You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Few aspects of Biden’s climate law have spurred more controversy than the “three pillars” — a set of rules proposed by the Treasury Department for how to claim a lucrative new tax credit for producing clean hydrogen. Now, it appears, the pillars may be poised to fall.
The Treasury has been under immense pressure from Congress, energy companies, and even leaders at the Department of Energy to relax the rules since before it even published the proposal in December. The pillars, criteria designed to prevent the program from subsidizing projects that increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduce them, are too expensive and complicated to comply with, detractors argue, and would sink the prospects for a domestic clean hydrogen industry.
But lately, the campaign to dismantle the pillars has gotten both more forceful and more threatening. There’s the politically challenging hurdle that leaders of another federally-funded hydrogen program — the regional clean hydrogen hubs — have spoken out against the rules, arguing they threaten investment in hub projects and therefore job creation and economic development around the country. Then there’s the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the precedent known as Chevron deference, which weakened agencies’ ability to defend their own rules and thereby emboldens any aggrieved parties to sue the Treasury if it keeps the pillars in place. Last week, 13 Democratic Senators, 11 of whom hail from states involved in the hubs, sent a letter calling on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to dramatically revise the rules or risk having them challenged in court.
The consequences of losing the three pillars can only be guessed at using models, which are built on assumptions and can’t predict the future with certainty. But proponents say the stakes couldn’t be higher. In their view, the pillars don’t just prevent carbon emissions. They mitigate the risks of rising electricity costs for everyday Americans. And without them, one of the most generous energy credits the government offers could become incredibly easy to claim, ballooning the federal budget.
The clean hydrogen tax credit was created by the Inflation Reduction Act, and offers up to $3 per kilogram of hydrogen produced, with the top dollar amount reserved for fuel that is essentially zero-emissions. The hope was that this would be enough to bring down the cost of hydrogen made from electricity to parity with hydrogen made from natural gas. If made cleanly, hydrogen could help decarbonize other carbon-intensive industries, like steelmaking and shipping.
At first, excitement for the tax credit ran high and companies quickly began making plans for new factories. Announcements of new hydrogen production capacity more than tripled from 2 million tons per year in 2021 to 7.7 million by the end of the following year, with another 6 million announced in 2023, according to the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
Then, after the Treasury’s proposal dropped last December, everything stopped. Under the three pillars, hydrogen companies that get electricity from the grid, which is still largely powered by fossil fuels, would be required to buy clean energy credits with specific attributes in order to mitigate their emissions and render their hydrogen “clean.” The credits must come from power plants located in the same region as the hydrogen production — the first pillar — that were built no more than 3 years before the hydrogen plant — the second pillar — and be purchased for every hour the plant is operating — the third pillar.
The three provisions work together to ensure that new clean power plants are brought online to meet hydrogen’s energy demand. But finding clean energy credits with these features is not easy — there aren’t many systems in place to do this yet. The Treasury took more than a year to publish its initial proposal, and leading up to it, companies lobbied aggressively for a more lenient version. There was so much money on the line that some businesses flooded the public with ads in newspapers and on streaming and podcast services delivering a cryptic warning that “additionality” — the requirement to buy energy from new power plants — was threatening to “set America back.”
Until businesses have clarity on whether the three pillars will stay or go, the industry is on ice. Several previously announced projects have been delayed. Few companies have reached offtake agreements, even provisional ones, for their hydrogen. Almost none have received a final investment decision or started construction.
“They’re losing advantage over other parts of the world,” Hector Arreola, a principal analyst for hydrogen and emerging technologies at Wood Mackenzie, told me. Momentum to develop hydrogen projects has started to shift back to Europe, which has already finalized its own definition of what constitutes clean hydrogen, he said.
It’s hard to imagine a path forward for the Treasury to keep the three pillars intact. Last week’s letter outlined the current state of play in stark terms. “Without significant changes to the draft guidance,” it said, “one of the most powerful job creation and emission reduction tools in the IRA will likely be hamstrung by future court challenges, congressional opposition, and unfulfilled private sector investment.”
Indeed, at least one company, Constellation Energy, has already suggested it would draw on the loss of Chevron deference to sue the agency if it didn’t remove the second pillar — the requirement to buy clean energy credits from recently-built power plants. (Constellation owns a fleet of nuclear power plants and is developing hydrogen projects powered by them.) In comments to the Treasury, Constellation wrote that the requirements for purchasing clean electricity “have no basis” in the law.
“People can always sue today to challenge regulations,” Keith Martin, a renewable energy tax lawyer at the firm Norton Rose Fulbright, told me. “It’s just that the odds of success have increased.” The Supreme Court’s ruling undermines regulatory agencies’ authority to interpret federal statute.
Another hydrogen company that has been fighting the three pillars, Plug Power, has already claimed victory: It put out a press release last month declaring that it anticipates receiving the tax credit, despite the fact that the rules are still not final and its projects would likely not qualify under Treasury’s proposal. The CEO, Andy Marsh, told a hydrogen trade publication that he’s “certain” the rules will be loosened. (Plug Power didn’t respond to a request for clarification by publish time.)
In their letter, the 13 Democratic senators propose that hydrogen producers should be able to purchase clean energy from existing power plants that are already supplying the grid if they are located in a state that has a clean energy standard, or as long as the power plant doesn’t reallocate more than 10% of its power to hydrogen production. They recommend losing the hourly matching requirement altogether and replacing it with annual or monthly matching, depending on when plants start construction. The senators also suggest allowing projects built in areas with “insufficient clean energy sources,” meaning places with suboptimal sun, wind, water, or geothermal energy, to source their power from farther outside the region.
Beth Deane, the chief legal officer for Electric Hydrogen, a company that has historically supported the three pillars, told me in an interview she thought these proposals represented a good compromise. “Bottom-line, the effectiveness of green hydrogen as a decarbonization tool is being artificially held back,” she said later in an email. “We need to give up perfection on both sides of the three-pillar debate and find the ‘good enough’ solution that lets early mover projects move forward with less stringent requirements.”
But other proponents told me the letter carves out so many loopholes that the pillars would remain in name only. Rachel Fakhry, the policy director for emerging technologies at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me the letter was “outrageous” and “a giveaway buffet.” Daniel Esposito, a manager in the electricity program at the think tank Energy Innovation, told me he can’t imagine any scenario where these exceptions don’t result in an emissions boost rather than a reduction.
That’s because the electrolyzers used to produce clean hydrogen consume a lot of power and are expected to cause fossil fuel plants — which are more flexible than renewables — to run more often and stay open longer than they otherwise would. Without a requirement to buy power from new clean sources and a prescription to match operations with clean energy throughout the day, there will be no demand signals to bring (often more expensive) clean resources onto the grid that can, for example, produce power at night when solar panels aren’t generating. Power system models from Energy Innovation, Princeton University researchers, the Rhodium Group, and the Electric Power Research Institute have all found that there could be significant emissions consequences if the three pillars were relaxed in ways suggested in the letter.
“This effectively unlocks more than 10 million metric tons of dirty electrolytic hydrogen,” Esposito said, based on some back-of-the-envelope estimates. That would cost something like $30 billion per year. Put another way, he said, every $300 paid out by this program could subsidize one ton of CO2 emissions. Put a third way, he added, it could set the U.S. back two to three percentage points on its commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions 50% to 52% by 2030 — and we’re already off track.
The authors of the letter say they’re “confident” these fears are overblown. They cite a competing analysis published last year by the consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics and paid for by the trade group the American Council on Renewable Energy, which found that requiring companies to match their operations with clean energy on an hourly basis, rather than an annual basis, does not ensure lower greenhouse gas emissions. They also cite research by an energy modeling group at Carnegie Mellon and North Carolina State University, which found that the difference in cumulative emissions between scenarios with less stringent requirements and the full three pillars comes out to less than 1% by 2039.
Paulina Jaramillo, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon who worked on that research, told me the three pillars add a level of regulatory complexity to hydrogen production that is not worth the cost in terms of the emissions savings. In general, she said, she saw no need for the rules, and that the Treasury should subsidize electrolytic hydrogen regardless of where the electricity comes from. “We need to deploy this infrastructure,” Jaramillo told me. “We need to deploy it now so it’s available later.”
The other camp of researchers disputed Jaramillo’s group’s findings, chalking them up to a series of differences in assumptions and approach. They also call the industry’s bluff on the claim that the three pillars are too hard and expensive to comply with. Esposito pointed out that a small group of hydrogen companies has already told the Treasury that if the rules were finalized as-is, they planned to build enough capacity to produce more than 6 million tons of hydrogen per year.
Fakhry argued that we are already seeing the risks of losing the three pillars play out in real time as power-hungry industries like bitcoin mining and artificial intelligence grow. Bitcoin mines have driven up emissions and energy costs around the country. Utilities in Pennsylvania are sounding the alarm that an Amazon data center seeking to divert power from an existing nuclear power plant could shift up to $140 million in costs to other electricity customers. As I wrote in Heatmap last year, this debate is not just about hydrogen — think of all the other energy-intensive industries that will have to electrify before we can reach net zero.
Plenty of stakeholders still believe that the Treasury can find a middle ground by making the three pillars more flexible. The American Clean Power Association, which represents a wide range of energy companies, has proposed loosening the hourly matching aspect for projects that start construction before 2028. Fakhry acknowledged the need for flexibility, but her recommendations are much more narrow than the senators’. For example, she would allow hydrogen producers to buy power from existing nuclear plants, but only if they are at risk of retirement and the purchase would help keep them open. Esposito said Energy Innovation would support power procurement from existing clean resources that are curtailed, meaning they produce power that currently goes unutilized.
Both Fakry and Esposito also downplayed the threat of lawsuits, arguing that Treasury did exactly what it was instructed to do by the law. The IRA specifically says that hydrogen emissions should be calculated per a section of the Clean Air Act that says any accounting should include “significant indirect emissions.” Treasury has interpreted this to include the induced emissions caused by a hydrogen plant, and received letters of support from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy backing this interpretation.
However, as Martin, the tax lawyer, told me, by overturning Chevron deference, the Supreme Court has just given “677 federal district court judges greater latitude to substitute their own judgment for subject matter experts at the federal agencies.”
Asked for comment on the Senators’ letter, a Treasury spokesperson told me the agency is still considering the many thousands of comments the agency received on the proposed rules. “The Biden Administration is committed to ensuring that progress continues and that the IRA’s investments continue to create good-paying jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen energy security.”
Even if Yellen heeds the Senators’ advice, the department may not be able to avoid a lawsuit. “We will use every tool available to us — including the courts — to either defend a strong final rule or challenge an unlawful one that reflects the asks in the letter,” Fakhry told me.
There’s also a realpolitik argument here that the industry might want this all to be over more than it wants to kill the three pillars. “The number one thing people want is business certainty,” Esposito told me. “I don’t think people want this to drag on for another two years.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Whichever way you cut it, this has been an absolute banner year for nuclear deals in the U.S. It doesn’t much matter the metric — the amount of venture funding flowing to nuclear startups, the number of announcements regarding planned reactor restarts and upgrades, gigawatts of new construction added to the pipeline — it’s basically all peaking. Stock prices are up across all major publicly traded nuclear companies this year, in some cases by over 100%.
“This year is by far the biggest year in terms of nuclear deals that has occurred, probably, since the 70s,” Adam Stein, the director of nuclear innovation at The Breakthrough Institute, told me. “It’s spanning the gamut from bringing a 40-year-old reactor back to things that have not even been proven scientifically yet.”
To name just a few announcements from this year: planning for a 4.4-gigawatt nuclear power complex is now underway in Texas; South Carolina’s state-owned utility is seeking buyers to restart construction on two partially built AP1000 reactors; New York governor Kathy Hochul is looking to build a new reactor in upstate New York; The Tennessee Valley Authority submitted a construction permit for a small modular reactor; Google signed a power purchase agreement with Commonwealth Fusion Systems; and another fusion company, Helion Energy, raised a whopping $425 million round of venture capital. On top of all that there’s the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan, which is targeted to restart by year’s end, bringing 800 megawatts of new nuclear power online.
Heading into the second Trump term, there were plenty of indications that the administration would support this technology with increasingly bipartisan appeal. So it wasn’t exactly a surprise that while the One Big Beautiful Bill eviscerated tax credits for solar and wind, it preserved them for both existing and new nuclear facilities. Now that this support is assured, Stein expects the nuclear announcements to keep rolling in. “We might have seen more deals earlier this year if there wasn’t uncertainty about what was going to happen with tax credits. But now that that’s resolved, I expect to hear more later this year,” he told me.
How much of this is, I asked him, is due to data centers and their seemingly insatiable demand for clean, firm power? “Most of it,” he said simply. By way of example, he pointed out how data center load growth has changed the outlooks for two small modular reactor companies in particular. “NuScale has been trying to find their first project for a long time now, after they had to cancel their [Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems] project. Kairos didn’t have a clear buyer for its first-of-a-kind, even though it was building two test reactors,” Stein explained. “Then all of a sudden, they all had additional deals in the works because of data center demand.”
Last year, Kairos inked a 500-megawatt deal with Google to meet the hyperscaler’s growing data center needs, while this year, Texas A&M selected the company — along with three others — to build a reactor at the university’s research and development campus. And while NuScale infamously canceled its first project in 2023 due to rising costs, this year it received approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a new and improved reactor design. Now the company’s CEO, John Hopkins, told Reuters that NuScale is in talks to deploy its tech with five unnamed “tier one hyperscalers.” Its stock is up more than 150% on the year.
That’s a big turnaround for a company that, less than two years ago, was widely considered a cautionary tale — and it’s not the only one in the industry with this type of comeback story. Right before NuScale’s project failed, another nuclear company, X-energy, announced that it would no longer go public due to “challenging market conditions” and “peer company trading performance.” But while X-energy still has yet to IPO, it appears to be doing just fine. In February, the company announced the close of a $700 million Series C follow-on round, coming on the heels of Amazon’s strategic investment last year.
“I think every company has their stories about how things are changing,” Seth Grae, CEO of the advanced nuclear fuel company Lightbridge, told me. Things have moved a lot faster, Grae said, since Trump released a series of executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear energy deployment. “Just since May, we’ve received this highly enriched uranium [from the Department of Energy], made these fuel samples, got them qualified already at Idaho National Lab. We expect they’ll be in the reactor this year. Grae told me. “Things didn’t used to happen that fast in nuclear.”
Trump’s plans to fast track nuclear development have also raised serious concerns, however, as critics worry that acceleration could lead to laxer safety standards The executive orders call for, among other things, cutting staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, just as the industry enters a period of intense activity. In June, the President fired one of the agency’s commissioners, Christopher Hanson, without cause. Another commissioner, Annie Caputo, resigned in July.
But right now, the nuclear industry is mostly basking in optimism. Grae credits the government’s strong support for the surge in nuclear stocks — Lightbridge’s own stock price has jumped 180% this year, while another nuclear fuel company, Centrus Energy, is up even more. The small modular reactor company Oklo is up 285% for the year, on the heels of last year’s 12-gigawatt non-binding deal with the data center company Switch — one of the largest corporate clean power agreements to date.
Last year’s slew of deals involving Oklo, X-energy, and Kairos show that the sector’s momentum had been building well before Trump took office. By 2023, the writing was already on the wall in terms of data center load growth, as grid planners began to predict a sharp rise in electricity demand after over a decade of stagnation. But when I asked Erik Funkhauser of the Good Energy Collective whether the prior two years compared with this one, he concurred with Stein. “Nope,” he told me. “We’re seeing capital infusion at a really, really high pace, as high of a pace as the company’s suppliers can keep up with on projects.”
Still, the party may not go on forever. “I see a potential for a Valley of Death,” Stein told me, similar to what many startups go through when they’re trying to raise later-stage funding rounds.
“If things don’t start to actually move forward with real progress, either getting licenses or building prototypes on time, then all of that investment will be pulled back.” That’s what the U.S. saw during the last so-called “nuclear renaissance” in the late 2000s, he explained, when a rash of large reactors were proposed with only two actually reaching completion.
These were the notorious Vogtle reactors 3 and 4 in Georgia, which finally came online in 2023 and 2024 respectively, running billions over budget and years behind schedule. In order for this latest round of nuclear enthusiasm to avoid the same fate, Stein told me it’s critical that leading projects demonstrate enough early success to maintain developer confidence in the economic and technical viability of new — and old — nuclear technologies.
That being said, the sector will inevitably contract. “Back when we saw this last scale-up, there were three designs that were really competing for attention, and now there are 75. So we’re going to see a lot of failures,” Stein said. The question for venture investors, he told me, is “how many failures of startups that you didn’t invest in are you willing to tolerate before you start to think the whole segment has trouble?”
The second main way this could all fall to pieces, he told me, is if “somebody tries to move too fast,” and that recklessness leads to “either a bankruptcy or an accident or something like that that will send ripples or shock waves through the whole sector.”
Indeed, a metaphorical or literal meltdown in the sector could put a quick halt to this year’s frenzied momentum. But within the next few years, as these announced projects begin to line up their licenses and come online — or fall apart— we’ll soon see whether this latest nuclear revival is a true turning point or just another bubble.
On the Senate’s climate whip, green cement deals, and a U.S. uranium revival.
Current conditions: Flash flooding strikes the Southeastern U.S. • Monsoon rains unleash landslides in southern China • A heat dome is bringing temperatures of up to 107 degrees Fahrenheit to France, Italy, and the Balkans.
An August 5 chart showing last month's record electricity demand peaks.EIA
The United States’ demand for electricity broke records twice last month. Air conditioners cranking on hot days, combined with surging demand from data centers, pushed the peak in the Lower 48 states to a high of 758,053 megawatts on July 28, between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. EST, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Hourly Electric Grid Monitor shows. The following day, peak demand set another record, hitting 759,180 megawatts. That’s nearly 2% above the previous record set on July 15, 2024.
The EIA predicted demand to grow by more than 2% per year between 2025 and 2026. Forecasts are even higher in areas with large data centers and factories underway, such as Texas and northern Virginia. The milestone comes as the Trump administration cracks down on solar and wind energy, two of the fastest-growing and quicker-to-build sources of new generation. On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is moving to eliminate $7 billion in spending on grants for solar energy, though when Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo asked the agency, it said only that, “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law.”
Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, locked down enough votes on Tuesday to replace Illinois Senator Dick Durbin as the Democrats’ whip in the chamber. Durbin, who is retiring next year, has served in the Senate Democrats’ No. 2 position since 2005. In his endorsement on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called Schatz “a close friend and one of my most valued allies.”
Schatz crusaded for the Inflation Reduction Act and told Heatmap he supported last year’s failed bipartisan permitting reform deal, even as progressive greens campaigned against its giveaways to fossil fuels. In a Shift Key podcast interview with my colleague Robinson Meyer and his co-host, Princeton professor Jesse Jenkins, in February, Schatz pitched a big tent for climate action. “We all have to hang together. It’s the American Clean Power Association. It’s the energy company that does both clean and fossil energy. It’s the transmission and distribution companies. It’s the manufacturers. It’s labor. It’s Wall Street. It’s K Street. Everyone has to hang together and say, not only is this good for business, but there’s something that is foundationally worse for business than any individual policy decision.”
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
The Trump administration may be clawing back funding for cleaning up heavy industry, but Big Tech is still inking deals. On Monday, Amazon agreed to buy low-carbon cement from the startup Brimstone. Then on Tuesday, the data center developer STACK Infrastructure announced the completion of “a pilot pour” of green cement from rival startup Sublime. The moves highlight the growing demand for cleaner industrial materials amid increased scrutiny of the energy and pollution linked to server farms.
America’s uranium enrichment went out of business in the early 2000s after the Clinton-era megatons-to-megawatts program essentially ceded the industry to cheap Russian imports made from disassembled atomic weapons. Since banning imports from Russia last year, the U.S. has been ramping up funding for nuclear fuel again, especially as the industry looks to build new types of reactors that rely on fuel other than the low-enriched uranium that virtually all the country’s operating 94 commercial reactors use. On Monday, the Department of Energy announced its first pilot project for advanced nuclear fuels, giving the startup Standard Nuclear the first federal deal. On Tuesday, the agency signed a $1.5 billion deal to restore the so-called Atomic City on the 100-acre parcel of federal land at the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plan in Kentucky.
The Trump administration gave permission to the National Weather Service to hire up to 450 meteorologists, hydrologists, and radar technicians after sweeping cuts from the Department of Government Efficiency, CNN’s Andrew Freedman reported. The agency, which was partly blamed for its warnings going unheeded ahead of the deadly Texas floods last month, also received an exemption from the federal hiring freeze.
The move came the same day as a federal judge blocked the administration from diverting billions of dollars in Federal Emergency Management Agency funding for disaster resilience and flood mitigation. The injunction warned FEMA against spending the money on anything else.
Beyond Meat is finally getting beyond meat. The company plans to shed the flesh reference in its name this week as it launches its new Beyond Ground product that promises more protein than ground beef. “With this launch,” Fast Company’s Clint Rainey reported, “Beyond Meat is becoming merely Beyond and turning its focus away from only mimicking animal proteins to letting plant-based proteins speak for themselves. The radical move is cultural, agricultural, and financial.”
Rob and Jesse talk through the proposed overturning of the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases with Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman.
The Trump administration has formally declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not dangerous pollutants. If the president gets his way, then the Environmental Protection Agency may soon surrender any ability to regulate heat-trapping pollution from cars and trucks, power plants, and factories — in ways that a future Democratic president potentially could not reverse.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, we discuss whether Trump’s EPA gambit will work, the arguments that the administration is using, and what it could mean for the future of U.S. climate and energy policy. We’re joined by Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard and the director of Harvard’s environmental and energy law program. She was an architect of the Obama administration’s landmark deal with automakers to accept carbon dioxide regulations.
Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Robinson Meyer: I just want to make a related question, which is, you can actually say some of the sentences in the DOE report — you can believe tornadoes don’t show any influence from climate change and still believe heatwaves do, and still believe extreme rainfall events do. In fact, you could believe the cost of heat waves getting worse could justify the entire regulatory edifice.
Jody Freeman: What I love about you, Rob, right now, is you’re kind of incensed about little points that might individually sort of be right, maybe each one separately, but none of it adds up to even a chink in the armor. Right? And what’ll have to happen is the scientific community writ large, en masse, is going to have to come back and say, even if one or two or three of these sentences could possibly, plausibly be actually accurate, it does nothing to change the overwhelming —
Jesse Jenkins: It doesn’t matter.
Freeman: Right. What I think is happening is we’re all getting poked and distracted and tweaked into outrage over science, when in fact, the first argument they’re making is the one where they could actually attract some judges and justices to say, Oh wait, maybe you have a little more discretion here to set a threshold level. You know, Maybe it matters that you’re saying nothing we do here in the U.S. will make a difference in the end to global warming, and maybe that is a reason you don’t want to regulate. Hmm, maybe we’ll accept that reason. And that’s what we need, I think, to be more concerned about.
Jenkins: You’re saying, don’t get distracted by the fight over the climate science. That fight is very clear. It’s this legal argument that this isn’t an air pollutant because it’s not a local air pollutant, it mixes globally with all the other CO2, and we can’t, you know, each class of cars is a tiny contributor to that, and so we shouldn’t worry about it —
Freeman: And much of this is a replay, or a rehash of arguments that the George W. Bush administration lost in Massachusetts vs. EPA. So a lot of this is like, let’s take another run at the Supreme Court.
Mentioned:
The EPA Says Carbon Pollution Isn’t Dangerous. What Comes Next?
The EPA on its reconsideration of the endangerment finding
Jody’s story on the change: Trump’s EPA proposes to end the U.S. fight against climate change
Jesse’s upshift (and accompanying video); Rob’s sort of upshift.
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Gain real-world skills, build strong networks, and keep working while you learn. Explore the year-long Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Learn more here.
Join clean energy leaders at RE+ 25, September 8–11 in Las Vegas. Explore opportunities to meet rising energy demand with the latest in solar, storage, EVs, and more at North America’s largest energy event. Save 20% with code HEATMAP20 at re-plus.com.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.