You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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:

This transcript was automatically generated.
Robinson Meyer:
Hi, I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:28] And I’m Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:32] And you are listening to Shift Key, Heatmap’s weekly podcast about decarbonization and the shift away from fossil fuels. Jesse, happy new year.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:40] Happy new year. I’m back.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:42] It’s good to see you. It’s so good to talk. Look at this. We’re doing a Shift Key episode. I feel just like, feels like October 2025 in here.
Jesse Jenkins:
[1:52] If only.
Robinson Meyer:
[1:55] We have an exciting show planned for you today. We’re going to talk about, I think, one of the most interesting series of events to happen in the U.S. energy markets recently, in a little bit. But first, we have some housekeeping news for you that we want to talk about. We have some exciting, but also somewhat sad, changes at Shift Key. We have some good news and bad news that affects the show. And Jesse, I want to start with the bad news. So do you want to share anything with the class?
Jesse Jenkins:
[2:20] Yes. I’m going to be stepping back from my regular co-host role here on Shift Key and leaving you and Rob’s capable hands and transitioning to more of a guest host role. I will be back on the show, but less regularly than before. That’s to make time for a new startup venture that I have co-founded called Firma Power that I’ve started with Scott Burger and Brent Alderfer, my co-founders. We are working hard right now to scale the company up and we are working on supplying clean, reliable electricity to data centers to meet the pressing demand growth challenge that’s happening right now by trying to unlock more capacity and load enabling capacity from wind, solar and storage resources that are often overlooked as resources that can support big loads like data centers. We think that’s the fastest way to get more capacity onto the grid and to make sure it’s clean. And so excited to be working on that at Firma, but it is taking up a lot more of my time. And so to ease the load a little bit, I’m going to be transitioning to a guest role here and we’ll be with you less often.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:17] Jesse, little did we know when we started talking about the AI electricity surge that it was going to change energy so much that it would take you away from us.
Jesse Jenkins:
[3:27] That’s right. It was going to change Shift Key too.
Robinson Meyer:
[3:29] It was going to change Shift Key too. Well, that’s the bad news. The good news is that while we’re very sad to lose Jesse, the moment of his departure gives us a chance to loosen up the schedule a little bit, shift to a more dynamic Shift Key product. I will be taking over primary hosting duties as Jesse announced, but we’ll also be welcoming a new set of occasional co-hosts, much like Jesse, who will start rolling out in the next few weeks. We’re very excited for that change. I think it’s going to lead to a newsier, maybe more dynamic Shift Key. The core of the show will stay the same. We’re going to keep bringing you the best discussion we can and the best insights and reporting we can into the energy transition, the shift away from fossil fuels and the state of this giant ...
Robinson Meyer:
[4:10] Energy, fossil, climate, clean energy story that we cover all around the world. So let me also take this opportunity to thank you for listening to Shift Key
Robinson Meyer:
[4:17] and encourage you to stick around. And with that news, on this week’s episode of Shift Key, we are talking about power grids in the winter and specifically the American power grid in the winter. The Northeast United States and the Mid-Atlantic just experienced, I would say, a relentlessly frigid three weeks, which rivaled recent records for the longest periods of time where temperatures did not get above freezing. I think we came just short of the record here in New York City because in the middle of this three-week span, temperatures just peaked once slightly above freezing, but otherwise we actually would have smashed the all-time record for a number of days below freezing in a row, which is kind of funny, of course, given climate change. I should note that North America is in an anomalously cold bubble in the world right now. A lot of the rest of the planet is much warmer than usual. But for whatever reason.
Jesse Jenkins:
[5:11] Including the including west of the Rockies, actually, which is undergoing a very warm snow drought with no, you know, very little snow across the Sierras and Rockies and Cascades this year.
Robinson Meyer:
[5:21] I was hanging out with friends from Denver this weekend and they in D.C. And they were like, we’re going to go home. It’s going to be 65 degrees and very weird. And it was, of course, yeah, below 20 degrees. It was like wind chill of negative three degrees Fahrenheit, exactly, in D.C. Because of these very cold temperatures, the electricity grid was stressed and stressed in pretty profound ways. So at the peak of the winter storm in New England, oil and really diesel fuel generated 40% of New England’s electricity, which, given that oil and diesel normally generate roughly zero percent of New England’s electricity, is a marker of just how stressed the grid was. It means grid operators were looking for any source of marginal generation they could find. They had exhausted all the usual alternatives and they had moved to the dirtiest and rarest form of electricity generation, which is diesel.
Robinson Meyer:
[6:13] I wanted to talk about that. I also wanted to talk about it because when we talk about winter grid performance, it’s a bit of a preview of what’s to come. Because while historically in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S., the summer has been the time of year where we use the most electricity. It’s because it’s the time of year where everyone cranks their air conditioner up really high. As we continue to see electrification make way as data centers and new factories get built. And as people electrify not only their vehicles, but also their heating, we expect the winter, especially in New England, to take over as the most electricity intensive time of year from the summer. And so in some ways, when we see these moments of high winter grid stress, we’re previewing the future of the electricity grid. And we’re also seeing the moments that we most need to be worried about on the electricity grid, because there are some more straightforward forward ways we could proceed to reduce carbon emissions during the summer, the winter is a
Robinson Meyer:
[7:12] little bit of a trickier challenge. Let’s actually start the conversation off there. Jesse, can you give us some context on like what just happened in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern power grid in the United States and like how should we be thinking about it?
Jesse Jenkins:
[7:27] Yeah, I mean, this was, as you mentioned in the setup, quite unique for the length of frigid temperatures. So it wasn’t the coldest temperatures we’ve ever experienced in this sort of period. In PJM, at least, the largest market in the U.S. that expands the Mid-Atlantic to the Great Lakes region. And we didn’t quite set a new winter peak in demand. January 29th and 30th fell as number six and number eight in the top 10 winter peaks in PJM. But it was the fact that we had many, many days in a row, two, three weeks, really, of prolonged stress conditions where every power plant available was being called into action when natural gas pipelines were strained to deliver a simultaneous peak in demand for heating fuel and power generation from gas-fired power plants. And when frigid temperatures were increasing forced outages, you know, knocking offline power plants as they dealt with those extreme cold conditions that they’re not typically planning for, they’re much more designed to plan for the summer. This is sort of an example of like, these are the one in every, I don’t know, 10- or 20-year events that become design basis events for the grid, right? These are the kinds of circumstances that we have to be able to get through.
Jesse Jenkins:
[8:31] And for the most part, we did. There were outages that were obviously difficult to endure for people who lost power in the middle of a subzero windchill day. But most of those outages were the result of, really, I think all of those outages were the result of transmission and mostly distribution network failures, which remains our kind of critical vulnerability in the grid, and not generation adequacy from the wholesale power supplies. Power prices got high. We burned a lot of gas. We burned a lot of oil. We can talk more about that. But the supplies remained adequate and system operations managed to get through this prolonged stress period pretty well, I should say. This was not like the Winter Storm Uri in 2021 that really crippled Texas’ grid or even Winter Storm Elliott, which hit in 2023 and was really the kind of most recent stressor event for the larger Eastern interconnection of which PJM and ISO New England are part of, where we saw much higher reductions in gas availability and much higher forced outages. Since both of those events, I think that the grid operators and gas network and power plant operators have done more to prepare for these kind of winter events, and that seems to be showing up in more favorable outcomes this time around.
Robinson Meyer:
[9:39] And just to put some numbers on this, PJM saw 139 gigawatts of demand on January 29th, 138 gigawatts on January 30th. That’s below the all-time winter high, which is 143 gigawatts, which was last January, actually almost exactly a year ago. Looking forward this summer, we expect PJM is probably going to set an all-time demand record for any season of about 160 gigawatts. We won’t know exactly where it will come out, but it will break a record last set 20 years ago, thus showing that we are fully out of our 20-year period of flat electricity demand in the mid-Atlantic United States. So look, 140 gigawatts, you’re still 20, 21 gigawatts below what we expect the summer demand to be this summer. But it’s like a very different demand profile because at least when I think about the summer, I think about afternoon and evening peak periods of demand on the grid. So folks turn on their air conditioner. And yes, you know, electricity demand goes up a little bit maybe when they wake up. But when they wake up around dawn or around 7am tends to be the coolest part of the day.
Robinson Meyer:
[10:45] Electricity demand really gets cranking in the summer, like starting afternoon and then going into the peak like 7 to 9pm period. And so when I think about it, I’m like, okay, well, that’s a fairly straightforward challenge to solve with solar and batteries. and to some degree solar and batteries is like very well designed for that challenge. You know, solar generation peaks around noon or 1pm and all you have to do is.
Robinson Meyer:
[11:12] Hold on to that electricity generated by your peaking solar for another five or six hours and then dump it on the grid during periods of peak demand. Winter is tough because in winter, yes, you have this afternoon peak when folks get home and they cook dinner and they run the laundry machine and all of that. But you also have this tricky morning peak when folks wake up, they maybe turn on space heaters in their home, they crank up the thermostat. Really before the sun has fully come up, there’s a surge in power demand right at the beginning of the workday.
Jesse Jenkins:
[11:43] I mean, that’s challenging. It’s less, I think, that it’s happening right in the morning because you could keep your battery at a full state of charge from yesterday at noon. The bigger problem, of course, is that in the winter, there’s not as much sun. And so you’re not going to be able to charge your batteries reliably midday with very inexpensive electricity. Power prices may stay relatively high during the day and gas generators are likely setting the price throughout the day, as opposed to these periods of solar excess that might be more common in summer periods, especially as solar penetration increases in regional grids. If we look at kind of the periods of peak pricing in PJM, this sort of occurred most recently on February 9th from about 5.45 a.m. To 8 a.m. So you’ve got like, you know, two, three hours in the morning, little blips again in the evening hours. But the biggest ones are those early morning hours when it’s the coldest out in terms of the exterior temperature and people wake up, throw those warm blankets off and start turning on the heaters and getting ready for the day. So if you had other sources to charge from, batteries still do help quite a bit in these circumstances. Those peaks are not 12 hours long, they’re two, three hours long, and batteries are still quite capable of supplying winter peaking capability. And if you look at the kind of ratings that batteries get in the capacity markets, where they accredit the kind of percentage of capacity that’s expected to be available, they do pretty well still in winter months in different parts of the country. But solar is going to effectively get derated over time to zero in the winter because it’s just not going to be able to contribute.
Robinson Meyer:
[13:12] When you say derated, what do you mean? Sorry.
Jesse Jenkins:
[13:14] That means like, so if I want to make sure I’ve got a megawatt, I can support a megawatt of peak demand. I need more than one megawatt of supply because gas generators fail, their gas supply gets reduced because of competing demands for heating. Wind farms aren’t always, you know, turning, solar panels aren’t always cranking out, batteries run out of juice. So for all of those reasons, you know, coal piles freeze, everything has deratings that mean that they’re worth less than their rated capacity in terms of how much peak demand they can support. So if I want 100 megawatts peak demand, I might need, you know, 180 or 250 megawatts of, you know, install capacity. And that ratio depends on the kind of individual contribution of each resource at those peak demand periods. Most MISO and SPP, the mid-continent ISO and the Southwest Power Pool that operate in kind of the middle of the country, they’ve already moved to seasonal accreditation of capacity in these markets. So they recognize that solar is worth quite a bit in the summer, but it’s worth a lot less in the winter. For example, gas plants face a much higher derate in the winter because of struggles around equipment, freezing and fuel availability than they do in the summer. So they’re kind of recognizing those different contributions. ISO New England is moving that direction as well towards summer and winter. PJM eventually will, but at the moment it has a single annual rating. What’s interesting is that annual derating has become set by winter stress conditions
Jesse Jenkins:
[14:33] like this, even though they peak demand in the summer.
Robinson Meyer:
[14:37] Yeah, well, one statistic that I don’t think I mentioned in the intro, but that really stuck out to me is that winter loads are growing. Winter electricity demand is growing three times faster than summer electricity demand.
Jesse Jenkins:
[14:47] And so it’s going to be even more of a stress issue in the future. Yeah, I think ISO New England predicts that winter peaks will exceed summer peaks by as early as 2030. So this is not some distant 2050 electrification scenario. Like, it’s coming.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:00] No, this is like an imminent problem with grid management that is going to matter.
Jesse Jenkins:
[15:03] Within the planning horizon today, yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
[15:05] Not only within the planning horizon, but like fully within the political horizon. Yes, that’s true. Like current policymakers are going to be judged on decisions they make now because they may still be in office by the time that these constraints become really pressing on the grid. So I want to back up because we’ve kind
Robinson Meyer:
[15:19] of been talking around this, but I want to ask it directly. Like, what was your takeaway from watching PJM and ISO New England, which we’re calling ISO New England? It’s just the New England power grid. And conveniently, it covers exactly the states of New England, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. New York also has its own power grid and was subject to some of these dynamics, too. So watching this whole swath of the country, really Virginia and Indiana up into Maine, what was your takeaway from how the grid performed over the past three weeks?
Jesse Jenkins:
[15:51] So again, I think kudos to system operators and to the generation owners who were working hard to keep these plants online. It really wasn’t a constraint. It cost a lot of money, right? You know, prices that we had to pay for fuel at peak periods, the prices that marginal generators were setting in terms of electricity market prices were very elevated. So it’s going to show up in a big way in our bills when those kinds of wholesale prices end up actually hitting our retail bills. But we did not have widespread rolling blackouts anywhere. Those blackouts that occurred, again, were due to distribution network failures, mostly from freezing rain and sleet and heavy snow impacting distribution lines, trees falling or power poles coming down, which is, again, like that’s, you know, I would say 90%, 95% of all power disruptions that people experience are due to those distribution network failures. But that’s not because there aren’t risks at the grid level. It’s just because those grid level risks have been managed very effectively. And we focus a lot of attention on them because when things go wrong there, it’s not just one neighborhood that loses its power. It’s the entire region. So you have an event like Winter Storm Uri in Texas, where, you know, a third of their power is unavailable and people all over the state are freezing. I’m not trying to minimize the generator challenges. It’s just that we have done a very good job, I think of mostly solving them. But I think if we go through each generator type, we start to see some of the previews of these challenges that we’ll face in the future. I already talked about solar. Obviously, you can’t count much on solar in the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[17:17] Man, I was in PJM for some of this wintery period. I was being a good reporter, Jesse. I was going in the field, in PJM, yes. And the town where I grew up has some community solar and local municipally owned solar projects. And I was driving past them right around the 22nd, 23rd at the peak demand. And, Those solar panels, I will tell you, covered in snow. They were covered in snow. I was like, man, they might be generating 10% of it.
Jesse Jenkins:
[17:47] Oh, I doubt it. Yeah. Even that. I mean, look, we got 10 to 12 inches of snow in much of the region around here and then a nice layer of sleet on top of it. So we’ve been living here in Princeton with basically an ice sheet on top of a foot of snow everywhere. Think about that on top of your solar panels and your roof. And it hasn’t warmed up enough to melt that. So if you weren’t lucky enough to like shovel out your driveway or your parking spot before the sleet hit, like you were dealing with giant ice chunks,
Robinson Meyer:
[18:14] You could send someone up to go. Periodically clean them off, but then your operation cost is much higher for the solar panels. That’s right.
Jesse Jenkins:
[18:22] Or if you are a large enough utility scale project, you could put like resistive heaters into your panels that you turn on in the winter. There are ways to weatherize them. But yeah, so, you know, the other big issue, of course, is it’s been cloudy and it’s winter. So the solar production is already lower. We just need to be clear that solar is a useful resource. It provides a lot of low marginal cost electricity throughout the year. When it does, it’s displacing other more costly resources. And for the moment, with the exception of maybe California, it’s still contributing quite a bit to the summer peaks because those do occur and do stress the system as well. And so it’s, you know, one of the pieces of a broader system that we need, but we shouldn’t be counting on it in the winter. That’s not a shocker to system operators. Wind power, depending on where you are in the country, can help in the winter. Other times it doesn’t. And so it’s a very location-specific resource because the wind patterns are much more geographically particular.
Robinson Meyer:
[19:12] Is that because of the wind patterns or is that because of in some places it makes sense to invest in winterizing your wind turbines and in other places it doesn’t?
Jesse Jenkins:
[19:20] I was thinking more of the former. The latter is also true. You know, if you’re in a region that very rarely gets cold, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to invest the extra money to make sure that they don’t get iced up once every five years versus, you know, wind turbines in North Dakota are clearly all planning to deal with those conditions all the time. But more that just wind patterns are much more localized than solar patterns. Solar tends to be less variable over geography, whereas the wind can be affected much more by local topology and differences between land and sea temperatures or lake and land temperatures or mountain passes, things like that. So wind, not a huge factor for PJM or New England at the moment because they don’t have a lot of installed wind capacity onshore, at least. But it is more relevant in places like the middle of the country, the MISO and SPP, where I think it did have differing contributions over the course of the last couple of weeks.
Robinson Meyer:
[21:42] Nothing has convinced me yet that the Trump administration is going to be successful in stopping these four or five big offshore wind projects from coming online. I mean, are those projects designed to work in the sleet and snow, or is that going to be like a summer overnight resource?
Jesse Jenkins:
[21:57] I assume that those are going to be winterized to operate in the kinds of waters that they’re operating in here. But that’s a good question. I don’t know definitively the answer to that. I haven’t done this, but it would be a really great, I think, useful exercise to look at the projected wind production from a wind farm off Long Island, and maybe look at Block Island or South Fork Winds production during this period, and then scale that up to think about how much it might have saved in energy costs over the week, the last couple of weeks, while power prices were really elevated and gas prices were high. My guess is we look at that, there are periods of time when it was contributing quite a lot and periods of time when it’s contributing very little. And so mostly it’s providing energy, which again could be used to charge batteries and wait for that system peak, but it may or may not align exactly with that early morning peak. That said, I do think, you know, offshore wind and coastal wind do tend to produce the most in the morning and the evening when you get this land-sea temperature differential that drives a shore breeze or an ocean breeze. So it may be that those are positively correlated periods.
Jesse Jenkins:
[22:59] My takeaway from all this, and I’ve said this before, I said this in Congress, as I testified after the Winter Storm Uri, is that wind and solar are contributors of energy in different seasons and at different times. They may contribute some fraction of their capacity now to meet these peak demand periods, but their primary contribution to the grid is not capacity, it’s energy. And that energy can then be stored in batteries and used to provide capacity. So they’re synergistic with batteries in that sense, just like the summer peak scenario you talked about, Rob. But they’re reliably unreliable. We know that, right? And we’re not planning our system around them. We are planning our system around our firm generating technologies and increasingly energy storage.
Jesse Jenkins:
[23:39] And I think it’s really critical in these winter periods to look at the kinds of vulnerabilities that those technologies face. Because when they fail, like they did in Texas in Uri in 2021, the system fails because those are the technologies that we’re counting on to show up. They’re the ones carrying the system on their backs. I think in this circumstance, they performed quite well overall, although there were elevated outages for gas and coal generators across the region. Overall, we had enough of them online and operating to get through the peak demand period here. I think what’s helpful is to think about the difference between summer and winter stresses on these thermal plants. Because again, it is a very different type of risk. In the summer, the main risk is the ambient temperature, ambient water temperature that they’re using as their heat sink gets higher. And the efficiency of thermal power plants is basically proportionate to the difference between their combustion temperatures or inlet temperatures and that heat sink. It doesn’t have a huge effect, but it can knock several percentage points off of the available capacity of your thermal power generators in really hot summer conditions. There may be just mechanical stresses from running over prolonged periods and having some equipment failure. The winter has a whole different set of challenges. And the biggest one is around fuel availability.
Jesse Jenkins:
[24:51] And the fuel handling equipment at these facilities. So coal plants, picture a giant coal plant, they consume trainloads worth of coal every day. That coal sits in giant coal piles and then is taken by conveyor belts up into crushers that crush and pulverize that coal and then blast it into the furnace and combust it. If any piece of that delivery chain freezes up, then the coal plant can’t get fueled into the boiler, even if you have a giant pile of coal on site. And that that is a frequent occurrence during these circumstances. You do have freezing of the coal supply and that will knock off power plants in the winter and it’s not an issue in the summer.
Jesse Jenkins:
[25:28] And for gas generators, which are increasingly the mainstay of our grid, especially in these regions, as I mentioned, I think before, it’s not just that the power grid is at its maximum, the heating demand from gas networks is also at its maximum. And that’s not true in the summer when we’re not running all our heaters on. And so what that leads to is a few different ways in which gas generators can lose supply as well.
Jesse Jenkins:
[25:49] One is that if they’re connected to a local load serving distribution utility on the gas side, they are allowed to curtail non-firm customers. And that includes typically gas generators who are not willing to pay the extra kind of standby cost to have firm access to the grid to be first in line and uninterruptible. And so gas generators can just get turned off when there’s not enough supply for the local distribution grid and the distribution operator is prioritizing households and heating over the power generators. That’s one of the key vulnerabilities. The other is that as demand goes up, gas pressures can drop in the system, and that can lead to sort of less through foot being received by the generators. And finally, this happened in particular during Elliott and Uri, the gas fields themselves can lose production. If the gathering lines and compressors and other equipment that’s exposed to the cold gets cold enough, that equipment can freeze up. Some of the valves and sensors can also freeze, which might lead to compressors turning off. And you get a drop in production. And because we don’t have a huge gas storage system, the pipelines themselves are basically the storage in most of the country. If production falls in the gas fields, that will also impact available supply pretty quickly, like within hours. And this is an area where this year, actually, the gas producers did much better than they have in the past. It seems they have been learning from previous winter events and weatherizing the system.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:13] Let’s zoom in on two specific challenges that New England in particular experienced during this winter storm. The first is something I referenced in the intro, which is that at peak, New England was actually generating 40% of its electricity from oil and really from diesel, which is crazy. I mean, oil and diesel, I think it’s crazy.
Jesse Jenkins:
[27:35] For me, I’m like- Everybody else thinks it’s crazy. I’ll tell you why I don’t think it’s crazy in a minute.
Robinson Meyer:
[27:38] Okay, well, let’s talk about this is a throwback. I mean you look at 40% of New England’s electricity coming from oil. This is like a throwback and, to the 1970s when the U.S. got a ton of electricity from oil, really only effectively cut off by the beginning of the Arab oil embargo and the energy crisis in the 1970s, ultimately prompting a return to coal, at least way back then. I don’t know. I look at this and I go, something really has gone wrong. If New England’s getting 40% of its electricity from oil, that’s like the most possible polluting thing other than coal you could generate electricity from. But what do you think? I don’t know.
Jesse Jenkins:
[28:14] I look at it and I say, that’s probably what the future is going to look like in a lot more places across the country if we transition to a winter peaking system. And here’s why. So yeah, 40%, but for how many hours? For a week? For two weeks? That’s probably half a percent to one and a half percent of annual generation in New England.
Jesse Jenkins:
[28:30] So a lot of capacity, very little energy, right? That’s the perfect thing for peaking, right? And for prolonged to events like this. The alternative to that is you oversize gas pipelines and you oversize gas production to meet that extra 40% of New England generation that only occurs once every two years for 1% of the hours of the year. While there has been local environmental opposition and political opposition to building greater pipelines into the Northeast, the economics of that also don’t necessarily line up. Gas generators had the option in New England to sign firm gas contracts that would have meant they were uninterruptible by local distribution companies. Those firm gas contracts could then help finance new gas pipeline construction or expansion. They chose not to do that. They chose instead to install oil tanks, diesel tanks on site, and to convert to dual fuel generators for these kinds of circumstances. And the reason for that is that when you’re dealing with this sort of very infrequent event, what you want is something that costs very little upfront, but maybe has a very high variable cost when you consume it. Because you’re not going to consume very much of it, and you’re going to do it very infrequently. And so you don’t want a big fixed cost just sitting there all the time. Well, guess what a gas pipeline is? A giant fixed cost sitting there all the time.
Jesse Jenkins:
[29:44] Oil, on the other hand, is a consumable. It’s very expensive. Power prices go up when we’re using it, right? They’re a couple hundred dollars a megawatt hour at least.
Jesse Jenkins:
[29:53] But you can store many days worth of fuel on site in oil tanks in a fairly compact landscape. Oil is our default long duration energy storage right now, right? Until we invent something better and cleaner. And so for these kinds of rare events that only happen a couple percent of the hours of the year, just like we would like to have more batteries and more long duration energy storage to replace this in the near term, this is a sensible way to manage gas pipeline capacity peaks, right? Otherwise, we’re building, I don’t know what percentage, maybe 10% more total gas pipeline capacity. And that extra 10% increment, we’re basically never using. We don’t need it in the summer. We only need it 1% or 2% of the times when the
Jesse Jenkins:
[30:35] System is at the sort of peak stress.
Jesse Jenkins:
[30:37] And so it’s a very logical economic solution to this problem. And while yes, it is dirty during the periods when we’re burning that oil, we are burning very little of it and for very short periods of time. You know, it’s a week or two every couple of years.
Robinson Meyer:
[30:51] Can I kind of lean in on that, though? Because I think that, yes, right now it makes sense for New England to have all this oil capacity on site. They store it, they burn it during these peak freezing events. We were just saying, though, how winter load is growing three times faster than summer load. And so what’s driving that?
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:10] Winter heating electrification, which is displacing gas consumption on the heating side.
Robinson Meyer:
[31:15] I see.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:16] So yes, in its worst case, if you’re running resistance heating and EVs.
Robinson Meyer:
[31:20] I mean, EVs are driving that too.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:21] Yeah, EVs as well, but they should also be more flexible when they charge. But yeah, that’s true. And data centers, although there’s not a lot of those in New England.
Jesse Jenkins:
[31:27] That’s true in PJM. There is an interesting dynamic here. This is one that my group is actually researching and modeling right now for a New England case study. As we displace gas demand for heating, Yes, we’re building electricity demand, which may rely more on gas generators in the winter or oil fire generators in the winter. We’re also relieving some of the pipeline stresses that are driven by the peak heating demand. And so the key then is to make sure that winter electrification is more efficient when you account for the power plant losses than gas furnaces and boilers. And you can do that with heat pumps, right? If it’s resistance heating, if you’re burning gas in a gas generator, you lose roughly half of that gas, and then the resistance heating is more or less 100% efficient. So you have about a 50% efficient pathway there to heat your home, as opposed to a furnace, which is maybe 80%, 85% efficient. So in that case, we would be consuming more gas to power heating from the grid than we would to fuel heating in a furnace. But if it’s a heat pump, the coefficient of performance of heat pumps that are sized appropriately for winter conditions are greater than two. And if it’s a ground source heat pump, they’re greater than four or five or six. And so in that case, we could actually be relieving gas demand even as we build up the winter electricity peak. And so these sort of dynamics are careful to think about, especially when we’re talking about whether or not we want to build a new pipeline or not. We may want more gas generators. I was going to say more dual fuel generators.
Robinson Meyer:
[32:51] You’re talking about a world where you build. Yeah, exactly. So what I’m hearing here is you don’t need a bigger pipeline or you don’t.
Jesse Jenkins:
[32:58] Maybe. I’m going to say this is just these are the dynamics that you have to be very clear about. It’s not so obvious. I mean, I know like it’s easy to look at that 40% from oil and say, well, obviously we need another pipeline. It’s not so obvious because that 40%, yes, it’s 40% for a few hours, but the savings of that oil cost would have to justify building the pipeline. And it’s not like gas is cheap right now either. Gas prices were as high as $1,000 an MMBTU when they’re normally two or three. So the relative savings from gas versus oil is not as high as you might think to justify building that pipeline. If total baseload gas demand is increasing, maybe we want a new pipeline to satisfy that. But these peak events are best satisfied with storage, ideally in the long-term clean power storage, but in the short-term oil on site. That’s the logical solution. When we’re thinking about whether that baseload demand is going to go up, we do have to be very careful to think about what the dynamics are around electrification. And are we doing electrification in a way that is as efficient as possible?
Jesse Jenkins:
[33:56] That has an extra cost at the household level, right? If I build a bigger heat pump that can handle extreme winter conditions, or I invest in a ground source heat pump, that costs me more up front, but I’m avoiding big fixed costs on the grid. And which one is cheaper is the question for society as a whole to figure out. And then whichever one’s cheaper needs to be appropriately compensated. And right now, we don’t pay for peak capacity at the household level. You pay by volume, and that’s backwards. So we’re going to have to find some way to convey to people that it is worth it to you to install that more efficient, bigger heat pump if you’re gonna electrify or to do the weatherization upgrade or to go for a ground source heat pump because it’s avoiding a bunch of sunk capital that would otherwise just sit there on the grid And, you know, if one is cheaper than the other, you should be putting it in your house as opposed to on the grid. But our rate design doesn’t convey that. Our policies don’t convey that. And that tradeoff is one that we really need to drill into as we think about the best pathway through the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[34:52] This is extra complicated in New England, though, because New England is already bringing in LNG from the Caribbean to power its summer peak, though, right?
Jesse Jenkins:
[35:01] But again, that’s a variable cost, right? It’s a pure variable cost. I guess you have a terminal that you need to build, but they already built it. You’ve got a basically a pure variable cost to add some additional peaking capacity. Yes, it’s expensive. Is it enough in fuel savings to displace that by building a pipeline with a lot of fixed costs that you only use some of the time? So yeah, I’m not saying that I’ve done the math and said that that doesn’t make sense. I’m just saying it is more complicated than it initially looks.
Robinson Meyer:
[35:25] Well, and I’m kind of carping for the pipeline here, but I’m not actually saying we should go build the pipeline. I’m just trying to think through what all the different sides of this are because you hear about the LNG as much as you hear about the oil winter fuel generation. The other thing I want to talk about before we close is that in mid-January, the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line opened. And this is a 1,200-megawatt line. It’s been in the news for a long, long time. It connects New England to the abundant hydroelectric resources in Quebec. This has been something that climate advocates and folks have fought over for a long time. It was overturned by a referendum in Maine. That referendum was canceled out by a Supreme Court decision in Maine. But it was successfully built. It turned on in mid-January. It’s a big old transmission line. It’s going to reduce emissions on the New England grid. It’s very exciting. And then a few days into its operation, this winter storm hits, and imports of electricity into New England basically dropped to zero. And so, Quebec stopped sending any new electricity over the line to New England at a moment when New England is just absolutely screaming for electricity. And over that weekend, starting around the 24th, New England actually exported electricity back into Quebec. Now, not that much, but still.
Jesse Jenkins:
[36:39] Yeah, it turns out it was cold in Quebec too. And so they were actually willing to pay more than New England was for that power at that time.
Robinson Meyer:
[36:45] Here’s my question. We’re about to connect new york city to the hydro quebec yeah resource chippy big power line going to run down the hudson river plug directly into new york city grid it’s going to cut our emissions go to reducing some of the uh generation that was previously provided by indian point the local nuclear plant that was shut down a few years ago should.
Jesse Jenkins:
[37:05] We think about this
Robinson Meyer:
[37:06] Yes i here’s my question should we think about hydro quebec and this and this montreal hydroelectricity resource a little differently now, given that during the first big test of its ability to supply generation to the winter New England grid, it kind of failed.
Jesse Jenkins:
[37:23] No, it did exactly what the contract said. So this is an area where again, like, yes, if you were counting on it to provide winter peak with 100% firm reliability, then that was a mistake. You shouldn’t have counted on that. That’s not what the contract said. No one who built the line and was familiar with those contracts thought that that was the case. It didn’t fail. It did exactly what we expected. It is not a firm winter peaking capacity resource. It will contribute energy during winter events, even during some of these periods, right? It didn’t stop exporting for two weeks solid. But like solar, it is not a winter capacity resource that you should count on. And so you got to add up the right mix of system resources to also get your summer capacity. It does provide energy. It provides energy through the winter. It provides energy in the summer. I think it does provide firm supply in the summer, most likely, because temperatures are warmer in the south and their demand is higher than it is in quebec the way to think about those lines is as a big battery that you just tucked up to where when power prices are lower in new england than they are there you can send power north and bank it and when the reverse is true you can take power back the other way just like norway does that for denmark and germany for example and so it is a very valuable resource for the region it will supply a lot of clean energy and it will supply a lot of flexibility.
Jesse Jenkins:
[38:39] But is it a winter capacity resource? No, it was an interruptible winter contract. They knew that when they signed the contracts. And so it’s important for everybody to understand that and to plan the system accordingly. Of course, ISO New England knew that and they did plan the system accordingly. They were not counting on it to be there. So this is again, like at the high level, power systems are systems that each individual resource does not need to be dependable all the time. None of them are, right? Gas plants lose fuel, coal plants freeze, wind turbines ice up, hydro, So Quebec stops exporting, like all of these things have potential vulnerabilities. What you need is a system that as a whole is resilient enough to get through these events. And largely we built that system right now. The question is, can we keep it that resilient as winter demand grows and as we shift away from fossil fuels? So we are less reliant on the resources that today carry the brunt of that load. What will replace them? Will we have to rely on diesel stored on site to run in these winter peak scenarios? Or will we have long duration batteries that we can rely on? Or will we have more hydropower in the reservoirs we can rely on? Or will we have other new clean firm technologies like geothermal and nuclear that can help carry the load in the winter? That’s the key challenge going forward. And we have to think about the demand side just as much as the supply side, as I talked about, how do we ensure we’re not driving up electricity demand more than we should be?
Robinson Meyer:
[39:53] If you could add one resource to the New England winter grid or to the New England grid in general, where they said, look, yeah, we burned a lot of oil. It works fine, but we’re worried about winter loads are going to keep going up. Maybe we can’t synchronize all our demand as well as we might wish. What is the one resource we should add to the grid in order to make sure we can meet these winter events?
Jesse Jenkins:
[40:16] On the demand side, it’s ground source geothermal heat pumps. Because every...
Robinson Meyer:
[40:21] Which we’ll link back to the episode we’ve done on these in the show notes, because we’ve talked to a company producing ground source winter heat pumps.
Jesse Jenkins:
[40:28] With Dig Energy, who I advise. So the reason I say that is because every unit of heating you get from ground source heat pumps, while it does increase electricity demand by one unit, would displace natural gas demand by probably three units. So you want to relieve pipeline constraints in the winter? Ground source geothermal is a big bang for your buck. Now, of course, we’ve got to be able to install those at a reasonable cost. That’s, again, what Dig is trying to work on and others. But if I could wave my wand and have some breakthrough technology or some new technology come to market to expand our toolkit in the winter, ground source heat pumps are the thing, especially for northern climates. On the supply side, in New England or New York, it’d be nuclear power, right? Technology that doesn’t rely on an external fuel supply, does not rely on coal piles that can freeze up. As long as it’s appropriately winterized, it’s auxiliary systems and cooling. It does quite well in the winter. It doesn’t deal with the summer stresses that I talked about with cooling water temperatures. It’s an excellent winter resource. And that’s why it’s such a shame that New England and New York both shuttered Pilgrim and Indian Point, which we’re now sort of barely replacing with these long distance transmission lines to Quebec, many years later. Those were excellent winter reliability resources. And if we could, again, wave our magic wand and be able to build nuclear power plants at a reasonable cost and on a reasonable timeframe, it would be a very good option for the Northeast to turn to for the winter.
Robinson Meyer:
[41:45] And we should give credit to New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul here, who has already solicited contracts to build one gigawatt of new nuclear upstate somewhere in New York, and has said that she wants to build ultimately at least five gigawatts of new nuclear at some point upstate. And that would, by the way, go toward helping these New England electricity
Robinson Meyer:
[42:05] problems as well, because there’s a lot of transmission capacity between New York and New England. And by the way, we should add one more thing, which is that this too ties into a cross-border U.S.-Canadian project because New York State, if you read between the lines, you can tell that New York State might be talking to Ontario, which is itself trying to build new nuclear capacity to meet rising demand. And so, I don’t know, maybe a feel-good story for those of us who still value American Canadian economic integration. There’s lots of ongoing projects to knit those particular grids tightly together and to also go in together on building new kinds of generations, such as small nuclear reactors that could help relieve some of these problems. Okay, Jesse.
Jesse Jenkins:
[42:47] Yeah, let’s leave it there. I hope you all stayed warm over the last couple of weeks.
Robinson Meyer:
[42:50] Of course. I live in a radiator building. I got to say the problem was not staying warm. The problem was how much can you open the windows overnight? I know.
Jesse Jenkins:
[42:59] Let’s do less of that, too.
Robinson Meyer:
[43:01] Exactly. Before we go, we’re not going to have time for an up shift down shift today. But I do want to note the Rivian R2, we’ll stick it in the show notes. The first test drives of the Rivian R2 are coming out, the affordable, roughly, at least it’s going to start at $45,000 crossover that’s coming from Rivian at some point during the first half of this year. We’ll stick a link to a test drive in the show notes. It’s getting pretty good reviews. We don’t know final range yet. We don’t know final price. And we don’t know when they’ll start delivery. But other than that, other than that, seems to be getting pretty good reviews. And one of them is that it’s, you know, 10% to 80% percent charge in 30 minutes. Yeah, that’s pretty solid. Decent.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:39] I also I texted you last night about that. They have these prototype units out for testing right now that look awesome. They’ve got this really cool print paint job on them. I really hope that they sell some of those to the public. Go Google it. Check it out. They look so cool.
Robinson Meyer:
[43:52] We’ll stick in the show notes. I cannot tell if that is.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:55] I assume it’s just the prototypes,
Robinson Meyer:
[43:57] But I assume it’s the prototype to. We’ll see.
Jesse Jenkins:
[43:59] If enough Shift Key listeners write to Rivian, perhaps they’ll release some with those trims.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:04] RJ Scarange, if you’re listening, release the prototype paint job. Emily Panicova, my colleague, was like, are they going to sell it with those stripes? And I was like, I don’t think they are. But we’d love to be wrong. I’d love to be proven wrong.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:15] They should.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:15] That will do it for us this week. Jesse, You know, it’s the end of one chapter, but it is not the end of your relationship with Schiffsky. We will have you back. That’s right.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:24] The journey continues.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:25] The journey continues. We will have you back in the weeks to come. We have some very exciting episodes coming up, episodes we’ve already started planning.
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:32] I can say I love listening now to episodes that I don’t know what they’re going to say. It’s a delight to be on the other end of the other side of things.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:40] You can follow Jesse on Bluesky or LinkedIn at his name, right? Anything you should add?
Jesse Jenkins:
[44:46] Yes. Jesse D. Jenkins. Yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
[44:48] Yeah, at Bluesky, LinkedIn, at my name, Robinson Meyer. If you enjoyed Shift Key, please leave us a review on your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend. Shift Key, as always, is a production of Heatmap News. Our editors are Jillian Goodman and Nico Lauricella. Multimedia editing and audio engineering is by Jacob Lambert and by Nick Woodbury. My full-time co-host is Jesse Jenkins. For the last time ever, he’ll be returning in the future as a guest co-host.
Robinson Meyer:
[45:08] Our music is by Adam Kromelow. Thank you so much for listening and see you next week.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
This transcript has been automatically generated.
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.
Robinson Meyer:
Hello, it’s Thursday, November 12, and Congress is still debating the Senate Permitting Bill, officially known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act. We’ve been covering the bill here at Heatmap, as you know, and it would do a lot of different things, so many that it’s actually a bit of a struggle to summarize them all in just the introduction to this show. But let’s say briefly, it would initiate a federal buildout of long distance transmission lines, rework some parts of the National Environmental Policy Act, and changed some of how the federal government works with tribes. It would also rewrite parts of the Clean Water Act to generally give states less power and rewrite the Endangered Species Act to generally give states more power.
Robinson Meyer:
As I’m sure you’ve seen, it’s divided the environmental community and the broader set of interest groups that are aligned with the Democratic Party. The Wilderness Society opposes the bill, as does Earth Justice and former Vice President Al Gore. The AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Electrician’s Union, and the National Urban League all support the bill. One of the few environmental groups that has endorsed the bill is Evergreen Action. They were founded by alumni of Jay Inslee’s entirely climate change-focused presidential campaign back in 2020.
Robinson Meyer:
And I would say in the firmament of environmental NGOs, they are a relatively young star. They’re focused entirely, as you’ll hear, on climate change, decarbonization, and clean energy. And that gives them, I think, a unique focus compared to some other environmental groups that have kind of long-term conservation interests or biodiversity concerns and have only recently kind of adjusted for an era of climate politics. Our two guests today are both from Evergreen. Lena Moffitt is the executive director of Evergreen Action. She’s originally from New Mexico and has a long career in climate advocacy. She spent about a decade with the Sierra Club where she worked on campaigns that included the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, the effort to regulate methane emissions. Before that, she was at the National Wildlife Federation and their climate and energy program. And she also worked at the Union of Concerned Scientists to pass the Waxman-Markey climate legislation back at the beginning of the Obama administration. We’re also joined by Pete Wyckoff. You will hear on this show how Pete and I know each other, but he’s currently VP of Policy at Evergreen. Before that, he was Deputy Commissioner of Energy Resources in the state of Minnesota and a Senior Policy Advisor even before that to U.S. Senator Tina Smith. He is an environmental scientist by training.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, Lena, and I talk on this show about why Evergreen is endorsing this bill, why they think Democrats should take what is a relatively painful compromise for many lawmakers, and what keeps them up at night about this bill, even though they are endorsing it. We also have to talk about what would need to happen if this bill does pass for this bill to be as effective as they hope it will be. I’m Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News and all that and more. It’s all coming up on Shift Key. Lena Moffitt and Pete Wyckoff, welcome to Shift Key.
Pete Wyckoff:
Thanks for having us. Thank you so much, Rob.
Robinson Meyer:
So I feel like, Pete, you and I have to just briefly start here, which is that for me, this is the continuation of a long journey that we’ve had together because we watched the, I will always remember this, the night the Inflation Reduction Act passed, it was an overnight voterama, as they always are on reconciliation bills. I went to the Hill. I stayed in the Hill overnight because I was not going to miss this event in the Hill. You worked for Senator Tina Smith at the time. The sun was coming up. I thought, I’m going to go outside and watch the sun come up. And you were there, too, when we watched the sun rise on the Inflation Reduction Act together.
Pete Wyckoff:
I very much remember that. I told Lena that before we got on this podcast. And she said, oh, bring that up. It adds color. So you beat me to it. So, yes, I had a bagel, too, from the bagel shop over by the Heritage Foundation.
Robinson Meyer:
Oh, my gosh.
Pete Wyckoff:
I don’t think I shared my bagel with you.
Robinson Meyer:
You didn’t share your bagel.
Pete Wyckoff:
We did watch the sunrise.
Robinson Meyer:
We did watch the sunrise. What a day that was. And to some degree, it has brought us to this conversation. It has brought us to where we are now. And so one thing that hasn’t maybe been discussed as much, but which is very apparent to those of us who’ve, like, been in the trenches the whole time, is that you don’t get this bill, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, Baja, Baja, whatever we’re calling it, without the Inflation Reduction Act. And you don’t get Democrats who feel as strongly about it as they do, and as Senator Heinrich does and Senator the White House do, without the IRA experience. And so we’re going to talk about that today. But first, Lena, let’s bring you in. It has been so interesting watching the politics of this bill play out. We’re recording this at the moment where the Senate has already had its procedural votes on the permitting bill. It has yet to do the amendments. It’s yet to do the substantive vote. But there’s been a real divide in the environmental community on this bill. And largely that divide has been some groups opposing and some groups staying silent. But Evergreen chose to speak out and endorse this permitting bill.
Robinson Meyer:
Why did Evergreen choose to endorse this bill?
Lena Moffitt:
I’ve so enjoyed your coverage of this, and it has been really intense to watch and intense to be in the middle of it in the past few days. So hopefully your listeners are familiar with Evergreen, but just in case they’re not, we are a small climate advocacy organization that was founded about five years ago by staff of then-Governor Jay Inslee, when he was running for president, and we are committed to carrying forward Jay Inslee’s vision on climate, which is essentially that you can tackle climate change and, build an inclusive, thriving, clean energy economy at the same time. And we all know that to do that, that means moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. And to power our economy with clean energy means a couple of things. Building a whole lot of clean energy fast and building a lot of transmission to carry that clean energy from where it’s generated to where people live, as you and your interviewees have talked about quite a bit. But unfortunately, that is not happening in our country right now. And to solve the climate crisis, we need that clean energy and that transmission. And this bill would open the floodgates for speedy construction of the interregional transmission that we just have not been building.
Lena Moffitt:
And even though this is very much a compromise bill, it has a lot of really hard tradeoffs in it that have, genuinely kept me up in the middle of the night for months on end now. We believe that this bill would take us one step closer to tackling the climate crisis, and therefore it is worth it because we’re not going to be able to make that transition, simply put, without this transmission. And if we don’t, the climate crisis will just get worse and worse and more people will die. And so we decided to support it mostly because of that.
Robinson Meyer:
I feel like I’ve said this a few times about this bill, but it’s always the case that where there’s conflict generates the most journalistic coverage. Because if there’s conflict, that means people disagree. And that means we I think this is more than just an if it bleeds, it leads thing. I think like as journalists, we want to feel useful. And if there’s conflict, that means we can go do fact finding. We can go referee discussions and debates, and then we can maybe come up with an answer. The transmission section maybe has not generated as much coverage because everyone has sort of gotten religion on this section. But this has all meant that we haven’t talked as much about what the transmission section would do. So can you just briefly explain how the transmission section works and why it’s so good that you’re able to overcome these other points that may be more troubling?
Lena Moffitt:
Definitely want Pete to talk about this one because he’s got a front row seat to experiencing what the lack of transmission has meant for our inability to transition over the past few years, especially since the Inflation Reduction Act. But I would say as a movement strategist at the highest level, I’ve been lucky enough to be in the environmental space my entire career, spent most of it fighting pipelines. I spent most of it fighting fossil fuel infrastructure projects. And I don’t want to throw any shade on my colleagues in the environmental movement, but I do think that we need to be focusing on removing barriers.
Lena Moffitt:
Uncorking the floodgate of clean energy that we know is needed, and take what we can get right in front of us. Like I do think that we need to get more comfortable with compromise, frankly, and more comfortable with like, let’s take this and build on it. And we are very much willing to do that because we are so focused on the climate crisis. We have that singular area of attention and transmission is it is a structural necessity. Like we can build a lot of clean energy in regions like we’ve seen Texas and the ERCOT region do, gangbusters. But we are not doing it at scale in our country in a way that the speed and the calamity of the crisis, and also not to mention affordability, necessitate because we haven’t been able to build that transmission. And this bill essentially removes those roadblocks and takes a bunch of other good steps, too, which you have been covering and I appreciate. But that is a structural step that we have to take. And without that step, like, I don’t see how we get out of this mess of the climate crisis. Like, there is no path to addressing this crisis without the clean energy transition, and transmission is essential to that. So it gives us that chance, that fighting chance to keep addressing climate change that we were built to do, and that’s why we support it.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, what stands out to you as maybe the most important transmission provision in the bill?
Pete Wyckoff:
So can I back up for a second and say, why do we need transmission?
Robinson Meyer:
Yeah, please.
Pete Wyckoff:
So my experience is this. I was an academic for a long time. I started a second career when I went out and started working for Al Franken over a decade ago. So I worked on the federal side. And as you mentioned, then I worked for Senator Tina Smith. That’s where I got to know you. We worked on clean energy policy and were very deep into the IRA. After the IRA passed, I went back to Minnesota to work for Governor Tim Walls. I ran his energy division in the Minnesota Department of Commerce. And we did both usual state energy office stuff. We were doing IRA implementation, but we also had a regulatory function. We were essentially the governor’s rep, state’s attorney at the Minnesota PUC, but also at RTOs. So we worked in both MISO and SPP. So I came to see sort of firsthand that limitations on, transmission were holding us back not just holding us back on moving to clean while I was there as I got there we passed a state level 100 clean energy standard but, it’s not just about clean it’s about affordability right now in the dakotas and minnesota which crosses the miso spp seam I don’t know how technical you want me to be these are the.
Robinson Meyer:
Basically the two different electricity markets I mean as we’re literally talking about that straddle the middle of the country. So they have various names. It’s called the Southwest Power Pool or SPP, even though it’s largely not in the Southwest. Yep.
Pete Wyckoff:
Including Western Minnesota. A sliver of Western Minnesota.
Robinson Meyer:
Exactly. Famously Minnesota, a Southwestern state. But these are the two electricity markets in the middle of the country.
Pete Wyckoff:
So one of the things you can look at all the time is on one side of Minnesota, end of the Dakotas, power is one price. On the other side, its power is a different price and if we could just move through transmission power across that seam presumably, One could take advantage of lower cost electricity, no matter which side of that seam you were on. And in fact, under the Biden administration, when I was at the Minnesota Department of Commerce, we got a giant grant from the bipartisan infrastructure law, along with six other red states, to build some seam lines across MISO-SPP. We took a long time for us to talk the Trump folks into not canceling that grant, but they didn’t cancel that grant. And we’re moving ahead on that work. But the fact that is like earth shattering and new.
Pete Wyckoff:
Just kind of illustrates we have a long ways to go and it’s not just about getting clean it’s about getting affordability and reliability up to snuff what, this bill recognizes is that the really hard thing to do is move energy from market to market from state to state across utility lines so that’s where a federal intervention starts to make some sense. One of the big things for transmission this bill does is it gives federal backstop sighting some teeth so that if you’re trying to build across states moving from one region to another, that becomes an interstate commerce sort of thing that you would think there would be a federal intervention, but the feds and FERC have been really reluctant, not sure if they fully had the power to intervene and help build those transmission lines. This gives them that power. This also mandates regional and interregional planning. Like you’re not going to build, well, this is a coherent way, the ideal system. And you would think there was more planning than there is in the world. And this will beef that up. And that is an important first step. I’ll say someone who worked in MISO North, which is the sort of Midwestern Northern states, We kind of led the country in terms of regional transmission planning, and yet we still had a long ways to go, and I think this bill helps out MISO North. So if MISO North was the poster child for doing it as best as anybody’s doing it.
Pete Wyckoff:
Think of what other places need in terms of planning. We also have to have the same data available everywhere, and people have to have access to that data. There’s just a lot of these logistical hurdles to not only building transmission, but moving electricity across the transmission that’s built. And we can get into why do we need more transmission rather than let’s just build local generation. But what I’ll point out is the local generation you usually build quickly is gas. Who benefits from transmission. It is the kind of energy that needs to travel far. And wind and solar, you want to bring from where the sun shines well and where the wind blows well. And it might not be your local area. And there might not be the space for it in your local area. So transmission becomes key.
Robinson Meyer:
If I can ventriloquize my former podcast co-host Jesse, who, Jesse, if you’re listening to this, we really do need to do an episode. We’re just both very busy. He would say at this point that the difference between the worst solar resource and the best solar resource is a 2x difference. But the difference between the worst wind resource and the best solar wind resource is like a 10x difference. And so transmission helps for solar. It definitely helps for solar. Your economics can get two times better. But transmission is transformative for wind transmission is like the thing that makes large-scale wind projects either make sense or not make sense
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, I mean, can I be a physics nerd for a second. What I would like to point out to people about wind is that it scales to a power of three or four, depending on how you’re looking at it. Ao a solar array that’s twice as big is twice as good, but a wind array that has twice the wind resource or twice the size of the wind tower is multiples better. So it doesn’t scale the same way. It’s not how people think about it.
Robinson Meyer:
Do you think of the transmission provisions in this bill as good for the climate on their own sake? Or do you see them as a down payment? Because more transmission is better. You have more transmission, more electrons moving around. That means there’s more arbitrage opportunities than when solar wind. Or do you see it as almost a down payment for a future policy that is more deliberate about where transmission might go and who might benefit from it?
Pete Wyckoff:
I think it’s both. In Minnesota, we are a state that gets a large fraction of its energy from wind, but we’re already transmission limited. We’re already getting curtailment. And this will unleash already built clean. But it also, like I said, if we’re already curtailing and we need to build out a lot more, we’re going to need a lot more transmission. So this becomes important. I think one of the things to keep in mind is people hear like, oh my gosh, there’s these new large loads coming on and they’re like taking, jet engines out of scrapyards and they’re hooking them up and calling them gas plants. I mean, that’s a little like cyberpunk and sci-fi, but I think mostly they’re doing it because they have no other choice. That is a really expensive way to procure electricity. Nobody really wants to do that. The reason you would do that is you can’t get, hooked to the grid. And the reason you can’t get hooked to the grid is the grid is not adequate. So by building out the grid, we will disincentivize folks from doing that sort of crazy stuff. And we will be hooking into a system that we know how to make clean and is getting clean. And in a fair world where there aren’t fingers on the scale, wind and solar is what you’re going to build and then you’re going to move it.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena, how do you, there has been an idea, some folks have argued about the bill or a claim some folks have made that, well, look, right now, Republicans control the Senate and the House. But on Jan. 1, Democrats will have a big majority in the Senate. Democrats will have a big majority in the House. Why are you endorsing this particular bill now?
Lena Moffitt:
It’s a really fair question and it’s the second question that we’re getting in all of the the interest in this including from many of our friends and there are a bunch of reasons, and I take my closest advice from pete who was in the senate for seven years and has a pretty good understanding of how things work up there, and you know I’ve been working as an advocate on Capitol Hill for a long time but there are, very expert opinions on both sides of this one and our belief is that this was a very carefully negotiated compromise that strikes a really delicate balance between all of the parties, that inevitably will have to come to the table to get this across the finish line, including utilities, Republicans, and Democrats, and then Trump. And considering all of the other additional stakeholders here, we don’t see a better deal coming around the corner. Democrats will be in charge, and we are so excited. Hopefully, this bill will pass and we will be able to build on it. But this is a really contentious issue that requires tough compromises, even like from within the Democratic Party. We saw on the cloture vote that it directly split the current Democrats. The reality is some of the reforms to NEPA, some of the reforms to National Historic Preservation Act that the tribes are really interested in, some of those reforms are really tough but also are good for clean energy and good for transmission.
Lena Moffitt:
And those are hard issues to grapple with. And next year, I am stoked about all of the priorities that the Democrats are going to have, including health care, including the war in Iran, a ton of things that they’re going to have to get done. An issue that is really sticky and kind of unpleasant and splits the caucus is just like not going to be at the top of their priority list. And even if it were, it’s really tough to negotiate a bill. And we know the folks up there like Senator Whitehouse and Senator Heinrich, who I think the climate movement owes a debt of gratitude to for trying to do anything in this horrible landscape, let alone a climate bill. And I think this is a climate bill. I think a national grid absolutely is inherently good for the climate. Like the patchwork of what seven or eight RTOs that we have right now that is both dirty and unreliable to different levels is a huge challenge unto itself. But as we think about what we know we need to do for the climate, which is electrify everything, including our vehicles, including ultimately our industry, of course, our buildings, we need clean electrons and we need cheap electrons flowing everywhere. And we don’t get there in our huge country where the central part of the country is the sunniest and the windiest often –.
Lena Moffitt:
Without transmission. And so that inherently transmission is good for the climate and it will enable the investments and the certainty that more clean necessarily needs to carry it from the middle to the population center. So it’s awesome they negotiated this. And I think if we don’t do this now, we definitely have to wait at least two years because it will take them two years to come back and negotiate it and do all the balancing. And then we’re like maybe we’re five years down the line. And in the meantime, energy gets more expensive and dirty. People get more jet engines in their backyards powering off-grid data centers. And the climate crisis just spirals out of control. So I say, get started now. Trump cannot stop all the paperwork that will be needed to start all these transmission lines. He can’t get in the way of all of it. I just don’t believe even he will be able to do that. And in two years, we’ll have a hopefully a dem trifecta and we build on it a lot. So, yeah.
Robinson Meyer:
One point Senator Heinrich made when I talked to him yesterday that I had also just kind of written a similar piece along these lines. So, of course, I was thrilled to have a senator repeat. Was that if the midterms raised your odds of a Democrat winning the White House in 2029, then suddenly the bill looks a lot better because the person who really benefits from anything disinflationary in this bill is whoever is the next president. And the president who will be able to build, let’s say, projects, whether they be transit lines or bridges or whatever, is the next president. And that’s a gamble for Democrats, but it’s a gamble they might be feeling a lot better about today than they were two weeks ago. And it reminds me a little bit about how Reagan benefited from a lot of the policies that Carter did, that there were a number of changes that were all disinflationary that Carter kind of got through Congress, and it turned out that Reagan benefited from them. But ultimately, they did produce disinflation. It just took several years. And so everyone has to take a flyer on whether they’re going to happen to be in the White House when that happens. But Democrats might feel better about that flyer now than they were previously.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, you got the whole lifespan ban of the IRA. You helped write it in Tina Smith’s office, and then you helped implement it in Governor Walz’s office.
Robinson Meyer:
And I think one thread in the story of this bill has been the degree to which folks in the Biden administration or in that trifecta saw the permitting apparatus up close and changed their minds. Can you talk about what role federal permitting played in the implementation of the IRA as you experienced it and you saw it?
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, just to back up and to reinforce the point Lena made first is... With the IRA and the bipartisan infrastructure law, we passed a lot of climate policy. We passed the stuff that Democrats mostly agreed on, and then we tried to do permitting. I think the order was wrong, but I wouldn’t wish a new trifecta or even a new Congress next year the battle as the first thing out of the gate within the party.
Pete Wyckoff:
Like let’s get this done so then we can do the things that we agree on this is a fundamentally optimistic bill it’s saying when I look to the future I don’t see Trumps all the way down, I don’t see like Trump advanced to whatever I see that we will be able to do good clean energy policy and that this is, this is Obi Wan Kenobi releasing the tractor beam so that the team can just go do good stuff and save the universe but to answer your actual question rob Wow. So I got back to Minnesota. I was supposed to be point on implementing IRA, but also we had an unexpected trifecta, which is what drew me back to Minnesota after the 22 election locally in Minnesota. And we passed a whole bunch of stuff, which I called Minnesota’s mini IRA. And we passed a 100% clean electricity standard by 2040. And then we came to realize even locally that we weren’t going to reach that without passing state level permitting reform. which we came back the next year and did. And that was honestly harder with a trifecta to pass than it was to pass the fun stuff, which is the clean energy encouraging policies. I’ll tell a story that I think is well known. In the last decade, in the teens, MISO North did a whole lot of building out of.
Pete Wyckoff:
Transmission lines in the northern part of the Midwest is still held up as this is the planning process. We all should go through. They built all those lines. Those lines are now full. And now we’re doing new rounds of we need more. We need more. And MISO is doing its best to keep up. There’s a line that was proposed in 2010 that just went online two years ago, that was to take clean electricity from Minnesota and Iowa and get it to Chicago and Milwaukee, where those people live but don’t have any good wind near them. And it got held out for 14 years, basically. I mean, not all of it for this, but with crossing the Mississippi River. And that was a federal permit that it just couldn’t get. And we don’t have that much time to waste. Down where Lena comes from, this amazing new wind farm that’s, I think, close to four gigawatts. Biggest wind farm in the country, the South Lena. It’s being transmitted west of New Mexico, and you can talk more about this, Lena, by a line that is brand new, but is not brand new, and when it was proposed, it was a long time held up by interstate permitting friction. We can’t wait 14, 16, 18 years for these lines to get built.
Robinson Meyer:
If I remember correctly, the power line that was trying to cross the Mississippi was held up specifically by a single district court judge who just kept tossing it back on one NEPA ground after another and managed to extract years of delays from this project. And one of the reforms in this bill is that it removes NEPA entirely actually from the domain of district court judges and says that if you have a NEPA challenge, you have to take it to an appellate court. You have to take it to the circuit and you get a straight shot to the circuit.
Robinson Meyer:
Pete, in that answer, you did a very good job of talking about obstacles to transmission. But this bill does make a number of changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. And I think it is actually on NEPA that Biden folks in some ways got radicalized the most Did you happen to see changes or did you happen to see NEPA hold up projects you wanted to do or just impose a speed limit? Or is transmission so important that it’s the transmission changes here that you think of first?
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, so Minnesota, where we build most of our energy infrastructure, is not on federal lands. So this might be a better question for Lena, who has a more southwestern bent. So a lot of our generation projects don’t need federal permits with, let’s give the caveat, Trump is coming up with new ways to pretend that, yes, you do need federal permits and federal approval to move forward with even things that shouldn’t really have a federal nexus, particularly in the wind space.
Lena Moffitt:
Yeah. The Sun Zia line in particular was held up by some challenges brought under NEPA. It was held up by a number of things, including the National Historic Preservation Act as well. But I’m struck by a conversation I had at Climate Week actually with a representative from a transmission developer. And I asked her, like, what’s your top ask? What’s the biggest problem for your trade members who are trying to build transmission? And she said, absolutely NEPA. And like this is a place where I take the developer’s word for it and this bill helps a lot on that front. And those are some of the really challenging changes that are hard to stomach in many ways as an environmentalist and as someone who is really committed to, ensuring that people have access.
Lena Moffitt:
The ability to say something about projects that are impacting them. But also, at the end of the day, Evergreen is a climate organization. I am a climate advocate first and foremost. And the climate crisis is spiraling out of control in a way that is really impacting people. And we know impacting the most vulnerable communities first and worst, but impacting everybody in a way that is truly an emergency. And we have to treat it like an emergency. And that includes being willing to make really hard choices and have hard conversations and lose friendships over in service of solutions that will make a difference. And transmission is one of those.
Robinson Meyer:
It’s a tough bill, and we are going to talk about that. But the strategy has been to create sufficiently plausible lies about the bill that can then go viral enough that it totally poisons the politics here. But I think some supporters of the bill have alleged that the environmental response to the bill, the classic environmental NGOs, oppose the bill because they’re all about anti-growth or they’re all about restricting different forms of development. Do you agree with that diagnosis?
Lena Moffitt:
No, no, not at all. I actually don’t work with any de-growthers in all of the movement and time that I’ve spent with thousands and thousands of people over the two decades of my career. No, like, I don’t believe that for a second. I’m sure there are degrowthers out there. I just haven’t encountered any of them. I think what is true is that. My environmental colleagues are all trying to make the world a better place from their vantage point and from the lived experience that they have and from the expertise that they have. And the movement has gotten really good at slowing things down and saying no to fossil fuel projects. And I helped lead a lot of those strategies for a long time. And there is something innately, emotionally, viscerally galvanizing about fighting a bad project. I get that. And as an organizer, that’s critically important to recognize. And it’s also understandable that people are really pissed off about curtailments of laws that have given impacted communities a voice at the table. And like that is really hard. And I don’t fault any of my friends across the movement for their perspectives on this bill or for their opposition to this bill. I get it. I understand. And I also think that it’s a deal worth taking because of the climate crisis and also affordability. And I want us to, as much as we possibly can, agree to disagree respectfully and then keep on fighting because fighting amongst ourselves is exactly what the opposition wants. And we don’t need to do that. We’re pulling in the same direction. We have different strategies and we’re better off for it. Like we want diverse opinions and diverse strategies because that’s how we win at the end of the day. So that’s what I’m telling my colleagues all over the place. And I’ll keep doing that.
Robinson Meyer:
You both brought up transmission or clean energy in the Southwest. Very well done, you’re both on message, the North American Transit Association endorsed this bill. There’s a reason that the Center for Public Enterprise, which wants to build more public housing and public transit, big public projects, endorsed this bill. And this is where I think the politics of the bill get tricky. Some of the quote-unquote bad things in this bill for environmental groups Such as these procedural hurdles in the National Environmental Policy Act are good things for large scale federal infrastructure projects like transit or like housing or like large scale power projects. I mean, people want to do energy transition on the back of public renewables and more power to them. You can’t do it with our current permitting system. If you want to do that, you need NEPA reform because and you need a reform that’s pretty aggressive because right now the government faces a speed limit for doing any of that stuff.
Lena Moffitt:
This is one of the reasons why we think we should take this compromise now, because these are hard, hard decisions that Democrats are not going to want to take up because there are streamlining components to NEPA that need to happen for transmission, for clean energy, for things like transit and housing that we want Democrats to deliver on. And transit is a really big one that is also very good for the climate. Transportation is the second highest cost for families in America. Also the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s get more transit built and streamlining and lessening the requirements for clean transportation projects to have to go through. Lengthy NEPA reviews is a good thing for the climate.
Robinson Meyer:
What keeps you up at night about the bill?
Lena Moffitt:
That’s a really hard one. I literally have had nightmares about pipelines, gonna be honest. More gas pipelines probably will come in the next couple of years. The Clean Water Act streamlining is extremely painful. That is a straight give to the fossil fuel industry. And it’s a give in response to effective organizing, frankly.
Lena Moffitt:
But are those bills the tools we need to solve the climate crisis? They’re not. They’re just not. I think we’ve been effective at using them, but the climate crisis is getting worse. And we never set out to go permit by permit forever when I started working on Keystone XL in 2010. We wanted to stop as many horrible projects as we can and stand hand in hand with frontline allies like the First Nations people in Canada and the Appalachian people in, the mountains of North Carolina and build up a movement that was strong enough to elect leaders who would pass comprehensive policy that would more systematically get us off of fossil fuels. At the time, I thought that was maybe going to be cap and trade. I maybe thought that was going to be another carbon tax. And then it became the Inflation Reduction Act. And that is so awesome. And now we have to build from where we’re at and be willing to adjust our strategy and have a broad tent and meet people where they are and deliver on both affordability and cutting pollution. And like that is the strategy of the day. And I want us to prioritize that. And that, I think, is how we get forward progress in this tough moment. But I don’t fault anybody for their perspectives on the bill because it’s truly filled with a lot of challenging things.
Robinson Meyer:
You’ve both framed the bill as optimistic.
Robinson Meyer:
What needs to happen for the bill to be as good as it can be for the climate?
Lena Moffitt:
Pete and I were talking to another former Biden person, actually, about the bill and about what needs to happen going forward. And there is a lot in this bill that hangs on federal regulators. I want to be transparent about that, too. If folks haven’t read the text like we have, like we know FERC is going to play a central role here. And FERC hasn’t always been clean energy or the climate movement’s best friend. But it’s been interesting over the past couple of years to see FERC’s willingness to push a little bit and then also, frankly, under Trump, be way more, I won’t say unleashed yet or aggressive yet, but like that’s the vein we need to continue in. And FERC unleashed, I think, is the phrase that we’re going to want to just keep putting out into the universe so that these regulators can go forth and do their jobs and put out these rulemakings that are going to speed the data center payment plans and the transmission at all. A lot of it hangs on FERC. And so we want a good FERC. That’s going to have to be a top priority. I think reinstating the tax credits is probably the second thing that I would say. Pete, what’s on your wish list?
Pete Wyckoff:
I would start from there. I’ve always argued that if you just level the playing field, clean is going to keep expanding because it is the one that is cheap and getting cheaper. It’s going to be really hard to get cheaper with mining coal and bringing it to a coal plant. I am also the one, someone who would say we should accelerate that transition to a cleaner electric system that will be cheaper to be a part of. So we’re accelerating the time to cheaper electric bills for folks. Through things like reinstating the tax credits. Jesse Jenkins, keep referring to Jesse, he came out with some modeling after the IRA that I think is probably fundamentally true, that if you want to put clean energy on sale, which is what the IRA did through those tax credits mostly, you’ve got to have a way to take advantage of that. Even if wind and solar have gotten cheap, but you can’t get the electricity you would generate from that new cheap generator out, then you haven’t gotten anywhere. I took to heart the real limitations of other things in the real world for reducing the power of tools like the tax credits. So I’m all for reinstating the tax credits, but I want to remove those other barriers to make them to be the most effective thing. And this goes back to the optimistic sort of case. I think I don’t see Trump’s all the way down when I look forward in this country. I see a restoration of the party that I’ve worked for in terms of being able to push through federal bills and get them enacted. And the sort of things we want to do will speed the deployment of clean electricity, but not if you can’t actually move the electrons.
Lena Moffitt:
There are a couple of other barriers that it’s worth calling out that Evergreen and our colleagues across the movement have been working on at the state and local level, too, that are critically important. And one is local siting and permitting. Like, we do have to ensure that the clean actually can get built at scale across the country. And that is a wild patchwork of mostly roadblocks at this point to utility-scale clean getting built. And so that’s a huge priority for us. And then the RTO Governance one is the other one, like, we got to make sure, again, FERC Unleashed, that they actually are leaning in to leveling some of the bureaucratic insanities in places like PJM and making sure they do their jobs. And then utilities writ large, like, I am really excited, especially after talking to my friend Dave Pomerantz about many of the utility components of this bill. The oversight of utilities has been so lax and captured, frankly, that it is unbelievable what they are allowed to do with this bargain that they struck. Yeah, they’re monopolies, but that’s because they’re supposed to deliver cheap, reliable power and they’re doing neither. So this bill, I think, takes steps towards reining them in a bit back to the agreement in the compact of the Federal Power Act, but nowhere near enough. And I think this is like a down payment to more action on that front that we’re going to see from states across the country. Hopefully in January, like we’re working on an ROE reform bill in Pennsylvania and maybe Michigan and all over the place. There is an energy in the air to take the utilities on a bit more on this front, too, at the state level.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena, you mentioned that the key of this bill is going to be FERC unleashed.
Lena Moffitt:
Mm hmm.
Robinson Meyer:
And FERC is appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, about to be a big Democratic majority. So that’s a little balanced. But the way it works is that the president’s party has a majority, but the minority party has a say. What sense have we gotten of what the current FERC thinks about the provisions in this bill? And what keeps future FERC from just watering everything down and or what needs to happen to make it so that the bill is implemented essentially as written?
Lena Moffitt:
Yeah, really good question. There are a couple of data points that have given me really surprising optimism about this current FERC. One, the data center rulemaking that they put out that required some interesting components in there was stronger than we thought it would be. And I am not an expert on that rulemaking, but there were components in there that I remember thinking, wow, I actually can’t believe those are in there. That is fascinating. They’ve done, I believe, different rulemakings that included at least assessing things like advanced transmission technology, which was a surprise to see from, majority Republican chair, better than it was a couple of years ago. And then even more directly, the technical conference they just did on PJM governance. Also was an indication to me that they are recognizing the failures of our current system to some extent, at least in PJM, and they want that additional authority, which is fascinating. I think they’re moving more in that direction. And also, frankly, under Trump, where he has horribly just taken a sledgehammer to so many of our federal agencies, has also said, like, that agency isn’t independent. Okay, so interesting. Maybe we take a page out of that and keep going with that. There is something to be said for the environmental community paying more attention when we put our list of priorities into the next hopefully Democratic president after we deliver on affordability over the next couple of years to FERC. They got to make really strong appointments and we got to fight to make sure that the Senate approves them. So prioritization, but nothing’s guaranteed. This bill is very much like a starting gun and then we have a lot of work to do and making sure that we have a strong FERC that is going to live up to the powers that this bill gives it is one of the things that we’ll have to keep doing.
Pete Wyckoff:
So I’ve now worked at the federal level and the state level and in the state level did a lot of RTO work. And it has reinforced several things to me. One, there are powers that should be rendered federally because that’s where the system makes sense. And then you need to make sure that FERC is good. There are powers that should be rendered locally because that’s where it makes sense. And then you need to make sure your PUCs are good. I’m more cynical about PUCs than I was four years ago. And less cynical.
Robinson Meyer:
These are the state-level utility regulations.
Pete Wyckoff:
Yeah, sorry. And less cynical about FERC to tell the truth. But I also just think it is like, where is the right place to be doing this sort of planning and intervention? Our grid is a national, sorry, ERCOT, national minus Texas, resource that is interconnected. It is all about things that cross state lines. it would really be good if we had a great regional and federal planning infrastructure. And I’ll back up what Lena just said. I liked working in MISO and SPP and looked in horror at PJM when I was in Minnesota. And now I’m working for a national group that focuses on the horror of PJM. And I think there is bipartisan agreement that the horror of PJM must be fixed. And I, in some ways, trust politicians more than that RTO to fix itself, of both parties. I think utility power is actually stronger at the state level. And so one way to overcome it is to work at a higher level.
Robinson Meyer:
I’m sure I have listeners who are like, get it done, pass the thing. But I think that probably listeners are more likely to fall into two buckets. Folks who want the bill to pass, but are uncomfortable about it. It’s a compromise. Compromises mean everyone feels a little skittish.
Robinson Meyer:
And then I think there are folks who are really probably on the fence and don’t know what to think here. Can you make the case? Why is it time to get in line now?
Lena Moffitt:
For your listeners who care first and foremost about either clean energy or the climate, and increasingly they are the same thing, we need to pass this bill now because if we don’t, with this compromise that is before the Senate right now, we’re not going to get it for many years is my strong belief. And if we don’t get started with building transmission at the speed and scale that we need to facilitate a whole lot of clean getting built and plugged into that grid. The possibility of addressing the climate crisis slips further and further away, and more people die, frankly. And we cannot wait. And at the same time, we can do other things to build on it after this bill is passed. And I believe that we will and that our movement will do that to make it even stronger and to ensure that clean wins out. But we can’t afford to wait to put in place just this structural necessity. Not sufficient, but structural necessity of transmission to unleash the clean energy transition we need to address the climate crisis. We can’t afford to wait for five years. We can’t afford to wait for two years. And that’s why we need this bill now. And it is also central to helping the Democrats deliver on their affordability promises. We have been fighting like heck as a movement to convince Democrats over the past two years that clean energy is the way to deliver. Deliver on affordability. Deliver on affordability. And we have to be laser focused on that in the next two years. And this bill also opens the possibility for them to deliver on affordability with clean energy. And without this bill, I don’t think we get there. So it is critical for helping them win as well, in my view.
Pete Wyckoff:
I’ll just say, I agree with everything Lena just said. I will add a few things. One, this is really about affordability. And as someone who advocates very hard for a transition to clean, particularly clean electricity to power our climate progress in so many sectors, we need to do that transition to clean in a way that is also maximizing why clean is affordable. Yeah. I’ve worked with a lot of utilities and their incentive structure, and they are incentivized to, yes, build whatever. I had a first encounter when I entered the Congress with the utility lobbyists that, Pete, you’ve got to remember, we’re not in the business of selling electricity. That’s a loss leader. We’re in the business of building stuff. You want us to build clean? Fine. You want us to build dirty? Fine. We just want to build stuff.
Pete Wyckoff:
But they don’t want to build it in the cheapest way. And I think parts of what we are seizing in a moment right here is where both parties agree, whatever the utilities build, it should be the cost-effective thing. I think the reconductoring requirements and the grid-enhancing technology requirements and the virtual power plant requirements, which aren’t getting a whole lot to play, are really important and show, for the first time, really a bipartisan push to say, whatever we build out, clean or not, and in my case, clean, has to be affordable. And that is going against the way our system is set up in terms of the incentives of the big players. And I think we need to seize that moment. I think the other thing is this bill extracts a huge pound of flesh from the data center industry in a way that’s bipartisan. I don’t want to miss that moment either. I’m not sure we’re going to have bipartisan agreement on we need to rein in some of the utility excesses and we need to extract things from data centers. We didn’t have it six months ago. I don’t know if we’ll have it in six months. So let’s take it now. So I think that’s another argument for why to do this now.
Robinson Meyer:
Lena and Pete, thank you so much for joining us. It’s a pleasure to have you both here on Shift Key.
Lena Moffitt:
Thank you so much for having us.
Pete Wyckoff:
Thank you so much, Rob.
Rob talks with Evergreen Action’s Lena Moffitt and Pete Wyckoff about why they support BAAJA, even in spite of its flaws.
The Senate will likely vote next week on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, a bill to reshape the federal permitting process.
The proposed legislation has divided the environmental community and the set of interest groups often aligned with Democrats. The Wilderness Society and Earthjustice are opposed, and the Sierra Club wants big changes. The AFL-CIO and the National Urban League support the measure.
One of the few environmental nonprofits to affirmatively endorse the bill — and not express concerns or just stay silent — is Evergreen Action, a relatively young think tank and advocacy group that is entirely focused on climate change, clean energy, and decarbonization. “Despite the monumental election, I do not believe that a better deal is around the corner. The time to act is now,” Lena Moffitt, its executive director, said in a statement last week. “We have to start building clean energy at scale.”
On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Lena Moffitt, Evergreen’s executive director, and Pete Wyckoff, its vice president of policy. They discuss why Evergreen endorsed the bill, how Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act experience led to this moment, and what still keeps them up at night about the bill. They also chat about how — even if the bill passes — big changes will be needed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
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 their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: What needs to happen for the bill to be as good as it can be for the climate?
Lena Moffitt: Pete and I were talking to another former Biden person, actually, about the bill and about what needs to happen going forward. And there is a lot in this bill that hangs on federal regulators. I want to be transparent about that, too, if folks haven’t read the text like we have. Like, we know FERC is going to play a central role here. And FERC hasn’t always been clean energy or the climate movement’s best friend.
But it’s been interesting over the past couple of years to see FERC’s willingness to push a little bit. And then also, frankly, under Trump, be way more ... I won’t say unleashed yet or aggressive yet, but like, that’s the vein we need to continue in. And “FERC unleashed,” I think, is the phrase that we’re going to want to just keep putting out into the universe so that these regulators can go forth and do their jobs and put out these rulemakings that are going to speed the data center payment plans and the transmission, et al. A lot of it hangs on FERC. And so we want a good FERC. That’s going to have to be a top priority. I think reinstating the tax credits is probably the second thing that I would say.
Pete, what’s on your wish list?
Pete Wyckoff: I would start from there. I’ve always argued that if you just level the playing field, clean is going to keep expanding because it is the one that is cheap and getting cheaper. It’s going to be really hard to get cheaper with mining coal and bringing it to a coal plant. I am also someone who would say we should accelerate that transition to a cleaner electric system that will be cheaper to be a part of, so we’re accelerating the time to cheaper electric bills for folks through things like reinstating the tax credits.
Jesse Jenkins, he came out with some modeling after the IRA that I think is probably fundamentally true — that if you want to put clean energy on sale, which is what the IRA did through those tax credits, mostly, you’ve got to have a way to take advantage of that. Even if wind and solar have gotten cheap, but you can’t get the electricity you would generate from that new cheap generator out, then you haven’t gotten anywhere.
I took to heart the real limitations of other things in the real world for reducing the power of tools like the tax credits. So I’m all for reinstating the tax credits, but I want to remove those other barriers to make them to be the most effective thing. And this goes back to the optimistic sort of case. I think I don’t see Trumps all the way down when I look forward in this country. I see a restoration of the party that I’ve worked for, in terms of being able to push through federal bills and get them enacted, and the sort of things we want to do will speed the deployment of clean electricity, but not if you can’t actually move the electrons.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
“Why We’re Supporting the Permitting Bill,” by Lena Moffitt
Senate Permitting Deal Wins First Vote
The Last-Minute Changes to the Senate Permitting Deal, Explained
Martin Heinrich on What’s Next for Permitting Reform
Previously on Shift Key: Why Permitting Reform Is a Historic Victory Over Utilities
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Formed through a joint venture between Wärtsilä and RCT Solutions, Valo helps utilities, independent power producers, and developers navigate market and grid complexity without sacrificing system performance. Learn more at valoenergy.com.
Every year Giving Green researches the top climate nonprofits and sends 100% of every dollar donated to its Giving Green Fund straight to them. Make your first gift before the new year, and it will be matched up to $1,000. Go to GivingGreen.earth/Shift.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
Smoke from the raging fires in Indonesia may go down as this year’s deadliest climate tragedy.
It’s a morbid game to try to name the worst climate disaster of 2026. In Europe this summer, a series of extreme heat waves killed an estimated 50,000 people. In September, a thawing Himalayan glacier collapsed, sending a wall of water cascading through Tibet and Nepal, killing at least 1,500 people, with nearly 6,000 still missing months later. And this past January, authorities feared hundreds of migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during Cyclone Harry, including 50 in one shipwreck alone.
But the disaster that will result in perhaps the greatest and longest-lasting tragedy is the one unfolding right now in Indonesia.
Wildfires in Sumatra and Kalimantan have burned more than 7 million acres in what is likely a record year for the fire-prone islands. The blazes have destroyed critical wildlife habitats, including rainforests occupied by orangutans, Sunda pangolins, and Javan leopards. But it’s not the direct human deaths from the fires, the habitat loss, or the historic acreage burned — those being the typical headline numbers for gauging how “bad” a given fire or fire season is — that best tell the story of the impacts, in this case.
Rather, it is the toxic smoke blanketing Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Timor-Leste. For months, those emissions have been in every breath taken by the region’s 12.5 million inhabitants, about 4% of the world’s population.
In Indonesia alone, authorities estimate the smoke has caused 400,000 respiratory infections. As of a few weeks ago, more than 75,000 cases had been recorded in children between birth and age 5. “Behind those numbers are worried families, parents keeping watch, and children struggling to breathe,” Herawati Supolo-Sudoyo, a trustee of the Indonesian Open Science Voice Foundation and chair of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences’ Commission on Medical Sciences, said during a recent public health webinar. “Babies certainly cannot say, ‘My chest feels tight.’ They rely on us to protect their breath.” (That’s according to an automated YouTube translation of her remarks.)

Children are especially vulnerable to wildfire smoke because their lungs are not fully developed, and they breathe in more air relative to their body weight than adults. Reports from local hospitals are harrowing. “Yesterday, in the inpatient ward, I saw three toddlers struggling to breathe,” one mother, whose 14-month-old died suddenly after experiencing shortness of breath, told BBC Indonesia (as translated by Mongabay). The Indonesian Philanthropy Association, a nonprofit, has taken to describing the children of Indonesia as the “lost generation” due to the suspected physical and cognitive toll of the relentless smoke exposure. Timor-Leste, which borders Indonesia to the west, has one of Asia’s youngest populations, with about 44% of its inhabitants under 18.
“We must not wait until these children are adults to calculate the losses,” Supolo-Sudoyo said.
There seems little doubt that the smoke is a climate-change-fueled public health crisis. A new study by World Weather Attribution, released Thursday, found that while the super El Niño is the primary cause of the severe reduction in rainfall that helped fuel the fires, Indonesia’s drought was “then exacerbated by record heat throughout the fire season, which was made possible due to human-caused climate change,” Theodore Keeping, a research associate with WWA, said during a press call about the findings. (The study, which uses peer-reviewed methods, has not yet been peer-reviewed itself.)
Indonesia’s fire season was about 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter due to climate change, compared to about a third of a degree Celsius hotter due to the current El Niño, WWA reports. “We also found that this year’s record-breaking heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change, even in a similar El Niño state,” Keeping said.

Smoke is still a relatively new way of quantifying the impact of a wildfire. Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health and creator of the school’s wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool, told me that though researchers have been studying smoke toxicity for years, the bad U.S. fire seasons in 2018 and 2020 helped accelerate interest and urgency. “Really high visibility and growing interest leads to a lot more studies that then enhance our knowledge about the details of this hazard,” he said of the recent spike in smoke-related research.
For example, new research released just last month by researchers at Harvard indicates that wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy is related to higher instances of autism in children. Separately, a study about chronic wildfire smoke exposure linked the pollution to an estimated 24,100 deaths in the lower 48 states every year — more than twice the number killed in drunk-driving accidents. Looking only at Indonesia, researchers linked smoke exposure in the womb during the region’s severe 1997 fire season to poorer health outcomes by age 17.
Still, coverage of wildfires largely focuses on how many people were killed by direct flame impacts, or how many acres or buildings burned. A “megafire,” for example, is a nonscientific term used by the media to describe how large a fire is physically, but not the thousands of miles further its smoke will travel. The National Interagency Coordination Center’s Wildland Fire Summary and Statistics Annual Report, the end-of-year summary of fire season impacts in the United States, doesn’t even mention smoke exposure. Deadly and destructive fires in Maui and Los Angeles stand out in memory, but the hazardous air quality in the Midwest this season from the Canadian wildfires may turn out to cost as many or more lives. (Smoke toxicity and chronic exposure also complicate the cost-benefit analysis of a favorite tool of progressive fire managers: prescribed burns.)
In fact, research about smoke toxicity and widespread exposure to particulate pollution increasingly suggests that emissions might be the marquee impact of wildfires. While 30 people died directly from the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in L.A., one research paper estimated the loss of life was closer to 440, partially due to the deaths attributable to wildfire smoke in addition to stress, disruptions to the health-care infrastructure, and mental health impacts.

“The difficulty with all of this is that the smoke deaths are difficult to track,” Hayden told me. “They’re not, for instance, showing up on death certificates. While the smoke itself is very visible in the air and leads to nice photos, the impacts are much harder to take photos of.”
That’s certainly the case in Indonesia, where photos show people going about their lives in a cloud of yellow smoke, and in Singapore, where run clubs have moved their workouts into malls to try to avoid the pollution. But while a smoke-exacerbated heart attack isn’t a front-page image, to Hayden’s point, the pictures do reveal something else: just how ill-prepared our infrastructure and public health systems are for dramatic smoke events like these.
What can be done about wildfire smoke? You can invest in a really good air purifier — and use it correctly — which works so long as you can afford it, and if your home isn’t drafty to begin with, and if it isn’t too hot out that you need to open a window to stay cool at the same time. You can wear the right kind of mask, too, but it needs to fit properly and it won’t filter out gases or the smallest toxic particles. And while you can evacuate to protect yourself from an encroaching wildfire, outrunning the smoke might require you to travel hundreds of miles or, as is the case for those in Southeast Asia, literally leave your country.
In that sense, we are thinking about wildfire impacts wrong, too. Fires aren’t a hazard contained neatly within evacuation zones; the “wildland-urban interface” and “wildfire-prone landscape” describe an environment fires may erupt in, but not what they’re contained to. Whether you’re in Los Angeles or New York City, Minneapolis or Madrid, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur, the smoke will find you.