Illustration: Natalie Peeples/Axios
The race is on to define the Manchin-Barrasso permitting overhaul and how it might impact climate emissions.
Why it matters: The exact emissions profile of this bill is TBD. But rifts among environmental groups, climate hawks and renewables companies about how to weigh its fossil fuel provisions will be crucial to its future.
Zoom in: Several NGOs are modeling the emissions footprint of the legislation, with results expected in the coming weeks, according to one person involved in that effort.
- Provisions on wind, solar, geothermal and transmission would almost certainly spur reductions.
- The bill would require a FERC rulemaking on interregional planning, set parameters for the thorny issue of transmission cost allocation and significantly cut down the process for designating a "national interest" power line.
- That wouldn't solve all the grid's problems. But experts think it would help build the lines needed to power up IRA-fueled low-carbon energy projects.
What they're saying: Early estimates kicking around the Hill suggest those provisions would massively outweigh possible increases in oil and gas production and exports.
- "What we're hearing is that it's about 170 million tons of extra carbon emissions from the oil and gas portions of the permitting reform, and a 2-plus billion ton emissions reduction from the clean energy portions of the permitting reform," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told Axios. "If that checks out, it's hard to turn away."
- Sen. Martin Heinrich offered up similar numbers during the ENR Committee markup (160 million metric ton increase vs. 2 billion to 3 billion metric ton decrease).
- "I think the net carbon benefit is significant," said Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies.
Friction point: The major environmental groups have big problems with mandating oil and gas leasing and ending the LNG export permits pause.
- They point to an analysis by Symons Public Affairs that suggests the LNG provisions would "lock in new greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 165 coal-fired power plants."
- "It is somewhat absurd to say that the clean energy side outweighs the fossil fuel side," said the Center for Biological Diversity's Brett Hartl.
Between the lines: Much depends here on how much dirty production U.S. exports might displace elsewhere and how much production should be tolerated in the near term.
- Climate hawks and industry folks are skeptical of the Symons numbers.
- "I'm not really convinced that the provisions are going to result in a different amount of LNG exports over time," said Xan Fishman of the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Our thought bubble: This is a capstone example of how the coalition that built the IRA has fractured since its passage.
- The bill's future depends on these estimates because they could give some cover to Dem climate hawks if the big-money green groups keep coming out strongly against it.
- Or they could turn off Republicans who think wind and solar are getting too much compared with oil and gas.
- Heinrich told Axios he's "educating the non-committee members" about the bill's possible benefits. Even though "a lot of people" compare it to previous permitting legislation, he said, "I think it's dramatically better, frankly."
