Key quote:
"The Credit Suisse report is truly remarkable. What stuck with me most was this declaration: For big corporations, the IRA “definitively changes the narrative from risk mitigation to opportunity capture.”"
"In other words, companies should no longer worry that they might be unprepared for future climate regulation, such as a carbon tax. They should be scared of missing out on the economic growth that the energy transition (and the IRA) will bring about."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
).
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.
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).
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)