dananuccitelli.bsky.social
Research Manager for @cclusa.org, environmental scientist, climate journalist for @climateconnections.bsky.social. Views my own.
179 posts
6,174 followers
838 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
FEOC needs significant improvement and clarity, even if it's in the same spirit, to not render the credits useless. It's a lot closer to being workable in this bill but still remains far too complex and administratively burdensome. Current assessment that these rules would really chill the market.
comment in response to
post
Still have more work to do interpreting FEOC, but this question of pull forward will be central to how different models assess the bill impacts. If you assume all projects in next 4 years can do it, they will, and you'll see minimal impact until 2029+. If not, then impact will start next year.
comment in response to
post
That's true, part of their argument is that US power sector emissions have been declining, but we're about to see explosive growth in power demand. Not that this would change Zeldin's judgment that they're not "significant."
comment in response to
post
The rule will absolutely be challenged in court once it's finalized.
comment in response to
post
No because those aren't relevant to the question of whether/how to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions.
They do mention generation shifting (a.k.a. shifting from fossil fuels to clean power sources), but only in the context that the Supreme Court ruled the EPA can't mandate this
comment in response to
post
Oh and also we need to burn fossil fuels for national security and economic growth, and that's the real "significance" the EPA needs to consider. What did you think "EPA" stands for, Environmental Protection Agency? 🤡
My head hurts, I’m gonna go lie down now 😵💫 (8/8)
comment in response to
post
Ipso facto, because there's no cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, those emissions do not contribute significantly to dangerous air/climate pollution 🤪 (7/8)
comment in response to
post
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA Administrator feels like the solutions are not cost-effective. Carbon capture and storage is too expensive and ineffective, and natural gas is too valuable to burn in place of coal 🙄 (6/8)
comment in response to
post
And the EPA Administrator is going to decide that if there is no cost-effective way to reduce emissions, then those emissions can't be a significant problem 🧐 (5/8)
comment in response to
post
You see, EPA isn't going to use a quantitative measurement of "significance." They're going to use vibes instead, a.k.a. "the Administrator's informed judgement" 🤦♂️ (4/8)
comment in response to
post
EPA acknowledges that US power plants are currently responsible for about 3% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Isn't that "significant"?
You might think so – I sure do! – but here comes the EPA's torturing of logic... (3/8)
comment in response to
post
EPA acknowledges that they have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from electric generating units (EGUs; power plants) if they contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.
But what does "significantly" mean? (2/8)
comment in response to
post
Overall, the big bad budget bill is an absolutely terrible deal (14/14):
comment in response to
post
10) And of course, more climate pollution. The bill would leave US climate pollution just 20-30% below 2005 levels by 2030, with 3 Gt cumulative emissions added – equivalent to an extra 6 months' of US emissions at a time when they need to fall dramatically to meet climate targets (13/14)
comment in response to
post
9) More air pollution and unhealthier Americans. Repealing the IRA would increase the burning of fossil fuels in power plants and cars, generating more air pollution. This would cause thousands of extra premature American deaths over the next decade, according to @energyinnovation.org (12/14)
comment in response to
post
8) Lost economic growth. Similarly, if all of these new facilities aren't built, we lose out on all of the associated private investment and money churning through the US economy. @energyinnovation.org estimated our GDP could lose out on more than $1 trillion as a result (11/14)
comment in response to
post
7) Lost jobs. Repealing the clean electricity and EV tax credits would reduce new power plant construction and domestic manufacturing. That means hundreds of thousands fewer construction and manufacturing jobs, especially in districts represented by Republicans (10/14)
comment in response to
post
6) Imperiled domestic manufacturing. The IRA has spurred a domestic clean manufacturing boom, mostly in batteries & EVs & solar, with hundreds of projects announced all over the country. Repealing the IRA would imperil $522 billion of announced projects and even some already-built facilities (9/14)
comment in response to
post
5) Reduced energy security. Texas & California have had trouble with power outages during extreme weather events in recent years, but easily navigated heatwaves over the past year thanks to lots of solar and battery deployment. Those problems will return if deployment declines as demand rises (8/14)
comment in response to
post
4) Danger of falling behind China in the AI race. Gas turbines are experiencing yearslong delivery backlogs, so if we curtail the amount of clean energy deployment, we're not going to have enough power to meet the rapidly growing demand from sectors including AI (7/14)
comment in response to
post
And because the bill would also repeal the IRA’s incentives to make homes more energy efficient and install rooftop solar and battery systems, fewer Americans would be able to avoid these rising energy costs.
Total average household energy costs rise ~$1,000–$3,000 over the next 10 years (6/14)
comment in response to
post
3) It would be a de facto tax on the other kind of gas too. With fewer clean electricity deployments, utilities would have to burn more natural gas. @rhg.com estimates this increased demand would raise natural gas prices 2–7%, further increasing costs for households with gas appliances (5/14)
comment in response to
post
2) It would be a de facto electricity tax. Only ~half as much solar & wind would be deployed at a time when electricity demand is skyrocketing due to data centers, AI, electrification, etc. That means higher electricity prices, costing households an estimated $46–160 per year (4/14)
comment in response to
post
1) It would be a de facto gas tax. Repealing EV credits means 20–40 million fewer EVs on US roads by 2035. Increased demand would raise price as the pump by 3–15 cents/gallon. Plus 10s of millions fewer Americans reducing fuel bills by ~$800/year with EVs. Average fuel costs rise $40–200/year (3/14)
comment in response to
post
Three groups – @jessedjenkins.com Princeton REPEAT, @rhg.com, and @energyinnovation.org looked at the whole bill. Five others – @rff.org, Aurora, Brattle, National Economic Research Associates, Solar Energy Industries Association looked at the repeal of the IRA's clean electricity tax credits (2/14)