.@SenJeffMerkley@SenWarren et al are taking issue w/subsidies for "blue" hydrogen saying we cant support "energy sources that could worsen greenhouse gas emissions." Good thing BBB makes H2 PTC explicitly contingent on lowering lifecycle GHG emissions! Here's how it works ⤵️
Merkley, Warren, Raskin, and other signatories are climate champions. But their attention/concern is misplaced here. Unless the House language is substantially altered, only hydrogen that lowers greenhouse gas emissions will get support.
Also, EPA is working on much more stringent regulations on upstream emissions of methane from gas supply chains, an area also targeted by methane fee in the House bill (which may or may not still be in final deal), so lifecycle emissions of blue H2 will drop as those go to work.
It's been fast & furious around here, so I've not had time to share some fun news: as of this month, I've joined the Advisory Board of @Eavor, developer of advanced closed-loop geothermal energy technology. Clean, firm, flexible power, widely available. eavor.com
My research has consistently illustrated the value of 'clean firm power' -- available any time of the year, as long as needed -- as critical complement to 'fuel saving' variable renewables & energy-limited 'fast burst' batteries or demand flexibility. eg: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Furthermore, we find that FLEXIBLE firm resources are more valuable than those that operate constantly as always-on "baseload" generation. When prices are zero much of the time, producing flat out all the time isn't as valuable as shifting your output to the most vaulable times.
First, a $320 billion package of tax credits for electric vehicles, heat pumps and energy efficient buildings, clean energy, transmission, energy storage, carbon capture and industrial decarbonization, are the core of the plan.
Here's what is in store for the power sector ⚡️ ⤵️
There are new tax credits for investment in electricity transmission (a key priority, since @Princeton Net-Zero America study shows we've gotta expand US transmission by as much as 60% by 2030) and energy storage and a new $180/ton credit kick-start direct air capture technology
More details on the #ClimateAction provisions in #BuildBackBetter framework via @WhiteHouse, which they are (rightly) calling "The largest effort to combat climate change in American history" 🧵
.@WhiteHouse claims: "The framework will start cutting climate pollution now, and deliver well over one gigaton, or a billion metric tons, of greenhouse gas emissions reductions in 2030 – at least ten times larger than any legislation Congress has ever passed"
REPEATProject.org awaits details to model final bill, it appears BBB Framework retains most programs in the House budget bill, except the Clean Electricity Performance Program, while repurposing most of the $150b allocated for CEPP to strengthen & expand other programs.
Correct. Plus losing methane fee would mean losing ~130 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions (100 year global-warming potential as EPA inventory uses; a lot more if using 20 year potential). That's ~10% of the total House package's emissions cuts via repeatproject.org
EPA is restoring/expanding regulations on upstream oil and gas methane emissions and can make back up some (or all?) of these tons. eenews.net/articles/metha…
So perhaps the Biden Administration sees these as overlapping policies and therefore less critical to get over finish line?
Criticall, our REPEAT Project did NOT assume EPA regulations on methane were in place (as rules are still pending) when estimating impact of methane fee.
Can pending Congressional legislation deliver Biden's #ClimateAction goals as #COP26 nears? Will losing the CEPP be a fatal blow? How far on the path to net-zero can we get?
I am happy to announce launch of the REPEAT Project, a new initiative of my @Princeton ZERO Lab w/@ErinNMayfield@dartmouth & @evolved_energy, which provides regular, timely & independent environmental & economic evaluation of federal energy & climate policies as they’re proposed
Today we launch our website at repeatproject.org & a preliminary report analyzing impacts of the House Build Back Better Act and the Senate Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We also present Existing Policy (where we are now) + Net-Zero Benchmarks (where we want to go)
To start: I'd love a $20/t carbon price from Congress. That said: given current political stalemate on the Hill, what political impasse does it solve that brings us closer to passage of Build Back Better? Honest question.
Manchin seems to want to minimize contraction of coal sector. Any meaningful price that hits power sector ($10/t or more?) could decimate coal. So it exempts power sector?
Both Manchin and Sinema seem to want a smaller package thats fully paid for. But a carbon tax used for general revenue would violate POTUS pledge not to raise taxes on the working class. So how does that square? Tax and dividend doesn't raise net revenues for other programs.