Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that repealing federal tailpipe emissions standards would significantly harm the United States by increasing household energy costs, causing premature deaths due to increased air pollution, and reducing GDP and employment. Using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), the analysis finds that such a repeal would lead to a slower adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), higher gasoline prices, and a cumulative GDP loss of $710 billion between 2026 and 2050.

The report assesses the economic damage caused by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), projecting significant costs to households and a reduction in GDP and jobs by 2035. It urges U.S. state policymakers to implement five 'no-regrets' strategies—accelerating wind and solar construction, streamlining deployment, sustaining electric transportation, increasing building efficiency, and stimulating clean industrial investment—to maintain economic opportunity and lower energy costs despite federal policy failures.

The document is a quick start guide for the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), a tool developed by Energy Innovation to help users model state-level energy systems and climate policies. Using Louisiana as an example, it explains how to access the simulator, apply specific policies such as a Clean Electricity Standard or Building Component Electrification, and analyze results through CO2e emission graphs and wedge diagrams. It also describes how to use pre-designed scenarios, including the NDC Scenario and the Federal Policy Repeal and Rollback scenario, to test different decarbonization pathways.

The report finds that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would significantly increase U.S. household energy costs, lead to substantial job losses in manufacturing and clean energy, and increase greenhouse gas emissions and premature deaths. By repealing key tax credits and environmental standards, the bill is projected to shrink cumulative GDP by $1.1 trillion between 2025 and 2034 and reduce new electricity capacity by 330 GW by 2035. While the bill expands oil and gas leasing, the report argues that the resulting increase in production is offset by higher demand-driven prices for fossil fuels.

The report argues that direct electrification is the most efficient way to decarbonize industrial process heat, outperforming alternatives like green hydrogen, bioenergy, and carbon capture. It identifies three primary barriers: economics (high electricity costs relative to fossil fuels), grid readiness (slow interconnection and outdated planning), and technology maturity (lack of awareness and scale for high-temperature solutions). To overcome these, the authors recommend a combination of financial incentives (such as a Clean Heat Production Tax Credit), grid reforms (including surplus interconnection and real-time pricing), and foundational RD&D and workforce training.

The report outlines the regulatory complexities of the energy transition toward low-emissions hydrogen, emphasizing the high uncertainty of future demand. It provides specific guidance for electricity and gas regulators on managing infrastructure investments, pricing, and safety risks. The authors argue that regulators must balance government policy goals with their mandate to ensure affordable and safe service, warning against 'stranded assets' if hydrogen investments are based on hype rather than economic reality. Key technical concerns include hydrogen's propensity for pipeline embrittlement, low roundtrip efficiency in power generation, and the necessity of high-integrity emissions accounting to avoid greenwashing.

The report evaluates the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) as an economic development tool. Using the Energy Policy Simulator, Energy Innovation estimates that the fund's $24 billion in financial assistance will generate 36,000 to 41,000 annual jobs, $21.3 to $23.9 billion in wages (2025-2031), and $52 billion in consumer energy savings over 20 years. The GGRF operates through national-scale 'Green Banks' via the National Clean Investment Fund and local-level initiatives like the Solar For All and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator programs to mobilize private capital and support disadvantaged communities.

The report finds that the 2025 Reconciliation bill would significantly increase household energy costs, lead to substantial job losses, and increase greenhouse gas emissions by repealing clean energy incentives and EPA standards. Despite proposed increases in oil and gas production, the analysis suggests that higher demand for fossil fuels and the loss of low-cost renewable capacity would raise overall energy spending and decrease GDP.

Battery electric heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) are projected to become the most cost-effective freight transport option in most U.S. states by 2030. While current U.S. purchase prices are anomalously high compared to global trends, falling battery costs and operational savings are driving a clear TCO advantage over diesel and hydrogen fuel cell trucks. The report emphasizes that state-level policy leadership—including price transparency, resale value support, and infrastructure credits like California's LCFS—is critical to unlocking these economic benefits.

The document proposes an "energy park" model that co-locates renewable generation with flexible industrial loads and long-duration storage to replace retiring coal capacity. Using Pueblo, Colorado, as a case study, the authors model a system combining 2,000 MW of solar, 1,600 MW of wind, short-duration batteries, and flexible loads (thermal batteries and electrolyzers). The findings indicate that such a park can achieve 99% reliability in mimicking the dispatch of the Comanche Unit 3 plant while providing significant local economic benefits, including over $40 million in annual property taxes and 350 permanent jobs. Financially, the energy park is estimated to be at least 50% cheaper for electricity ratepayers than a comparable small modular nuclear reactor.

The document outlines the technical approach for modeling the 'Current Policies' and 'IRA Repeal' scenarios using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS). It details which specific IRA sections—including tax credits for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and carbon capture—were included in the analysis, which were omitted as 'out of scope,' and the specific assumptions used to calculate their effects on emissions and energy demand.

The report argues that repealing federal clean energy tax credits and funding programs would lead to significant job losses, increased household energy costs, reduced GDP, and higher air pollution levels in the United States between 2025 and 2035.

The document argues that repealing federal technology-neutral electricity tax credits (§45Y and §48E) would significantly increase household energy bills across the United States. Drawing on analyses from multiple research groups, it estimates that national annual household energy bills would rise by $40–$60 in 2030, $56–$150 in 2035, and $140–$220 by 2040. The report highlights that these credits lower costs by reducing investment expenses for wind, solar, battery, nuclear, and geothermal projects, savings which utilities are regulated to pass on to consumers. Repeal would likely lead to substantial price hikes in specific states, with some households facing increases over $500 annually.

The briefing examines the components of grid reliability—resource adequacy, operational reliability, and resilience—within the context of the U.S. transition to clean energy. It argues that while load growth and fossil fuel retirements create short-term risks, a diverse portfolio of wind, solar, batteries, and demand-side resources can maintain reliability. The document emphasizes the need for interconnection reform, updated market rules for inverter-based resources, and the scaling of demand-response programs to avoid unnecessary supply-side costs.

The report examines the technical and institutional challenges of maintaining grid reliability in the United States as fossil fuel plants retire and demand grows from data centers and electrification. It argues that reliability does not require traditional baseload power but can be achieved through a combination of wind, solar, battery storage, and demand-side flexibility. The authors highlight that while 80-90% clean electricity is achievable with current technology, reaching 100% may require 'clean firm' resources like enhanced geothermal or advanced nuclear. Key recommendations include reforming interconnection queues, expanding interregional transmission, and implementing performance-based incentives for utilities to prioritize demand-side solutions.

The ITIAC recommends that the DOE prioritize budget increases for offices like IEDO and AMMTO, improve industrial energy data collection, and support cross-cutting technologies such as direct electrification and clean hydrogen. It specifically calls for the creation of a chemicals technology center of excellence and a 'Fast Track' program to accelerate commercialization. The report also emphasizes the need for grid reforms to lower electricity costs for industry and the development of standards for clean goods to facilitate long-term offtake agreements.

The report identifies four technical pillars for industrial decarbonization in East Asia: energy and material efficiency, electrification with renewable energy, CCUS, and green hydrogen/clean feedstocks. It highlights significant barriers, including high fossil fuel dependence, insufficient clean power infrastructure, a lack of fit-for-purpose finance, and a skills gap in the workforce. The document proposes a comprehensive policy package focusing on industry-power co-optimization, cluster-based financing, and vocational training to achieve net-zero targets by 2050 or 2060.

The report provides a comprehensive roadmap for industrial decarbonization in East Asia, focusing on China, Indonesia, and Viet Nam. It proposes a six-tier technical strategy ranging from energy efficiency to green hydrogen and clean feedstocks. The analysis highlights that while efficiency and 'easy electrification' are cost-effective, deeper decarbonization requires massive investments—USD 1.7 trillion cumulatively through 2050 for industry alone across the three nations—and a fully decarbonized power grid. It recommends a policy package centered on carbon pricing, renewable energy procurement, and workforce reskilling to overcome high upfront costs and technical barriers.

The document introduces energy parks as a strategy to meet rising electricity demand by integrating wind, solar, and storage with co-located loads like hydrogen electrolyzers and data centers. It outlines the evolution from simple solar farms to complex hybrids and identifies key barriers, including interconnection queues and utility monopolies. The authors propose a 'digital resource' paradigm shift and new state legal frameworks to enable these projects.

The document contends that the U.S. power grid is already transitioning away from coal toward renewables, storage, and flexible natural gas due to market forces, and that the EPA's Rule aligns with these trends. It argues that modern resources like battery storage and flexible gas plants provide better operational reliability than aging coal plants. The brief asserts that the Rule provides sufficient time for resource procurement and includes flexibility mechanisms to protect the grid during periods of stress.