Through a major investment from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Georgia Tech is helping accelerate the development of domestic critical minerals from unconventional and secondary resources. The $7.5 million award positions the Institute to advance supply chain solutions that span resource discovery, processing, recycling, and circular materials management.
Selected by DOE’s Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Georgia Tech will lead the Critical Minerals in the Atlantic Seaboard Plain (CM-MAP) project. The regional effort builds on DOE’s Carbon Ore, Rare Earth, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) initiative and will examine potential resources across the Atlantic coastal plain.
The CM-MAP project will focus on sedimentary deposits, including kaolin, bauxite, heavy mineral sands, and phosphates, as well as legacy mining residues, coal combustion byproducts, and other unconventional and secondary resources that could support future recycling and circular economy opportunities.
Drawing on existing infrastructure, regional assets, industry bases, and scientific expertise, CM-MAP will establish a regional innovation ecosystem that supports domestic critical mineral production, recycling, and advanced manufacturing, while fostering new economic opportunities throughout the Southeast.
“This is a powerful example of how Georgia Tech brings together leading research capabilities and partnerships from industry, government, nonprofits, and national labs to address complex national challenges,” said Tim Lieuwen, executive vice president for Research. “By identifying and domestically sourcing critical minerals, we are helping secure essential supply chains, while enabling the next generation of energy and materials technologies.”
The DOE award builds on a growing network of research, industry, regional, and international partnerships led by Georgia Tech to translate scientific discovery into real-world supply chain solutions, including:
As part of CM-MAP, researchers will analyze materials collected from natural deposits and industrial sites throughout the Southeast to identify their critical mineral content. The resulting large datasets will be combined with artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches to better understand and predict where resources exist, optimize extraction pathways, and inform future recovery and recycling strategies.
“This project brings together a highly collaborative team from Georgia Tech, national labs, industry partners, and research institutions across the region,” said Yuanzhi Tang, the principal investigator and Georgia Power Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, with a courtesy appointment in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Tang is also the founding director of the Center for Critical Mineral Solutions and executive director of the Strategic Energy Institute.
“Through this award, we are working to build secure and resilient critical materials supply chains, from resource discovery and characterization to processing, recovery, recycling, and advanced manufacturing, while also developing the skilled workforce needed to support these emerging industries,” Tang said. “Our vision is to create a regional innovation ecosystem that embraces both unconventional resources and circular economy approaches to maximize the value of materials already in use.”
Learn more about critical materials research and workforce development efforts at Georgia Tech by visiting the Center for Critical Mineral Solutions webpage.
]]>And, for some, the rent rises.
Long after a natural disaster fades from the headlines, economic aftershocks can still push people out of their communities, not because their homes were destroyed, but because they can no longer afford to remain there.
A new Georgia Tech-led study found that rents were 6.5% to 12.5% higher than expected four years after a disaster. Similar communities that weren’t hit did not see the same jump.
Brian An, an associate professor in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy within the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, and his team studied two decades of rental housing data and federal disaster records from California and Florida.
“We often think of housing as a market that will sort itself out,” An said. “But a natural disaster is not a normal market condition. Housing is destroyed. People are displaced. In those moments, renters can become especially vulnerable.”
After a disaster, the housing market’s usual rules no longer apply. Damaged apartment buildings mean reduced supply. Displaced homeowners enter the rental market while their homes are repaired or rebuilt. Construction, repairs, and insurance all get more expensive.
The largest rent increases followed hurricanes and wildfires more than earthquakes, flooding, and tornadoes. For communities hit repeatedly, each new storm or fire added more rent pressure.
“When rents go up after a disaster, we're not talking about a small segment of housing,” An said. “We're talking about the broader rental market. That means the effects reach far beyond the homes that were damaged.”
For renters, the consequences extend beyond monthly housing costs. Higher rents can make it harder for families to remain close to support networks. Children may have to change schools. Workers may face longer commutes. Longtime residents can find themselves priced out of communities they helped build.
The findings point to a central tension in disaster recovery: Rebuilding homes is not the same as keeping communities intact.
Not every community experienced the same outcome.
Areas that received federal support through Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds saw smaller rent increases than similar communities that did not. The money can be used to build and preserve affordable rental housing, giving residents more options as their communities recover.
An said the study cannot prove that funding alone caused rents to rise more slowly. But the pattern suggests that recovery resources may shape who can afford to stay in a community once rebuilding begins.
As communities face repeated hurricanes, wildfires, and other disasters, An believes policymakers need to think differently about recovery. That could mean investing in more resilient housing, expanding affordable rental options, and strengthening protections for renters after disasters strike.
“Everyone needs a place to live,” An said. “As disasters become more frequent, housing can't be an afterthought in recovery.”
An’s research is published in The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences.
]]>
Ahmadi and Brown find that neighborhoods with higher shares of Black residents experience higher energy burdens, even after accounting for factors such as income, renter status, and housing characteristics. In this study, energy burden refers mainly to the share of household income spent on electricity, gas, and water. The authors estimate that an approximately 11 percentage-point increase in a neighborhood’s Black population share is associated with about a 1 percentage-point increase in household energy burden, equal to an average annual increase of about $785 in utility costs. These findings suggest that unequal energy burdens are tied not only to household finances, but also to the lasting effects of segregation and discrimination.
Read Full Story on the EPIcenter Page
]]>When Chevron reported its highest quarterly profit in six years on July 31, 2026, it was just one detail in a larger picture: Analyst firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the global oil and gas industry is on course for a cash windfall of US$495 billion in 2026. That’s profit above and beyond what the industry expected before the U.S.-Israel war with Iran began.
Three separate bills seeking to tax those profits are now in Congress, and President Donald Trump has even said the oil companies are “making too much money.”
As an applied microeconomist, I am often asked how taxes affect economic activity. Economists have long held a more nuanced view of windfall taxes than either side of the current debate suggests. Advocates often make overly optimistic revenue projections, and opponents often overstate how much such a tax might discourage investment. A 1980s U.S. windfall-tax experiment is instructive on both counts.
Read Full Story on The Conversation
]]>Three separate bills seeking to tax those profits are now in Congress, and President Donald Trump has even said the oil companies are “making too much money.”
As an applied microeconomist, I am often asked how taxes affect economic activity. Economists have long held a more nuanced view of windfall taxes than either side of the current debate suggests. Advocates often make overly optimistic revenue projections, and opponents often overstate how much such a tax might discourage investment. A 1980s U.S. windfall-tax experiment is instructive on both counts.
]]>"One of the goals of the program is to give students the time and support needed to make meaningful progress on their dissertation research while helping them understand the broader policy, economic, and societal implications of their work," said Laura Taylor, director of EPIcenter.
The stipends enable participants to focus exclusively on clearly defined research goals. The program also supports peer discussions, communication training, and interdisciplinary learning opportunities designed to strengthen both their research and professional development.
This year's cohort explored topics ranging from electricity markets and air pollution to critical mineral supply chains and grid modernization, highlighting the breadth of energy-related research taking place across Georgia Tech.
Exploring Complex Energy Challenges
Ana Mazmishvili, who studies environmental and energy economics, used the summer to examine how climate policies affect communities across state lines.
"My research measures who is actually exposed to pollution from power plants when some states adopt climate regulations to cut emissions while neighboring regions do not," Mazmishvili said. "Because air doesn't stop at state borders, the key question is what happens once the pollution is emitted, and who ends up breathing it."
Her work focuses on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program in the Northeast, and investigates whether the benefits and burdens of emissions reductions are distributed equitably between regulated and neighboring states.
Mazmishvili said the program provided valuable time to focus on her job-market paper, a central component of her dissertation.
"The regular meetings with the program director and other fellows create useful accountability checkpoints and let me hear perspectives from people in very different fields," she said. "We're also learning how to make academic research understandable to a general audience, a skill I expect to use well past this summer."
Industrial and systems engineering doctoral student Faeze Fahimi Aghda spent the summer developing an optimization model for the U.S. gallium supply chain, a critical component of many advanced technologies.
Her research uses mathematical modeling to examine where and when domestic gallium processing facilities should be established under the threat of supply disruptions.
"Working on my research through EPIcenter has taught me to look at my problem from a policy point of view rather than focusing only on the math," Fahimi Aghda said. "The feedback within the meetings helped me improve my model."
Ryan Anthony, in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy, explored how one of the largest oil shocks in U.S. history affected electricity customers and whether utility ownership influenced the impact on consumers.
"So far, my research suggests that it mattered a lot,” Anthony said. “Municipal utilities held rates down and absorbed many of the costs, while private, investor-owned utilities passed more costs through to their customers."
Anthony said the program provided critical support for the archival research required for the project.
"My project depends on data that only exists in old government reports, and that kind of archival work is difficult to fund," he said. "EPIcenter gave me the time and space to do it properly."
Connecting Research to Real-World Impact
For Samin Alipour, the summer provided an opportunity to explore how electric grids can adapt to growing numbers of distributed energy resources.
"Most electric distribution systems were built like one-way roads, carrying power from a substation to homes and businesses," Alipour said. "Rooftop solar, batteries, and electric vehicles are turning those roads into two-way systems."
Her research examines how these emerging technologies can be coordinated to increase grid flexibility and clean energy adoption while maintaining safety and reliability and ensuring that costs and benefits are distributed fairly.
With support from EPIcenter, Alipour focused on the economic and policy dimensions of those challenges. "I did not want my research to remain only a technical model," she said. "The program has helped me connect the technical results of my dissertation to economic value, reliability, equity and compensation policy."
One study developed during the summer was accepted for presentation at a specialized power systems conference, an achievement Alipour credits in part to the opportunity to focus on the broader implications of her work.
Building the Next Generation of Energy Scholars
Beyond advancing individual research projects, the Summer Research Program encourages students to engage with colleagues from different disciplines and develop skills for communicating complex ideas to broader audiences.
“Through regular cohort meetings, participants build a community of accountability, discuss research challenges, explore interdisciplinary energy topics, and develop communication skills,” said Gil Gonzalez, program support coordinator for EPIcenter. “Students also write a research-focused blog post for EPIcenter and present their work at the program's fall workshop, which allows them to share their research with the broader Georgia Tech energy community.”
As EPIcenter continues to support interdisciplinary energy scholarship at Georgia Tech, the Summer Research Program equips future leaders with the tools to address complex energy challenges through technological innovation, informed policy, and economic analysis.
]]>"One of the goals of the program is to give students the time and support needed to make meaningful progress on their dissertation research while helping them understand the broader policy, economic, and societal implications of their work," said Laura Taylor, director of EPIcenter.
The stipends enable participants to focus exclusively on clearly defined research goals. The program also supports peer discussions, communication training, and interdisciplinary learning opportunities designed to strengthen both their research and professional development.
This year's cohort explored topics ranging from electricity markets and air pollution to critical mineral supply chains and grid modernization, highlighting the breadth of energy-related research taking place across Georgia Tech.
]]>The Air Quality Index (AQI) measures how clean or polluted the air is. A healthy AQI is between zero and 50, but when wildfire smoke blows in and settles over cities, the AQI can reach levels of 500 or more. Poor air quality changes where and how people spend their time and money, reduces productivity (even for those working indoors), and increases healthcare costs.
“Environmental regulations like the Clean Air Act dramatically improved our air quality over the past 40 years, but as wildfire season becomes the new normal, wildfire smoke is eroding those gains,” Wichman said. According to recent research, wildfire smoke has erased about a quarter of the progress made over previous decades, and more than half in many western states.
Read Full Story on the IAC News Page
]]>The Air Quality Index (AQI) measures how clean or polluted the air is. A healthy AQI is between zero and 50, but when wildfire smoke blows in and settles over cities, the AQI can reach levels of 500 or more. Poor air quality changes where and how people spend their time and money, reduces productivity (even for those working indoors), and increases healthcare costs.
“Environmental regulations like the Clean Air Act dramatically improved our air quality over the past 40 years, but as wildfire season becomes the new normal, wildfire smoke is eroding those gains,” Wichman said. According to recent research, wildfire smoke has erased about a quarter of the progress made over previous decades, and more than half in many western states.
]]>Housing and transportation are top priorities for many city mayors, policymakers and public policy researchers—including Brian An, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy. But in February 2021, soon after Winter Storm Uri wreaked havoc in Texas, an eight-hour power outage at his Atlanta home became an epiphany.
“While housing stability had long been on my mind, losing power drove home the importance of another piece of urban infrastructure: reliable access to electricity,” says An, an EPIcenter faculty affiliate and co-director of the Center for Urban Research. “It sparked my interest in studying the intersection of energy and urban policy to help make cities and communities not only socially equitable but also resilient to extreme weather.”
Read Full Story on the EPIcenter News Page
]]>Housing and transportation are top priorities for many city mayors, policymakers and public policy researchers—including Brian An, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy. But in February 2021, soon after Winter Storm Uri wreaked havoc in Texas, an eight-hour power outage at his Atlanta home became an epiphany.
“While housing stability had long been on my mind, losing power drove home the importance of another piece of urban infrastructure: reliable access to electricity,” says An, an EPIcenter faculty affiliate and co-director of the Center for Urban Research. “It sparked my interest in studying the intersection of energy and urban policy to help make cities and communities not only socially equitable but also resilient to extreme weather.”
]]>News Contact: Priya Devarajan, Research Communications Program Manager
]]>Communities across Georgia and the nation are navigating a range of economic and energy-related pressures. Gas prices, inflation, and the rapid growth of data centers are shaping the cost of goods and services, influencing everyday household financial decisions.
At the same time, ongoing geopolitical tensions are driving fluctuations in global oil markets and fuel prices. The expansion of AI data centers is also increasing demand for land, power, and water resources. And conflicts involving energy infrastructure in parts of the Middle East and Europe have affected supply stability.
Responding to these challenges requires careful analysis of emerging trends, supported by strong research in policy and economics. Faculty Affiliates of Georgia Tech’s Energy Policy and Innovation Center study these complex, interconnected issues affecting energy systems, costs, and access. They analyze emerging trends, evaluate policy options, and identify practical pathways forward.
Read Full Story on the EPIcenter News Page
]]>Communities across Georgia and the nation are navigating a range of economic and energy-related pressures. Gas prices, inflation, and the rapid growth of data centers are shaping the cost of goods and services, influencing everyday household financial decisions.
]]>See a curated list of Georgia Tech experts available to comment on the World Cup here.
As Atlanta welcomes the world for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the promises are familiar: millions of visitors, global attention, economic growth, and a chance to showcase the city on one of the biggest stages in sports.
But Georgia Tech experts say the real question is not whether the tournament will generate activity — it is who benefits from it and what remains after the final match is played.
Mega-events have long been sold as catalysts for transformation. The 1996 Olympics reshaped Atlanta’s physical landscape and helped position the city as a global destination. Thirty years later, the World Cup arrives at a very different moment.
“There are similarities,” said Emily Barrett, assistant professor in the School of City and Regional Planning. “Like the Olympics, the World Cup is an accelerator for infrastructure upgrades and public and private investment alike.”
Atlanta is seeing significant public investment in transportation improvements and billions of dollars in private development downtown. But today’s Atlanta is very different from Atlanta in the 1990s.
“Atlanta is no longer a city seeking recognition on the world stage,” Barrett said. “We are a thriving and growing city.”
That shifts the conversation from visibility to value.
“The open question is whether hosting mega-events makes the city work better for the people who live here,” Barrett added.
Assessing that value becomes more complicated when economic forecasts enter the conversation.
Large projections often dominate headlines, but Declan Abernethy, lecturer in the School of History and Sociology, cautions that economic impact estimates rarely tell the whole story.
“It is far easier to put out an economic impact projection compared to the difficulty of measuring impact,” Abernethy said.
While visitors will spend money on hotels, restaurants, transportation, and entertainment, he notes that much of that spending may not reach the community.
“When we look closely at that spending, we can see that much of the profit will be taken in by large corporations or FIFA in the immediate vicinity of Mercedes-Benz Stadium and not as much by Atlanta residents or small businesses,” he said.
According to Barrett, economic studies often overlook a critical question: What could alternative investments have accomplished?
“Economic studies rarely account for displacement costs, or whether the same public dollars could have generated similar or better outcomes if invested elsewhere,” she said.
The World Cup’s impact extends beyond economics; it will also test Atlanta’s infrastructure at a scale few events can match.
Michael Hunter, professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, says the biggest challenge may be the volume of people moving through the city.
“There will be a number of pressure points. However, one of the most significant will be just the number of people,” Hunter said. “This event will attract significant crowds.”
Atlanta’s transportation agencies have spent years preparing, drawing on lessons learned from events including the Super Bowl, World Series, and major concerts. Still, capacity limits are unavoidable.
“There is only so much traffic that MARTA or any transit agency can handle,” Hunter said. “People need to understand that there will be congestion and longer wait times. The key is to be patient.”
The concern is whether those investments result in lasting improvements or merely support a few weeks of activity.
Abernethy argues that the World Cup should be viewed as part of a broader vision for Atlanta rather than a standalone catalyst.
“We are seeing the World Cup as a part of a longer-running and more cohesive vision for sport and economic development downtown,” he said. “Atlanta may not be repeating the same cycle nor cracking downtown’s development problem with the World Cup itself.”
Infrastructure challenges extend beyond transportation. Feeding hundreds of thousands of visitors while minimizing waste requires its own network of logistics, coordination, and planning.
Nicole Kennard, a research scientist at Georgia Tech’s Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, views the tournament as an opportunity to strengthen how food moves throughout the city.
“These large events are a really big opportunity for us to coordinate and test our infrastructure,” Kennard said. “We have to think critically about how to improve the infrastructure and ensure its resilience and efficiency.”
Working with organizations such as Second Helpings Atlanta, the official food rescue partner for the World Cup, Georgia Tech researchers are building technologies and tools to improve coordination among food rescue groups. The effort aims to keep surplus food out of landfills by quickly moving it from stadiums and vendors to local food organizations.
“It’s really a logistics problem, a data problem, and a coordination problem,” Kennard said. “The faster you can move food from the point of surplus directly to a pantry, the more likely it is to reach people who need it.”
Ultimately, Atlanta’s World Cup legacy may not be measured by attendance figures or visitor spending alone.
“How we evaluate success depends on what we choose to measure, and too often we focus on headline numbers instead of who actually benefits,” said Abernethy.
Kennard sees the tournament as a chance to build systems that outlast the event itself. “What we build for the World Cup could become critical infrastructure for future emergencies and disasters,” she said.
Atlanta already knows how to host a global event. Whether the investments, partnerships, and infrastructure created for the World Cup leave the city stronger after the crowds leave remains to be seen.
]]>As an energy economist, I am often asked about what contributes to gas prices and what different policies can do to affect them.
The price of a retail gallon of gas is the sum of four things: the cost of crude oil, refining, distribution and marketing, and taxes.
In nationwide figures from January 2026, crude oil accounted for about 51% of the pump price, refining roughly 20%, distribution and marketing about 11% and taxes about 18%. That mix shifts with conditions: When crude oil prices spike, that can drive more than 60% of the price; when the price drops, taxes and logistics are larger shares of the cost.
Because the price of crude oil is the largest element, most of the price at the pump is derived from the global oil market.
Usually, big swings in crude prices come mainly from shifts in global demand and expectations – not from supply disruptions, according to widely cited research in 2009 by the economist Lutz Kilian.
But what is happening in early 2026 with the war in Iran is one of the exceptions: a classic supply shock. Severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Middle East oil infrastructure have taken millions of barrels a day off the global market.
Most drivers generally can’t quickly reduce how much they drive or how much gas they use when prices rise, so gasoline demand doesn’t change much in the short run. That means a jump in crude costs tends to result in people paying more rather than driving less.
Refining turns crude into gasoline at industrial scale. The U.S. doesn’t have a single gasoline market, though. Roughly a quarter of U.S. gasoline is a cleaner-burning blend of petroleum-derived chemicals called “reformulated gasoline,” which is required in urban areas across 17 states and the District of Columbia to reduce smog.
California uses an even stricter formulation that few out-of-state refineries make. California is also geographically isolated: No pipelines bring gasoline in from other U.S. refining regions.
California’s gasoline prices have long run above the national average, explained in part by higher state taxes and stricter environmental rules. But since a refinery fire in Torrance, California, in 2015 reduced production capacity, the state’s prices have been about 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher than what those factors would indicate.
Energy economist and University of California, Berkeley, professor Severin Borenstein has called this the “mystery gasoline surcharge” and attributes it to the fact that there isn’t as much competition between refineries or gas stations in California as in other states. California’s own Division of Petroleum Market Oversight says the surcharge cost the state’s drivers about $59 billion from 2015 to 2024. It’s not exactly clear who is getting that money, but it could be gas stations themselves or refineries, through complex contracts with gas stations.
The distribution and marketing category covers the costs of everything involved in getting the gasoline from the refinery gate to your tank.
Gasoline moves by pipeline, ship, rail and truck to wholesale terminals, and then by local delivery truck to service stations.
At the retailer’s end, the key factors are station rent and labor, the cost to buy gasoline in bulk to be able to sell it, credit card fees of as much as 6 to 10 cents a gallon at current prices, and franchise fees paid to the national brand, such as Sunoco or ExxonMobil, for permission to put their branding on the gas station.
Most gas station operators net only a few cents per gallon on fuel itself – which is why many gas stations are really convenience stores with pumps out front. Borenstein and some of his collaborators have also documented that retail gas prices rise quickly when wholesale costs climb but fall slowly when wholesale costs drop.
The federal government charges a tax on fuel, of 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.3 cents a gallon for diesel. States charge their own taxes, ranging from 70.9 cents a gallon for gas in California to 8.95 cents in Alaska.
When gas prices rise, many politicians start talking about temporarily suspending their state’s gas tax. That does reduce prices, but not as much as politicians – or consumers – might hope. Research on past gas tax holidays has found that consumers get about 79% of the reduction in gas taxes. That means oil companies and fuel retailers keep about one-fifth of the tax cut for themselves rather than passing that savings to the public.
Gas tax holidays also reduce funding for what the taxes are designed to pay for, typically roads and bridges. That pushes road and bridge upkeep costs onto future drivers and general taxpayers.
There is an additional problem, too: Taxes on gasoline are supposed to charge drivers for some of the costs their driving imposes on everyone else – carbon emissions, local air pollution, congestion and crashes. But Borenstein has found that U.S. fuel tax levels are already far below the true cost to society. Removing the tax on drivers effectively raises the costs for everyone else.
The 1920 Jones Act is a federal law that requires cargo moving between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built and registered in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the world’s 7,500 oil tankers, only 54 meet this requirement. Only 43 of these can transport refined fuels such as gasoline.
So, despite significant refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, some U.S. gasoline is exported overseas even as the Northeast imports fuel, in part reflecting the relatively high cost of moving fuel between U.S. ports.
Economists Ryan Kellogg and Rich Sweeney estimate that the law raises East Coast gasoline prices by about a penny and a half per gallon on average, costing drivers roughly $770 million a year. In light of the war’s effect on gas prices, the Trump administration has temporarily suspended the Jones Act requirements – an action more commonly taken when hurricanes knock out Gulf Coast refineries and pipeline networks.
The result of all these factors is that the price that drivers see at the pump mostly reflects the global price of crude, plus a stack of domestic costs, only some of which are inefficient.
Tax holidays give a partial, short-lived rebate. Jones Act waivers trim pennies, though permanent repeal may cause more fundamental changes, such as reduced rail and truck transport of all goods, which could lower costs, emissions and infrastructure damage associated with cargo transportation. Harmonizing fuel blends across states and seasons may lower prices somewhat, but likely at the expense of increased emissions.
Ultimately, the best protection against oil price shocks is a more efficient gas-burning vehicle, or one that doesn’t burn gasoline at all. In the meantime, the best I can offer as an economist is clarity about what that $4.30 actually buys.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
]]>Assistant Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology
Shelley Wunder-Smith
Director of Research Communications
Georgia Institute of Technology
As an energy economist and an international trade economist, we field a lot of questions during such episodes, because when oil prices go up, manufacturers, businesses and ultimately consumers pay more.
Crude oil may be the most important commodity in the global economic system.
It’s a literal fuel for the industrial economy. It powers the engines that drive transportation and paves the roads vehicles drive on. It’s a source for plastics from which the world’s products get made and packaged, and a key ingredient at some point in almost every supply chain. Even fertilizers that boost the food supply are made from it. In short, it is difficult to imagine modern life without oil and its derivatives.
And when its supply changes, its price changes. Economists explain this using a fundamental model of our field: the supply-demand diagram. When there’s less of something to go around, competition among consumers who want it and companies that need it can drive the price up.
Sometimes this process can play out over time, allowing people to adjust their purchasing or activities to dampen price shocks. But when a significant source of the world’s oil is effectively blocked without much advance notice, such as when the the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, prices can rise sharply in a short period of time.
A natural question many people ask when oil prices spike is: Where does all that additional money go, and who benefits from it?
Some people have written entire books dissecting all the places that money goes when it leaves consumers’ pockets. But ultimately, the bulk of the money heads in the direction of the source of the oil itself – the oil companies.
What they do with the money varies widely, depending on where in the world an oil company is operating and who owns it. What also matters is the business environment – the set of laws and regulations – in which the company operates.
Oil producers in the Middle East face significant new risk because of the war in Iran, including threats to production, processing locations and shipping routes. These risks raise their costs for insurance, security and transportation.
But production costs in the region are relatively low, so higher global oil prices typically still translate into strong profits.
For a major exporter such as Saudi Arabia, the government owns and controls nearly all oil production, so high prices generally benefit the government’s finances and investments, even during a war. In Saudi Arabia, oil revenue has historically been used to fund public spending.
The Permian Basin, the largest oil field in the U.S., is a long way from the Persian Gulf. When global oil prices rise because of the war in Iran, oil companies operating in West Texas effectively get a windfall gain: Prices rise more quickly than costs, at least in the short run.
The immediate effect is more income from higher prices. The money largely goes to company owners – meaning shareholders – through dividends, debt reduction, company-backed purchases of its own stock, and reinvestment in drilling and production. Over time, companies may decide to spend some of that windfall on building more production capacity or pipelines to get more oil and gas to market.
In the North Sea, between the island of Great Britain and Scandinavia, a mix of multinational and government-owned companies produce most of the oil.
In the U.K., private shareholders are the primary beneficiaries of higher profits from increased oil prices, though an additional tax on oil and gas companies’ profits means the government also collects a significant share of the money, which it uses to help pay public expenses.
In Norway, oil revenues flow into the Government Pension Fund Global, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $2 trillion. Laws govern how much, and for what purposes, money can be withdrawn from the fund, supporting public spending and preserving wealth for future generations. This is a similar model to Alaska’s state-owned program, funded by oil revenue, that pays for government services and sends an annual dividend to every permanent resident.
Russian oil is subject to stringent economic sanctions imposed by major industrial countries as a response to the Russian invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine. While the U.S. cannot control how much Russia charges for its oil, it can control services needed to move Russian oil around the world. Under current price sanctions, Western shipping, insurance and financing can be used to ship and sell Russian crude oil only if the price is below $60 per barrel.
Russia’s oil industry is dominated by government-controlled companies whose leaders maintain close ties to President Vladimir Putin. The dealings of those shadowy figures are often shrouded in secrecy, but it is likely that they and Putin’s military-industrial complex – not the Russian people – are the main beneficiaries of high oil prices.
Everyday U.S. consumers may not like the idea of their hard-earned cash going into the already deep pockets of any of these groups. But in the short run, there’s not much to do but pay the price. For the long run, however, people around the world are already thinking and talking about, and opting for, sources of energy that don’t depend on fossil fuels.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
]]>As an energy economist and an international trade economist, we field a lot of questions during such episodes, because when oil prices go up, manufacturers, businesses and ultimately consumers pay more.
Everyday U.S. consumers may not like the idea of their hard-earned cash going into the already deep pockets of any of the oil-producing groups. But in the short run, there’s not much to do but pay the price. For the long run, however, people around the world are already thinking and talking about, and opting for, sources of energy that don’t depend on fossil fuels.
]]>
Matthew E. Oliver
Associate Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology
Tibor Besedeš
Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology
Shelley Wunder-Smith
shelley.wunder-smith@research.gatech.edu
Eight faculty members received funding for projects that advance Georgia Tech energy research by generating early insights, expanding shared research tools, and exploring solutions related to energy policy, grid reliability, clean energy incentives, and industry‑driven innovation shaping Georgia’s energy future.
By supporting timely, policy-relevant research and engagement that connect Georgia Tech expertise with pressing regional energy challenges, the ACCELERATE program encourages collaboration across the Institute and with external partners, supports graduate student involvement, and amplifies research outputs that inform policy, regulatory, and market decisions.
“ACCELERATE is designed to help early- and mid-career faculty move quickly on ideas that can shape energy policy and practice,” said Laura Taylor, director of EPIcenter. “By supporting both early‑stage collaboration and more developed policy research, the program enables Georgia Tech researchers to engage decision‑makers and stakeholders when it matters most.”
Proposals considered for funding were grounded in policy and behavioral research, including studies that examined how past or potential policies and regulations worked, and analyses of current market and behavioral outcomes that revealed management, policy, or regulatory gaps and opportunities.
Funded projects span a range of disciplines and policy‑focused topics aligned with EPIcenter’s mission, with a strong emphasis on challenges facing Georgia and the Southeast. Collectively, the awards support research development, data creation, stakeholder engagement, and public-facing thought leadership intended to inform energy policy and implementation.
"As electricity demand grows, it is increasingly important to understand how industrial processes could use energy flexibly to enable efficient use of renewable resources like solar and wind,” said Micah Ziegler, assistant professor in the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy. “Support from the EPIcenter ACCELERATE program enables us to ask fundamental questions about how to design flexible systems and supply chains."
Awards ranged from $5,000 to $75,000. Projects that received ACCELERATE funding include:
Measuring the Alignment Between Legislators’ Energy Bill Votes and Their District Characteristics in the Georgia House of Representatives
Faculty Researcher: Clio Andris, Associate Professor, School of City and Regional Planning and School of Interactive Computing
Strengthening Georgia Tech’s National Energy Modeling of Priority Research Areas
Faculty Researcher: Marilyn Brown, Regents' Professor and Brook Byers Professor of Sustainable Systems, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy
Protecting Consumers From Price Volatility: Evidence and Policy Lessons From Georgia's Natural Gas Market
Faculty Researcher: Dylan Brewer, Assistant Professor, School of Economics
Can Place-Based Incentives Accelerate the Energy Transition?
Faculty Researcher: Gaurav Doshi, Assistant Professor, School of Economics
The Revolving Door in Utility Regulation
Faculty Researcher: Michelle Graff, Assistant Professor, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy
How Do Data Centers Affect Tradeoffs Between Reliability and Decarbonization?
Faculty Researchers: Tony Harding, Assistant Professor, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy, and Brian An, Assistant Professor, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy
Calculating the Emissions Cost of the Solar Rebound for the United States
Faculty Researcher: Matt Oliver, Associate Professor, School of Economics
Evaluating Long-Duration Flexibility of Industrial Demand in Electric Power Systems
Faculty Researchers: Micah Ziegler, assistant professor, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School of Public Policy, and Constance Crozier, Assistant Professor, H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering
ACCELERATE is an annual program open to all Georgia Tech faculty, focusing on policy‑ and decision‑relevant research that advances energy affordability, reliability, resilience, and decarbonization in the region.
More information about EPIcenter’s research areas and programs is available at epicenter.energy.gatech.edu.
]]>Eight faculty members received funding for projects that advance Georgia Tech energy research by generating early insights, expanding shared research tools, and exploring solutions related to energy policy, grid reliability, clean energy incentives, and industry‑driven innovation shaping Georgia’s energy future.
]]>EPIcenter ACCELERATE Program Recipients: Top (Left to Right) - Clio Andris, Marilyn Brown, Dylan Brewer, Gaurav Doshi, Michelle Graff; Bottom (Left to Right) - Tony Harding, Brian An, Matt Oliver, Micah Ziegler, Constance Crozier
Georgia Tech researchers have created a new AI model for decision-focused learning (DFL), called Diffusion-DFL. Recent tests showed it makes more accurate decisions than current approaches.
Along with optimizing industrial output, Diffusion-DFL lowers costs and reduces risk. Experiments also showed it performs across different fields.
Diffusion-DFL doesn’t just surpass current methods; it also predicts more accurately as problem sizes grow. The model requires less computing power despite these high-performance marks, making it more accessible to smaller enterprises.
Diffusion-DFL runs on diffusion models, the same technology that powers DALL-E and other AI image generators. It is the first DFL framework based on diffusion models.
“Anyone who makes high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, including supply chain managers, energy operators, and financial planners, benefits from Diffusion-DFL,” said Zihao Zhao, a Georgia Tech Ph.D. student who led the project.
“Instead of optimizing around a single forecast, the model evaluates many possible scenarios, so decisions account for real-world risk and become more robust.”
To test Diffusion-DFL, the team ran experiments based on real-world settings, including:
In each case, Diffusion-DFL made more accurate decisions than current methods. It also performed better as problems became larger and more complex. These results confirm the model’s ability to make important decisions in real-world scenarios with noisy data and uncertainty.
The experiments also show that Diffusion-DFL is practical, not just accurate. Training diffusion models is expensive, so the team developed a way to reduce memory use. This cut training costs by more than 99.7%. As a result, Diffusion-DFL can reach more researchers and practitioners.
“Our score-function estimator cuts GPU memory from over 60 gigabytes to 0.13 with almost no loss in decision quality, reducing the requirement for massive computing resources,” Zhao said. “I hope this expands Diffusion-DFL into other domains, like healthcare, where decisions must be made quickly under complex uncertainty."
Beyond decision-making applications, Diffusion-DFL marks a shift in DFL techniques and in the broader use of generative AI models.
In supply chain management, planners estimate future demand before deciding how much product to stock. In this DFL problem, engineers align ML models with predetermined decision objectives, like minimizing risk or reducing costs.
One flaw of DFL methods is that they optimize around a single, deterministic prediction in an uncertain future.
Diffusion-DFL takes a different approach. Instead of making a single guess, it determines a range of possible outcomes. This leads to decisions based on many likely scenarios, rather than on a single assumed future.
To do this, the framework uses diffusion models. These generative AI models create high-quality data from images, text, and audio.
The forward diffusion process involves adding noise to data until it becomes pure noise. Models trained via forward diffusion can reverse diffusion. This means they can start with noisy data and then produce meaningful insights from training examples.
Real-world data is often noisy and uncertain. Traditional DFL methods struggle in these conditions, but diffusion models are designed to handle them.
Because of this, Diffusion-DFL can explore many possible outcomes and choose better actions. Like image-generation AI, the model works well with complex data from different sources. This enables its use across different industries.
“Diffusion models have achieved significant success in generative AI and image synthesis, but our work shows their potential extends far beyond that,” said Kai Wang, an assistant professor in the School of Computational Science and Engineering (CSE).
“What makes Diffusion-DFL unique is that the specific downstream application guides how the model learns to handle uncertainty.
“Whether we are scheduling energy for power grids, balancing risk in financial portfolios, or developing early warning systems in healthcare, we can explicitly train these highly expressive models to navigate the unique complexities of each domain.”
Zhao and Wang collaborated with Caltech Ph.D. candidate Christopher Yeh and Harvard University postdoctoral fellow Lingkai Kong on Diffusion-DFL. Kong earned his Ph.D. in CSE from Georgia Tech in 2024.
Wang will present Diffusion-DFL on behalf of the group at the upcoming International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2026). Occurring April 23-27 in Rio de Janeiro, ICLR is one of the world’s most prestigious conferences dedicated to artificial intelligence research.
“ICLR is the perfect stage for Diffusion-DFL because it brings together the exact community that needs to see the bridge between generative modeling and high-stakes decision-making for real-world applications,” Wang said.
“Presenting Diffusion-DFL allows us to challenge the traditional training framework of diffusion models. It’s about sparking a broader conversation on how we can align the training objectives of generative AI directly with actual, downstream decision-making needs.”
]]>Georgia Tech researchers have created a new AI model for decision-focused learning (DFL), called Diffusion-DFL. Recent tests showed it makes more accurate decisions than current approaches.
Along with optimizing industrial output, Diffusion-DFL lowers costs and reduces risk. Experiments also showed it performs across different fields.
Diffusion-DFL doesn’t just surpass current methods; it also predicts more accurately as problem sizes grow. The model requires less computing power despite these high-performance marks, making it more accessible to smaller enterprises.
Diffusion-DFL runs on diffusion models, the same technology that powers DALL-E and other AI image generators. It is the first DFL framework based on diffusion models.
]]>Artificial intelligence has been touted as the most transformative technology of our time. With only a few years of mainstream use, it’s changed how we work and communicate, generated billions of dollars in investments, and sparked global debate. But according to leading neuroethics expert Karen Rommelfanger, the race isn’t over yet.
“Can you think of a more transformative technology than one that intervenes with the fundamental organ that drives your experience in the world?”
That fundamental organ is the brain.
Technologies interfacing directly with the brain have been reserved for treating severe injury or disease for decades. Now, neurotechnology is expanding into brain-responsive wearables meant to enhance, augment, and monitor everyday life. As these technologies accelerate and AI is incorporated, the question is no longer if neurotechnology will transform society, but how — and who will shape the boundaries.
These are some of the questions on which Karen Rommelfanger has built her career. Trained as a biomedical researcher and neuroscientist, Rommelfanger went on to found the Institute for Neuroethics, the world’s first think and do tank devoted entirely to neuroethics, public engagement, and policy implementation.
“The brain is special; it’s central to who we are,” says Rommelfanger, who was also an inaugural recipient of the Dana Foundation Neuroscience and Society Award. “And that means when you intervene with the brain, there are unique responsibilities. The field of neuroethics addresses things like: How do you ensure mental privacy? How do you protect free will? How do you ensure that people have the power to be narrators of their own lives and their cognitive experience?”
Now, Rommelfanger is joining Georgia Tech’s Institute for Neuroscience, Neurotechnology, and Society (INNS) as a professor of the practice, where she will work to further embed neuroethics into Georgia Tech’s research and technology development ecosystem.
“Georgia Tech is producing the next generation of neurotechnologists, and Karen’s expertise will help ensure we’re preparing them to think about societal impact as deeply as they think about the technical and scientific aspects of their work,” says Christopher Rozell, executive director of INNS. “Her leadership strengthens the Institute in exactly the way this moment in neurotechnology demands.”
“Georgia Tech has many, many ways that it leads in the technology ecosystem. But one of the powerful, unique ways it can lead is through neurotechnology,” says Rommelfanger. “I hope that the INNS, given its unique mandate for neuroscience, neurotechnology, and society, can be a lighthouse for these types of conversations.”
From institutional review boards to mandatory responsible research conduct training, ethics are a foundational part of scientific research. But designing neurotechnologies raises ethical challenges beyond the scope of typical training. What happens when discoveries leave the lab and enter people’s lives?
That question sits at the core of Rommelfanger’s work. She argues it’s a neurotechnologist’s responsibility to recognize and proactively address the need for unique safeguards for privacy, autonomy, and long-term responsibility. Her solution is to move neuroethics upstream, embedding it directly into the research, design, and deployment of neurotechnology through an approach she calls “neuroethics by design.”
“Neuroethics by design considers ethics as a core criterion where principles can drive innovation with more of a lens toward societal outcomes,” she says — an approach informed by years of advising national-level brain research initiatives and her experience at the intersection of clinical practice and ethics scholarship.
Rather than treating ethics as a compliance checklist or a post hoc review, neuroethics by design integrates ethical thinking throughout the entire innovation lifecycle, from early ideation and research questions to product requirements, governance strategies, and long-term sustainability. She has used the approach for years as an embedded partner for neurotechnology startups in her neuroethics consultancy, Ningen Co-Lab.
After decades as a traditional academic professor and then years advising companies and policymakers with this philosophy, Rommelfanger says Georgia Tech is the right place to scale this work. With its strength in neurotechnology and INNS’s rare focus on neuroscience and society, “I could not think of a better place to launch and pilot this neuroethics by design scaling effort.”
She will work with INNS to help equip researchers, students, and industry partners with practical tools for ethical decision-making. Her vision is not to create neuroethicists as a standalone profession, but to cultivate ethically engaged neurotechnologists and engineers.
Central to her plans at INNS are hands-on training programs that bring ethics out of the abstract and into practice. “I wanted to be a professor of the practice because, while the field does need more scholars, what it really needs most at this point are practitioners.”
Rommelfanger is exploring modular content that can be embedded into existing courses across disciplines, as well as immersive training — such as neuroethics boot camps and problem-solving hackathons — that bring together students, faculty, and professionals to tackle real-world challenges collaboratively.
“No one discipline can solve all the ethical challenges ahead,” says Rommelfanger. She is particularly interested in creating spaces where experts from across science and engineering, policy and law, design and the arts, and philosophy can work side by side with people with lived experience of neurological conditions. “The onus is not on scientists alone, but is a shared responsibility that benefits immensely from dialogue, accountability, and action across diverse communities.”
By situating neuroethics within Georgia Tech’s broader research ecosystem, Rommelfanger hopes INNS can help shift how the field evolves globally.
“It's really difficult to get your arms around something once it's out of the gate,” she says, citing the rapid adoption of AI without proper ethical or policy guidelines. “With neurotechnology, we still have a little bit of time, but not that much time. We are at that moment where we could change the course of global history.”
