The #InflationReductionAct throws the full financial weight of the federal govt behind the clean energy transition.
The result: CO2 & electricity costs in the largest US electricity market, @pjminterconnect, will BOTH decline sharply through 2030, we find in a new ZERO Lab study
Detailed electricity system modeling performed for the report (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…) also finds that PJM could cut CO2 as much as 80-90% from current levels by 2035 while maintaining bulk electricity supply costs comparable to or lower than levels experienced in recent years.
The study employs an open-source electricity system capacity planning model (genx.mit.edu) to assess the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on the cost of electricity, emissions, and investment in electricity capacity in @pjminterconnect over 2023-2035 period.
The report also explores how new and expanded federal subsidies for clean electricity resources could enable “deep decarbonization” of the PJM grid while maintaining an affordable electricity supply.
Note: The project was supported by Community Energy, Inc., a developer of renewable electricity, through the Princeton E-ffiliates Partnership, and is published in the spirit of a working paper for public dissemination prior to peer review.
The study concludes that IRA will spark a new, sustained period of growth in PJM electricity consumption, which could rise ~19% from 2021 to 2030 as electric vehicles and heat pumps are adopted across the region.
The law also subsidizes the cost of deploying new renewable energy and maintaining the region’s existing nuclear fleet. As a result, we find that clean electricity could supply 60% [58-66% across sensitivities] of PJM demand in 2030, up from 48% [43-61%] without enactment of IRA.
However, realizing this potential will require a dramatic acceleration in the pace of wind and solar interconnection and transmission expansion in the PJM Interconnection.
The growth of lower-cost, carbon-free electricity under IRA will significantly reduce CO2 emissions from PJM power generation, which could fall 37% [3-66%] from 2019/2021 levels by 2030. In contrast, PJM emissions would increase 12% [0-15%] from 2021 levels without IRA.
IRA also lowers the cost of electricity supply in the PJM region. We find the avg cost of bulk electricity supply incl. transmission & state policy will be ~$42/MWh [~$40-45/MWh] in 2030, about 5-10% lower than w/out IRA + well below costs paid in 2019 (~$50/MWh) or 2021 (~$61)
While IRA puts the PJM region on a path to lower-cost electricity and lower greenhouse gas emissions, the new federal policy is not sufficient to drive deep decarbonization of the PJM interconnection on its own.
Fortunately, by subsidizing the cost of all new carbon-free electricity resources, IRA also makes it cheaper and easier for PJM states to reduce emissions further while preserving affordability.
The new study also presents a cost-optimized blueprint of the additional capacity investments and resource deployment required for the PJM region to deeply decarbonize over the 2023-2035 period.
This study finds that, due to passage of IRA, the PJM region could cut CO2 emissions from power generation by 80-90% by 2035 while keeping average bulk electricity supply costs comparable to or lower than levels experienced in recent years (2019 & 2021).
However, deep decarbonization in the PJM region will require much more rapid expansion of low-carbon electricity resources and supportive transmission expansion above and beyond the rates of deployment made economical by IRA.
PJM will also need to deploy more advanced ‘clean firm’ resources like gas plants with carbon capture and storage or long-duration electricity storage technologies, to replace coal- and gas-fired power capacity. Early deployment of these nascent techs can begin soon w/fed support
Please see the full report, which also assesses sensitivity to future natural gas price and renewable energy cost uncertainties and explores and maps a range of alternative resource portfolios that could reach the same goals at affordable cost: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo…
Last week, my fam said goodbye to gas stations and made the big switch to electric: we purchased a Mustang Mach-E! It's a true pleasure to drive so far. But several folks asked when I shared the news last week: what does it mean for your fuel costs and CO2 emissions? A thread...
Our NJ utility @PSEGNews charges us ~$0.16/kWh. Once we install a smart level 2 EV charger, we can qualify for a $0.02/kWh discount for off-peak charging, which we plan to do. Our AWD, extended range Mach-E uses 0.37 kWh per mile. So we pay $0.06/mi on-peak or $0.052/mi off-peak.
We traded in our Toyota RAV4 hybrid when we got the Mach-E. The RAV hybrid got a little over 40 MPG avg over 3 years of driving, and at current NJ avg gasoline cost of $3.94/gallon, that's ~$0.10/mile. So we're saving 4-5 cents/mile or $466-555/year (at 12k mi/yr) vs RAV hybrid.
It's 2010. Dems failed to pass a cap & trade bill w/58 vote Senate majority. They lose 6 Senate seats + 68 House.
It's 2022. Dems pass an investment-centric climate bill in a 50/50 Senate. It is impervious to GOP attack. Ds hold Senate (gain +1?) & lose minimal House seats. 🤯
I know neither election is all about climate. It never is. But the contrast above is remarkable. The fact that GOP didn't even ATTEMPT to attack IRA, even though it passed w/0 R votes right before midterms, speaks volumes to political durability of this approach to climate policy
In case the contrast wasnt clear, the policy strategy was 🔑: this time, Dems raised taxes on billion dollar corps & tax cheats that havent been paying their fair share to enact investments that make energy cheaper & cleaner for all Americans & drive more manufacturing in the USA
With US demand for EVs skyrocketing (2x market share year-on-year) & outstripping supply, auto makers are raising prices across the board. While EVs continue selling as fast as they're made, that pushes an EV purchase out of reach of many (for now). theverge.com/2022/11/9/2344…
MSRP for 2023 models is going up several thousand $ for all popular models, including Teslas, Kia & Hyundai models, and Mustang Mach-E. Base level trims are also harder to find as automakers prioritize higher level trims w/higher margins. Then add in dealer mark-ups. It's a lot.
This is exactly what one expects when demand outstrips supply. Like many supply constraints, I think this one will be temporary & work its way out over next couple years. Automakers are investing 100s of billions to expand supply. Many more models coming, increasing competition.
I know oil extraction and mining aren't apples to apples, but also note the world extracted 4.2 billion tons of crude oil in 2021 (statista.com/statistics/265…), or 1.6x as much as the world's most mined metal (iron ore) and about FORTY THOUSAND TIMES more than all lithium extracted
Or more than SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND TIMES as much as lithium (and coal mining is even more environmentally destructive than lithium extraction I'd wager).
Important movements in US gas prices. Production is up and prices falling even as winter approaches. And this is in anticipation of Freeport LNG coming back online soon, adding ~2bcf/d to US demand in Nov, pending regulatory approval for restart (google.com/amp/s/finance.…)
Gas price movements will have big impacts on US power sector emissions.
1. Short Term: gas prices down means less coal burn and lower emissions as gas/coal compete on margin in many hours/regions.
2. Longer term: cost of capital is way up & inflation adding to capex too, both of which raise costs for capital-intensive wind & solar projects. If gas prices fall much faster than capital costs, that puts wind/solar at relative disadvantage & eats into impact of IRA subsidies.
).
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.