Thread by @MichaelWWara

It seems increasingly likely that Biden will win the presidential election but that democrats will not secure a majority in the senate. That means action on climate and energy will almost certainly have to proceed via regulation using existing authority. A thread...

President Biden won't be able to rely on CRA to quickly revoke problematic rules but will be able to rescind or revise them. He will face a much less friendly Supreme Court when his rules are challenged. What does this all mean, practically speaking?

For oil and gas methane, §111b and d rules that dramatically reduce emissions - especially important now that so many wells have been idled by falling oil prices.

For the electric power sector, withdrawal of the ACE §111b and d rules and replacement with rules that are much more stringent but that also lack the flexibility/cost effectiveness of Obama's Clean Power Plan - because creative legal interpretations underpinned that flexibility.

For vehicles, a pivot back to the 1-car approach that existed under Obama, but perhaps also with less flexibility here. EPA has authority (and I think should consider using it) to walk away in the post-2025 standards from the footprint based scale for fuel economy standards.

A sliding fuel economy scale based on vehicle footprint has facilitated the move away from cars and to SUVs in the US and done much to undermine overall fuel economy improvements as well as compromise pedestrian safety (see recent threads re Cadillac's forward blind spot camera).

There is enormous execution risk in all of this agenda - and EPA will have to coordinate closely with DOJ and OIRA to get the job done, and get it done in a timely and smart way that sees final rules implemented as quickly as possible.

What can't be done with a regulatory approach? By far the most important thing is helping ordinary Americans to navigate the energy transition. Workers can't be given transition assistance. Families can't get help to convert vehicles or homes to zero-carbon alternatives.

Whether or not that limitation of a regulatory approach limits progress or instead spurs movement in Congress - either to help workers and families or to enact something better - remains to be seen.

I forgot to mention one more key area where Biden can make a big difference: appointments to @ferc. Currently, there are only 3 sitting commissioners. And just one Dem. And @FERChatterjee's term expires in June. This is a big deal for two reasons:

First, a President @JoeBiden could appoint a working majority of Democratic, clean energy friendly Commissioners. Second, he could appoint at least one Republican Commissioner who would tack closer to @ferc's traditional, pro-competition, pro-innovation, fuel-neutral approach.

It's also worth noting that the original litigation (and settlement) involving §111 covered BOTH power plants AND refineries. A reinvigorated EPA could also move on crackers, CHP units, and steam methane reformers as regulatory targets for GHG reductions.

Steam methane reformers, because of the relatively high CO2 concentration in their flue gas, are particularly attractive opportunities to develop CCS pilots...

A working majority of four commissioners could do a lot, under existing but seldom fully utilized Federal Power Act authority, to unleash competitive forces in electric power markets that would create a cleaner power sector. This is especially true in the Southeast and the West.

The cheapest energy is clean energy. The more that @ferc can undermine the deep economic moats around old inefficient and dirty electric power plants erected by state policy and regulated industry rent seeking, the faster the sector will transition for the betterment of all.

Maybe then @RichGlickFERC at FERC After Dark can have a happier tone than the one he has been forced to take of late. I sure hope he doesn't lose the amazing regulatory graphics. Orders with impossible to fathom nomenclature (why the double deuce?) never looked so exciting...

A last last piece of this thread: A President's powers are at their maximum in the area of Foreign Affairs. Here, Biden could also make a lot of important progress. He will rejoin the Paris Agreement, reengage on climate, and develop and submit a new US NDC for the post-2025.

He can shape US trade policy - especially with respect to trade barriers on imports of low value added elements of the renewables supply chain (think solar panels) in ways that protect American jobs (installing those panels)...

... he could join the bi-partisan push to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Most of all, as he and his advisors have made clear, he could reinvigorate US leadership in building cooperation with our allies on what is a global problem requiring global solutions.