Twice a month, we’re compiling the most relevant news stories from diverse sources online, connecting the latest environmental and energy economics research to global current events, real-time public discourse, and policy decisions. Keep reading, and feel free to send us your feedback.
Here are some questions we’re asking and addressing with our research chops this week:
How is the rollout looking for new technology-neutral tax credits that support the generation of clean electricity?
The US Department of the Treasury recently finalized the Section 48 Investment Tax Credit, which can reduce by 30 percent the investment cost of certain clean energy projects. However, final rules from Treasury for the technology-neutral tax credits, which are supposed to replace this Investment Tax Credit (and related Production Tax Credit) in January still are needed. These technology-neutral credits are available for all electricity generation that meets the seemingly simple qualification of producing zero greenhouse gas emissions, says Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF). In a new blog post, Bergman highlights challenges in implementing these tax credits and proposes simplifications to their rollout, which has been delayed and complex. “The technology-neutral tax credits for electricity generation and energy storage,” says Bergman, “have the potential to be the most impactful elements of the Inflation Reduction Act for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
How can nature-based solutions help address the challenges that arise from constructed flood barriers such as levees?
Earlier this month, an ecosystem-restoration project broke ground in Louisiana to rehabilitate the Maurepas Swamp, which has been cut off from the Mississippi River by levees—embankments built to prevent the river from overflowing. In September, a project in California removed levees to restore tidal habitat for local endangered species, the largest such restoration in state history. Levees have been central to US flood management since the late nineteenth century. However, levees involve trade-offs, and some communities are now trying to modify levees to balance the benefits for local ecosystems and residents. Matt Chambers, a researcher at the University of Georgia, discusses contemporary problems due to the levees-only policy and suggests nature-based solutions for flood management on Resources Radio. “A levee that was built in the ’50s to protect against the flood regime at the time is no longer going to necessarily protect you against the flood regimes that are happening now,” says Chambers.
How have policymakers addressed environmental justice with legislation and regulation, and what opportunities exist for continuing this work in the future?
The US Environmental Protection Agency has released draft guidance for how the agency can address the effects on communities of stacked environmental burdens, such as water and air pollution. Some state governments already are attempting to address these stacked burdens, which are known as cumulative impacts. Colorado will require the oil and gas industry to address cumulative impacts in operations near certain communities beginning in January, though community advocates and industry representatives have expressed discontent with the new requirements. Cumulative impacts disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color, says Suzanne Russo, director of RFF’s Environmental Justice Initiative. In a recent In Focus video, Russo discusses cumulative impacts as an opportunity to advance environmental justice through future policymaking, along with existing and potential approaches for addressing energy and environmental justice. “We don’t have a [federal] mechanism right now for how to calculate … cumulative impacts and then how to factor [those impacts] into policymaking,” says Russo.
Expert Perspectives
Major Electric Grid Operator Proposes Prioritizing Natural Gas to Meet Increasing Demand
PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that manages the electric grid in 13 Eastern and Midwestern states and Washington, DC, has proposed to meet a projected increase in electricity demand by allowing natural gas–fired power plants to cut the line to join the electric grid.
“The gap between electricity generation capacity and demand for electricity is widening,” says RFF Senior Research Associate Molly Robertson. “PJM faces a steep increase in projected electricity demand, while older power plants on the electric grid are expected to retire. PJM may consider natural gas–fired plants the most effective way to meet this increase in demand, because these plants can produce power around the clock—but alternative options are available to PJM that would emit less than natural gas. The queue to join the electric grid is full of renewable energy projects that also could help PJM reliably meet demand, potentially at lower costs, especially if these renewables projects are supplemented by energy storage. Regulators will need to consider the trade-offs of addressing the gap between capacity and demand in the most efficient and effective manner possible with all the electricity generation resources available.”
In Focus: Climate and Trade Policy at the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29)
Climate and trade policy was a major point of discussion at the 29th annual Conference of the Parties (COP29). In our latest In Focus video, RFF Senior Research Analyst Katarina Nehrkorn discusses two key topics of conversation at the annual climate conference: the debate over “unilateral trade measures”—climate policies created by rich countries that affect developing countries—and how the incoming Congress may affect international climate policy through trade.
Resources Roundup
Big Decisions for Energy and the Environment in 2025
Shifts in federal policy related to US energy production and environmental regulations may be on the agenda in 2025, given the stated aims of the incoming Congress and Trump administration. Join RFF on January 29 for RFF’s annual Big Decisions event, where experts across industry, government, journalism, and research will convene to discuss these potential shifts in federal policy, along with issues related to international trade, permitting reform, and state policymaking.
Examining the Regional Effects of Climate Change in the United States
Climate change is altering regional weather patterns in the United States, while the demographics of the country are shifting. This combination of changes may especially stress the Southeast, according to a new working paper coauthored by RFF Nonresident Senior Fellow David N. Wear. Negative effects of climate change, such as wildfire and heat stress, are expected to intensify in the Southeastern region, which also is home to counties that are more socially vulnerable compared to other parts of the United States. “Government agencies face substantial challenges in prioritizing investments for widespread risks driven by climate change,” say Wear and his coauthors, “including whether to prevent the greatest amount of potential harm (efficiency) or to protect areas where harm per person may be the highest (vulnerability).”
Planning for Wyoming’s Energy Future
The economy and tax base in Wyoming are heavily dependent on the coal industry, and the state may struggle to fund public services as the nation transitions to clean energy. In a new report, RFF Equity in the Energy Transition Director Daniel Raimi and coauthor Ian Hitchcock summarize interviews with experts and policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels. Their report examines the extent to which federal policies are supporting the strategy in Wyoming and helping to improve the resilience of the state against changes in the national and global energy systems. “Our interviews and analysis suggest that current federal efforts, while helpful, could do more to boost Wyoming’s communities during the energy transition,” say the authors.
How Climate Clubs May Affect International Trade and the Costs of Decarbonization
While the cost of climate change is projected to be astronomical, the cost for any nation to mitigate climate change today also is high and may be unappealing in the short term. Given the high cost, some nations may want a “free ride”—reaping the global benefits of other nations’ investments in mitigation while continuing business as usual domestically. A climate club provides a model that can help incentivize free-riding nations to pay for mitigation. Nations in a climate club adopt more stringent climate policies, while supporting domestic industries with measures that impose costs on nations outside the club, which may motivate those other countries to either join the club or stop free riding. Ramiro Parrado and Francesco Bosello, scientists at the RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment, analyze in a new working paper the domestic costs and effects on international competitiveness of multiple configurations of an international climate club, along with different measures a climate club can use to support domestic industries.
#ChartOfTheWeek
Efforts to remove dams in the United States have increased significantly over the past five decades, in part due to concerns about the effects of deteriorating infrastructure on human safety and the environment. This Chart of the Week (drawn from the Resources magazine archive) illustrates a steady rise in dam removals across the country from 1976 to 2020. While removals have expanded across the country, certain states, including Pennsylvania, California, and Wisconsin, have seen particularly active removal programs. Despite the increase in removals, the vast number of deteriorating dams nationwide underscores a persistent need to address this issue.
