Proposed permitting reforms could accelerate both renewable energy projects and new fossil fuel infrastructure. Is that a good deal for the climate?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is seen as the most significant climate legislation ever passed in the US, because of the array of new, expanded and extended tax credits it offers for low-carbon energy. But when it was passed in 2022, the critical vote in the Senate was cast by Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, and he always saw the IRA as just Part One of a two-part strategy. The second part would be to reform the processes for approving new infrastructure projects, to make it quicker and easier to deploy low-carbon energy technologies. The quid pro quo would be that the reform would also expedite the production and processing of fossil fuels.

Senator Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill to deliver those reforms with Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and their proposed legislation has been making progress in the Senate. It has faced criticism from environmental groups, but found support from both the renewables and oil and gas industries: the American Clean Power Association and the American Petroleum Institute.

To unpack what the proposal could mean for the future of energy in America, Ed Crooks is joined by Melissa Lott, professor at the Climate School at Columbia University in New York, and Emily Grubert, an Associate Professor at the Keough School of Global Affairs at Notre Dame University. Together they examine the bill and discuss the impact it could have both on wind and solar power, and on gas pipelines and LNG plants.

One provision in the bill would end the Biden administration’s “pause” on new approvals for LNG exports. Emily has been studying the issue, and shares her views. She wrote recently that the US needs a new “national strategy” for the role of gas in the energy system. What might that strategy look like?

Plus, the gang debate what needs to happen for carbon removal to make a real difference to achieving our net zero goals. Emily warns that for-profit carbon dioxide removal “presents fundamental and predictable risks for climate and justice goals”. What are those risks, and – given that carbon removal looks likely to be needed – how can we minimize them?

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Can America build new energy projects faster? Should it?

Energy Gang