination and effective communication with academia faces the compounding challenge of a Congress is necessary to ensure efficient use of the lack of educators to train the workforce of tomorrow. limited resources available to support nationwide A strategic effort on the part of industry and aca- cybersecurity. demia is needed to fill this gap. Sector Study Overviews and Recommendations 63

Simultaneously, the challenges posed by the increas- Small- and medium-sized businesses often lack ing cyber threat from state and non-state actors access to the knowledge and resources needed continue to outpace the size of the workforce to maintain an appropriate level of cybersecurity. equipped with the skills to mitigate the growing risk. Much of industry is below the cyber “poverty line”, While programs exist throughout the federal govern- meaning they do not have access to the resources ment, including the National Science Foundation’s needed for basic cyber hygiene, much less defend- CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service, a scholarship ing against nation-states. These businesses can program to recruit and train the next generation of serve as a gateway into larger organizations for information technology professionals, industry control attackers. Tools and guidance for small and medium system security professionals and security managers, businesses would improve supply chain cybersecurity these efforts must be amplified in order to keep writ large. pace with the growing need for cybersecurity profes- Tools for assessing the performance, benefit sionals. and risk associated with cyber tools must be Together, policymakers across all federal agencies developed. Independent consumer reports tests or must address the growing threat of cyberattack to assurance programs that correlate to improved the United States. Coordination and collaboration, cybersecurity posture would improve supply chain are essential if the United States is to secure against security and enable the uptake of proven security the threat of attack, enhance cyber resilience, technologies. strengthen the cyber workforce and boost the The current talent pool cannot meet the rising awareness needed to remain competitive. demand for cybersecurity workers. Without There must be a clear, practical model for cyber intervention, the United States will experience a response that identifies roles and responsibili- debilitating lack of talent to fill cybersecurity needs ties of the public and private sectors. Numerous essential for maintaining our competitive advantage federal agencies currently have jurisdiction over globally. Tools must be developed to train cybersecu- different aspects of cybersecurity, leaving uncer- rity professionals at all levels—from first response tainty as to where responsibilities lie in the wake of practitioners to experts. an attack. Similarly, there is a lack of clarity on the Cybersecurity must be incentivized as a risk part of industry as to the requirements. Clear leader- management issue to raise the overall security ship in the cybersecurity space would help the posture of American industry and critical infra- United States maintain its competitive advantage structure. When cybersecurity is perceived by by thwarting cyber threats. businesses as cost, decisions are made from a cost-benefit perspective rather than a risk management vantage point. This becomes a challenge as cybersecurity risks span beyond the source of the incident. Cyber protections and processes must be valued as capital rather than cost. 64 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Security must be built into products and systems from the very earliest stages of development. The pace of innovation and technology uptake by the general public has historically been driven by convenience and functionality as opposed to security. This creates a situation where technology is used long before its security implications are understood. Creating a basic blueprint that provides a succinct path for security-enabled technologies to transition from research to market will minimize stranded research and increase the overall security posture of the United States by facilitating the introduction of new, more secure products to the market.

About the Council on Competitiveness 65

About the Council on Competitiveness

For more than three decades, the Council on Com- Council on Competitiveness petitiveness (Council) has championed a competi- 900 17th Street, NW tiveness agenda for the United States to attract Suite 700 investment and talent, and spur the commercializa- Washington, D.C. 20006 tion of new ideas. +1 (202) 682-4292 While the players may have changed since its found- Compete.org ing in 1986, the mission remains as vital as ever—to enhance U.S. productivity and raise the standard of living for all Americans. The members of the Council—CEOs, university presidents, labor leaders and national lab directors— represent a powerful, nonpartisan voice that sets aside politics and seeks results. By providing real- world perspective to Washington policymakers, the Council’s private sector network makes an impact on decision-making across a broad spectrum of issues from the cutting-edge of science and technology, to the democratization of innovation, to the shift from energy weakness to strength that supports the growing renaissance in U.S. manufacturing. The Council’s leadership group firmly believes that with the right policies, the strengths and potential of the U.S. economy far outweigh the current challenges the nation faces on the path to higher growth and greater opportunity for all Americans. 66 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX A A National Agenda for Cybersecurity

A national cyber agenda must Secure America’s Critical Assets and ensure the United States has Infrastructure Against Cyber-attacks With the average cost of a data breach in the United the infrastructure, technology and States at an all-time high of $7.91 million and over talent needed to build resilience 1,300 significant breaches in the last year, malicious cyber activity in the United States is a substantial to cyber-attacks, along with the threat to America’s economic and national security.32 ability to respond and recover The increasing sophistication of cyber-attacks poses a constant threat to critical infrastructure. And as the in the event of such attacks. availability of networks is called into question every The interconnectedness and openness made day, the economic viability of U.S. businesses and the possible by the Internet and the broader digital freedoms Americans exercise daily are in jeopardy. ecosystem create unparalleled value for society. 1. Curtail the foreign acquisition by hostile The architects of the Internet could not know, actors of American cybersecurity assets to however, that it would reach the breadth and scope better manage risk. Regional powers have a seen today. Throughout human history, technological growing potential to use purchased cyber tools advancement has outpaced security. While this is to conduct catastrophic attacks on U.S. critical unlikely to change, America’s ability to remain infrastructure.33 While cyber threats from state resilient in the face of increasing cyber threats will and non-state actors come in many forms, including require a shift in the understanding of—and dynamic cyber-crime and military and political espionage, between—innovation and security. The evolution the acquisition by hostile foreign governments of to a new way of thinking that focuses on deliberate, U.S. cyber assets constitutes a significant security risk-informed trade-offs will be essential. risk for the United States. What follows are a series of concrete, actionable Recommendations recommendations cutting across the public and 1.1. Require under the new authorities of the For- private sectors that, taken together, will strengthen eign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act U.S. cyber defenses and ensure greater resilience (FIRRMA) in the National Defense Authoriza- in the face of growing and malicious cyber threats. tion Act for Fiscal Year 2019 that the Commit- tee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) conduct full reviews and regulatory approval for any foreign investment or owner- ship interest in American advanced cybersecurity startups, joint ventures or acquisitions.

32 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Study, Ponemon Institute, July 2018. 33 Task Force on Cyber Deterrence, Department of Defense Defense Science Board, February 2017. Appendices 67

1.2. Require all U.S. securities and SEC-registered 2.3. Incentivize vendors’ awareness and adoption of securities and investment funds of any size security best practices utilizing industry pur- to provide the U.S. Department of the Treasury chasing power. and the FBI full transparency on sources of 2.4. Promote greater uptake and use of existing investment capital and intellectual property, and cybersecurity standards to increase supply limit partners from countries deemed high-risk chain security. or sanctioned by the Treasury Department. 3. Establish a means of coordinating cyber 1.3. Expand the authority of the Bayh-Dole Act and R&D investments and research agendas. When it federal tech transfer act to prevent the licens- comes to cybersecurity research, there is no commu- ing of U.S. cyber technology developed with nity-defined research agenda, resulting in duplication federal funding to foreign countries deemed of efforts and inefficient use of limited financial and high risk. human resources. 2. Leverage public and private sector purchas- Recommendations ing power to ensure cybersecurity protections 3.1. Establish the National Cybersecurity R&D are upfront requirements throughout the value Initiative, chaired by the White House Science chain. While DoD contractors and subcontractors Advisor, to identify challenges, solicit industry are required to meet certain security protocols, there input, define priorities and, on an ongoing basis, is no universal clause across federal procurement coordinate government investment to optimize contracts. And, industry largely lacks a consistent talent and resources and avoid duplication approach to applying best practices for security of efforts. design, development and deployment of Internet- connected devices. 3.2. Convene a Basic Research Needs working group including leaders from the public and Recommendations private sectors to define a set of research 2.1. Extend Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation priorities to address the technology R&D Supplement DFAR 252.204-7012 language challenges and Science Grand Challenges that, mandating adequate security to all government if solved, will strengthen U.S. cybersecurity agencies. capability. 2.2. Call on Congress to take immediate action on 3.3. Create data-driven processes to develop spe- the Internet of Things (‘IoT’) Cybersecurity cific cybersecurity countermeasures unique Improvement Act of 2017, requiring the inclu- to sectors and sub-sectors, and disseminate sion of specific cybersecurity protections in these processes through Information Sharing procurement contracts with all federal and and Analysis Centers and Community Emer- state agencies for Internet-connected devices. gency Response Teams to mitigate the risk of cyber incidents. 68 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

4. Develop, upgrade and deploy cybersecurity Strengthen America’s Cyber Response technology to enhance America’s resilience to and Recovery Capabilities cyber-attacks. The pace of technological advancement is accelerating at record speeds, increasing According to the latest data, in the United States, vulnerability to data theft and operational disruption the average time required to identify a data breach increases. As the threat of cyber-attacks becomes incident is 201 days, while the average amount 34 more grave, products and processes must be of time to contain a breach is 52 days. America’s designed to meet basic security standards. ability to detect, withstand and recover from cyber events that disrupt the economy and society in a Recommendations quick and coordinated manner is essential for the 4.1. Require that all new technology applied to the nation’s security and competitiveness.35 electric grid meet industry standards to ensure basic cybersecurity. 5. Enhance coordination across departments and agencies at the federal and state levels 4.2. Expand funding and private sector engagement responsible, with the goal to improve resiliency for testbeds for the creation and adoption of and response to cyber threats. While numerous new cybersecurity technologies such as Digital federal agencies are factoring cybersecurity into Manufacturing Design and Innovation Institute their programming and funding, there is minimal (DMDII) Cyber Hub for Manufacturing and the coordination across departments. Army Cyber-research Analytics Laboratory. Recommendations 4.3. Expand the NIST cybersecurity framework 5.1. The administration should reinstate and to better guide secure development of IoT, empower a White House cybersecurity czar operational technology (OT) and information to oversee a government-wide interagency task technology (IT) platforms and technologies as force to develop and implement, within 180 days, a means to bolster private industry certification a coordinated cyber defense strategy that programs. includes mechanisms for owners and operators of critical infrastructure to more easily share appropriate data. 5.2. Governors should convene state and local representatives from across the public and private sectors to develop statewide cyberattack prevention and response strategies.

34 “IBM Study: Hidden Costs of Data Breaches Increase Expenses for Businesses,” PRNewswire, IBM Security, July 11, 2018. 35 “Protecting Small Businesses from Cyber Attacks: the Cybersecurity Insurance Option”, Testimony of Robert Luft, Owner, Surefire Innovations, National Small Business Association, July 26, 2017. Appendices 69

5.3. Convene biannual meetings of the private 6.5. Create a tiered technology approach to cyber sector chairpersons of federal government that enables technically-trained cyber experts— advisory committees and external boards to people who are experts in using tools but that share agency priorities, best practices and don’t require advanced degrees—to obtain the identify areas to strengthen interagency col- technical skills needed to act in this capacity. laboration. 7. Expand access to cyber resources for small 6. Develop agile, mobile and technically trained and medium-sized companies. Small businesses— state and/or regional coalitions of cyber first- those with fewer than 100 workers—represent more responders. Current recovery times from cyber- than 98 percent of total businesses in the United attacks are long and protracted, threatening States.38 In fact, 58 percent of data breach victims American security and economic interests. With the are small businesses.39 Small businesses estimated average cost of a data breach in the United States at their average cost for incidents in the last 12 months an all-time high of $7.91 million,36 efficient incident to be $34,604.40 response is critical and current assets are insuffi- Recommendations cient. 7.1. Sustain funding for the Manufacturing Exten- Recommendations sion Partnership (MEP) National Network and 6.1. Institute state Cyber Protection Teams through expand resources available for cybersecurity the National Guard Bureaus and tactical analy- tools and training and certification such as the sis groups. NIST MEP Cybersecurity Assessment Tool. 6.2. Governors and state legislators must provide 7.2. State and metropolitan Small Business Admin- funding and reduce legal and liability barriers to istrations should establish cybersecurity train- resources acting in state capacity. ing initiatives in partnership with Workforce 6.3. Expand to additional states existing programs37 Development Boards to reach a broad array to provide veterans with access to cybersecu- of small and medium-sized businesses below rity training opportunities and resources to help the cyber poverty line. veterans enter the cybersecurity workforce. 7.3 Expand federal and state outreach to small and 6.4. Establish and fund, at the state level, “civilian medium-sized businesses to increase knowl- reserve cyber corps” comprising volunteers edge of existing resources, including top from private industry security and IT profession- resources identified by the DHS U.S. Computer als to be deployed in the event of a regional Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT). cyber incident.

36 2018 Cost of a Data Breach Study: Global Overview, Ponemon 38 Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. Institute, July 2018. 39 2018 Data Breach Investigations Report, Verizon, 2018. 37 Cyber Virginia: Cyber Veterans Initiative, The Commonwealth of Virginia, July 2017. 40 2018 HISCOX Small Business Cyber Risk Report, Hiscox Inc, 2018. 70 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

8. Engage corporate leadership in the develop- 9. Expand and upskill the cybersecurity work- ment of procedures necessary to plan for, force to meet the complex and growing cyber respond to and recover from cyber incidents. threat. The cybersecurity field faces a constant Cybersecurity has become an urgent concern for shortage of practitioners, with approximately companies of all sizes and across all industries. 350,000 current cybersecurity openings unfilled, Cyber threats pose significant risks to economic according to CyberSeek, a project supported by security and competitiveness and have become the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education increasingly costly in terms of detection and (NICE). response. Recommendations Recommendations 9.1. Ensure NSF funding for the CyberCorps®: 8.1. Corporate cybersecurity leads should report Scholarship for Service (SFS) program meets directly to executive team members and align the growing demand. responsibilities with risk management strategies. 9.2. The National Science Foundation should 8.2. Companies should embrace the Securities and expand and expedite the implementation of the Exchange Commission Guidance on Public Community College Cyber Pilot Program (C3P) Company Cybersecurity Disclosures41 and take under the CyberCorps® SFS program. all required actions to inform investors of 9.3. Congress should take immediate action to pass material cyber risks and incidents in a timely S. 754, Cyber Scholarship Opportunities Act of fashion. 2017 to permanently extend support for cybersecurity education in primary and secondary Develop and Deploy a 21st Century schools. Cyber Workforce 9.4 Expand cybersecurity awareness programs Further adding to the growing risk of cyber threats to in secondary schools to increase interest and American prosperity, the world is on pace to reach a awareness of students from diverse back- 42 cybersecurity workforce gap of 1.8 million by 2022. grounds regarding career opportunities in the It is vitally important that the United States have an cybersecurity field. adequate cybersecurity workforce to secure the nation’s critical infrastructure; respond to the ever- expanding cyber threat; and equip businesses of all sizes and governments at all levels with the talent to meet the next generation of cyber challenges.

41 Commission Statement and Guidance on Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosures, 2018. 42 2017 Global Information Security Workforce Study, Frost & Sullivan, 2017. Appendices 71

10. Reform curricula at the nations’s colleges Boost Cyber Awareness Among and universities to better meet the demand for Policymakers and the Public cyber-savvy students and workers. The race to respond to cyber workforce needs has led to incon- Human error is one of the most significant challenges sistency in program quality and stove piping of when it comes to protecting against cyber-attacks. expertise. The ability of academia, industry and In fact, 90 percent of cyber incidents are human- 43 government to address these challenges while enabled, while as many as 24 percent of attacks 44 meeting the growing workforce demand will be a key may be due to employee actions or mistakes. driver of American competitiveness. 12. Increase the awareness and understanding Recommendations of cybersecurity issues among members of 10.1. Expand the number of colleges and universities Congress and their staffers. With at least 36 with programs and credentials that meet the states, D.C. and Puerto Rico having introduced and/ criteria required for designation as National or considered more than 265 bills or resolutions 45 Centers of Academic Excellence in Cyber related to cybersecurity and as many as 12 com- Operations or Cyber Defense by the National mittees holding jurisdiction over various departments, Security Agency and the DHS. agencies and programs addressing cyber issues, all policymakers on Capitol Hill must understand the 10.2. Embed cybersecurity concepts into a broad technology and implications of cyber threats. range of existing degree programs at the university level. Recommendation 12.1. Members in the House of Representatives and 11. Break down legal and organizational barriers Senate should reinvigorate the bipartisan prohibiting or limiting cybersecurity practitio- House and Senate Cyber Caucuses, which ners from serving as educators. While there are have been largely dormant in recent years, significant challenges around a mismatch between to provide members of Congress and their supply and demand of cybersecurity professionals, staffers with access to experts in the field. academia faces a compounding challenges of a lack of educators to train the workforce of tomorrow. Recommendations 11.1. States and educational institutions must reduce barriers to allow cybersecurity practitioners to serve as professors of practice. 11.2. Establish industry-academia-national laboratory

exchange programs to facilitate cross-pollina- 43 Shifting the Human Factors Paradigm in Cybersecurity, Calvin Nobles, tion between cyber experts and practitioners. Ph.D., March 15, 2018. 44 2016 Data Security Incident Response Report, BakerHostetler, 2016.

45 Cybersecurity Legislation 2018, National Conference of State Legisla- tures, May 18, 2018. 72 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

13. Increase the cyber awareness of the general public. An ever-evolving number of cyber threats target what is, in many ways, the weak link in the U.S. cyber ecosystem—the general public. Spam, phishing, spyware, malware, trojan horses and a litany of targeted consumer attacks can ruin per- sonal financial security and be a gateway to a broader attack with the consumer as the entry point. Cyber savviness is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for all Americans. Recommendations 13.1. Fund, develop and implement a major national cyber-awareness campaign, that builds on existing efforts, to increase the general public’s awareness and capability to prepare for and respond to cyber threats. 13.2. Call on local economic development authorities to put in place programs that encourage cybersecurity education at the K-12 level. 13.3. Implement and enforce basic cybersecurity protocols throughout industry, government and academia including patching, multi-factor authentication and identity management as standard business practices. Appendices 73

APPENDIX B Innovate America National Innovation Agenda 74 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX C Drive. Private Sector Demand for Sustainable Energy Solutions Recommendations

Create the Foundation for Success Setting the Bar for Energy Efficiency Global Prerequisites Recommendation: Reward Efficiency Recommendation: Expand Trade and Global • Provide tax credits and federal financing for home Growth efficiency improvements • Remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers for • Provide tax credits to accelerate the turnover to sustainable energy products and services while advanced technology vehicles not creating a dual track for preferential trade liberalization • Make a step change in vehicle efficiency standards and vehicle miles traveled • Assure intellectual property rights (IPR) for all industrial products and services, copyrights and • Peg appliance standards to best-in-class sustainable energy solutions • Allow utilities to profit from energy efficiency so Recommendation: Take the Lead in Copenhagen customers receive incentives • Commit to reduce U.S. emissions on a set timetable Assuring Access to Clean and • Promote reduction targets for all major emitters Competitive Energy Recommendation: Collaborate with Developing Recommendation: Use it All and Price it Right Nations in Reducing Emissions • Rationalize federal and state regulatory policies • Provide financial and technical support • Drive diversification to low-carbon energy sources American Prerequisites • Assure renewables access to the grid Recommendation: Clarify Policies and Inform • Expedite nuclear power plant approvals and re- the Public commissioning • Clarify and coordinate energy and environmental policies across federal agencies • Eliminate regulatory uncertainty for nuclear waste • Take a “systems approach” to policy and funding • Expedite construction of carbon capture and decisions storage facilities • Increase America’s energy knowledge • Establish a price floor for gasoline • Disclose energy and carbon data for buildings • Link the gasoline tax to CAFÉ standards and products • Price carbon emissions Appendices 75

Jumpstarting Energy Infrastructure and Spawning Technological Breakthroughs Manufacturing Investments and Entrepreneurship Recommendation: Capitalize Growth and Make It Recommendation: Discover the Future and Break Here the Technology Barriers • Reduce the corporate tax rate • Provide a steady, robust stream of R&D funding • Generate a revenue pool for infrastructure • Launch clean energy research consortia for financing enabling energy technologies • Enable high-risk, high-return energy projects • Fast-track technology demonstrations and pilots • Invest in nuclear industry expansion for CCS and energy storage • Provide a steady stream of manufacturing and job • Fast-track demonstrations of new nuclear reactors creation financing Mobilizing a World-Class Energy • Designate Clean Energy Technology Workforce Manufacturing Development Zones Recommendation: Bridge the Skills Gap and Build • Establish Clean Energy Manufacturing Centers of the Talent Excellence • Boost funding for workforce training in clean • Provide federal financial investment in initial technology manufacturing facilities for clean energy • Develop and nurture world-class energy technologies researchers and educators • Incentivize production retooling and efficiency for • Provide full scholarships for energy-related clean energy technology production education • Enhance industrial access to HPC resources • Make worker training benefits portable Clearing Obstacles to a National • Harness global talent by amending U.S. Transmission Superhighway immigration laws Recommendation: Build it Fast and Smart • Cultivate youth interest in clean energy and • Set national criteria for transmission siting environmentally-sound industry • Recover transmission costs on a regional basis • Give private industry a stake in creating a pipeline of workers • Develop standards for device interoperability and • Bridge funding gaps for community colleges security • Galvanize local coalitions 76 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX D Make:Call to Action: Five Challenges Five Challenges and and Solutions Solutions to Make anto Make American an American Manufacturing Manufacturing Movement Movement

Detailed recommendations begin on page 60.

Priorities CHALLENGE CHALLENGE Fueling the Innovation and Expanding U.S. Exports, The priority recommendations from Production Economy from Reducing the Trade Deficit, the five challenges are: Start-up to Scale-up. Increasing Market Access 1. Congress should permanently SOLUTION and Responding to Foreign replace the current world-wide Governments Protecting double taxation system with a Enact fiscal reform, transform tax Domestic Producers. laws and reduce regulatory and territorial tax system to facilitate SOLUTION the repatriation of earnings and other structural costs and create restructure the corporate tax jobs. Utilize multilateral fora, forge code to increase investment, new agreements, advance IP stimulate production at scale and 1. Congress should require protection, standards and export neutralize sovereign tax incentive agencies to begin reducing the control regimes to grow high- investment packages. costs and burdens of current and value investment and increase proposed regulations. exports. 2. Congress, the administration and industry should intensify efforts 2. Congress should immediately 1. Industry CEOs and government to support the President’s goal reform section 404 of the leaders should elevate and to double exports from $1.8 to Sarbanes-Oxley Act to increase advance U.S. technical standards $3.6 trillion and reduce the trade entrepreneurs’ access to U.S. and the voluntary consensus deficit by more than 50 percent. public capital markets and grow new companies. standards-setting process. 3. Federal, state and local 2. Congress and the administration governments along with high- 3. Congress should reduce the should ensure the President’s schools, universities, community costs of tort litigation from Export Control Reform Initiative colleges, national laboratories the current level of almost two is completed by the end of 2012 and industry should prioritize percent of GDP—some $248 and push for improved foreign Career and Technical Education billion—down to one percent by export control systems. (CTE) programs and push for 2020. greater integration of community 4. Congress and the administration 3. Focus on actions to encourage colleges in the innovation must take action on fiscal reform China to make permanent the pipeline. to achieve $4 trillion in debt special intellectual property rights campaign it ran from 4. Congress and the administration reductions by 2021. October 2010 to June 2011. should leverage R&D investments across the federal research enterprise to solve challenges in sustainable smart manufacturing systems and to ensure a dynamic discovery and innovation pipeline. 5. Congress and the administration should drive the private sector to develop and utilize all sources of energy on a market basis while enforcing efficiency standards to ensure a sustainable supply of energy to manufacturers. Appendices 77

CHALLENGE CHALLENGE CHALLENGE Harnessing the Power and Achieving Next-Generation Creating Competitive Advantage Potential of American Talent to Productivity through Smart through Next Generation Win the Future Skills Race. Innovation and Manufacturing. Supply Networks and Advanced SOLUTION SOLUTION Logistics. Prepare the next generation Create national advanced SOLUTION of innovators, researchers and manufacturing clusters, networks Develop and deploy smart, skilled workers. and partnerships, prioritize R&D sustainable and resilient energy, investments, deploy new tools, transportation, production and 1. Congress should implement technologies and facilities, and cyber infrastructures. immigration reform to ensure accelerate commercialization of novel products and services. the world’s brightest talent 1. Congress should increase innovate and create opportunities the number of public-private in the United States. 1. Congress, the administration, infrastructure partnerships and 2. Congress, states, academia, industry, academia and labor explore opportunities to privatize industry and national laboratories should develop partnerships large infrastructure projects. should renew efforts to expand to create a national network of STEM education and create advanced manufacturing clusters 2. Congress should authorize the opportunities to integrate into and smart factory ecosystems. Export-Import Bank to fund the workplace. 2. Congress, the administration, domestic infrastructure projects. 3. The Small Business national laboratories and 3. Congress should develop and Administration (SBA) should universities should advance the implement a national strategy create a program modeled after U.S. manufacturing sector’s use to reduce overall energy the SCORE program for retired of computational modeling and demand by rewarding efficiency business executives to mentor simulation and move the nation’s and improving transmission and counsel entrepreneurs. High Performance Computing infrastructure. capabilities toward Exascale. 4. Industry and labor should 4. Congress and the administration develop state-of-the-art 3. The U.S. Department of should create a Joint Cyber apprenticeship programs for Commerce through the Command to improve cyber 21st century manufacturing. Economic Development infrastructure and protect Administration, in partnership traditional defense, commercial 5. The administration should create with the Council on and consumer interests. a Veterans in Manufacturing Competitiveness should Program to create opportunities expand the Midwest Project for for America’s soldiers. SME–OEM Use of Modeling 6. Academia, industry and and Simulation through the government should launch the National Digital Engineering American Explorers Initiative to and Manufacturing Consortium send more Americans abroad (NDEMC). to study, perform research and 4. Accelerate innovation from work in global businesses. universities and national 7. Congress should create laboratories by facilitating opportunities and incentives greater sharing of intellectual for older Americans to remain property and incentivizing vibrant contributors in the commercialization. workforce. 78 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX E Council on Competitiveness Membership, Fellows and Staff

BOARD Mr. James K. Clifton Professor Michael E. Porter Chairman Chairman and CEO Bishop William Lawrence University Professor Mr. Samuel R. Allen Gallup, Inc. Harvard Business School Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dr. John J. DeGioia Mr. Jonas Prising Deere & Company President Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Industry Vice-chair Georgetown University ManpowerGroup Dr. Mehmood Khan Mr. George Fischer Mr. Robert L. Reynolds Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer Senior Vice President and Group President President and CEO of Global Research and Development Verizon Enterprise Solutions Putnam Investments PepsiCo, Inc. Mr. Mike Fucci Dr. Mark S. Schlissel University Vice-chair Chairman President Dr. Michael M. Crow Deloitte LLP University of Michigan President Dr. William H. Goldstein Mr. Lonnie Stephenson Arizona State University Director International President Labor Vice-chair Emeritus Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Mr. William P. Hite Mr. James S. Hagedorn Mr. Steve Stevanovich Former General President Chairman and CEO Chairman and Chief Executive Officer United Association The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company SGS Global Holdings Chairman Emeritus Dr. Sheryl Handler Mr. Lawrence Weber Mr. Charles O. Holliday, Jr. President and CEO Chairman Chairman Ab Initio W2 Group, Inc. Royal Dutch Shell plc The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Ms. Randi Weingarten President & CEO President President The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Council on Competitiveness Dr. Farnam Jahanian Dr. W. Randolph Woodson President Chancellor FOUNDER Carnegie Mellon University North Carolina State University Mr. John A. Young Dr. Pradeep K. Khosla Mr. Paul A. Yarossi Former Chief Executive Officer Chancellor President The Hewlett Packard Company University of California, San Diego . HNTB Holdings Ltd. Mr. Brian T. Moynihan Dr. Robert J. Zimmer EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chairman and Chief Executive Officer President Bank of America The University of Chicago Mr. Jim Balsillie Co-founder Gen. Richard B. Myers (Ret.) Institute for New Economic Thinking President GENERAL MEMBERS Kansas State University Mr. Thomas R. Baruch Dr. Jonathon R. Alger Managing Director The Honorable Janet Napolitano President Baruch Future Ventures President James Madison University The University of California System-Regents Dr. Gene D. Block Dr. Joseph E. Aoun Chancellor Dr. Harris Pastides President University of California, Los Angeles President Northeastern University University of South Carolina Mr. William H. Bohnett Dr. Aziz Asphahani President Mr. James M. Phillips Chief Executive Officer Whitecap Investments LLC Chairman and CEO QuesTek Innovations LLC NanoMech, Inc. Dr. James P. Clements Dr. Dennis Assanis President Mr. Nicholas T. Pinchuk President Clemson University Chairman and CEO University of Delaware Snap-on Incorporated Appendices 79

Dr. Eric Barron Rev. Peter M. Donohue Dr. Robert E. Johnson President President Chancellor Pennsylvania State University Villanova University University of Massachusetts Dartmouth The Honorable Sandy K. Baruah Dr. Michael V. Drake Dr. Eric Kaler President and Chief Executive Officer President President Detroit Regional Chamber The Ohio State University University of Minnesota Dr. Mark P. Becker Dr. Taylor Eighmy Dr. Timothy L. Killeen President President President Georgia State University The University of Texas at San Antonio University of Illinois System Dr. Richard Benson Dr. Carol L. Folt Dr. Steven Leath President President President University of Texas at Dallas The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Auburn University Ms. Stephanie W. Bergeron Mr. Robert Ford Dr. Laurie Leshin President Executive Vice President, Medical Devices President Walsh College Abbott Worcester Polytechnic Institute The Honorable Rebecca M. Blank Mr. Kenneth C. Frazier Dr. Michael Lovell Chancellor Chairman and Chief Executive Officer President University of Wisconsin—Madison Merck & Co., Inc. Marquette University Dr. Lee C. Bollinger Dr. Julio Frenk Dr. Gary S. May President President Chancellor Columbia University University of Miami University of California, Davis Dr. Robert A. Brown Dr. W. Kent Fuchs Mr. Sean McGarvey President President President Boston University University of Florida North America’s Building Trades Unions Mr. Al Bunshaft The Honorable Patrick D. Gallagher Brig. Gen. John Michel Senior Vice President, Global Affairs Chancellor Director, Executive Committee Dassault Systèmes Americas University of Pittsburgh Skyworks Global The Honorable Sylvia M. Burwell Dr. E. Gordon Gee Mr. Jere W. Morehead President President President American University West Virginia University University of Georgia Mr. John Chisholm Dr. Amy Gutmann Gen. Richard B. Myers Chief Executive Officer President President John Chisholm Ventures University of Pennsylvania Kansas State University Mr. Christopher Crane Ms. Marillyn A. Hewson Mr. Eloy Ortiz Oakley President and Chief Executive Officer Chairman President and CEO Chancellor Exelon Corporation Lockheed Martin California Community Colleges Mr. Bruce Culpepper Rev. John I. Jenkins Dr. Eduardo J. Padrón U.S. Country Chair & President President President Shell Oil Company University of Notre Dame Miami Dade College The Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Dr. Jim Johnsen Dr. Christina Hull Paxson President President President Purdue University University of Alaska System Brown University Mr. Ernest J. Dianastasis Dr. Paul Johnson Dr. Neville Pinto CEO President President The Precisionists, Inc. Colorado School of Mines University of Cincinnati Dr. Joseph A. DiPietro Mr. R. Milton Johnson Mr. Scott Pulsipher President Chairman and Chief Executive Officer President The University of Tennessee Hospital Corporation of America Western Governors University 80 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Mr. John Pyrovolakis Dr. Kumble R. Subbaswamy UNIVERSITY PARTNERS CEO Chancellor Oklahoma University Innovation Accelerator Foundation University of Massachusetts Amherst Texas A&M University Dr. L. Rafael Reif Dr. Satish K. Tripathi President President University of California, Irvine Massachusetts Institute of Technology State University of New York at Buffalo

Mr. Clayton Rose Dr. Ruth Watkins NATIONAL AFFILIATES President President Bowdoin College University of Utah Mr. C. Michael Cassidy President and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Rory Riggs Dr. Adam Weinberg Georgia Research Alliance Managing Member President Balfour, LLC Denison University Dr. Jonathan Fanton President Mr. John Rogers Dr. Kim A. Wilcox American Academy of Arts and Sciences President and CEO Chancellor Local Motors University of California, Riverside Mr. Jeffrey Finkle President Mr. Douglas Rothwell Mr. Keith E. Williams International Economic Development Council President and Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer Business Leaders for Michigan Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Mr. Matthew Loeb Chief Executive Officer Dr. David Rudd Dr. Mark S. Wrighton ISACA President Chancellor University of Memphis Washington University in St. Louis Dr. Anthony Margida Chief Executive Officer Vice Admiral John R. Ryan USN (Ret.) TechGrit AMX2 LLC President and Chief Executive Officer NATIONAL LABORATORY PARTNERS Center for Creative Leadership Mrs. Sandra Robinson Dr. Steven F. Ashby President Dr. Timothy D. Sands Director IEEE-USA President Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Ms. Andrea Purple Dr. Paul Kearns President Mr. John Sharp Director ARCS Foundation Inc. Chancellor Argonne National Laboratory The Texas A&M University System Dr. Martin Keller FELLOWS Mr. Frederick W. Smith Director Chairman and Chief Executive Officer National Renewable Energy Laboratory Mr. Bray Barnes, Senior Fellow FedEx Corporation Director, Global Security & Innovative Strategies, Dr. Mark Peters Washington, DC Dr. Charles Staben Director President Idaho National Laboratory Ms. Jennifer S. Bond, Senior Fellow University of Idaho Former Director, Science & Engineering Indicators Dr. Michael Witherell Program Dr. Joseph E. Steinmetz Director National Science Foundation Chancellor Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of Arkansas Dr. Thomas A. Campbell, Senior Fellow Dr. Thomas Zacharia Former National Intelligence Officer for Technology, Dr. Elisa Stephens Director Office of the Director of National Intelligence President Oak Ridge National Laboratory Academy of Art University Ms. Dona L. Crawford, Senior Fellow President, Livermore Lab Foundation; and Dr. Claire Sterk Former Associate Director, Computation, Lawrence President CORPORATE PARTNERS Livermore National Laboratory Emory University Baker Hughes The Honorable Bart J. Gordon, Distinguished Dr. Elizabeth Stroble Intel Corporation Fellow President Morgan Stanley Partner, K&L Gates LLP; and Webster University Former United States Representative (TN) Intrexon Corporation Appendices 81

Mr. Thomas Hicks, Distinguished Fellow The Honorable Julie Meier Wright, Senior Fellow STAFF Principal, The Mabus Group; and Former Former Chief Executive, San Diego Regional Mr. William Bates Undersecretary of the Navy, U.S. Department of Economic Development Corporation; and Former Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff Defense First Secretary of Trade & Commerce, State of California Mr. Chad Evans Dr. Paul J. Hommert, Distinguished Fellow Executive Vice President Former Director, Sandia National Laboratories; and Mr. Mark Minevich, Senior Fellow Former President, Sandia Corporation Principal Founder, Going Global Ventures Ms. Marcy Jones Special Assistant to the President & CEO and Dr. Lloyd A. Jacobs, Distinguished Fellow Ms. Michelle Moore, Senior Fellow Office Manager President Emeritus, The University of Toledo Chief Executive Officer, Groundswell; and Former Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Ms. Patricia Hennig Dr. Ray O. Johnson, Distinguished Fellow Management and Budget, Executive Office of the Vice President for Finance Executive in Residence, Bessemer Venture President of the United States Partners; and Former Senior Vice President and Mr. Chris Mustain Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Dr. Luis M. Proenza, Distinguished Fellow Vice President for Innovation Policy and Programs President Emeritus, The University of Akron The Honorable Martha Kanter, Distinguished Mr. Gourang Wakade Ms. Jody Ruth, Senior Fellow Fellow Vice President CEO, Redstones Executive Director, College Promise Campaign Mr. Michael Bernstein Ms. Jody Ruth, Senior Fellow The Honorable Alexander A. Karsner, Senior Policy Director for Innovation Policy Chief Executive Officer Distinguished Fellow and Programs Redstones LLC Managing Partner, Emerson Collective Ms. Katie Sarro Mr. Reuben Sarkar, Senior Fellow Mr. Dominik Knoll, Senior Fellow Senior Policy Director for Energy and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Former Chief Executive Officer Manufacturing Initiatives Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy World Trade Center of New Orleans Ms. Ta Tanisha Scott-Baker Mr. Allen Shapard, Senior Fellow The Honorable Steven E. Koonin, Distinguished Director for Information Technology and Services Senior Director, Chair of Public Engagement Fellow Strategies Mr. Joshua Oswalt Director, Center for Urban Science and Progress, APCO Worldwide Policy Analyst and Professor, Information, Operations & Management Sciences, Leonard N. Stern School of Dr. Branko Terzic, Distinguished Fellow Mr. Ross Jablon Business, New York University; and Former Second Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group, LLC Program Assistant Under Secretary of Energy for Science, U.S. Dr. Anthony J. Tether, Distinguished Fellow Mr. Alex Temple Department of Energy Former Director, Defense Advanced Research Program Assistant Mr. R. Brad Lane, Distinguished Fellow Projects Agency, U.S. Department of Defense Mr. DeWayne Johnson Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer Ms. Maria-Elena Tierno, Senior Fellow Finance Manager RIDGE-LANE Limited Former Vice President, International Business The Honorable Alan P. Larson, Distinguished Development, CH2M Fellow Dr. Thomas M. Uhlman, Distinguished Fellow Senior International Policy Advisor, Covington & Founder and Managing Partner, New Venture Burling LLP; and Former Under Secretary of State Partners LLC for Economics, U.S. Department of State Dr. William Wescott, Senior Fellow Mr. Alex R. Larzelere, Senior Fellow Managing Partner, BrainOxygen, LLC. President, Larzelere & Associates LLC; and Former Director, Modeling and Simulation Energy Dr. Mohammad A. Zaidi, Distinguished Fellow Innovation Hub, Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Member, Strategic Advisory Board, Braemer Energy Department of Energy Ventures; and Former Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Alcoa, Inc. Mr. Abbott Lipsky, Senior Fellow Former Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP Mr. Edward J. McElroy, Distinguished Fellow Former Chief Executive Officer, Ullico, Inc. 82 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX F EMCP Steering and Advisory Committees

EMCP STEERING COMMITTEE Howard Gillman Mr. Ajita Rajendra Mr. Samuel Allen Chancellor Chairman and CEO Chairman and CEO University of California, Irvine A. O. Smith Corporation Deere & Company Dr. William H. Goldstein Dr. Horst Simon Dr. Steven Ashby Director Deputy Director Director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mr. Jim Hagedorn The Honorable Subra Suresh Dr. Aziz Asphahani Chairman & CEO Former President Chief Executive Officer The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Carnegie Mellon University QuesTek Innovations Dr. Mark Hussey Dr. Kim Wilcox Dr. Eric Barron Vice Chancellor Chancellor President Texas A&M University University of California, Riverside Pennsylvania State University Dr. Gregory Hyslop Mr. Keith Williams Dr. Richard Benson Chief Technology Officer President & CEO President The Boeing Company, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Senior Vice President University of Texas at Dallas Dr. W. Randolph Woodson Boeing Engineering, Test & Technology The Honorable Rebecca Blank Chancellor Chancellor Dr. Farnam Jahanian North Carolina State University President University of Wisconsin—Madison Dr. Thomas Zacharia Carnegie Mellon University Dr. Gene Block Director Chancellor Dr. Robert E. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory University of California, Los Angeles Chancellor University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Mr. William Bohnett EMCP ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. Paul Kearns President Dr. Diran Apelian Whitecap Investments LLC Director Argonne National Laboratory Alcoa-Howmet Professor of Engineering, Metal Dr. James Clements Processing Institute President Dr. Martin Keller Worcester Polytechnic Institute Clemson University Director National Renewable Energy Laboratory Dr. Glenn Baker Mr. Christopher Crane Director of Engineering, Technology & Quality President & CEO Dr. Laurie Leshin Services Exelon Corporation President Deere & Company Worcester Polytechnic Institute Mr. Jeff Fettig Dr. John Ballato Chairman Dr. Michael Lovell Vice President Economic Development Whirlpool Cororpation President Clemson University Marquette University Mr. George Fischer Dr. M. Katherine Banks Senior Vice President and Group President Mr. Blake Moret Vice Chancellor for Engineering Verizon Enterprise Solutions President and Chief Executive Officer Texas A&M University System Rockwell Automation Dr. Carol Folt Ms. Margaret Brooks Chancellor Dr. Harris Pastides Office of Customer Success University of North Carolina Chapel Hill President Verizon Enterprise Solutions University of South Carolina Mr. Robert Ford The Honorable Nora Brownell Executive Vice President Medical Devices Dr. Mark Peters Founding Partner Abbott Laboratories Director ESPY Energy Solutions, LLC Idaho National Laboratory Mr. Craig Giffi Dr. Todd Combs Vice Chairman Leader U.S. Consumer Mr. James Phillips Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and & Industrial Products Chairman & CEO Environment Science & Technology Deloitte LP NanoMech, Inc. Idaho National Laboratory Appendices 83

Ms. Dona Crawford Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Associate Director for Computation Emeritus Associate Vice President for Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Innovation Marquette University Dr. James Davis Vice Provost, Information Technology Dr. Mark Slavens University of California, Los Angeles Vice President of Environmental Affairs The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Mr. Chris Gould Senior Vice President—Corporate Strategy Mr. Dave Swihart & Chief Sustainability Officer Senior Vice President Global Technology Exelon Corporation & Operations The Scotts Miracle Gro Company Mr. Scott Godwin General Manager, National Security Directorate Mr. David Szczupak Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Executive Vice President Global Product Organization Dr. Klaus Hoehn Whirlpool Corporation Vice President, Advanced Technology & Engineering Dr. Satish Udpa Deere & Company Executive Vice President for Administrative Services Dr. Gene Huang Michigan State University Vice President & Chief Economist Abbott Laboratories Dr. Bodgan Vernescu Professor of Mathematical Sciences & Vice Provost Dr. Glen Lewis for Research Principal Worcester Polytechnic Institute Glen Lewis Group, LLC; and Operations, Energy & Supply Chain Management Dr. Mohammad A. Zaidi Advisor Senior Advisor University of California, Davis Braemar Energy Ventures Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan Executive Vice President, Office of Knowledge Enterprise, and Chief Research and Innovation Officer Arizona State University Mr. Robert Pleasure Senior Advisor to the President North America’s Building Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO Mr. James Porter Founder & President Sustainable Operations Solutions, LLC Dr. Ramamoorthy Ramesh Associate Laboratory Director for Energy Technologies Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Dr. Douglas Rotman Program Director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 84 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

APPENDIX G Dialogue Participants

Mr. Matthew Howard Dr. Adel Nasiri Water & Manufacturing Director, Alliance for Water Stewardship-North Associate Dean for Research, College of February 6, 2016 America Engineering and Applied Sciences Milwaukee, WI The Water Council University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Mr. Bill Hubiak Mr. Alan Perlstein Dr. Dean Amhaus Director Executive Director and CEO President & CEO Engineering & Research, Rexnord Midwestern Energy Research Consortium The Water Council Dr. Jim Hurley Ms. Catherine Potter Mr. Dave Averbeck Director Former Director, Global Environmental Affairs Chief Engineer—Water Treatment University of Wisconsin Aquatic Sciences Center Johnson Controls, Inc. A. O. Smith Corporation Dr. Martin Keller Mr. Ajita Rajendra Mr. William Bates Director Chairman & CEO Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) A. O. Smith Corporation Council on Competitiveness Dr. James Klausner Mr. Wellington “Duke” Reiter Dr. Wolfgang Bauer Chair, Department of Mechanical Engineering Senior Advisor to the President University Distinguished Professor, Department of Michigan State University Arizona State University Physics & Astronomy Mr. Steve Koshere Dr. Kris Ropella Michigan State University EHS&E Manager Opus Dean, Opus College of Engineering Dr. Satish Bukkapatnam CNH Industrial Racine Plant Marquette University Director, TEES Institute for Manufacturing Systems Dr. Minh Le Dr. Joan Rose Texas A&M University Senior Advisor Homer Nowlin Chair in Water Research Dr. Elizabeth Cantwell Office of Management and Budget Michigan State University Executive Office of the President Vice President, Research Development, Office of Dr. Douglas Rotman Knowledge Enterprise Development Dr. Michael Lovell Program Director Arizona State University President Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Marquette University Dr. Sujeet Chand Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Ms. Jessica Lovingood Associate Vice President for Research Rockwell Automation Former Policy Analyst and Innovation Dr. Junhong Chen Council on Competitiveness Marquette University Director, NSF I/UCRC on Water Equipment Mr. Mike Luettgen Ms. Katie Sarro and Policy (WEP) Senior Principal Engineer—Applied Technology Senior Policy Director, Energy & Manufacturing University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Kohler Co. Initiatives Council on Competitiveness Dr. Jill Engel-Cox Mr. Jordan Macknick Director, Clean Energy Manufacturing Analysis Energy and Environmental Analyst Dr. Joseph Schimmels Center National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Associate Dean for Research, College of National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Engineering Mr. Matt Magruder Marquette University Dr. David Garman Environmental Research Manager Associate Vice Chancellor for Water Technology MMSD Mr. Kevin Shafer and Research & Development Executive Director Ms. Deb McKeithan-Gebhardt University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District President Dr. Bob Heideman Tamarack Petroleum Company, Inc. Dr. Seth Snyder Senior Vice President & Chief Technology Officer Water-Energy-Sustainability Mr. Rich Meeusen A. O. Smith Corporation Argonne National Laboratory President Mr. Carey Hidaka Badger Meter Mr. Jeff Stone Smart Water Management Administrator—Division of Water, Mr. Joe Muehlbach IBM Telecommunications & Consumer Affairs Vice President—Integration & Program Public Service Commissions of Wisconsin Dr. Jeanne Hossenlopp Management Office Vice President, Research & Innovation Quad/Graphics Marquette University Appendices 85

Mr. David Strifling Mr. William Bates Ms. Jessica Lovingood Director, Water Law and Policy Initiative Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff Former Policy Analyst Marquette University Council on Competitiveness Council on Competitiveness Mr. Matt Stuyvenberg Dr. Carelyn Campbell Dr. Sydney Luk Engineering Manager Metallurgist—Materials Science and Engineering Vice President—Technology, North America Badger Meter Division Höganäs Corp National Institute of Standards and Technology Ms. Elizabeth Thelen Dr. Brajendra Mishra Director of Entrepreneurship & Talent Dr. Elizabeth Cantwell Associate Director, Metal Processing Institute The Water Council Vice President, Research Development, Office Worcester Polytechnic Institute of Knowledge Enterprise Development Mr. Deon Van As Dr. Rustom K. Mody Arizona State University Vice President, Technical and Packaging Services Vice President & Chief Engineer MillerCoors LLC Dr. Danielle Cote Baker Hughes Assistant Research Professor Ms. Audrey Van Dyke Dr. Dane Morgan Worcester Polytechnic Institute Corporate Manager Environment & Energy Materials Science & Engineering CNH Industrial America, LLC Dr. Robert Duncan University of Wisconsin—Madison Senior Vice President, Research Dr. Sammis White Dr. Greg Morin Texas Tech University Professor, Associate Director School of Continuing Director, Strategy & Innovation Education Dr. Glenn Fox Argonne National Laboratory University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Associate Director, Physical and Life Sciences Mr. William Morin Directorate Mr. Robert Zimmerman Senior Director, Government Affairs Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Senior Manager—Sustainability Applied Materials, Inc. Kohler Co. Dr. David Furrer Dr. Bill Mullins Senior Fellow Discipline Lead Dr. Dan Zitomer Program Manager Pratt & Whitney Director, Water Quality Center Naval Research Marquette University Dr. William H. Goldstein Mr. Madhavan Narayanan Director Engineering Manager—Materials & Manufacturing Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Simulation Advanced Materials Dr. Mark Johnson Caterpillar Former Director, Advanced Manufacturing Office Dr. Gregory Olson April 12, 2016 U.S. Department of Energy Walter P. Murphy Professor of Materials Science Washington, DC Dr. Will Joost & Engineering Technology Development Manager Northwestern University Dr. Pamir Alpay U.S. Department of Energy Department head, Materials Science & Engineering Dr. Tresa Pollock University of Connecticut Dr. Surya Kalidindi Alcoa Professor—Materials Professor—Mechanical Engineering University of California—Santa Barbara Mr. Kevin Anderson Georgia Institute of Technology Mercury Senior Fellow—Product Development & Mr. Douglas Ramsey Engineering Mr. Adam Khan Business Development & Senior Program Manager Mercury Marine Founder & CEO —Engineered Products and Solutions AKHAN Semiconductor, Inc. Alcoa Technology Dr. Diran Apelian Alcoa-Howmet Professor of Engineering Dr. Diana Lados Dr. James Roberto Worcester Polytechnic Institute Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Associate Laboratory Director—Science & Worcester Polytechnic Institute Technology Partnerships Dr. Aziz Asphahani Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chief Executive Officer Dr. Laurie Leshin QuesTek Innovations LLC President Dr. Andreas Roefols Worcester Polytechnic Institute Director—Nano Design Work Mr. Tim Avampato Argonne National Laboratory Technology Program Business Development Dr. Zi-Kui Liu Manager Professor—Materials Science & Engineering Eaton Penn State University 86 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Ms. Katie Sarro Dr. Parag Chitnis Dr. Daniel Peterson Senior Policy Director, Energy & Manufacturing Deputy Director—National Institute of Food and Director—Institute for Genomics Initiatives Agriculture (NIFA) Biocomputing & Biotechnology, Mississippi State Council on Competitiveness USDA University Mr. Carl Shurboff Dr. Katy Christiansen Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy Chief Operations Officer Biosciences Strategic Program Coordinator Director—National Institute of Food and Agriculture AKHAN Semiconductor, Inc. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (NIFA) USDA Mr. George Skoptsov Mr. Chad Evans Chief Executive Officer Executive Vice President Dr. Thomas Reed H. Quest Vanguard, Incl. Council on Competitiveness Founder and Chief Science Officer Intrexon Corporation Dr. Dan Thoma Dr. Steve Evans Director—Grainger Institute for Engineering Scientist Dr. Kelley Rogers University of Wisconsin—Madison Dow AgroSciences Biosciences Program Advisor, Materials Measurement Laboratory Dr. Bogdan Vernescu Dr. Doug Friedman National Institutes of Standards and Technology Vice Provost—Research (ad interim) Executive Director (NIST) Worcester Polytechnic Institute Engineering Biology Research Consortium Mr. Adam Rosenberg Mr. Doug Ward Dr. Paul Gilna Democratic Staff Director—Energy Subcommittee Business Development/ Government Affairs Director of BioEnergy Science Center and Deputy U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Vigor Alaska Director of Biosciences Division Technology Oak Ridge National Laboratory The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Dr. Paul Runci President & CEO Dr. Theresa Good Senior Policy Advisor Council on Competitiveness Deputy Division Director—Molecular and Cellular Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Bioscience Dr. David Zaziski National Science Foundation Ms. Katie Sarro Director of Government Affairs and Business Senior Policy Director—Energy & Manufacturing Development Dr. Jay Keasling Council on Competitiveness Siluria Technologies Associate Laboratory Director Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Ms. Christie Schomer Dr. Kevin Zeik Director—Congressional Affairs General Manager—Research Dr. Alex Larzelere Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory U.S. Steel Corporation Senior Fellow Council on Competitiveness Dr. Brent Shanks Director—Center for Biorenewable Chemicals Dr. Sau (Larry) Lee Iowa State University Advancing U.S. Bioscience Acting Associate Director for Research Policy and Implementation—Office of Pharmaceutical Science Ms. Jaime Shimek July 27, 2016 Food & Drug Administration Director of Federal Affairs Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington, DC Ms. Jessica Lovingood Former Policy Analyst Dr. Blake Simmons Dr. Robbie Barbero Council on Competitiveness Division Director, Biological Systems and Assistant Director—Biological Innovation Engineering Dr. Mary Maxon Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Biosciences Area Principal Deputy Mr. William Bates Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Dr. Anup Singh Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff Director—Biological & Engineering Sciences Mr. Scott McKee Council on Competitiveness Sandia National Laboratories Democratic Professional Staff Mr. Michael Bernstein U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Dr. Rina Singh Senior Policy Director Resources Senior Policy Director Council on Competitiveness Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Dr. Don Medley Dr. Patrick Boyle Head of Government and Community Relations Dr. Dahlia Sokolov Organism Designer Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Democratic Staff Director—Subcommittee on Ginkgo BioWorks, Inc. Research and Science Education U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Appendices 87

Dr. Stephanie Teich-McGoldrick Dr. Michael Dukes Mr. Jim Porter Congressional Fellow Director for the Center for Landscape Conservation Founder & President U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural and Ecology Sustainable Operations Solutions Resources University of Florida Ms. Barb Renner Dr. Ken Turteltaub Dr. Steve Evett Vice Chairman—Consumer Products Industry Division Leader—Biosciences and Biotechnology Research Soil Scientist Deloitte Division USDA-ARS Dr. Joan Rose Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. David Fujino Homer Nowlin Endowed Chair of Water Research Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax Director of the California Center for Urban Michigan State University Associate Director of Science—Biological and Horticulture Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Environmental Research (BER) University of California, Davis Associate VP for Research and Innovation Department of Energy Office of Science Dr. Thomas Gerik Marquette University Mr. Hugh Welsh AgriLife Center Director Ms. Katie Sarro President & General Counsel Texas A&M AgriLife Research Senior Policy Director DSM North America Mr. Hugh Grant Council on Competitiveness The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Chairman & CEO Dr. Mark Slavens President & CEO Monsanto Company Vice President—Environmental Affairs Council on Competitiveness Ms. Sally Gutierrez The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Dr. Malin Young Director—Environmental Technology Innovation Mr. Charlie Stamp Deputy Director—Science and Technology Cluster Development and Support Program Vice President—Corporate Strategy & Business Pacific Northwest National Laboratory EPA Office of Research and Development Development Dr. Laurie Zoloth Mr. Jim Hagedorn Deere & Company Professor of Medical Humanities and BioEthics Chairman & CEO Mr. Dave Swihart Northwestern University The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Senior Vice President—Global R&D Mr. Jim King The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Chief Communications Officer Mr. Andy Swerlein The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Agricultural and Consumer CEO, Luckey Farmers, Inc., and Dr. Edwin Lewis Chairman, Ohio Agribusiness Association Water Use Associate Dean Dr. John Tracy January 11, 2017 University of California, Davis Director—Texas Water Resources Institute Marysville, OH Dr. Brian Lutz Texas A&M AgriLife Senior Scientist—Biogeochemistry The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith The Climate Corporation Mr. William Bates President & CEO Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff Mr. Dion McBay Council on Competitiveness Council on Competitiveness Global Sustainable Development Lead Mr. Robert Brundrett Monsanto Company Director, Public Policy Services Dr. Peter Nico Energy Ohio Manufacturers Association Soil and Environmental Biogeochemist Mr. Eric Burkland Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory May 31, 2017 President Mr. Josh Peoples Chicago, IL Ohio Manufacturers Association General Manager—Lawns Business Dr. Parag Chitnis The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company Dr. Monty Alger Deputy Director, National Institute of Food and Director—Institute of Natural Gas Research Mr. Jeremy Peters Penn State University Agriculture Chief Executive Officer USDA-NIFA National Association of Conservation Districts Dr. Aziz Asphahani Ms. Michelle Drew Rodriguez Chief Executive Officer Dr. Giovanni Piccinni QuesTek Innovations Former Manufacturing Leader—Center for Industry Global Production Sustainability Lead Insights Monsanto Company Deloitte Services LP 88 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Dr. Eric Barron Ms. Katrina McMurrian Mr. William Bates President Executive Director Executive Vice President and Chief of Staff Penn State University Critical Consumer Issues Forum (CCIF) Council on Competitiveness Mr. William Bates Dr. Thomas Meyer Dr. Jeff Binder Executive Vice President & Chief of Staff Arey Distinguished Professor of Chemistry Associate Laboratory Director, Energy Council on Competitiveness University of North Carolina & Global Security Argonne National Laboratory Dr. Wolfgang Bauer Mr. Reid Miller Department of Physics and Astronomy U.S. Power & Utilities Sector Leader Mr. Greg Bowles Michigan State University Deloitte Vice President, Global Innovation Policy General Aviation Manufacturers Association Ms. Mary Blanchard Mr. Michael Pacilio Associate Director Executive Vice President Dr. Caralynn Collens Wisconsin Energy Institute Exelon Corporation Chief Executive Officer UI Labs Dr. Steve Bohlen Mr. James Porter Global Security E-Program Manager Founder & President Mr. Mike Daugherty Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Sustainable Operations Solutions International Representative International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Mr. William Bohnett Mr. Bruce Quinn President Vice President—Government Affairs Dr. Pam Drew Whitecap Investments Rockwell Automation, Inc. Senior Aerospace & Defense Executive Exelis (Ret.) Mr. Donnie Colston Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Director—Utility Department Associate VP for Research and Innovation Dr. Ayman El-Refaie International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Marquette University Thomas and Suzanne M. Werner Endowed Chair in Secure and Sustainable Energy Dr. Ron Coutu Ms. Katie Sarro Marquette University V. Clayton Lafferty Endowed Chair Senior Policy Director Marquette University Council on Competitiveness Mr. Chad Evans Executive Vice President Mr. Christopher Crane Dr. Neil Sharkey Council on Competitiveness President & CEO Vice President, Research Exelon Corporation Penn State University Ms. Jennifer Fletcher Deputy Secretary Mr. Matthew Crozat Mr. Lonnie Stephenson South Carolina Chamber of Commerce Senior Director of Policy Development International President Nuclear Energy Institute International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Dr. Hossein Haj-Hariri Dean, College of Engineering Ms. Michelle Drew Rodriguez Mr. Steve Stevanovich University of South Carolina Former Manufacturing Leader—Center for Industry Chief Executive Officer Insights SGS Global Holdings Dr. Greg Hyslop Deloitte Services LP Chief Technology Officer The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith The Boeing Company Mr. Chris Gould President & CEO Senior Vice President—Corporate Strategy, Chief Council on Competitiveness Dr. Keoki Jackson Sustainability Officer Chief Technology Officer Exelon Corporation Lockheed Martin Mr. Steven Hauser Aerospace Mr. Tom Kilkenny Chief Executive Officer Global General Manager, Aerospace and Defense GridWise Alliance November 4, 2017 IBM Dr. Paul Kearns Chicago, IL Mr. Bill Kirkland Interim Director Executive Director, Office of Economic Argonne National Laboratory Mr. Chris Appleton Engagement Chief Financial Officer & Chief Operations Officer University of South Carolina Mr. Cyril Martinand Embraer Aircraft Holding Inc. Division Manager—Procurement, Energy & Iron Ore Dr. Henry Medeiros ArcelorMittal USA LLC Dr. Aziz Asphahani Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering President & Chief Executive Officer Marquette University QuesTek Appendices 89

Brig. Gen. (Ret) John Michel Mr. William Bates Mr. Randy Hansen Executive Director Executive Vice President Director—Homeland Security Programs Skyworks Global Inc. and Chief of Staff Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Council on Competitiveness Mr. Jeff Oetterer Ms. Trina Huelsman Project Manager Mr. John Battista Vice Chairman The Boeing Company Assistant Regional Underwriting Manager Deloitte LP AIG Dr. Harris Pastides Dr. Farnam Jahanian President Mr. Michael Bernstein President University of South Carolina Senior Policy Director Carnegie Mellon University Council on Competitiveness Dr. Mike Pivovaroff Mr. Martin Kessler Program Leader, Space, Science & Security Mr. Randy Bishop Director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory General Manager—Energy Infrastructure Information Security Officer, Verizon Guardtime Mr. Tommy Preston Jr. Esq. Ms. Maria Koller Director, National Strategy & Engagement Mr. Andrew Bochman Director, Risk Management The Boeing Company Senior Grid Strategist Verizon Idaho National Laboratory—Boston Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Mr. Mike Kosonog Associate Vice President, Research & Innovation Ms. Margaret Brooks Partner—Audit and Enterprise Risk Services Marquette University Senior Manager, Risk Management Practice Verizon Deloitte Ms. Katie Sarro Senior Policy Director Ms. Diane Brown Dr. Peng Liu Council on Competitiveness Vice President of Global Operations Director, Center for Cybersecurity, Information Verizon Enterprise Solutions Privacy and Trust Dr. Jason Sebastian Pennsylvania State University President Mr. James Carrigan QuesTek Managing Director—Security Solutions Mr. John Loveland Verizon Director—Product Marketing Dr. Dan Thoma Verizon Director, Grainger Institute for Engineering Dr. Jim Curtis University of Wisconsin, Madison Assistant Professor, Department Ms. Annette Lowther of Math and Computer Science Director—HR Dr. Dave Williams Webster University Verizon Dean, College of Engineering The Ohio State University Mr. Anthony Dagostino Ms. Mary Ludford Global Head of Cyber Risk Vice President, Deputy Chief Mr. Jeff Witters Willis Towers Watson Security Officer Aerospace & Defense Marketing Manager Exelon Corporation Arconic Ms. Martha Delehanty Senior Vice President, HR Operations Mr. Michael Maiorana The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Verizon Senior Vice President, Sales President & CEO Public Sector Council on Competitiveness Mr. Seth Edgar Verizon CISO Michigan State University Mr. Michael Mason Senior Vice President, Chief Mr. George Fischer Cybersecurity for Industry Security Officer Senior Vice President and Group President Verizon February 7, 2018 Verizon Enterprise Solutions Ms. Chandra McMahon Basking Ridge, NJ Mr. Robert Ford Senior Vice President, Chief Information Security Executive Vice President—Medical Devices Officer Mr. Michael Baker Abbott Medical Director, Information Security Verizon Mr. Scott Godwin and IT Risk, CISO Mr. Timothy McNulty General Manager, National Security Directorate General Dynamics Information Technology Associate Vice President—Government Relations Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Dr. Ram Balasubramanian Carnegie Mellon University Dean of Engineering University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth 90 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Mr. Mark Minevich Mr. James Taneyhill Mr. James Carrigan Senior Fellow Managing Principle Managing Director—Security Solutions Council on Competitiveness Verizon Verizon Mr. Chris Novak Dr. Thomas Uhlman Mr. Samuel Clements Director—VRTAC/Investigative Response Managing Partner Cyber Security Researcher Verizon New Venture Partners Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mr. Chris Oatway Ms. Vandana Venkatesh Mr. Jerry Cochran Associate General Counsel Senior Vice President, General Counsel Chief Information Security Officer Verizon Verizon Enterprise Solutions Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Verizon Ms. Amber O’Rourke Mr. Paul Cunningham Former Policy Analyst Ms. Eliza White Chief Information Security Officer Council on Competitiveness Former Vice President Department of Energy Council on Competitiveness Ms. Sara Orr Dr. Jim Davis Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Vice Provost, Information Security Verizon President & CEO University of California, Los Angeles Council on Competitiveness Mr. Mark Petri Mr. Paul Dodd Electric Power Grid Director Senior Technical Fellow Argonne National Laboratory The Boeing Company Ms. Margaret Powell Cybersecurity: An Issue Mr. Seth Edgar Senior Manager—Real Time Systems Security Chief Information Security Officer Engineering and Operations of National Security Michigan State University Exelon Corporation April 25, 2018 Dr. Barbara Endicott-Popovsky Dr. John Pyrovolakis Seattle, WA Executive Director Founder and CEO Center for Information Assurance Innovation Accelerator Foundation Dr. Heidi Ammerlahn and Cybersecurity Mr. Scott Rauschenberg Director, Homeland Security & Defense Systems Mr. Mark Estberg Executive Director—Financial Planning and Analysis Sandia National Laboratories Senior Director Verizon Dr. Steven Ashby Microsoft Mr. Daniel Roat Director Mr. Chad Evans Senior Client Executive Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Executive Vice President Verizon Mr. Jeffery Baumgartner Council on Competitiveness Dr. Carmel Ruffolo Senior Advisor, Infrastructure Security and Energy Mr. Daniel Freedman Associate Vice President, Research Restoration Fellow—Cyber Security & Innovation Department of Energy Lockheed Martin Marquette University Ms. Marie Benz Mr. Michael Furze Ms. Katie Sarro Client Partner Assistant Director Senior Policy Director Verizon Washington State Department Council on Competitiveness Mr. Randy Bishop of Commerce Mr. Alex Schlager General Manager—Energy Infrastructure Mr. Scott Godwin Executive Director—Security Guardtime Strategic Partnerships and Delegate Initiatives Product Management Mr. Craig Bowman Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Verizon Vice President and Managing Director Mr. Victor Gonzalez Mr. Per Solli Verizon Chief Information Security Officer CEO Dr. Lloyd Wayne Brasure South Texas College PowerOn Director, Defense Programs Mr. Robert Hanson Mr. Philip Susmann Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Director, Prioritization and Modeling President Ms. Margaret Brooks Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis, Norwich University Applied Senior Manager, Risk Management Department of Homeland Security Research Institutes Verizon Appendices 91

Mr. Carl Imhoff Rep. Gael Tarleton Mr. Randy Bishop Manager, Electricity Infrastructure Sector Representative General Manager—Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington State Legislature Guardtime Dr. Susan Jeffords Mr. Zachary Tudor Ms. Margaret Brooks Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Associate Laboratory Director, National & Senior Manager—Risk Management University of Washington-Bothell Homeland Security Verizon Enterprise Solutions Idaho National Laboratory Ms. Kristen Lantz The Honorable Dan Brouillette CTO Operations Lead Mr. David Walter Deputy Secretary Lockheed Chief Operating Officer U.S. Department of Energy Leisnoi, Inc. Ms. Aimee Larsen-Kirkpatrick Mr. Dean Carpenter Global Communications Officer Col. Gent Welsh Enterprise Account Manager Global Cyber Alliance Commander, 194th Wing ISACA Washington National Guard Mr. Steve LeFrancois Mrs. Andrea Cohen Director, Solutions Architecture Dr. William Wescott Vice President, Federal Civilian Verizon CEO Verizon Enterprise Solutions Brainoxygen LLC Dr. Sukarno Mertoguno Ms. Sonya Cork Program Officer Ms. Jamie Winterton Vice President Office of Naval Research Director of Strategy, Global Security Initiative Verizon Enterprise Solutions Arizona State University Mr. Matthew Myrick Dr. James Curtis Deputy Chief Information Ms. Morgan Zantua Professor of Cybersecurity Security Officer Director, Professional Workforce Development Webster University Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Information Assurance Ms. Megan Doscher and Cybersecurity Mr. Alex Nicoll Senior Policy Advisor Industrial Security Architect U.S. Department of Commerce—NTIA Rockwell Automation Mr. Chad Evans Dr. James Peery Cybersecurity: Engaging Executive Vice President Global Security Directorate Associate Laboratory Council on Competitiveness Director (ALD) Government & Dr. Nathaniel Evans Oak Ridge National Laboratory Policymakers Strategic Cyber Analysis and Research Lead Dr. William Pike June 19, 2018 Argonne National Laboratory Director, Computing and Analytics Division Mr. George Fischer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Washington, DC Senior Vice President and Group President Mr. Daniel Roat Dr. Rosio Alvarez Verizon Enterprise Solutions Senior Client Executive Chief Information Officer Mr. David Gillers Verizon Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Senior Counsel Ms. Katie Sarro Dr. Steven Ashby U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Senior Policy Director Director Resources Council on Competitiveness Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mr. Doug Grindstaff Ms. Heather Scott Mr. Michael Baker Global New Business and Market Development Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis Chief Information Security Officer CMMI Institute U.S. Department of Homeland Security GDIT Ms. Karen Grunstra Ms. Bobbie Stempfley Mr. Bill Bates Global Government Affairs Director, SEI CERT Division Executive Vice President UL LLC Carnegie Mellon University Council on Competitiveness Ms. Sabra Horne Mr. Clay Storey Mr. Michael Bernstein Director, Stakeholder Engagement for Cyber Senior Security Manager Senior Policy Director Infrastructure Resilience Avista Corporation Council on Competitiveness U.S. Department of Homeland Security 92 Council on Competitiveness Accelerate.

Mr. Robert Ivanauskas Dr. Richard Raines Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Director—Electrical and Electronics Systems Detailee Research U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Oak Ridge National Laboratory Resources Mr. Scott Regalado Dr. Farnam Jahanian Director—Information Security President The Boeing Company Carnegie Mellon University Ms. Evelyn Remaley Dr. Mark Johnson Deputy Associate Administrator—Office of Policy Thomas L. Hash Endowed Chair for Sustainable Analysis and Development Development & Director, Center for Advanced U.S. Department of Commerce—NTIA Manufacturing Dr. Chuck Romine Clemson University Director—Information Technology Laboratory Mr. Martin Kessler National Institute of Standards & Technology Information Security Officer Ms. Katie Sarro Verizon Enterprise Solutions Senior Policy Director Ms. Diana Liu Council on Competitiveness Statistician Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding Gallup, Inc. Senior Assistant to VCSAF Mr. Mike Maiorana U.S. Air Force Senior Vice President—Public Sector Ms. Bobbie Stempfley Verizon Enterprise Solutions Director, SEI CERT Division Ms. Anne McKenna Carnegie Mellon University Distinguished Scholar—Cyber Law & Policy Mr. James Taneyhill Penn State University Managing Principal Mr. Mark Minevich Verizon Enterprise Solutions Senior Fellow Mr. Zach Tudor Council on Competitiveness Associate Laboratory Director Mr. Tim McNulty Idaho National Laboratory Associate Vice President, Government Relations Mr. Ellison Urban Carnegie Mellon University Special Assistant to the Director Colonel Ed Monarez Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Strategic Advisor, Computing and Analytics Division (DARPA) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mr. Roland Varriale Mr. Kevin Nally Cybersecurity Analyst Chief Information Officer Argonne National Laboratory U.S. Secret Service Ms. Bridgette Walsh Mr. Matthew Noyes Chief of Staff, Office of Cybersecurity and Cyber Policy and Strategy Director Communications U.S. Secret Service U.S. Department of Homeland Security Dr. Chris Oehmen The Honorable Deborah L. Wince-Smith Chief Scientist for Cyber President & CEO Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Council on Competitiveness Dr. John Pyrovolakis Founder & CEO Innovation Accelerator Foundation

Council on Competitiveness Energy & Manufacturing Competitiveness Partnership 900 17th Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20006, T 202 682 4292 Compete.org

@CompeteNow facebook.com/USCouncilonCompetitiveness linkedin.com/company/council-on-competitiveness/ Accelerate. Turbocharging the Manufacturing Renaissance in an Era of Energy Abundance