NEW REPORT w/ @cleanaircatf: To manage climate change, the U.S. must double or triple the size of its electric transmission system - and the current piecemeal approach isn’t going to cut it.
To make progress, the U.S. must address the tension between private and public interest. It will also need to find inclusive ways to plan and develop transmission in the national interest that gets buy-in by ensuring broad enough benefits as well as compensation for burdens.
#Transmission building today is a fragmented “3 P” system:
✔️Permitting
✔️Planning
✔️Paying
This is scattered over dozens of federal / state / local authorities. The result? A lengthy process subject to multiple vetoes.
Our current approach to transmission yields the siting of only a few new significant lines per decade...when we need to double capacity in less than thirty years.
We propose a “5P” framework for expanding #transmission - adding inclusive stakeholder participation and a clear process to the traditional 3Ps. This will more effectively address the tensions between public and private interests.
So what would it mean to abandon our piecemeal approach to transmission and build a new system that scales transmission rapidly? We have 2 proposals: one that puts more weight on the public sector and one that puts more weight on the private sector.
Proposal 1 (the public-weighted model): Creating a National Transmission Organization that would create and continually update a national transmission plan with state and other stakeholder participation, with funding and permitting authority.
Proposal 2 (the private-weighted model): A more coordinated system of privately executed transmission development within an inclusive national planning framework that lays out broad corridors for development, minimum standards for public participation, etc.
These models are not strict opposites. Elements of the two models could be combined in novel formulations. But outlining two types helps clarify the choices and tradeoffs we face.
Electricity transmission development has been languishing for years without significant policy changes.
We need to reimagine the system and policies around building transmission. And we need to get the job done in a few decades.
.@heritage publishes regular iterations of its “Mandate for Leadership” with an agenda for the next Republican administration. The prior Trump admin implemented nearly 64% of its recommendations in its 1st year.
First, the Mandate would effectively close many avenues of legal immigration by:
❌Halting H2 visa programs
❌Closing the H-1B visa program to most recent grads
❌Leveraging entire visa categories as collateral in foreign policy negotiations
It would sabotage U.S. humanitarian relief by:
❌Repealing all TPS designations, stripping almost 700,000 of legal protection + work authorization.
❌Forbidding use of DHS staff time on DACA, Uniting for Ukraine, etc.
❌Prohibiting refugee vetting, ending refugee resettlement.
NEW PAPER: Manufactured housing is an affordable option in rural areas where land prices are low. They even promise to ease the housing crunch in coastal cities where land prices are high!
To clarify, we’re not talking about vacation trailers, or 1970’s-era mobile homes. Modern manufactured homes have strict standards for structural integrity and safety. They often look like homes built on-site, but they were assembled in a factory, like a car or an airplane.
Benefits of manufactured homes include: (1) They’re safer and more efficient to make, their materials don’t have to be exposed to the elements until the house is fully assembled, and (3) they can help improve quality of housing while driving costs down.
Before we enact any reform, we have to understand the political economy of our system: whom it empowers, whom it enriches, etc.
Answering these questions will rally opinion shapers around reform, protect reforms against backlash, and help avoid unintended consequences.
Here's how the conventional wisdom explains the political economy of housing: single-family homes and large lot sizes restrict the availability of housing to buyers who will pay at least as much in local taxes as they consume in public services, such as schools.
THREAD: The cost of building public transit is out of control. We can do something about that:
Stop relying on outside consultants to do the work of government agencies. slate.com/business/2023/…
In the name of cutting costs, we’ve hollowed out government agencies, asking full-time employees to handle impossible tasks.
The result? Chaos. And lots of wasted taxpayer dollars. (After all, government contractors arguably cost even more money).
.@alon_levy produced a report for us outlining some solutions:
(1) The federal government should require that state/local transportation agencies demonstrate they already have the capacity to oversee big infrastructure projects before releasing funds. niskanencenter.org/report-so-you-…