Connect with us

Economics

The most important climate agency you’ve never heard of

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

THE CLEAN-ENERGY transition is doing wonders for energy nerds. Not because of any particular policy triumph, but because people beyond wonkdom are actually trying to understand what they are saying. Several times in the past two years “energy permitting”, such as the approval of electricity-transmission lines, became one of the hottest legislative topics in America. Attempts at planning reform failed. But the nerds’ moment in the sun is not over. Those newly captivated by provisional environmental-impact statements and land-use planning will soon turn their attention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an obscure, independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of energy.

In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a climate law full of tax incentives for clean-energy infrastructure. President Joe Biden and Democrats won the support of Joe Manchin, a centrist senator for West Virginia, by promising that they would also seek to ease the cumbersome process of obtaining permits. It can take years for solar and wind farms to be approved, and even longer for interstate transmission lines. Speeding up planning is crucial. A study from Princeton University in 2023 found that America needs to expand electricity-transmission capacity 50% faster than its recent historical rate to reap the maximum decarbonisation benefits of the IRA.

One way to launch a building boom would be for Congress to grant FERC the power to permit interstate transmission lines as it does for natural-gas pipelines, which sail much quicker through planning processes. But progress there has stalled. Other good ideas are floating around. One bill, from John Hickenlooper, a Democratic senator for Colorado, would mandate that regions be able to transfer a certain amount of electricity between them. That could make it easier to move power around during extreme weather, reduce costs for consumers where energy is now scarce and help states meet their clean-energy-generation targets.

Yet progressive Democrats are wary of rushing projects through. And though Republicans have long favoured making permits easier to get, they would like to make it easier to build fossil-fuel infrastructure, too. The result is a stalemate. The lack of congressional action leaves agencies trying to speed things up themselves.

Enter FERC. The next few months could determine how effective the commission will prove to be for the foreseeable future, for two reasons.

First, a final rule is set to be released on May 13th that could require transmission developers to plan 20 years into the future and that works out who should pay for new interstate lines. The transmission-opposition-complex is waiting. Environmentalists and NIMBYs are suspicious of how such projects mar the landscape, and often sue to delay them. Many utilities are local monopolies, and building interstate transmission could introduce competition from power generators beyond their regions. “It’s all about the control they have over where our power comes from, and transmission can disrupt that control,” says Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University.

Politics also threatens to get in the way. After FERC initially released its rule in 2022, 17 Republican attorneys-general argued that the commission wants to inflict renewable energy on states that resist it via new transmission lines, and that it does not have authority from Congress to do so. The Supreme Court may be amenable to this argument. In West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, in 2022, the court used the “major questions doctrine” to strike down an EPA rule regulating greenhouse-gas emissions on similar grounds. It will also take time for transmission operators to comply with the new rule. Mr Peskoe reckons that compliance and legal challenges could delay the rule’s implementation by several years.

The second factor that will affect FERC’s power to change the energy landscape is the commission’s size: it is shrinking. It is supposed to be made up of five members nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But Mr Manchin blocked the renomination of the commission’s chairman in 2022, another member’s term expired last year and a third commissioner is scheduled to leave in June. If FERC goes down to two commissioners then it loses a quorum, notes Caitlin Marquis of Advanced Energy United, a clean-energy lobby group. In that case, “they can’t function as a decision-making body,” she adds.

In February Mr Biden announced three nominees who would bring the commission back to full strength—provided that they are indeed confirmed. Their nominations appear uncontroversial so far, but America’s toxic politics have made even energy nerds superstitious. The common refrain from the cognoscenti when contemplating the nominees’ prospects is: “I don’t want to jinx it.”

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

For more coverage of climate change, sign up for the Climate Issue, our fortnightly subscriber-only newsletter, or visit our climate-change hub.

Economics

Donald Trump sacks America’s top military brass

Published

on

THE FIRST shot against America’s senior military leaders was fired within hours of Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20th: General Mark Milley’s portrait was removed from the wall on the E-ring, where it had hung with paintings of other former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff. A day later the commandant of the coast guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, was thrown overboard. On February 21st it was the most senior serving officer, General Charles “CQ” Brown, a former F-16 pilot, who was ejected from the Pentagon. At least he was spared a Trumpian farewell insult. “He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader,” Mr Trump declared.

Continue Reading

Economics

Checks and Balance newsletter: The journalist’s dilemma of covering Trump

Published

on

Checks and Balance newsletter: The journalist’s dilemma of covering Trump

Continue Reading

Economics

Germany’s election will usher in new leadership — but might not change its economy

Published

on

Production at the VW plant in Emden.

Sina Schuldt | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

The struggling German economy has been a major talking point among critics of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ government during the latest election campaign — but analysts warn a new leadership might not turn these tides.

As voters prepare to head to the polls, it is now all but certain that Germany will soon have a new chancellor. The Christian Democratic Union’s Friedrich Merz is the firm favorite.

Merz has not shied away from blasting Scholz’s economic policies and from linking them to the lackluster state of Europe’s largest economy. He argues that a government under his leadership would give the economy the boost it needs.

Experts speaking to CNBC were less sure.

“There is a high risk that Germany will get a refurbished economic model after the elections, but not a brand new model that makes the competition jealous,” Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING, told CNBC.

The CDU/CSU economic agenda

The CDU, which on a federal level ties up with regional sister party the Christian Social Union, is running on a “typical economic conservative program,” Brzeski said.

It includes income and corporate tax cuts, fewer subsidies and less bureaucracy, changes to social benefits, deregulation, support for innovation, start-ups and artificial intelligence and boosting investment among other policies, according to CDU/CSU campaigners.

“The weak parts of the positions are that the CDU/CSU is not very precise on how it wants to increase investments in infrastructure, digitalization and education. The intention is there, but the details are not,” Brzeski said, noting that the union appears to be aiming to revive Germany’s economic model without fully overhauling it.

“It is still a reform program which pretends that change can happen without pain,” he said.

Geraldine Dany-Knedlik, head of forecasting at research institute DIW Berlin, noted that the CDU is also looking to reach gross domestic product growth of around 2% again through its fiscal and economic program called “Agenda 2030.”

But reaching such levels of economic expansion in Germany “seems unrealistic,” not just temporarily, but also in the long run, she told CNBC.

Germany’s GDP declined in both 2023 and 2024. Recent quarterly growth readings have also been teetering on the verge of a technical recession, which has so far been narrowly avoided. The German economy shrank by 0.2% in the fourth quarter, compared with the previous three-month stretch, according to the latest reading.

Europe’s largest economy faces pressure in key industries like the auto sector, issues with infrastructure like the country’s rail network and a housebuilding crisis.

Dany-Knedlik also flagged the so-called debt brake, a long-standing fiscal rule that is enshrined in Germany’s constitution, which limits the size of the structural budget deficit and how much debt the government can take on.

Whether or not the clause should be overhauled has been a big part of the fiscal debate ahead of the election. While the CDU ideally does not want to change the debt brake, Merz has said that he may be open to some reform.

“To increase growth prospects substantially without increasing debt also seems rather unlikely,” DIW’s Dany-Knedlik said, adding that, if public investments were to rise within the limits of the debt brake, significant tax increases would be unavoidable.

“Taking into account that a 2 Percent growth target is to be reached within a 4 year legislation period, the Agenda 2030 in combination with conservatives attitude towards the debt break to me reads more of a wish list than a straight forward economic growth program,” she said.

Change in German government will deliver economic success, says CEO of German employers association

Franziska Palmas, senior Europe economist at Capital Economics, sees some benefits to the plans of the CDU-CSU union, saying they would likely “be positive” for the economy, but warning that the resulting boost would be small.

“Tax cuts would support consumer spending and private investment, but weak sentiment means consumers may save a significant share of their additional after-tax income and firms may be reluctant to invest,” she told CNBC.  

Palmas nevertheless pointed out that not everyone would come away a winner from the new policies. Income tax cuts would benefit middle- and higher-income households more than those with a lower income, who would also be affected by potential reductions of social benefits.

Coalition talks ahead

Following the Sunday election, the CDU/CSU will almost certainly be left to find a coalition partner to form a majority government, with the Social Democratic Party or the Green party emerging as the likeliest candidates.

The parties will need to broker a coalition agreement outlining their joint goals, including on the economy — which could prove to be a difficult undertaking, Capital Economics’ Palmas said.

“The CDU and the SPD and Greens have significantly different economic policy positions,” she said, pointing to discrepancies over taxes and regulation. While the CDU/CSU want to reduce both items, the SPD and Greens seek to raise taxes and oppose deregulation in at least some areas, Palmas explained.

The group is nevertheless likely to hold the power in any potential negotiations as it will likely have their choice between partnering with the SPD or Greens.

“Accordingly, we suspect that the coalition agreement will include most of the CDU’s main economic proposals,” she said.

Germany is 'lacking ambition,' investor says

Continue Reading

Trending