Профиль

SB 1097 would have given CEQA exemptions for transmission buildouts and it didn’t even make it out of first house. This state talks a big game about climate transition but can’t even stomach modest reforms to accommodate green energy growth.

Even if DCs go under leaving clean energy projects in the lurch…is that so bad? With the right policy interventions, you have the blessed overcapacity we’ve all been dreaming of! Starting a green boom is valuable. Bailouts of the energy projects are valuable. But that takes work!

So absolutely use large load money. But don’t be under the illusion that the challenges of decarbonizing new load are inconvenient for power sector decarb. They’re the same issues. They would exist on a grid half our size let alone the 2x or 3x sized one we’ll ultimately need.

Folks might think this is ungenerous (most DC’s won’t manage decarb on such strict terms), but the point is to highlight that a large load mimics the problems of decarbonization on the grid scale. Tackling those will benefit DCs. But also electrification and manufacturing. Load is good!

It’s also impossible to cheaply do a 365/24/7 clean hourly match on large loads with PV + BESS in isolation (ie BTM without Ix). We have leverage to demand “good grid citizenship” we’ll need clean firm + LDS + Tx need at grid scale regardless.

And it’s doubtful you’ll get much emissions benefit from blocking DCs because the same restrictions on clean energy growth will impact your ability to service a lower level of load.

This load growth is perfectly compatible with rapid increases in the share of clean power consumption on the grid. But you have to make it easier to build and interconnect. Trying to restrain the load growth on climate grounds is a public admission of failure. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

Yes. Add to this that distributional politics is difficult and often gut wrenching. Particularly as it involves active decisions to make people poorer. We should take strategic advantage when that is less necessary!

At a basic level, a decarbonizing or decarbonized economy will have all kinds of developments whose political economy isn’t primarily about climate. And that’s OK.

To the extent development is blocked on a climate basis, it’s a public admission of failure - not planning nor democratic control. It’s an inability or unwillingness to reshape systems with investment. AI today. Manufacturing or electrification tomorrow?

Among a lot of climate activists, there seems to be a basic frustration that an AI boom is happening at all. Which is unfortunate because the policies needed for rapid decarbonization haven’t changed and would allow us to facilitate more economic activity in other sectors.

Yes. At a system level, you need to ensure replacement reserve and / or firming capacity depending on the penetration levels of VRE & BESS duration. Good chance that comes from a more efficient gas plant in the absence of LDS, nuclear, geothermal, hydro.

(Other things you can do to hedge against clean energy and infra deployment not happening fast enough? Invest in DAC, H2, CCUS, RNG and the efficiency of U.S. O&G extraction, refining, and distribution.)

And if you haven’t tackled obstacles to deployment, you’re gonna be stuck at “emitting for longer.” (The same is true if you cut aggregate consumption or arbitrarily select material throughput cuts to proxy emissions.)

One solid answer is demand transformations that structurally reduce fossil fuel use. Many of these however will require more electricity and infrastructure buildout.

Someone has to articulate how “phasing out fossil fuels” without first building sufficient clean energy, storage, and transmission capacity is at all feasible. If you don’t sequence things properly, they’re no climate solution at all.

Best reason to slow development temporarily is (like NY) if you are working on a regulatory regime. Worst reason is learned helplessness on the state capacity side. You’re gonna need that exact capacity to decarbonize anyway. And you wind up surrendering the chance to govern capital.

You do it right and not only could they pay for a ton of infra, but it would be a massive demand signal for both VRE + BESS & the kinds of clean firm power that still face obstacles to bankability. Classic tax, invest, redistribute story for us progs.

It would be the height of folly for Democrats to view changes to NEPA and NHPA as concessions in a permitting negotiation. We should embrace changes. A future Dem administration’s transmission buildout will thank us for it.

And a battery, meter, distribution Ix, home retrofits for electrification etc etc. There will be costs both at an individual and system level!