First, this report does NOT model the impacts of the proposed 'permitting reform' bill being debated now. We began this work soon after finishing our analysis of IRA (repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IR…) because expanding clean electricity is THE linchpin driving emissions cuts under IRA.
Previously, REPEAT Project estimated that IRA could cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by roughly one billion tons per year in 2030 and reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by 6.3 billion tons of CO2-equivalent over the decade (2023-2032).
BUT, that outcome depends on more than doubling the historical pace of electricity transmission expansion over the last decade in order to interconnect new renewable resources at sufficient pace and meet growing demand from electric vehicles, heat pumps, & other electrification.
To meet growing demand for electricity, which we estimate could rise by ~24% by 2030 & ~43% by 2035, AND drive down power sector emissions and coal & gas use, we are going to need a bigger grid. Our original IRA analysis envisions 2.3%/year avg expansion of high-voltage capacity.
That pace is >2x the ~1%/yr rate over the past decade and slightly faster than the ~2%/year average expansion rate from 1978-2020 (credit Michael Cembalest: assets.jpmprivatebank.com/content/dam/jp…).
So this study explores alternative scenarios that constrain transmission to 1%, 1.5% & 2%/yr.
Findings: 1. Failing to accelerate transmission expansion beyond the recent historical pace (~1%/yr) increases 2030 GHG by ~800 million tons relative to estimated reductions in an unconstrained IRA case. Emissions are 200 Mt higher if transmission growth is limited to 1.5%/year.
2. Over 80% of the potential emissions reductions delivered by IRA in 2030 are lost if transmission expansion is constrained to 1%/year, and roughly 25% are lost if growth is limited to 1.5%/year.
3. To achieve IRA’s full emissions reduction potential, new clean electricity must be rapidly added to both meet growing demand from electrification & reduce fossil fuel use in the power sector. Constraining transmission growth severely limits the expansion of wind & solar power.
4. If electricity transmission cannot be expanded fast enough, power sector emissions & associated pollution & health impacts could increase significantly as gas ^ coal-fired power plants produce more to meet growing demand from electric vehicles and other electrification.
5. If transmission cannot be expanded faster than recent historical rates, growing demand from EVs and electrification drives over 110 million tons of additional coal consumption in 2030 vs No IRA case & roughly 250 Mt more than if transmission expansion is unconstrained.
6. Expanding transmission more rapidly enables growth of wind & solar and reduces natural gas consumption 17% vs 2021 levels. In contrast, if transmission expansion is limited to 1%/year, natural gas use increases to 4% above 2021 levels in 2030 and remains elevated through 2035.
In sum, hundreds of millions of tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions and our ability to drive down coal & natural gas use + associated pollution are contingent on our ability to accelerate the expansion of electricity transmission & deploy renewable electricity at scale.
).
Probably the ugliest is approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). I've been asked several times how to weigh climate/GHG impacts of this provision. Here's a 🧵
First, climate is NOT the only lens that matters here. Approving MVP is opposed by many local communities impacted by the project (vpm.org/news/articles/…), and Congress approving specific projects and preventing Judicial review is a stark example of procedural injustice.
Executive agencies & courts should determine project siting decisions, NOT Congress. Explicitly denying ability for courts to review the MVP decision is also terrible precedent. Is that even Constitutional? Seems to violate separation of powers. This all has to be weighed too.
The key win for climate is new federal (FERC) siting & cost allocation authority for electricity transmission, which is key to unlocking renewables & cutting emissions (plus lowering electricity costs & improving grid resilience)
Since releasing our IRA report, REPEAT Project has been modeling constraints on the pace of transmission expansion & impacts on emissions & energy outcomes under IRA for several weeks. It's a key bottleneck we have to tackle to enable full potential of the Inflation Reduction Act
We're aiming to get those results out tomorrow. Clearly they just got even more relevant.
Stay tuned...
I'll also be reading the full text and trying to weigh out the implications for climate asap.
Summary of Germany/EU proposal to capture excess profits from electricity markets (where prices are bonkers!) and transfer them to consumers to lower bills. It's well structured to preserve efficient dispatch, including full strength signals for demand curtailment, which is key.
This is a lot better than proposals to split markets or impose market price caps. It preserves spot markets & scarcity pricing, which is key, but achieves the key goal of transferring windfall profits from non-gas consuming generators and returning to customers to lower bills.
Confiscating rents is always dicey & can have knock-on effects on future decisions, but the crisis in Europe is going to last & seems to demand it. Seems viable to me.
What about y'all?
Interconnection ?: shouldnt wind, solar, storage projects be able to opt for quicker interconnection & pay only for "shallow" costs (eg substation & spur line) and then incur curtailment risk if RTO find it necessary to preserve reliability, in lieu of deep interconnection study?
Broader grid reinforcements usually have broader system benefits too, so cost should be allocated to all beneficiaries, not just interconnecting generators, and such reinforcements can be made after interconnection if justified by benefits.
This would make interconnection queue much faster, no?
Is this already standard practice in some RTO regions?
I believe it is an option in the UK (and managing curtailment became a major market opportunity for aggregators like Smarter Grid Solutions)
California to Ban the Sale of New Gasoline Cars by 2035 👀 nyti.ms/3Kp3p7l
When we said IRA would spur states (and everyone else!) to do more, we weren't joking...
"It sets interim targets requiring that 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 produce zero emissions. That would climb to 68 percent by 2030."
"The restrictions are important because not only is California the largest auto market in the United States, but more than a dozen other states typically follow California’s lead when setting their own auto emissions standards."