Danny Cullenward

I was wondering what the latest numbers would look like, as I think a lot of us have seen interconnection queue results from the last decade or so that are dominated by renewables — but Kevin shows that MISO's queue is now dominated by gas.

Main take-away for me is that the interconnection queues look a lot more fossil-heavy now than they did across the full timeframe over which LBNL did its analysis. Or, in simpler terms, building everything faster could lead to adding more gas than renewable generation.

I was wondering what the latest numbers would look like, as I think a lot of us have seen interconnection queue results from the last decade or so that are dominated by renewables — but Kevin shows that MISO's queue is now dominated by gas.

Here's a similar analysis Kevin did for PJM, where the interconnection queue is again dominated by gas.

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but no! Despite all the talk of technology neutrality, it appears the permitting reform proposal would weaponize claims for federal damages — but in practice, only for fossil fuels.

Anyway, maybe don't let the fossil fuel industry write your legislation next time.

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but no! Despite all the talk of technology neutrality, it appears the permitting reform proposal would weaponize claims for federal damages — but in practice, only for fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, because the baseline for renewables is mostly delay or rejection under Trump, it's not clear there's a plausible path to remedies for renewables that get delayed under a future administration. (Not advocating otherwise; this is bad policy. Just noting the asymmetry.)

I thought this might be an exaggeration, but no! Despite all the talk of technology neutrality, it appears the permitting reform proposal would weaponize claims for federal damages — but in practice, only for fossil fuels.

I don’t think this basic fact gets nearly enough attention in US political analysis. Many if not most prominent US environmentalists worked with pro-climate conservatives and Republicans — so much that insiders joked about “vitamin R” as part of a healthy approach to climate policy.

It’s not clear to me that this has weakened their influence on federal climate policy or in national media, however, where the perception of their relevance to anything right of the political center persists (despite all evidence to the contrary).

I don’t think this basic fact gets nearly enough attention in US political analysis. Many if not most prominent US environmentalists worked with pro-climate conservatives and Republicans — so much that insiders joked about “vitamin R” as part of a healthy approach to climate policy.

This is a good thread. I would add that a similar dynamic unfolded with the Inflation Reduction Act — white papers with strong claims about expected outcomes, based on equally strong assumptions about technology costs and policy implementation.

To be clear, I'm not hating on the IRA or the people who supported it. But I am a former energy modeler and the primary reason I drifted away from that field is because the feedback loop between model-based claims and policy applications is more a political than scientific matter.