Critiques of Third Way modeling

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!

4 Replies

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!)

Daniela Brod
219 Posts

@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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Forum help

Select a question below

CCL Community's Sitewide Forums are an easy and exciting way to interact with other members on CCL Community.  The Sitewide Forums are focused on subjects and areas of general interest to members.  Each forum consists of topics that members have posted, along with replies from other members. Some forums are divided into categories to group similar topics together. 

Any members can post a topic or reply to a topic.

The Sitewide Forums are open to the entire CCL community to create, comment on, and view online discussions.  Posts and comments should address the subject or focus of the selected forum. 

Note: Categories can only be created by community administrators.

Guidelines for posting: (also see general Community Guidelines)

  • Don’t see your question or topic? Post it.
  • Be thoughtful, considerate (nonpartisan) and complete. The more information you supply, the better the better and more engaging the conversation will be. 
  • Feel like cursing? Please don’t.
  • Ask yourself, “Would my topic post reveal sensitive or confidential information?” If so, please don't post!

Flag/report any offending comments, and then move on. In the rare instance of a comment containing a potentially credible threat, escalate that immediately to CCL.

If the Sitewide Forum has no categories, select the "Add Topic" button at the top of topics window. 

If the forum has categories, when you click on "Add Topic," a dropdown list of the categories appears. Select the desired category and then "Add Topic."
In either case this brings up a box to enter both the topic subject and topic text.

If you have questions or wish to add comments on a posted forum topic, open the post and click the blue “Add Reply” button at top. You can also click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of the original topic posting.

This opens a text box. Add your reply. You can also add documents by dragging a file into the text box. Click “Post” at the bottom of the reply window This will add your reply to other replies (if there are any), sorted by oldest on top. 

If, however, you want to reply directly to someone else’s reply, click on the “Reply” link at the bottom of their reply. 

When replying to a topic post or a topic reply it may be helpful to quote the original text, or the part that your reply is referring to. To quote a topic or reply, click on the "Quote" link at bottom of post. 

When you do this the full text of either the post or reply will be pulled into a reply text box. If desired, you can remove parts of the quoted text in order to get the portion you are interested in quoting.

You can subscribe to notifications of new postings from any of the Sitewide Forums or forum categories. To subscribe, select the green “Subscribe” button at the top of the forum. Click on dropdown arrow to select frequency of notification.

If you are already subscribed, the button will display “Unsubscribe.”  Select it to unsubscribe or select the dropdown arrow to modify frequency of notification. 

Note: If you subscribe to a Sitewide Forum, such as "Media Relations" that has categories (such as "LTEs and Op-Eds"), you will also be subscribed to all the categories. If you wish to subscribe to only one or more of the categories, unsubscribe to the parent forum and subscribe individually to desired categories.

.

If you see a topic post or reply that interests you or that you like, you can click the “Like” icon at the bottom of the topic post or the reply. This lets the poster know that the topic was helpful. It also contributes to the topic’s popularity, which influences where it is listed in the "Popular" forum tab. There are also additional reactions available for members to use. Mouseover the "Like" icon to choose one of these options: Love, Clap, Celebrate, Insightful, or Interesting.

CCL Community Guidelines

  • Discuss, ask and share
  • Be respectful
  • Respect confidentiality
  • Protect privacy

More guidelines
 

CCL Blog Policy Area Categories