Yesterday in our lobby meeting the staffer countered our assertion that EPRA would result in a net gain on emission reduction with an Earthjustice report that criticizes the modeling. Was wondering on your take. Any response we can/should send in a follow-up e-mail? https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/analysis-of-manchin-barrasso-emissions-modeling-11-5-2024.pdf Thanks!
Hi @Irmgard M Flaschka. The short answer is that's not a very good analysis, but it's also probably not worth debating this with staff. Though one possible follow-up point, if you didn't make it in the meeting, is that the main fossil fuel provisions (expanding federal oil & gas lease sales and expediting LNG export terminal permits) are things the Trump administration is going to do whether or not the bill passes, so we should take the important clean energy infrastructure wins while we can get them.
@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks for your quick reply. I would be interested in what you found lacking in their analysis – but that's strictly for my own curiosity, so no need, esp. not right now. (And we did make your point in the meeting, but thanks!)
@Irmgard M Flaschka - We here in Oregon have also gotten pushback about the accuracy of the modeling. This “confidential” paper could be the source of our office's concern. If I am reading our options correctly - the suggestion from National/Dana N. is to emphasize that, even if the current modeling underestimates the impact of the fossil fuel development and pushes us into net positive emissions territory, -we have to recognize that we will be getting all the fossil fuel provisions anyway with the Trump Administration - and so at least with this bill we would also get clean energy deployment which would make the net positive emissions smaller than without the bill. Am I understanding this correctly?
That's right, @Daniela Brod.
And circling back to @Irmgard M Flaschka's questions about why I don't think the analysis is good, we can just focus on their three conclusions:
- The modeling and other analytic results have high levels of uncertainty. Yes sure, modeling generally comes with a lot of uncertainty. That's just a truism. We still proceed with our best understanding based on modeling, with those uncertainties in mind.
- The modeling does not capture all impacts. Sure, it's not intended to capture all impacts. Again, modeling can never be perfect. At the same time, other air pollutants are strongly correlated with climate pollutants. If we're reducing climate pollution by replacing fossil fuels with clean energy, that's also going to reduce air pollution that disproportionately harms environmental justice communities. And we have some relevant research on that to consider.
- “Debating whether the bill is moderately beneficial, neutral, or harmful relative to today’s status quo overlooks a critical point: We urgently need to reduce emissions, and we’re behind the curve on the levels required … The climate crisis requires greater ambition.” To me this is totally illogical. EPRA is really important precisely because we urgently need to reduce emissions. They're arguing that they don't think it reduces emissions enough and so we should leave these emissions reductions on the table to pursue “greater ambition,” which means not actually getting anything done in a Republican-controlled Congress. They want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And yes, we do know the bill will reduce emissions not only because the modeling shows that, but also because the Trump administration is going to do the fossil fuel stuff. You have to compare a scenario in which EPRA doesn't pass and we still get federal oil & gas lease sales and LNG export facility permits, to a scenario in which the bill does pass and we get that stuff plus the transmission and clean energy provisions. The latter scenario unquestionably significantly reduces climate pollution compared to the former scenario.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency