The more I sit with the 25-page overview of the Biden #Infrastructure & #JobsPlan, the more it's clear: the measure of a plan is not the total $ it spends but its impact. There is a lot in this plan that isn't clearly scored w/$ figure. But the total impact looks transformative.
This #JobsPlan presents a vision for how to rebuild the U.S. economy. That vision clearly places at its center a set of investments to build a clean energy economy, enhance resilience to climate change & extreme weather, and address persistent environmental injustices.
Why do I say the #JobsPlan's clean energy investments look transformative?
My group at Princeton will be taking a close look at the plan & modeling its impact in coming weeks (as details become clearer), but let's take a first look at this thing together whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
In this thread, we'll walk through the three biggest sectors for CO2 + air pollution from energy activities:
1. Transportation; 2. Electricity; 3. Industry.
Transportation: $174B could transform auto sector, making upfront cost of EVs dissapear (subsidy initially but driving real cost declines over time), building a US supply chain so more of these EVs & their parts are made in USA, & expanding charger networks to quash range anxiety
The sector is already on cusp of major change, with most of the biggest markets in the world planning to phase-out sale of internal combustion vehicles, and auto-makers poised to go all electric. These investments could push the sector over the hill, driving irreversible momentum
The plan also recognizes that decarbonizing transport is about more than cars. The plan would invest about as much in modernizing public transit and rail as it does in electric cars & trucks, $105b for public transit & at least $80b for rail.
Electricity: $100B to build long-distance transmission & harness America's best wind & solar resources & improve grid resilience. If 1 federal $ leverages ~2x private $, that would be on par with ~$350b, 10-year additional investment identified in Princeton Net-Zero America study
In addition to the $100b grid investment, the Biden plan calls for a LOT more that isn't 'scored' in the topline spending totals that are easy to fixate on at first... (guilty as charged here!
-10-year tax credits for clean electricity (direct pay!)
-Clean energy block grants to state/local/tribal govts
-Govt procurement of 24x7 clean electricity (see
)
-And a Clean Electricity Standard to put whole sector on path to 100% carbon-free electricity
Those measures could add ~$300-400b in additional tax incentives & other measures directed toward building a clean electricity system. That might just be sufficient to induce the $830b in total additional investment in clean electricity envisioned in Net-Zero America paths
Depending on how all that gets implemented, that could be up to the task of getting the U.S. on track to 70-80% clean electricity by 2030, all while shifting a big chunk of the initial cost of this transition from ratepayer bills to the federal tax base (much more progressive).
If the US does all that, we could be smashing new records for wind, solar & grid deployment every year for the next decade. If its enough to put US on track to net-zero by 2030, that would mean 0.5-1 million net jobs in energy supply sectors by 2030, according to Net-Zero America
Industry: There are a lot less options available now for large-scale use to decarbonize heavy industry -- steel, cement, chemicals, etc. This plan wants to transform that too. The plan would drive creation of new clean hydrogen hubs, spur industries to capture & store CO2, & more
A decade of policy support for wind, solar, & batteries drove down costs by ~70%, 85% & 90%, respectively, transforming them from expensive "alternative energy" to mainstream energy options. The plan's investments in industry climate solutions could do the same thing this decade.
Plus there's $35 billion more in investment in RD&D for advanced climate technologies, including hydrogen, carbon capture & storage, advanced nuclear, and more. This includes $15b for full-scale demonstration projects, a key role for federal government.
Bonus round: Buildings! If you distribute electricity use across sectors, buildings become #1 source. Good thing the plan also targets investments to upgrade and weatherize homes and businesses, plus a lot will be embeded in the plan's broader investments in housing, schools, etc
But wait there's more: the plan recognizes that one of the biggest levers government has is procurement. The fed govt spends more than $0.5 trillion/yr. That $ can be leveraged to drive economic transformation too. The plan calls for $46b to drive clean energy mfg & innovation.
My group will be doing more to model & assess the impacts as details emerge. I'm sure there are gaps and areas where more is needed. But this #JobsPlan really tries to cover all the bases, and the scale & scope could be on par with what we need to get the US on track to net-zero.
Remember also that this is the start of a critical national debate and discussion. This is the opening of that debate. Congress will ultimately shape what passes. My ZERO Lab at Princeton will be paying close attention as the debate unfolds. /End.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A federal judge temporarily halted completion of a 102-mile high voltage transmission line that would connect dozens of renewable energy projects to the grid, at the behest of three environmental groups. 🤦♂️ reuters.com/sustainability…
At issue: Driftless Area Land Conservancy, National Wildlife Refuge Association & Wisconsin Wildlife Federation sued to block a land swap approved by US Dept of Interior that would add 35 new acres of land to a wildlife refuge in exchange for 20 acres crossed by the line Come on!
I wonder where @audubonsociety @nature_org & @NWF are at on this project. They've done a lot to help keep a more balanced perspective on broad benefits of transmission to connect clean electricity resources and local environmental impacts.
At long last, proposed #hydrogen tax credit rules are out. Industry reactions are in. While opponents of climate-friendly rules continue to complain, stakeholders from across the industry endorsed the proposal & are prepared to unleash investment in a truly clean H2 sector. A🧵⤵️
The Biden admin resisted a torrent of intense lobbying from big industrial players like the utilities NextEra & Constellation, oil majors like BP & Exxon, fuel-cell maker Plug Power, & their trade-group proxies, which spent millions on ads & lobbying to weaken the hydrogen rules.
If you’ve read about electric vehicles in the news lately, you know the vibes are all bad. The media has fixated on the idea that consumer demand for EVs is “slowing." But the data shows that just not true, as I explain in a new @Heatmap column heatmap.news/electric-vehic…
If we take a look at actual sales data (as I did here ), there’s NO sign the growth in EVs is flagging. In fact, sales of battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in the third quarter exhibited the strongest year-on-year growth since the Q4 2021! anl.gov/esia/reference…
Putting aside plug-in hybrids, which have shorter electric range and retain a gasoline engine, sales of purely electric vehicles have been steadily increasing at ~60% annual growth rate for each of the last six quarters. That’s fast enough to double EV sales every 14 months.
In the past two weeks, I think EVERY media outlet has written a story w/headlines like "EV sales are slowing" or "automakers are pulling back" from EVs. All present recent developments as a major setback. But are they? Are they really slowing? Is this 'red alert' moment? A 🧵...
What does it mean that EV sales are "slowing"? Year-on-year growth rates have been ~60% in each of the last several months. That's a rate fast enough to double sales in about 18 months. It's hard to see growth that fast as "slowing" sales.
The best (and only) quantitative evidence presented for the dominant media narrative is this data, as presented in a WSJ piece yesterday here: dealers for traditional OEMs (Ford, VW etc) are taking more time to move EVs off the lots wsj.com/business/autos…
It's not a disaster. These offshore projects getting cancelled now all signed fixed price long-term contracts several years ago, pre-pandemic & then got clobbered by unexpected interest rate hikes and cost inflation that made the projects financially unviable.
Developers tried to pass along costs to states (NY MA NJ) & their electricity consumers, and for the most part were rebuffed. State agencies basically said "No, a contract is a contract and we cant start renegotiating or any future contract wont be worth the ink it's printed on."
I happen to think that's a perfectly reasonable decision. These states will have to re-contract for new projects. In fact, NY just inked another 4 GW of contracts from three new projects after rejecting attempts to hike cost of a couple of previously contracted projects.
Important🧵from BNEF expert @CoreyBCantor ⤵️
It's been a rough few weeks of news on US EV transition. But there's also QUITE a lot of groupthink and sensationalism. Seems like everyone in the press decided this week the EV transition was dead and consumers "dont want EVs." Yet...
We risk conflating a *slow down* in incumbent automaker's EV ramp up plans -- GM, Ford, VW & Honda specifically -- with the broader market, which is still growing robustly, about 50% year-on-year according to @CoreyBCantor, despite serious headwinds from high interest rates.