Podcasts about rhodium group

Chinese outbound foreign direct investment in the EU and UK rose for the first time in 2024 after seven consecutive years of decline. In this episode we look at what has changed, where the money is going, and what is happening in the particularly important sector of electric vehicles.Armand Meyer, Senior Research Analyst with Rhodium Group's China Data Services team, and Andreas Mischer, Analyst with the Economics team at MERICS, are co-authors of a recent report on Chinese FDI in Europe, published by Rhodium Group and MERICS. They share its results with Johannes Heller-John.

China and the European Union are stepping up cooperation as the United States ramps up tariff pressure and global trade fragmentation deepens, signaling the shared commitment of China and the EU to openness, stability and mutual benefit in an increasingly uncertain world, experts said.专家指出，在美国持续加码关税压力与全球贸易碎片化加剧的背景下，中国与欧盟正持续深化合作，这一动向彰显了双方在日益动荡的国际环境中坚守开放、稳定、互利原则的共同承诺。Chinese investment in the EU surged 47 percent year-on-year to 10 billion euros ($11.4 billion) in 2024, marking its first significant rebound since 2016.2024年中国对欧盟投资额同比增长47%, 达到100亿欧元（约合114亿美元），实现自2016年以来首次显著回升。The growth, driven by record-high greenfield investment and a revival of mergers and acquisitions, reflects the enduring complementarities between the two sides, according to a joint report released on Wednesday by the New York-based Rhodium Group and German think tank Mercator Institute for China Studies. Greenfield investment is a type of foreign direct investment in which a parent company starts a business operation in a foreign country from scratch.根据纽约荣鼎集团与德国墨卡托中国研究中心周三联合发布的报告，这一由创纪录的绿地投资和并购复苏驱动的增长，印证了中欧经济结构的持久互补性。报告特别说明，绿地投资作为外商直接投资模式，特指母公司在外国从零开始新建业务的投资行为。Analysts said the momentum underscores the strategic importance of China-EU economic ties at a time when Washington's unilateral tariff hikes threaten to upend global supply chains. Strengthening cooperation in green energy, digital infrastructure and smart manufacturing will not only serve both sides' development interests, but also help safeguard the multilateral trading system, they added.分析师表示，当前美国单边加征关税政策正威胁全球供应链稳定之际，中欧经贸往来升温态势凸显了双方经济关系的战略重要性。他们还表示，加强在绿色能源、数字基础设施和智能制造等领域的合作，不仅契合双方发展利益，更有助于维护多边贸易体系。China's greenfield investment in Europe increased for the third year in a row and reached an all-time high of 5.9 billion euros, while merger and acquisition investment more than doubled in 2024 to 4.1 billion euro, according to the report.中国在欧洲的绿地投资连续第三年增长，2024年达59亿欧元创历史新高，并购投资额同比翻番至41亿欧元。Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, emerged as the leading investor in 2024, accounting for 16 percent of total investment, mostly from the ongoing construction of its battery plant in Hungary, the report said.报告显示，中国电池巨头宁德时代（CATL）凭借匈牙利电池工厂的持续建设，以占总投资额16%的占比成为2024年主要投资方。Ding Chun, director of Shanghai-based Fudan University's Centre for European Studies, said, "China and the EU possess expansive common ground and enormous potential for cooperation in green energy, smart manufacturing and artificial intelligence."复旦大学欧洲研究中心主任丁纯表示：“中欧在绿色能源、智能制造和人工智能等领域拥有广阔合作空间与巨大发展潜力。”As of the end of 2024, EU enterprises had cumulatively invested more than $150 billion in China, data from the Ministry of Commerce showed.商务部数据显示，截至2024年底，欧盟企业累计对华投资超1500亿美元。China and Europe should work together to safeguard the stability of the multilateral trading system and global industrial chains, rather than allowing trade disputes to spiral into broader geopolitical conflicts, Ding said.丁纯指出，中欧应共同维护多边贸易体系和全球产业链稳定，避免让贸易争端升级为更广泛的地缘政治冲突。Last month, China and the EU floated the idea of lifting the tariffs on Chinese EVs through possible commitments to minimum prices, known as price undertakings for imported cars.上月，中欧双方就通过建立最低价格承诺机制（即进口汽车"价格承诺"制度）取消中国电动汽车关税展开可行性探讨。A further increase in China's investment in Europe is possible in 2025, the report said, noting that EU-China ties could improve amid the US' new trade war.报告认为，随着美国掀起新一轮贸易战，2025年中国对欧投资有望继续增长，中欧关系或将迎来改善契机。Simon Lichtenberg, the All China founding chairman of the Danish Chamber of Commerce in China, told China Daily that Europe has recognized the problems arising from being overly dependent on the US in the past and is now seeking to cultivate a more independent stance and perspective.中国丹麦商会创始全国主席李曦萌 (Simon Lichtenberg)向《中国日报》表示，欧洲已意识到过去过度依赖美国产生的问题，当前正着力培育更具独立性的立场与视角。This shifting mindset presents an opportunity for stronger China-EU cooperation, as both sides seek to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape, Lichtenberg said.他指出，这种思维转变为深化中欧合作提供机遇，双方可在复杂地缘政治格局中探寻共赢路径。"China's manufacturing capability is truly outstanding, perhaps the best in the world," he said. "If we do not leverage it, we would be sacrificing a crucial part of the global value."“中国制造业实力堪称卓越，或许堪称世界最佳。”他强调，“若不加以利用，我们将失去全球价值链中至关重要的一环。”"Now more than ever, we need to uphold global trade," Lichtenberg added. "Together we are stronger, and we can all stand to win if we work together."“当下比以往任何时候都更需维护全球贸易，”李曦萌强调，“团结使我们更加强大，通过合作，我们终将实现共赢。”Yao Ling, director of the European Institute at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, said that with combined economic might accounting for over one-third of global GDP and trade volume exceeding one-fourth of global trade, China and the EU stand as important economic partners, presenting immense opportunities for each other's development.商务部国际贸易经济合作研究院欧洲研究所所长姚铃表示，中欧经济总量占全球GDP三分之一以上，贸易额超全球贸易四分之一，作为重要经济伙伴为彼此发展提供巨大机遇。In particular, the deepening of China-EU cooperation within the framework of the global trading system could help mitigate the disruptive impact of Washington's unilateral and erratic tariff policies, Yao added.姚铃补充指出，特别是在全球贸易体系框架下深化中欧合作，将有助于缓解美国单边、反复无常加征关税政策所造成的破坏性影响。price undertakings价格承诺greenfield investment绿地投资from scratch从零开始; 从头做起leverage/ˈli:vərɪdʒ/v.利用smart manufacturing智能制造

With new tariff threats from the Trump administration and rising tensions across key markets, companies and governments alike are scrambling to understand what decoupling—or de-risking—actually looks like in practice. From electronics and apparel to solar panels and electric vehicles, China's role in global production remains formidable. But is it unshakeable? In this special bonus episode, Eric is joined by Agatha Kratz, Juliana Bouchot, and Lauren Piper from the Rhodium Group, whose recent report "China and the Future of Global Supply Chains" offers one of the clearest pictures yet of what's happening on the ground. Together, they explore whether Southeast Asia, India, or Latin America can meaningfully absorb China's manufacturing output—and what the U.S. strategy of sweeping tariffs might mean for inflation, consumers, and the Global South. JOIN THE DISCUSSION: X: @ChinaGSProject | @eric_olander  Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProject YouTube: www.youtube.com/@ChinaGlobalSouth Now on Bluesky! Follow CGSP at @chinagsproject.bsky.social FOLLOW CGSP IN FRENCH AND ARABIC: Français: www.projetafriquechine.com | @AfrikChine Arabic: عربي: www.alsin-alsharqalawsat.com | @SinSharqAwsat JOIN US ON PATREON! Become a CGSP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff, including our Week in Review report, an invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CGSP Podcast mug! www.patreon.com/chinaglobalsouth  

With new tariff threats from the Trump administration and rising tensions across key markets, companies and governments alike are scrambling to understand what decoupling—or de-risking—actually looks like in practice. From electronics and apparel to solar panels and electric vehicles, China's role in global production remains formidable. But is it unshakeable? In this special bonus episode, Eric is joined by Agatha Kratz, Juliana Bouchot, and Lauren Piper from the Rhodium Group, whose recent report "China and the Future of Global Supply Chains" offers one of the clearest pictures yet of what's happening on the ground. Together, they explore whether Southeast Asia, India, or Latin America can meaningfully absorb China's manufacturing output—and what the U.S. strategy of sweeping tariffs might mean for inflation, consumers, and the Global South. JOIN THE DISCUSSION: X: @ChinaGSProject | @eric_olander  Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProject YouTube: www.youtube.com/@ChinaGlobalSouth Now on Bluesky! Follow CGSP at @chinagsproject.bsky.social FOLLOW CGSP IN FRENCH AND ARABIC: Français: www.projetafriquechine.com | @AfrikChine Arabic: عربي: www.alsin-alsharqalawsat.com | @SinSharqAwsat JOIN US ON PATREON! Become a CGSP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff, including our Week in Review report, an invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CGSP Podcast mug! www.patreon.com/chinaglobalsouth  

If anything has characterized 2025 it has been the influence of geopolitics on the markets. In this episode, Rich Excell, CFA, CMT is joined by Reva Goujon, a geopolitical strategist and the Director of Corporate Advisory at Rhodium Group. Reva has two decades of experience working with C-suites and government agencies on how to deconstruct risks, assess future scenarios, and make informed decisions.

L'intelligence artificielle ne révolutionne pas seulement la technologie, elle fait exploser les besoins en énergie. À tel point que cette croissance a ravivé l'intérêt mondial pour le nucléaire, aussi bien en France qu'aux États-Unis. Mais face à la multiplication des data centers, une autre source d'énergie pourrait jouer un rôle crucial : la géothermie.Avec les mégaprojets de centres de données qui se multiplient à travers le monde, une question se pose : où trouver l'énergie nécessaire ? Aux États-Unis, ces infrastructures pèsent déjà lourdement sur les réseaux électriques. Selon une récente étude du Rhodium Group, la géothermie avancée pourrait fournir environ les deux tiers de l'électricité nécessaire aux futurs data centers d'ici 2030. Un avantage clé de cette technologie : ses faibles coûts d'exploitation. D'après les projections du Rhodium Group, les États-Unis pourraient quadrupler leur production géothermique d'ici la fin de la décennie, passant de 4 à 16 gigawatts. L'ouest du pays apparaît comme un terrain idéal pour cette expansion, en raison de ses vastes ressources souterraines.Jusqu'à présent, l'exploitation de la géothermie était limitée aux zones où la chaleur terrestre affleure naturellement. Mais grâce aux avancées technologiques, il est désormais possible de forer plus profondément, atteignant des couches encore plus chaudes et produisant ainsi davantage d'énergie. Alors que l'intelligence artificielle s'impose comme une révolution incontournable, la géothermie pourrait bien en devenir l'alliée énergétique, offrant une solution durable pour répondre à la demande croissante d'électricité tout en limitant l'empreinte carbone du numérique. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Mar 13, 2025 – Cris Sheridan of Financial Sense sits down with Reva Goujon, Director at the Rhodium Group, to unpack a seismic shift in the AI landscape that's sending shockwaves through markets and rewriting the rules of global tech dominance...

March 13, 2025 – Cris Sheridan of Financial Sense sits down with Reva Goujon, Director at the Rhodium Group , to unpack a seismic shift in the AI landscape that's sending shockwaves through markets and rewriting the rules of global tech dominance. Picture this: January 13, 2025—the Biden administration drops its bold AI Diffusion Framework, a sweeping regulatory gambit dripping with hubris, aimed...

As we touched on in our last episode with John O'Donnell of Rondo Energy, industry is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions, and it is only forecasted to get worse. According to a recent report from Rhodium Group, by 2050, the industrial sector could emit as much CO2 as the power, transportation, and building sectors combined. A term worth highlighting in this month's episode is “Hard-to-abate”. This term refers to industrial sectors like cement, petrochemicals, and steel that people have continually categorized as too costly, slow, or lacking the necessary technology to decarbonize. For this episode, our focus is on steel. Carbon emissions, air, and water pollution from steel production can be largely attributed to their use of coal-fired blast furnaces, technology created in the 14th century. There are serious challenges to altering any centuries-long established production process, but as our guest today, Henrik Henriksson, CEO of Stegra (formerly H2 Green Steel) knows, when you replace coal with renewable energy, you can produce hydrogen, iron, and steel, with significantly lower emissions.SponsorsWatt It Takes is brought to you by Microsoft.The $1 Billion Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund is investing in innovative technologies that have the potential for meaningful, measurable climate impact by 2030. To date, Microsoft has allocated more than $800M into a global portfolio of over 50 investments including sustainable solutions in energy, industrial, and natural systems. Visit https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/ to learn more about Microsoft's progress toward their impact commitments. About Powerhouse Innovation and Powerhouse Ventures Powerhouse Innovation partners with leading corporations and investors to help them find, partner with, invest in, and acquire the most innovative startups in climate. Powerhouse Ventures backs entrepreneurs building the digital infrastructure for rapid decarbonization. To hear more stories of founders building our climate positive future, hit the “subscribe” button and leave us a review.

The EU will slap its new tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China for the next five years, but Beijing has been slammed the duties, filing an action with the WTO and launching anti-dumping investigations into European exports of brandy, pork and dairy products.Is this tug of war going to evolve into a full-fledge trade war? Could these tariffs slow down the energy transition and lead to fewer people buying EVs when combustion engines are supposed to be banned in 2035? If Donald Trump wins the US presidency next week, will that push the EU into a more conciliatory position with China? Today Radio Schuman answers these questions with Noah Barkin, a Senior Advisor with the independent research provider Rhodium Group which specialises on Europe-China relations.We also take a quick look at the Eurasian security conference in Belarus, where an EU member state minister will attend and speak. Guess who?On the last part of the show, Radio Schuman looks at jobs threatened by automation.Radio Schuman is hosted and produced by Maïa de la Baume, with journalist and production assistant Eleonora Vasques, audio editing by Zacharia Vigneron and Georgios Leivaditis. Music by Alexandre Jas. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ce n'est plus un secret pour personne : l'IA est une grande consommatrice d'énergie, un véritable casse-tête pour la planète et pour nous. Pourtant, cela n'empêche pas certains, comme Sam Altman, d'avoir des ambitions démesurées, avec par exemple la construction d'un centre de données pour OpenAI qui consommerait l'équivalent énergétique d'une ville de trois millions de foyers. Face à cette course effrénée à la puissance de calcul, la start-up britannique Oriole Networks a décidé de prendre le contre-pied en proposant une solution radicalement différente. Après deux décennies de recherche, l'entreprise a mis au point une technologie qui utilise la lumière pour former de grands modèles de langage (LLM), réduisant ainsi la consommation énergétique par un facteur de 1 000 grâce à une approche dite photonique.Mais concrètement, comment parviennent-ils à former ces modèles sans tout surchauffer ? La technologie d'Oriole repose sur des réseaux photoniques sophistiqués qui interconnectent les puces IA. Exploitant les propriétés uniques de la lumière, ce procédé permet non seulement d'accélérer le traitement des données, mais aussi de diminuer de façon drastique l'énergie requise. En d'autres termes, cette avancée permettrait d'entraîner les LLM jusqu'à 100 fois plus rapidement tout en consommant une fraction de l'énergie actuelle. Pour mieux comprendre l'ampleur du changement, il faut savoir qu'une seule requête sur un modèle comme ChatGPT consomme dix fois plus d'énergie qu'une recherche sur Google, selon l'Agence internationale de l'énergie. Dans ce contexte, où la demande énergétique des centres de données pourrait tripler d'ici 2035 d'après une étude du Rhodium Group, Oriole Networks se présente comme une alternative verte capable de réduire la pression sur les réseaux électriques.Pour financer cette révolution, Oriole Networks a levé 35 millions de dollars, avec le soutien de fonds spécialisés comme Plural et le Clean Growth Fund. L'objectif ? Accélérer la commercialisation de cette technologie révolutionnaire et mettre en service les premiers systèmes dès 2025. Alors que l'urgence climatique se fait de plus en plus pressante — comme le rappelait déjà Jacques Chirac en 2002 avec sa célèbre phrase « Notre maison brûle, et nous regardons ailleurs » — cette innovation pourrait bien être une véritable bouffée d'oxygène. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

More information at: https://www.eesi.org/091224cdr The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) held a briefing about effective policy-making for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). CDR—the practice of removing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and ocean—comes in many forms, including direct air capture, soil carbon sequestration, ocean CDR, and forest restoration. These methods have garnered increasing scientific, governmental, and private sector interest, but expanded policy development is needed to bring them to the scale needed to meet national climate goals. Leveraging key findings from recent reports, panelists from NGOs, academia, and the private sector explored existing policies supporting different stages of CDR development, the level of CDR we expect to need, the potential for CDR in the United States, policy options to enable scaling to that level, and private sector perspectives on the policy landscape. Panelists also pinpointed key takeaways relevant for federal policymakers. TABLE OF CONTENTS: 00:00 - Start 02:28 - Senator Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator (D-Colo.) 27:44 - Katie Lebling, Associate II, Carbon Removal, World Resources Institute (WRI) 38:48 - Galen Bower, Senior Analyst, Rhodium Group 47:47 - Peter Psarras, Research Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania 59:21 - Laura Hatalsky, Deputy Director of Policy, Carbon Removal Alliance 01:10:55 - Q&A

On this week's episode of the Trade Guys, we check in on the EU's electric vehicle tariffs after a Chinese WTO challenge, opine on whether congressional action on trade should be expected before the new administration, and explore a recent study on U.S. diversification away from China by the Rhodium Group.   

durée : 00:58:40 - Cultures Monde - par : Julie Gacon, Mélanie Chalandon - Le 5 septembre 2023 s'ouvre à Munich le salon de l'automobile, considéré comme l'un des grands rendez-vous de la filière automobile mondiale, et la Chine affiche de grandes ambitions planétaires avec sa filière électrique. Comment la voiture électrique chinoise fait-elle bouger les lignes ? - invités : Jean-François Dufour Co-fondateur de Sinople, cabinet de conseil stratégique; Juliana Bouchaud Chercheuse au Rhodium Group, cabinet de recherche spécialiste de la Chine et des questions énergie-climat; Joseph Dellatte Expert Résident - Climat, énergie et environnement

South Africa this week joined a growing list of developing countries around the world to introduce tariffs on certain Chinese imports in a bid to protect local producers. Indonesia, Mexico, Chile, and Brazil, among others, also introduced similar duties on Chinese steel and other products. While low-cost Chinese goods are a boon for Global South consumers, they're extremely problematic for manufacturers in these countries because it's almost impossible to match the "China Price." Chinese factories can produce goods at a scale and cost that remains unrivaled, and now, according to a new report by the consultancy Rhodium Group, they're flooding markets in Africa and other developing regions. Camille Boullenois, a director of Rhodium Group's China projects team, and Austin Jordan, a senior analyst a Rhodium Group, join Eric & Cobus to discuss their new report and why this trend is potentially debilitating for many of the world's least developed countries. JOIN THE DISCUSSION: X: @ChinaGSProject | @christiangeraud | @stadenesque Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProject YouTube: www.youtube.com/@ChinaGlobalSouth FOLLOW CAP IN FRENCH AND ARABIC: Français: www.projetafriquechine.com | @AfrikChine Arabic: عربي: www.alsin-alsharqalawsat.com | @SinSharqAwsat JOIN US ON PATREON! Become a CAP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff, including our Week in Review report, an invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CAP Podcast mug! www.patreon.com/chinaglobalsouth

Chinese investment in Europe has hit a new low according to a new study by MERICS and Rhodium Group on China's Foreign Direct Overseas Investment in the 27 EU member states and the UK. It is the lowest level of investment since 2010. In Hungary, however, investments drastically increased and made up just under half of all FDI in Europe in 2023. Where does Chinese investment in Europe stand, what sectors and countries do Chinese investors focus on and where do we go from here? Johannes Heller-John is joined by two authors of the study, Alexander Brown, Analyst with MERICS focusing on China's industrial and foreign economic policy, and Gregor Sebastian, Senior Analyst with Rhodium Group's China Corporate Advisory team focusing on China's industrial policy and EV industry.

The Inside Economics team is joined by Moody's Analytics colleague Chris Lafakis along with Trevor Houser from the Energy & Climate practice at Rhodium Group for a discussion on how the Inflation Reduction Act promotes the U.S.'s transition to green energy. Podcast host Mark Zandi kicks things off with a quick overview of recent economic developments. The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the IRA's incentives and tax provisions. Following a brief statistics game, the group explores the potential impact of the upcoming election on the green energy transition.Follow Mark Zandi @MarkZandi, Cris deRitis @MiddleWayEcon, and Marisa DiNatale on LinkedIn for additional insight.

durée : 00:59:15 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Tiphaine de Rocquigny, Aliette Hovine - Après une discussion sur les conséquences du capitalisme sur les démocraties avec Anton Brender, nous parlerons de l'offensive chinoise sur le marché de l'automobile électrique européen. - invités : Anton Brender Economiste, professeur associé à l'université Paris-Dauphine; Bernard Jullien Maître de conférence en économie à l'Université de Bordeaux, spécialiste de l'industrie automobile ; Juliana Bouchaud Chercheuse au Rhodium Group, cabinet de recherche spécialiste de la Chine et des questions énergie-climat

Carbon removal is sometimes thought to be enjoying policy tailwinds. But is it anywhere close to what we need to avoid the worst of climate change? A new report from the Rhodium Group suggests the CDR industry is receiving about 1% of what it would need to reach a one CO2 gigatonne/year capacity! Our regular panelists, Drs. Holly Jean Buck & Wil Burns discuss the challenges of government budgeting, politics, eminent domain, profit-sharing Community Benefits Agreements, and so much else as this industry tries to scale. On This Episode ⁠⁠Wil Burns⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Holly Jean Buck⁠⁠ Asa Kamer Resources Rhodium Group's "The Landscape of Carbon Dioxide Removal and US Policies to Scale Solutions" report Connect with Nori ⁠⁠Nori⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Nori's X account⁠⁠ Nori's other podcast ⁠⁠Reversing Climate Change⁠⁠ Nori's CDR ⁠⁠meme X account --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/carbonremovalnewsroom/support

Support us on Patreon... Tennant, Luke and Frankie are calling all Summerupperers to come join the expanded LMSU universe and support our Patreon! Sign up for access to covetous BoCo like bonus episodes, our notes on papers read, custom memes and climate mash ups of 70s soul hits! Head on over to https://www.patreon.com/LetMeSumUp.—It's time to revive *US elections corner* at LMSU HQ and HOOOEEEEE there is a lot to say! Summerupperers, we could have spent the whole pod unpacking the various permutations of the makeup of Congress and its implications for climate policy. BUT, beyond Democracy Good, Demagogue Bad, a re-elected but weakened Biden may be relegated to Executive Actions and bedding down IRA and getting proposed EPA standards for cars, powerplants and oil and gas methane reduction up. Will it be enough? The spectre of a Trump 2.0 presidency would see the US withdraw from Paris again and completely remove climate considerations from all decision making to the extent possible. The wildly popular hurricane of carrots that is IRA may yet survive though.Our main paperLast week the Government released two papers relating to adaptation - the National Climate Risk Assessment : First Pass Assessment Report and the National Adaptation Plan Issues Paper.  Your intrepid hosts are here for this culinary climate cabaret! We devoured the National Adaptation Plan Issues Paper, with a little First Pass Climate Risk Assessment amuse bouche! One more thingsTennant's One More Thing is “Indistinguishable From Magic” by Robert L Forward, a collection of mind-expanding essays and indescribably dreadful fiction on the frontiers of future science and engineering by an influential aeronautical engineer and physicist. Featuring incredible levels of energy inefficiency!Frankie's One More Thing is a great episode of David Roberts' US climate pod of note ‘Volts' called “How's IRA doing?”. It's a cracking discussion with Trevor Houser of Rhodium Group unpacking data on how successful the IRA has been, two years into implementation. Luke's One More Thing is to flag ongoing and significant work underway by Treasury and the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute on a regulatory regime for Climate Related Financial Disclosures - due to kick off this year! - and accompanying taxonomy for sustainable finance.And that's all from us Summerupperers! Support our Patreon at patreon.com/LetMeSumUp, send your hot tips and suggestions for papers to us at mailbag@letmesumup.net and check out our back catalogue at letmesumup.net.

Is the Inflation Reduction Act, passed nearly two years ago, doing what it set out to do? In this episode, Trevor Houser of the Rhodium Group compares the predictions of pre-IRA energy-sector models to the real-world data on clean-energy investment since its passage. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

In this episode of GeoTech Wars, Kirti is joined by Reva Goujon, a Director at Rhodium Group, to examine the impact of ongoing geopolitical flashpoints on the U.S.-China tech competition. The conversation covers the competition over chips, the China-Taiwan relationship, and the geo-tech implications of the Israel-Hamas War. 

This week, Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group, joins Allegra Dawes (CSIS) to discuss highlights from the Clean Investment Monitor. The Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project of Rhodium Group and MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, tracks public and private climate investments since 2018. In the past year, clean energy investment in the United States totaled $213 billion, a 37 percent increase from the previous year, largely due to new legislation passed in the United States (the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and the Chips and Science Act) and up 165 percent from five years ago. Further Reading: The Clean Investment Monitor: Tracking Decarbonization Technology in the United States The Clean Investment Monitor

The world is entering a new age of clean technology manufacturing, and global industrial strategies will pave the way for this evolution. Leading nations are retooling their industrial policies, reshaping supply chains to ensure national security while addressing a host of complex issues. In this episode of Power Plays, geopolitical strategist Reva Goujon of Rhodium Group explores how international policy changes could impact local rural economies. 

This week, Peter and Jackie discuss recent news headlines, including some scary topics on this Halloween podcast recording. Here are some of the topics they discussed:· Rising geopolitical risks.  Why are the oil markets calm in the face of the Israel-Hamas conflict and the potential for an oil outage? · ExxonMobil and Chevron announce significant acquisitions.  In contrast to the news headlines, Peter and Jackie argue that these acquisitions could make sense, even in the scenario that oil and gas demand declines.  · Clean energy stocks tumble.  Clean energy indexes like the WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) are down about 35 percent since the summer. Why are stocks down, and what are the likely implications?· Canada announces a three-year pause in the carbon tax for heating oil to help with affordability.  Yet, other sources of heating in the country do not get a break.  Jackie and Peter discuss the outrage in areas of the country that do not depend on heating oil for heat, as well as other possible implications.Other content referenced in this podcast:· Thunder Said Energy: War and commodities: how do conflicts impact prices? October 12, 2023· The Clean Investment Monitor: Tracking Decarbonization Technology in the United States, Rhodium Group, MIT, CEEPR, September 2013, 2023· Prime Minister of Canada Office (PMO) announcement “Delivering support for Canadians on energy bills,” October 26, 2023Please review our disclaimer at: https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/disclaimer/Check us out on social media:X (Twitter): @arcenergyinst LinkedIn: @ARC Energy Research InstituteSubscribe to ARC Energy Ideas PodcastApple Podcasts Google Podcasts Amazon Music Spotify

The industrial sector is set to overtake power generation and transportation as the biggest source of planet warming emissions in the US by 2035, according to The Rhodium Group. The sector's impact is even greater on the global scale. Industry around the world accounts for more carbon dioxide emissions than all forms of transportation combined – largely driven by steel, cement, and chemicals. There are a lot of ways to decarbonize industry, but the pathways are much less clear than for electricity or automobiles.  In this episode, we're joined by Jeff St. John, Maria Galluci, and Julian Spector, who've been exploring the varied paths for cleaning up the products that are foundational to the world around us. Stories we mention in this episode: Canary Media: Cleaning up steel, cement and chemicals is tough — and entirely doable Rhodium Group: Taking stock of US emissions Canary Media: ‘Electrowinning' could help win the race to clean up dirty steel Latitude Media: The electrolyzer market is caught in limbo Canary Media: To decarbonize cement, the industry needs a full transformation The Carbon Copy is supported by FischTank PR, a specialized climatetech PR firm dedicated to bringing meaningful results for companies in sectors spanning grid edge, solar, energy storage, battery, EVs, alternative fuels, VC and green building. FischTank helps clients stand out in an increasingly competitive and noisy space. Visit FischTank PR to learn more. The Carbon Copy is brought to you by Savant Power. Savant's end-to-end power systems provide energy generation, inverter and battery storage, generator control, flexible load management for every circuit, and level two EV charging. Learn more about the only company that can deliver an integrated smart home and energy solution controlled via a single award-winning app at Savant.com.

In climatetech circles, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was a big deal. The expectation was that, combined with other parts of U.S. industrial policy like the CHIPS and Science Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the IRA would transform the American economy and ultimately slash U.S. carbon emissions.  We can't see the impact on carbon emissions yet, but we can measure the initial effects on the economy. So how's it going so far? In this episode, Shayle talks to Trevor Houser, partner at the Rhodium Group, about the organization's new Clean Investment Monitor, a database of climatetech investments developed with the MIT Center on Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Trevor highlights three different categories of policy impacts: Sectors where policy accelerated existing trends, like solar deployment and EV sales. Sectors where policy catalyzed new growth that probably would not have happened otherwise, like in manufacturing, hydrogen, carbon management, and sustainable aviation fuels. Sectors that are declining despite policy incentives, like the deployment of wind and heat pumps. They discuss the drivers behind these trends and cover topics like: The regional clustering of manufacturing investment and new geographic hubs, like the Southwest. The surprising growth in hydrogen made from steam methane reforming, also known as blue hydrogen. Recommended Resources: Rhodium Group: Clean Investment Monitor Canary: Made in the USA: Ramping up clean energy manufacturing Canary: US offshore wind pushes ahead despite industry turmoil Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Are you looking to understand how artificial intelligence will shape the business of energy? Come network with utilities, top energy firms, startups, and AI experts at Transition-AI: New York on October 19. Our listeners get a 10% discount with the code pspods10. Catalyst is brought to you by BayWa r.e., a leading global renewable energy developer, service supplier, and distributor. With over 22GW in their project pipeline, BayWa r.e. is rethinking energy every day and at every level. Committed to being a solid partner for the long run, BayWa r.e. wants to work with you to help shape the future of energy. Learn more at bay.wa-re.com. Catalyst is brought to you by Sungrow. Now in more than 150 countries, Sungrow's solutions include inverters for utility-scale, commercial and industrial solar, plus energy storage systems. Learn more at us.sungrowpower.com.

Investment is rising in America's clean energy sector. According to the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project of the Rhodium Group and MIT, the sector received $213 billion in new investment over the past year, a 37% increase over the previous year.  This new investment brings new challenges, such as implementing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), translating money into infrastructure, sustaining support for the energy transition, and fending off economic competition from abroad.  How is the surge of clean energy investment changing the American economy? What sectors and regions are benefitting the most? And what is still needed to get the U.S.on track to meet its climate goals? This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Brian Deese about IRA implementation, green industrial strategy, and national security. Brian was the director of the White House's National Economic Council from 2021 to 2023. Prior to that, he served in the Office of Management and Budget and as a senior advisor to President Barack Obama, as well as global head of sustainable investing for BlackRock. Since leaving government, he has taken up a post as Institute Innovation Fellow at MIT, where he plays a key role in developing the Clean Investment Monitor.

In June, Zambia reached what's been described as a landmark debt restructuring deal that for the first time brought together the country's bilateral creditors including China, traditional Paris Club lenders and bondholders.While the deal is no doubt unprecedented, it also reveals that China was very effective in successful in getting the parties to agree to many of its demands.Matt Mingey, a senior analyst at the consultancy Rhodium Group, is among the world's foremost experts on Chinese lending and debt issues. He joins Eric & Cobus from Washington, D.C. to discuss whether China is, in fact, setting the agenda for debt restructurings in the Global South.JOIN THE DISCUSSION:Twitter: @ChinaGSProject| @stadenesque | @eric_olander |@mattmingeyFacebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProjectYouTube: www.youtube.com/@ChinaGlobalSouthFOLLOW CAP IN FRENCH AND ARABIC:Français: www.projetafriquechine.com | @AfrikChineعربي: www.akhbaralsin-africia.com | @AkhbarAlSinAfrJOIN US ON PATREON!Become a CAP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff, including our Week in Review report, an invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CAP Podcast mug!www.patreon.com/chinaafricaprojectSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In June, Zambia reached what's been described as a landmark debt restructuring deal that for the first time brought together the country's bilateral creditors including China, traditional Paris Club lenders and bondholders.While the deal is no doubt unprecedented, it also reveals that China was very effective in successful in getting the parties to agree to many of its demands.Matt Mingey, a senior analyst at the consultancy Rhodium Group, is among the world's foremost experts on Chinese lending and debt issues. He joins Eric & Cobus from Washington, D.C. to discuss whether China is, in fact, setting the agenda for debt restructurings in the Global South.JOIN THE DISCUSSION:Twitter: @ChinaGSProject| @stadenesque | @eric_olander |@mattmingeyFacebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProjectYouTube: www.youtube.com/@ChinaGlobalSouthFOLLOW CAP IN FRENCH AND ARABIC:Français: www.projetafriquechine.com | @AfrikChineعربي: www.akhbaralsin-africia.com | @AkhbarAlSinAfrJOIN US ON PATREON!Become a CAP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff, including our Week in Review report, an invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CAP Podcast mug!www.patreon.com/chinaafricaproject

The word ‘West' is often used as a shorthand to describe liberal democracies in Europe, and perhaps in Asia too, such that we'll often talk about ‘the West's attitude to China', or the ‘West's relations with China'. But this is at best a lazy shorthand – because when you dig a little deeper, it's clear that there is no unified West on China. On this episode, Cindy Yu is joined by Noah Barkin, senior advisor at the Rhodium Group and author of the Watching China in Europe newsletter with the German Marshall Fund, to disaggregate the idea of ‘the West', focusing especially on the continent of Europe. How do different European nation states, institutions, and even political parties see China differently? Produced by Cindy Yu and Joe Bedell-Brill.

The word ‘West' is often used as a shorthand to describe liberal democracies in Europe, and perhaps in Asia too, such that we'll often talk about ‘the West's attitude to China', or the ‘West's relations with China'. But this is at best a lazy shorthand – because when you dig a little deeper, it's clear that there is no unified West on China. On this episode, I'm joined by Noah Barkin, senior advisor at the Rhodium Group and author of the Watching China in Europe newsletter with the German Marshall Fund, to disaggregate the idea of ‘the West', focusing especially on the continent of Europe. How do different European nation states, institutions, and even political parties see China differently? Produced by Cindy Yu and Joe Bedell-Brill.

Are you a utility or climate tech startup looking to understand how artificial intelligence will shape your company? Come to our one-day event, Transition-AI: Boston on June 15. Our listeners get a 20% discount with the code PSPODS20. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the EPA's first attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. But it also preserved the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The agency just needed to find the right approach. The question for the EPA was: What legal tools would pass the scrutiny of the court? Last week, Biden's EPA came out with its answer. The proposed plan requires new and existing power plants to meet emission standards. The agency estimates that the rule would reduce GHG emissions by a total 617 million tons through 2042, a small but meaningful fraction of the total. Right now the U.S. power sector emits about 1.5 billion tons per year.  It's an approach that dovetails with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is expected to dramatically reduce the cost of key emissions-reducing technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen. If the IRA was the Biden administration's carrot for reducing climate emissions, then the new rule is the stick.  In this episode, Shayle unpacks the proposal with John Larsen, who leads U.S. climate policy research at the Rhodium Group. In March, John's team modeled the impact of hypothetical power emissions standards on the U.S. power fleet, finding that many coal plants might shut down rather than install CCS. Shayle and John dig into specifics, like: The four main options available to power plant operators under the proposed rules: shut down, install carbon capture and storage (CCS), co-fire with hydrogen, or just run less The differences in rules for new and existing plants How the standards become more stringent with higher capacity factors The role of states in the rules and the “off-ramps” they could use to get around some of the rules The power plants that would be exempt from the rules, such as gas peaker plants with low capacity factors What the changing economics of CCS and hydrogen could mean for the effect of the regulations The legal gauntlet that the plan is sure to face, including lawsuits from Republican states  Recommended Resources: Rhodium Group: Pathways to Paris: Post-IRA Policy Action to Drive US Decarbonization Rhodium Group: Has the Supreme Court Blocked the Path to the 2030 Climate Target? Heatmap: What the EPA Can't Say About Its New Power Plant Rules Canary: The EPA has a controversial new plan to clean up power plants Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Support for Catalyst comes from Climate Positive, a podcast by HASI, that features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and changemakers who are at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable economy. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Catalyst is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com.

In 2022, Chinese global outbound foreign direct investment (or FDI) has fallen to an 8-year low. Accordingly, figures for Chinese investment in Europe are also down, hitting the lowest mark since 2013. This episode accompanies a new report by MERICS and Rhodium Group on Chinese FDI in Europe.Two of its authors, Agatha Kratz, Director at Rhodium Group and leader of its research on Europe-China relations and China's economic statecraft, and Gregor Sebastian, Analyst at MERICS, talk about the scope and distribution of Chinese FDI in Europe, the reasons for the lowest FDI figures in the last decade, and how the key role of Europe in China's electric vehicle expansion served as a saving grace. The conversation was led by Johannes Heller-John.

Geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China have been running high for some time, but are escalating as President Biden prepares to unveil further curbs on U.S. investment to China ahead of this month's G7 Summit. In this episode, which breaks down Goldman Sachs Research's recent Top of Mind report, “U.S.-China: more decoupling ahead,” Harvard's Graham Allison, who has extensively studied the relationship between the two countries, and Rhodium Group's Dan Rosen, who has analyzed investment and trade flows, explore the tensions between the two countries and how they're affecting the investing landscape for companies and investors. 

Welcome to The Hydrogen Podcast!In episode 205,  What are the arguments for additionality and running? electrolyzers 24/7. I'll go through the second half of the Canary media article on this on today's hydrogen podcast.Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy the podcast. Please feel free to email me at info@thehydrogenpodcast.com with any questions. Also, if you wouldn't mind subscribing to my podcast using your preferred platform... I would greatly appreciate it. Respectfully,Paul RoddenVISIT THE HYDROGEN PODCAST WEBSITEhttps://thehydrogenpodcast.comCHECK OUT OUR BLOGhttps://thehydrogenpodcast.com/blog/WANT TO SPONSOR THE PODCAST? Send us an email to: info@thehydrogenpodcast.comNEW TO HYDROGEN AND NEED A QUICK INTRODUCTION?Start Here: The 6 Main Colors of Hydrogen

Various options are at play in the EPA's planned greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. In this episode, Lissa Lynch of NRDC discusses the implications.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsA couple of weeks ago, the policy analysts at the Rhodium Group put out a new report showing that the Biden administration's legislative achievements are not quite enough to get it to its Paris climate goals. But those goals could be reached if the legislation is supplemented with smart executive action.Some of the most important upcoming executive actions are EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. The Supreme Court famously struck down Obama's Clean Power Plan — his attempt to address existing power plants — judging it impermissibly expansive. So now EPA has to figure out what to ask of individual plants.The agency's decisions will help shape the future of the US power sector and determine whether the Biden administration gets on track for its climate goals. To talk through those decisions in more detail, I contacted Lissa Lynch, who runs the Federal Legal Group at the NRDC's Climate & Clean Energy Program. We discussed the options before the EPA, the viability of carbon capture and hydrogen as systems of pollution reduction, and whether Biden will have time to complete all the regulatory work that remains.Alright. With no further ado, Lissa Lynch from NRDC. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Lissa LynchThank you for having me.David RobertsThis is a subject that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about back in the day, and it's sort of receded for a while, and now it's back. So it's very exciting for a nerd like me. So I want to just quickly walk through some history with this and then sort of hand it off to you so you can tell us where things stand now, because I don't want to assume that listeners have been obsessively following this now nearly two decade long saga. So let me just run through some history really briefly. So listeners will recall in 2007, there's a big Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, in which the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is eligible to be listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if EPA determines it is a threat to human health.And then shortly thereafter, Obama's EPA officially determined that it is a threat to human health via the endangerment finding. So this is one thing I'm not sure everybody understands, and I just want to get it on the table up front. So for context, the combination of those two things, Mass vs. EPA, plus the endangerment finding, means that EPA is lawfully obliged to regulate greenhouse gases. This is not a choice. This is not something it can do or not do, depending on how it feels or who's president. They have to do it. So then that triggers the obligation, three separate obligations.You have to regulate mobile sources, which Obama did with his new fuel economy regulations, which are still in place, as far as I know. Then you have to regulate new stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which Obama did. And as far as I know, we can come back to this in a second, but as far as I know, those new power plant regulations that Obama passed are still in effect. And then thirdly, you have to regulate existing stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which mainly means power plants. And so Obama's effort to regulate existing power plants is called the Clean Power Plan.People may remember the fuss and ado about the Clean Power Plan as it was under development. Lawsuits were immediately launched. Of course, the Supreme Court took the extremely unusual step of putting the law on hold, basically not letting it go into implementation until it had heard this case. And then it heard the case, rejected the Clean Power Plan on the basis of the newly dreamed up, rectally, extracted Major Questions Doctrine. So that's where we stand now is we've got the mobile regs in place, although Biden is updating those too. I think we've got the new power plant regs in place, although Biden is also updating those.But as for existing power plant regulations, there are basically none. It's been a legal mire and so Biden's got to do those too. So let's talk about what Supreme Court said about the Clean Power Plan in their ruling and how that constrains the sort of solution space that we're looking at now.Lissa LynchSo in West Virginia vs. EPA, that was the Supreme Court decision from last summer. The Supreme Court held that this section of the Clean Air Act that we're talking about here, section 111, does not clearly provide authority for the approach that EPA took in the Clean Power Plan. And what they did there we sort of refer to as generation shifting. In the Clean Power Plan, EPA looked at the power sector as a whole and they concluded that the best system for reducing fossil-fuel-fired power plant emissions was a combination of measures including shifting generation away from dirtier fossil power toward cleaner power.So essentially retiring dirtier power plants and replacing them with renewables.David RobertsRight. So the unit of analysis here was a state's whole power fleet, not the power plant individual, but the whole power fleet.Lissa LynchRight. And the reasoning for that in the Clean Power Plan context was supported by the companies themselves, the power companies themselves and the states who said, yes, this is the way that we are dealing with decarbonizing our fleets. We are looking out across our whole fleets, retiring the dirtiest sources and replacing them with cleaner generation. That's how the existing RGGI program in California cap-and-trade programs work. That's how many of the power companies that have emission reduction or clean energy targets are doing that.David RobertsAnd let's just say Republicans have been saying for decades that regulations are too restrictive and they're not flexible enough and states and power companies need flexibility. And this was perfectly flexible. This is absolutely as flexible as you could make a system. It just said to the state, do whatever you want to do to lower the average emissions of your power plant fleet. And then conservatives got what they wanted and hated it for other reasons.Lissa LynchOne of the things that's important about what is left on the table after this decision is there is still a considerable amount of flexibility on the compliance side. So what the Supreme Court was really dealing with was the method EPA uses for setting the level of the standard, basically setting the target that industry has to meet. So the Supreme Court explicitly took that generation shifting approach off the table for purposes of setting the level of the standard itself. And so after this decision, EPA can still set standards, in John Roberts words, "Based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly."David RobertsRight? So the idea here is EPA, by interpreting the Clean Air Act in such a way as to apply to the power plant fleet overall, and sort of telling states how they have to shape their overall power plant fleets. EPA was assuming too much authority, basically. Like doing something major, despite too major for the words in the Clean Air Act, which I don't want to dwell on this too long, but let's just pause here to acknowledge that. No one then in the ruling, now in the subsequent ruling, since then in all scholarship knows what the hell "major" means or when it is that an agency has crossed the line from proper regulatory interpretation into "Oops, too major."It really just kind of sounds like and seems that major means anything bigger than John Roberts is comfortable with.Lissa LynchRight? I mean, this is one of the really concerning things about the Major Questions Doctrine, just generally is that it is murky and it does have this sort of paralyzing effect on ...David RobertsYes, intentionally.Lissa LynchExactly. It is explicitly anti-regulatory and explicitly sort of intended to stop agencies in their tracks and make them question, oh, is this too major?David RobertsAnd there's no answer. Right. So naturally you're going to be cautious because there's no definition of major. It's just whatever irritates John Roberts when he wakes up one day. So this was the opening salvo, I think, in a longer Supreme Court effort basically to brow-beat agencies into being timid. So anyway, point being EPA can't use the overall power fleet as a sort of benchmark through which to set this standard. So what does that leave? What's the sort of range of motion that we think we still can act in here when we're talking about these new standards?Lissa LynchSo now that we have this Supreme Court decision in place. EPA's got some guidelines, and they can base the next round of standards on, as Justice Roberts put it, measures that make the plants operate more cleanly. So what they're looking for now is a rule that looks more like what traditional pollution regulations of the past looked like based on scrubbers, bag houses, the stuff that you can physically attach onto the plant or do at the plant itself to reduce that plant's emissions. When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, the options are limited.David RobertsWell, let me pause there. Before we get into that, I just want to say one thing that I learned from your writing that I had not known, and I don't know that it's widely known. So there's been talk ever since Mass vs. EPA that bugged conservatives, and they would love to undo that, right? Because they would just love to moot this whole thing by undoing that ruling and saying that CO2 is outside the context of the Clean Air Act and have been muttering about doing that. So the Inflation Reduction Act statutorily locks into place that ruling.Right. It says explicitly CO2 qualifies under the Clean Air Act, and it instructs EPA to develop new standards. So there's no ambiguity about that. And it says EPA needs to set standards that are going to reduce emissions relative to baseline, where the new baseline is taking the Inflation Reduction Act itself and all its subsidies into account. So it's telling EPA calculate what all these subsidies are going to do, what the new sort of business as usual trajectory of emissions would be, and then develop regulations that reduce it further. I didn't know any of that.Lissa LynchYeah, no, this is huge. And I mean, obviously the Inflation Reduction Act is enormous. It is going to accelerate the clean energy progress that we've seen in the last decade or so by many fold. It is a huge, huge deal. And one of the provisions in this quite large law essentially reaffirms EPA's not only statutory authority, but its obligation to go ahead and set CO2 emission standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. And so that's a clear statement from Congress last year.David RobertsClear enough even for John Roberts.Lissa LynchRight. So we have always thought that that authority and obligation under the statute was quite clear, but now it's crystal clear, and they need to move.David RobertsAnd I think it's also important to absorb this new baseline idea, because the IRA itself and all the historical progress since the last round of these regs, the new expected baseline for power plant emissions is much lower now than it was when Oobama's EPA was calculating these things. Which commensurately means you're going to need tighter standards if you want to reduce further than that new baseline.Lissa LynchYeah. And it is kind of wild to look back on ten years ago. So it was ten years ago, 2013, that President Obama announced in his big climate change speech that he was directing his EPA to go ahead and set carbon pollution reduction standards under Section 111 for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The first time that was being done. So much has changed in ten years in the power sector. And I think anyone listening to this podcast knows we are smack in the midst of a clean energy transition in the power industry. Industry itself says so.The Edison Electric Institute says we are, quote, "In the middle of a profound long term transformation in how energy is generated, transmitted and used." Lazard, the investment firm, estimates that wind costs have fallen by 46%, solar has fallen by 77% over the past decade. So we're just in a totally different world now than we were ten years ago. And so we passed the Clean Power Plan's 2030 emission reduction targets in 2019 without the Clean Power Plan ever having gone into effect.David RobertsWhich in retrospect makes all the Republican arguments about how this is an economy killing regulation and it's too strong and it's unrealistic and there's no way we can move that fast look utterly ludicrous, which we all said at the time, but we had to pretend that it was a real live argument. So they're saying it's too stringent, it's going to destroy the economy. And here we rocketed past it in 2019 without any regs.Lissa LynchRight? And that is part and parcel with each time. There are new ambitious pollution standards set ...David RobertsEvery time.Lissa LynchUnder the Clean Air Act, industry claims the sky is going to fall. This happened with the acid rain program back in the American Electric Power predicted that it was going to destroy the economy of the Midwest. Like the lights are going to go out, the sky is going to fall.Every time and we never learn. We never learn from those previous examples. It's crazy, right?And so the actual costs of complying with the acid rain program and reducing sulfur dioxide ended up being, I think, around a 10th of what industry had estimated. Sulfur scrubbers are now widely used. The program has been a great success. It is this great example of how we can set pollution standards and then innovate to meet them cost effectively and quicker than anyone expects. We do it over and over again.David RobertsOver and over again.Lissa LynchAnd we can do it in this context.David RobertsRight? One more thing. Before we get to what's available for the new standards, we should mention I should mention that when the clean power plant got shut down, the legal obligation to pass regulations on existing power plants then passed to the Trump administration, which did that sort of passed a ... what was it called? The clean America ...Lissa LynchThe Affordable, Clean Energy Plan.David RobertsYes, Affordable Clean Energy, the ACE Plan, which several analyses showed would on net have raised emissions in the power plant sector. So those got shut down in court, too. They were just completely a joke. Ludicrous so that's all the history. So here we are Biden's EPA has got to regulate existing power plants and new power plants. And it can't take this so called outside the fence line holistic approach that the clean power plant took. So it's got to set standards based on what you can do at the individual power plant level inside the fence line, as they say.So what are the options? Actually, I'm talking way too much, but let me get one more thing out of the way and then I'll let you talk. But one of the things that faced the reason I just want people to understand this too, the reason Obama took this approach, the reason Obama's EPA took this outside the fence line holistic approach, is that if you're just restricting yourself to the individual power plant, you're stuck with either marginal improvements, right? You get the boiler to work more efficiently, you tighten up efficiency, and you can sort of marginally 3% to 5%, reduce emissions.Or on the other side, there's carbon capture and sequestration, which especially ten years ago when Obama's EPA was contemplating it, was not very well tested, not very well proven, super expensive. So you either had sort of like a fly swatter or a nuke when it comes to the individual power plant, which is why they went with the holistic approach. So now the holistic approach is off the table. We're back to the fly swatter or nuke problem. So just tell us sort of like, what are the available options here?Lissa LynchYeah, so you kind of covered the two ends of the range, right? On one end, the very low ambition end, you can make minor improvements to the operating efficiency of the plant, the way the plant operates. That was the basis for the standards that the Trump administration issued. And as you noted, improving the efficiency of the plant makes it run better and it can be called upon to run more and therefore can end up increasing its overall emissions. That sort of rebound effect. That's a possibility. You can still reduce emissions through operating efficiency improvements. And I think there's more options that could achieve greater reductions than the ones that the Trump administration included in their rule.But still, we're talking the very low-end, single percentage reductions in the middle, there's this option of cofiring with a lower carbon fuel. So if you're talking about coal plants, you can co-fire that coal plant partially with gas. In a gas plant, you could co-fire partially with hydrogen and you're going to bring the emissions rate of the plant down somewhat. In some of our analysis, we've estimated that a 40% cofiring coal with gas. So cofiring a coal plant with 40% gas gets you about a 20% emission reduction. So it's not nothing, but it also involves additional fossil infrastructure to get gas to a coal plant or additional infrastructure to get hydrogen to a gas plant.And on top of several other issues with hydrogen that we can talk about a little later.David RobertsWell, a legal question, I guess all of this in some respect is arbitrary, but where is the line between forcing fuel-switching, which I think Supreme Court said was out of bounds, and too far, versus a rule that requires cofiring, which is like kind of like halfway to fuel switching? Is there a legal distinction there between those two?Lissa LynchThere's absolutely precedent for requiring cleaner fuels or fuel processes. What the Supreme Court mentioned, at least in dicta, was we don't want to see standards that would force a plant to stop existing. And so essentially, if EPA were to base the standard on total conversion from coal to gas, which some coal plants have undertaken with cheap gas prices, that I think, based on our reading of the decision anyway, would probably be too far. So full conversion probably off the table along with generation shifting. But partial cofiring is actually one of the technologies that the Obama administration considered for their Clean Power Plan, as was carbon capture.And as you noted, the approach that they took in the Clean Power Plan, they selected because it was the most cost effective. So they ruled out carbon capture and cofiring, not because they weren't adequately demonstrated or available, they were just more expensive than the approach that EPA ended up going with.David RobertsBut now we're forced back basically to that more expensive approach.Lissa LynchRight, as I mentioned before, but want to keep reiterating, this is all about setting the level of the standard, finding it's a math problem. EPA looks at the options, and so the options as we see them are efficiency improvements, getting very little cofiring, getting somewhere in the middle, or carbon capture and storage, getting the most amount of emission reductions. They look out at that and they select the best system. Then they apply it to the plant and essentially do a math problem and come out with a number, a numerical limit for the amount of CO2 emission reductions that the plants need to achieve.Then they hand the baton off to the states for existing sources and to the companies for new sources. So this is not a requirement to install that specific technology. It's a way to derive the level of the standard and then pass that off to the states and the companies to comply with.David RobertsRight. EPA sets the standard and then says to states and companies, do what you want.Lissa LynchRight, as long as you can meet this number. Be creative, innovate.David RobertsThe central question is what upon what technology is the number going to be based on exactly? This low-end, this something in the middle, and this high-end, which is carbon capture and sequestration. So here I want to talk about what the sort of arguments are around this. It says in the text of the Clean Air Act that EPA should set the standard based on the best available system. That has to be adequately demonstrated so I just want to dig in a little bit on the technical legal language here. Like what exactly or what have courts interpreted that language to mean exactly?What is required to be adequately demonstrated? A single demonstration plant somewhere? like some good charts and graphs in a lab? Or do you have to be commercial, or does price and, you know, financial viability come into that? Like, what is EPA thinking about when it thinks about what is adequately demonstrated or best?Lissa LynchYes. Okay, so I'm a Clean Air Act lawyer. This is my favorite part. I love the Clean Air Act, and I love to talk about the language of the statute because that's actually what we're really fighting over here. EPA is tasked with establishing the standard of performance, and so that definition is in the statute. They have to determine the degree of emission limitation that can be achieved through the application of the best system of emission reduction that is adequately demonstrated considering cost, energy factors and essentially other factors. And so there's this really defined set of criteria that EPA needs to go through as they're determining what's the best system of emission reduction.So we've been talking about adequately demonstrated that it can't be a made up technology, but it also doesn't have to be widely used by everyone. Already, the Clean Air Act is technology forcing it's forward looking.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchIt requires the regulated source to reduce its emissions commensurate with the best control systems that are available, not the ones that are already sort of out there in use, that plants are choosing to use of their own accord. So again, in a lot of ways, this is analogous to so SO2 scrubbers which were not in widely used, they were not widely produced in the 90s, and there were all these doom and gloom predictions of how much it's going to cost.We're not going to be able to do this. So right now, there's no limit at all on CO2 emissions from power plants. There's been no reason to innovate on carbon capture for power plants, and there is not a ton of projects out there in the world, but there are plenty to serve as an adequate demonstration for purposes of the Clean Air Act. There's essentially three parts here of carbon capture. There's capture, there's transport, and there's storage. And each part of that process is well established and has been in use for decades, especially the capture part. We've been capturing carbon for decades.And so there's plenty of demonstration in both pilot projects and at commercial scale to be applied in the power sector. It doesn't have to be something that's already widely out there.David RobertsSo it's sort of a holistic consideration. And EPA is sort of attempting to apply something like wisdom here. There's a balance of considerations. And I assume, and tell me if I'm wrong, that the usual suspects are arguing to EPA that that would be too strict, that a standard based on CCS would be too strict. And presumably the way they're making that argument is by saying CCS is not the best or adequately demonstrated. So what is their argument? Have you read, like, their briefs, or do they have a specific argument here?Lissa LynchThey do, and they're familiar. It's the same set of arguments that we've seen over and over. It's too costly, we can't do it yet. We're getting there. Just let us do this at our own pace. One of the concerning things is the argument that we need gas now, and we're okay with standards that are based on something we might do in the future. So set the standards only at a level that were ready for CCS, that were ready for hydrogen sometime in the future.David RobertsCCS ready.Lissa LynchCCS ready. Hydrogen ready.David RobertsI love that phrase.Lissa LynchIt's just kicking the can down the road.David RobertsLike your own David Hawkins once said, it's like saying, my driveway is Ferrari ready.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think what's at the heart of this industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture and emissions data from the projects that have been built back that up. That is not to say that EPA needs to go ahead and require a 90% emission reduction from every single coal and gas plant in the country. Right. We think it makes the most sense for EPA to draw some distinctions based on the role that the plants perform on the grid. Right. So there's a big difference between ...David RobertsOh, really?Lissa LynchYes, there's a big difference between plants that are used for baseload power that are running constantly all the time, and those that are used intermittently for reliability as backup power during times of high demand.There does not need to be the exact identical standards on those two types of plants. So plants that are running full time are emitting the most, and they should be required to reduce their emissions to the greatest degree. So we think it makes sense to have a 90% capture based standard for plants that are going to serve as baseload, that are going to run all the time. And it's the most cost effective for those types of plants to install CCS, especially when you consider the tax credit. Plants that are operating intermittently as backup are already emitting less pollution simply by running less.And those plants can face a less stringent standard, stay on the grid as backup, and serve that really important reliability function without being required to install CCS, they can meet a lesser standard.David RobertsIs there a distinction between those two kinds of plants that is clean enough and clear enough to set legal limits around them because there are some fuzzy edge cases? And then, number two, are we sure that EPA like that's within EPA? Sort of. That's not major for EPA to be thinking to be sort of specifying which standards applied based on function based on operations.Lissa LynchYes. So this is the kind of detailed analytical and technical decision making that is well within the expert agency's wheelhouse. This is exactly the type of thing that the experts at the agency are normally tasked by the statute to do. They're the ones who run the numbers and figure out what's most appropriate for the specific type of plant that they're regulating. And in fact, the existing standards for new sources do include these sorts of subcategorization based on the use type of the plant. So this is not something complex and mysterious. This is based on true and visible distinctions between types of plants based on the way that they're used.And I think it really is yet another layer of the sort of flexibility that EPA can and should build into this program. Again, none of this is a particular mandate. And so the states and the companies then have that additional choice. Well, they can run a plant full steam and install controls, or they can run intermittently, keep that plant online and face a lesser limit, or they can retire it and make their own choices about what to replace it with. This is providing more and more levels of choices to the regulated industry to comply in the way that makes sense for them.David RobertsYeah. And something you mentioned in passing, I want to just highlight and put a pin in here, which is that a big argument here on your side is CCS is now being showered with subsidies. Like there are huge subsidies coming down from the Inflation Reduction Act for captured hydrogen, enough to make them economic in some cases or certainly a lot closer. So these are synergistic. I'm saying like the Biden administration's legislation is bolstering the case for these tighter standards because CCS is not just on its own now. Now it's explicitly being helped and shaped and stood up by government grants.Lissa LynchThat's right. And at the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act also contains a ton of money for renewables. And so that level of investment across these types of technologies really changes the overall cost of the regulations. And that's one of the things that EPA has to consider, is the overall cost of compliance to the system. And so again, when these standards are in place and states and companies are looking out across their fleet and saying, oh, what should we do? All of those incentives are going to come into that consideration for them. And it makes renewables really cheap to replace your older dirtier generation with.David RobertsI got one more question about the standard setting before I want to get into the politics a little bit, but some energy heads out there may be familiar with a company called NET Power, which has come up with a new, I guess it's a couple of years old now. They've built one demonstration plan, a new technology that without getting into the technological details, it's really fascinating. I might do a whole pod on it, but basically it burns natural gas. Emits no particulate pollution at all and captures 100% of the CO2 emissions as a purified stream of CO2.So you have in NET Power a natural gas power plant with zero particulate emissions and 100% carbon capture. They've built one, it's running and working. So has there been any talk about using that as a standard? Because that would be 100% carbon reduction. Has NET Power's tech come up in these discussions?Lissa LynchYeah, for sure. I mean, it's very cool, right? It was included, the EPA put out a white paper last year asking for input, sort of preregulatory input on the technologies that are available to reduce emissions, specifically from gas plants. And they took comment on the NET Power approach, which I cannot remember the name of. Allam something.David RobertsAllam Cycle, I think is right. I was trying to think of that.Lissa LynchAnd it is really cool and innovative and I hope that that is a direction that we're going to see any remaining fossil generation go in. And I think we may see that in the proposal. Again, all of what I'm talking about here is we have not seen a proposal from EPA. This is sort of NRDC's perspective on what is possible, justifiable achievable and legally defensible in court. And this is what we've been advocating for before the agency, and then we'll have to see what they come up with. We're expecting a proposal relatively soon, probably within a month or so.David RobertsWhat's really interesting to me about this, just from a political perspective, is it's a sort of weird inversion here of the typical roles. So you've got the power sector, which has been touting CCS for years, to sort of like defend the ongoing existence of fossil power plants. They sort of wave their hands at CCS and say, no, we can go clean too. So they've got Joe Manchin out up there saying, I want to go clean, but I want to do it with fossil. I literally think they've convinced him that they can eliminate their carbon emissions. And traditionally you've had sort of greens and climate people saying that's big and overly complicated and overly expensive and stupid and nobody's ever really going to do it and it's just going to make more sense to switch to clean generation.And so now we've got this odd political inversion where the power companies are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, CCS is not really ready. We didn't mean "ready ready," we meant just over the horizon is what we meant. That's where they like it. They like CCS just over the horizon. And all of a sudden this is like calling their bluff. Like, oh, you've been talking about this for decades. Well, how about you use it? And then on the green side, on the climate side, you have a similar inversion where now greens and green groups like yours are arguing like CCS.Oh, it's great. Yeah, it's right there, it's ready to go, absolutely ready to serve. As the basis for a standard. It's just odd and funny and I just wonder if you have any comment on the politics of trying to herd the cats in the climate community around this message of like CCS is ready and viable, which I don't think comes naturally to a lot of factions, let's say, within the climate community.Lissa LynchWell, that's well phrased. We're walking a fine line. I think our vision for the power sector and the power industry is one of net zero. And in order to get to net zero, that means a heck of a lot of renewables and a heck of a lot less fossil.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchFor the purposes of setting pollution limits, we need a technological basis and by far and away CCS is the most effective of the options that we've got.David RobertsThat the Supreme Court left us.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think it is very important to have limits on the CO2 emissions from power plants. I think that is sort of the baseline, most important thing from our point of view.David RobertsRight, well, lots of, I mean, reports, we should just say lots of reports have been done saying the legislative progress is great, but it's not enough to reach Biden's stated goal. And to reach Biden's stated goal, you need a whole of administration approach, including these standards.Lissa LynchExactly. And just to put some actual numbers on that, if we want to meet our international and domestic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, we need to get our power sector emissions down by 80% from the 2005 sort of peak emissions. We're already about a third of a reduction, 33% -ish reduction since 2005. Our analysis and RDCs of the Inflation Reduction Act puts us now on track to cut our power sector emissions by about 65% by 2030. So that is massive and also not enough.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchAnd our estimate there is somewhere in the middle there's a really wide range of modeling of the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of work is going to need to be done in order to get those emission reductions that we're sort of showing in that modeling. It's not a foregone conclusion.David RobertsYeah, one of the wildest things going on right now is just the incredible range of projections about what the IRA will do. Right. Like the sort of government came up with, oh, that it's going to spend $370 on these tax credits and then Credit Suisse is like, actually it's more like a trillion. And then I think there was another one last week, it was like actually it's more like a trillion five. So the range of amounts of money that could come out of this bill are just huge. It's so opaque.Lissa LynchIt is. And a lot still remains to be written in all the guidance for these tax credits. But that sort of uncertainty aside, I think the Inflation Reduction Act is going to accelerate a bunch of clean energy and it's going to get us a bunch of emission reductions in the power sector. And at least based on our analysis, that's not quite enough. And we absolutely are going to need limits on the CO2 emissions in addition to investments in clean energy.David RobertsSo maybe the way to summarize is just to say endorsing CCS as the basis of a performance standard is different than endorsing CCS, full stop.Lissa LynchYeah, well put. And I think what we see in the modeling reflects what I've been saying about the decision making that comes once EPA sets the standard. So when we model standards that are based on CCS and we've included the Inflation Reduction Act in the baseline, we overall get to around between 70% and 77% CO2 emission reduction by 2030. And what we're seeing in the actual generation results, there is some CCS deployment and also a ton of clean energy.David RobertsThis is my next question, actually, and you're here answering it before I even ask it, but I just wanted to ask, as a matter of curiosity, has someone modeled what would happen if EPA sets the standards where you are endorsing and what does the modeling say about the decisions power companies are going to make? Like how many fossil fuel plants will shut down versus installing CCS? I don't know if there's like an easy answer to that.Lissa LynchWell, so we have done lots of modeling and we've been doing it for quite a while because even before this Supreme Court decision last summer, we were anticipating that EPA was going to be constrained and in this sort of inside the fence line way. And so we've really been looking for ways to get the most ambition and the most emission reductions out of these sort of source specific basis for the standards. That range that I gave you is based on CCS and partial CCS runs. So 70% to 77% overall emission reductions depending how much you crank the dial on the ambition.But still with some of those sort of flexibilities that I talked about in terms of the type of use of the plant and what we see in those runs is renewables and energy storage capacity tripling from now to 2030 and quadrupling by 2035. And I think that is in large part based on these new Inflation Reduction Act tax credits being just so much more cost effective. And we still do see some retrofits with carbon capture and storage and some new builds of gas with carbon capture, but not a massive amount. And so there is some uptake of the technology and there's also some reinvestment in clean energy and that kind of tracks with what you would expect, right?And that kind of goes back to that was essentially what EPA was counting on and basing their standards off of in the Clean Power Plan and that's why they did it that way. I think we can do it this way. And that carbon capture and storage based best system of emission reduction can be shown to be available to the plants that could use it. And not all plants are going to make that choice. It's going to be up to the states and the companies to look at their options and choose whether they want to keep that plant online, and that should work.David RobertsSo NRDC is recommending a CCS based standard for both existing-source regs and new-source regs. Is there any difference between those two that's worth sort of pulling out here?Lissa LynchYeah, so I think industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture. And so given that that technology exists, we think it should be used to set the standard for at least the plants that are operating at full bore, both new and existing. When you're building a new plant, you have much greater options in terms of where you're sighting it, how you're building it. You should be required to use the latest and greatest technology on a brand new plant. So that's pretty straightforward for existing plants because they're all over the place. We rely on them already for power.There needs to be more flexibility, there needs to be more of a phase-in sort of glide path to compliance and some flexibility for how you're going to comply and some exemptions for those plants that are going to commit to retire. You don't want to make them retrofit right before they're expected to retire, you want to just let them plan to retire at the natural end-of-life of the plant. And so giving that flexibility on the existing source side is going to be really important and has long been part of the way that the section 111 standard setting has worked to differentiate between new and existing plants.David RobertsSo, CCS based standard in both cases, but maybe more flexibility and implementation for the existing plants.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsIf EPA does use CCS or hydrogen, something like that, as the basis for its performance standard, does it have any say at all in the details of sort of how CCS or hydrogen are used or measured? Because Volts listeners just got an hour and a half earful of discussion of the clean Hydrogen Tax Credits last week, and the details are many, and they make a big gifference in how clean hydrogen is used, how it's measured sort of how its carbon intensity is assessed, how much end users are allowed to claim reductions from using it, et cetera, et cetera. Does EPA get into any of that? Or is this purely just, we're using this tech as a way to set the numerical standard, but the details of how a power plant might implement this is somebody else's problem.Lissa LynchSo they absolutely have some authority over how it gets used to comply with this standard. So for purposes of standard setting, they're looking kind of broadly at what the technology is capable of achieving, how it's been used in the past, how it could apply to power plants that exist now in terms of compliance, though, they've got the authority over CO2 essentially in this rulemaking. And so if a plant is going to demonstrate compliance using carbon capture and storage or hydrogen, they can absolutely include the types of rigorous monitoring and verification requirements they would need to see in order for a plant to be demonstrating compliance using one of these technologies.David RobertsRight? So they can get into saying, here's what does and doesn't qualify as full CCS like measured every so often, or this kind of geographical storage. They can't get into that?Lissa LynchI absolutely think so. I think they have authority to say you need to have rigorous monitoring and verification from the point of capture to the point of sequestration. And that needs to be part of your demonstration of compliance for using carbon capture. For hydrogen ... It's a little trickier.David RobertsI'm very aware at the moment.Lissa LynchTo the extent that there is going to be a pathway for hydrogen to be used for compliance, it's got to take into account where that hydrogen comes from, how it's made in order to avoid net emissions increases. And I think they absolutely have that authority. Given that the purpose of this is for the best system of emission reduction, they've got to ensure that it is truly reducing emissions.David RobertsMaybe they can just borrow whatever treasury comes up with for the hydrogen.Lissa LynchAssuming it's good.David RobertsYes, true. If EPA doesn't go with CCS, doesn't go with the high end here, what do you think it will do? Will it fall back to something medium, something in the fuel blending sort of range? And just more broadly, do we have any sense at all of what EPA is thinking or which direction it's going or what to expect?Lissa LynchI think in terms of publicly facing tea leaves, what we've got to look at really is that white paper from last year where they had laid out the options and said, hey, give us some comments on what you think of these options for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion turbines. From everything that we have seen from this administration, we are hoping that they're going to be ambitious. They know that this is a critical moment. They know that this is an important wedge of emissions, that the power sector is still a really significant percentage of our emissions, roughly a quarter, and that we need standards on those CO2 emissions and they need to be strong.And it's not going to be worth all this work, honestly, if they don't make them strong. And so that has been our message to the administration, is, look, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing this all over again, let's make it worth it.David RobertsIs Manchin he's like the monster under my bed at this point. Is there some way Manchin could burst out of the closet and screw this up somehow? Or is he ...Lissa LynchI hesitate to even speculate.David RobertsCan I just not think about him in this respect, or does he have some way that he could theoretically muck this up, or is this something that's finally just sort of beyond his reach?Lissa LynchI think for now, the ball is in EPA's court to come out with a proposal and to take public comments and to consider them. And so for right now, this is an EPA project. Once it's finalized, it will presumably be subject to a Congressional Review Act resolution, and it will depend on who is in charge as to what happens there. And so that's when Congress gets to have its veto opportunity over regulations, which is unfortunate, but it is the world we're living in.David RobertsAnd does that just require a majority or a supermajority?Lissa LynchI believe it's just a majority, but it can be blocked by the President.David RobertsRight. And by the time there's a new president, it'll be too late. We're coming in under the deadline that the Congressional Review Act, if it's going to happen at all, would happen under Biden and thus would be vetoed. So that's not really ...Lissa LynchAnd so that takes place at the final rule. So we're only at the proposal stage. We've got a long way to go.David RobertsIs it going to get done under the Congressional Review Act just to just explain to listeners? Congressional Review Act says basically Congress can undo or veto a regulation basically within a certain window of it being finalized which is 60 ...Lissa Lynch60 working days, which does not equal the calendar days.David RobertsRight. So what you want to do is get your regulations on the books more than 60 working days prior to the next presidential election.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsJust so you're sure your guys in charge, if it happens.Lissa LynchThe date that we are looking at is next April, roughly a year from now, for all of these regulations. Right. Like it's not just ...David RobertsThere's a lot these are not the only ones. There's a lot of there's a big backlog.Lissa LynchIt is. And we are seeing the use of the Congressional Review Act right now as we speak in this Congress with attempts to invalidate the rules that the administration has recently finalized. It is a terrible tool. It is not a good thing.David RobertsIt's a Newt Gingrich special, isn't it? Am I right about the history? Of course, like so many malignant things in our government treat.Lissa LynchBut it is the world we're living in, and I think the administration is aware of the timeline that's facing them next year.David RobertsInteresting. So you think a proposed rule is going to show up in the next month or two?Lissa LynchYeah, we're expecting a proposed rule maybe by the end of April. And then when ... you know what happens, that gets published in the Federal Register. There's an opportunity for public comment. There's public hearings. And so there will be sort of a flurry of activity as everybody gets their comments in, and then the agency has to review those comments and address them in the final rule. That's part of the sort of Administrative Law 101. And then they have to issue the final rule and demonstrate yeah, we heard all your comments, and this is why we made the decisions that we made.David RobertsAnd that's when the lawsuits kick off.Lissa LynchAnd that's when the lawsuits start. Exactly. We do it all over again. It's the circle of life.David RobertsYes. And what do you think of the chances that this Supreme Court ends up hearing a case on this again? Do you think the conservatives can mount a legal case plausible enough to get it back into the Supreme Court?Lissa LynchI would never speculate about what this Supreme Court will do, because who knows, right? Our job is to make this thing as airtight as possible. And Chief Justice Roberts gave us some guidelines and a roadmap in the West Virginia decision. He told us what he's looking for, and it's this sort of traditional looking approach to pollution control. And so that's what we're operating under. And we are urging EPA to follow those guidelines and do the most that they can within those constraints, and we'll be there to defend it with them if it comes down to that.David RobertsAll right, awesome. Lissa Lynch of NRDC, thank you for coming and forecasting and explaining all this with us. Maybe we'll talk again in that distant future day when these things are actually on the books and the lawsuits have started. We'll talk again.Lissa LynchThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Taiwan is keeping a close eye on a Chinese aircraft carrier after China condemned the meeting between Taiwan president Tsai Ing-Wen and U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy yesterday. Rhodium Group's Noah Barkin discusses the latest. Plus, Mastercard is out with its latest SpendingPulse data, showing spending growth increased by a smaller amount in March compared to February. Mastercard's Steve Sadove breaks down the results. And, Warner Brothers is approaching its one-year anniversary of merging with Discovery as the streaming wars heat up. Wolfe Research's Peter Supino explains why he's bullish on the stock.

The Chips Avengers assemble once again! Reva Goujon of the Rhodium Group, JP Kleinhans of the European think tank SNV, Jay Goldberg of Digits and Dollars, and Dylan Patel, who writes SemiAnalysis. In this episode of ChinaTalk, we all: Deep dive into the CHIPS Act's recent Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); Discuss the potentially existential impact of AI on global power dynamics; Consider the true intentions of the October 2022 export controls — from military constraining China to crippling manufacturing in the broader economy; Muse about the potential for a "splinternet" to emerge as countries around the world — in particular, the US, China, EU members states — adopt different standards and regulations for their tech industries; And more! Outro music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_Amc4Ysv0 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Chips Avengers assemble once again! Reva Goujon of the Rhodium Group, JP Kleinhans of the European think tank SNV, Jay Goldberg of Digits and Dollars, and Dylan Patel, who writes SemiAnalysis. In this episode of ChinaTalk, we all: Deep dive into the CHIPS Act's recent Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); Discuss the potentially existential impact of AI on global power dynamics; Consider the true intentions of the October 2022 export controls — from military constraining China to crippling manufacturing in the broader economy; Muse about the potential for a "splinternet" to emerge as countries around the world — in particular, the US, China, EU members states — adopt different standards and regulations for their tech industries; And more! Outro music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_Amc4Ysv0 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mar 7, 2023 – In October of last year, the US took a huge step in escalating the ongoing trade war with China by targeting advanced semiconductor chips. Today, FS Insider speaks with Rhodium Group's Reva Goujon to discuss recent developments...

America enters 2023 faced with two opposing realities: greenhouse gas emissions are going up, but the opportunity to slash those emissions has never been better. Heat-trapping gasses in the U.S. rose again last year, according to the Rhodium Group. Even though renewables outpaced coal on the grid, emissions climbed in the buildings, heavy industry, and transportation sectors. Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act could reverse that trend over the next decade. The law, which was the result of years of political pressure and behind-the-scenes dealmaking, devotes nearly $370 billion to domestic clean energy deployment. It could cut emissions by 40% by 2030. But now the real work begins. On this week's episode of The Carbon Copy, Jigar Shah and Katherine Hamilton join host Stephen Lacey to talk about the new era for climate solutions deployment in America. The three former co-hosts reunite for some real-talk about the stakes ahead for implementing the IRA. The Carbon Copy is supported by FischTank PR, a public relations, strategic messaging, and social media agency dedicated to elevating the work of climate and clean energy companies. Learn more about FischTank's approach to cleantech and their services: fischtankpr.com. The Carbon Copy is supported by Scale Microgrids, the distributed energy company dedicated to transforming the way modern energy infrastructure is designed, constructed, and financed. Distributed generation can be complex. Scale makes it easy. Learn more: scalemicrogrids.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi recaps 2022 with Catherine Wolfram, a visiting professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and member of the board of directors at Resources for the Future, and John Larsen, a partner at Rhodium Group. Wolfram and Larsen offer insights on the year's biggest stories in energy and environmental policy at the state, national, and international levels, including US climate legislation and how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has affected energy markets. They also look ahead to the developments in energy and environmental policy that are likely to become important in 2023. References and recommendations: “Catalyst with Shayle Kann” podcast from Canary Media; https://www.canarymedia.com/podcasts/catalyst-with-shayle-kann “California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas and Electric—and What It Means for America's Power Grid” by Katherine Blunt; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/670012/california-burning-by-katherine-blunt/

CFA Society Chicago member Rich Excell, CFA and Reva Goujon, Director of Corporate Advisory at Rhodium Group, discuss the geopolitical environment, the Chinese economy, and the upcoming National Party Congress.   Connect with Rich on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/richexcellcfa/ and find his blog posts here - https://www.cmegroup.com/newsletters/excell-with-options-report-from-rich-excell.html & Stay Vigilant | Richard Excell | Substack Connect with Reva on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/reva-goujon/ Rhodium Group https://rhg.com/  

The US Commerce Department just dropped 100+ pages of new export control regulations that have the potential to reshape the future of the global semiconductor industry. But will these regs stop China from getting below 14nm? Is that a goal even worth pursuing? Are they really enforceable? And what are the tradeoffs baked into taking a unilateral vs multilateral approach? To discuss, I have on today Kevin Wolf, partner at the law firm Akin Gump and former BIS official with thirty years' experience in the field, to explain what it all means. We recorded this show Sunday October 9th. Cover art was created by midjourney with the prompt: "cyberpunk bureaucrat managing an export control regime" I could not find any good supercomputer music so this week's outtro music is a puerto rican banger by Mora and Jhay Cortez, perhaps reflecting the emotions MIIT employees are feeling at the moment? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgyn7_e9ReQ The views I express in this show do not reflect those of my employer the Rhodium Group. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aug 23 – FS Insider speaks with Rhodium Group's Reva Goujon about China's worsening demographic situation and how the most recent data shows it has deteriorated even more sharply in light of China's zero Covid policies to a point of international alarm...

CSIS non-resident senior associate John Larsen, of the non-partisan Rhodium Group, joins the podcast to dissect what the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) does to address climate change and whether the legislation could be overturned in the future. For more of John's analysis on the IRA, visit: rhg.com/research/climate-clean-energy-inflation-reduction-act/

We have a special episode of the Zenergy Podcast today, wheasre we are joined by 3 guests to breakdown the Inflation Reduction Act. Topics discussed: Topic 1: There is a lot to unpack in the Climate bill. Will walks us through some of the key highlights. Climate Tracker: https://airtable.com/shrzbm0uBAWOyP7Sd/tblFzX5IPIamN8zzB Topic 2: The Rhodium Group initially indicated odds of a 24-35% cut in US net GHG emissions, but upon the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act, Rhodium estimates indicate a likelier scenario of a 31-44% cut of US net GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Tappan talks about specific parts of the bill that he believes will have the most direct impact on reducing GHG emissions? Good resource: https://rhg.com/research/inflation-reduction-act/ Topic 3: Grant, as a leader in climate advocacy, walks us through his feelings on the bill, and the advocacy efforts that go into it. Brief Bios: Will Hackman: The Climate Explainer Will Hackman is a conservation and climate policy expert with more than a decade of experience in campaigns and global environmental issue advocacy. Will served as a political fundraiser and campaign manager on four federal races for the U.S. House and Senate as well as a gubernatorial campaign. He then joined the public sector conservation community as a marine fisheries conservation advocate. Will developed a love for the ocean over years working as a commercial Alaskan fisherman. Will has dedicated his career to advancing public policies related to ocean and land conservation as well as energy and the environment. He has attended four United Nations climate conferences and is a frequent policy expert voice on podcast interviews and articles. Will recently filmed a TEDx talk on stage in Washington, DC discussing ways we need to reframe our climate conversations. Grant Samms: President of the DC Climate Reality Project With proven competence and passion to address the challenges of a changing climate, Grant design's the climate solutions and policies our world desperately needs. Grant excels at illuminating complex socioenvironmental issues with both the quantitative and qualitative research skills needed to create human-centered solutions. Grant's research efforts have created a community-based socioeconomic risk model for a warming world and reported on patterns of resilient and sustainable urban development. Grant's skilled communication has translated the interconnections of the environmental and social facets of climate change through publications like Forbes and Smart Cities Dive. With a keen eye toward equitable solutions, Grant takes a holistic aim at the climate crisis. Tappan Parker: Project Specialist at the World Resources Institute Tappan Parker is a Project Specialist in the Tools, Reporting, and Analysis for Climate Initiative. He supports the creation of a strategy for open energy data as part of the "Global Energy Data Commons" project. Prior to joining WRI, Tappan worked on anti-corruption projects in Europe and Eurasia with the Center for International Private Enterprise, supported program development and grassroots campaigns with Environment America, and conducted media monitoring with the American Wind Energy Association. Tappan holds an M.A. in International Development from American University and a B.A. in Festival and Event Management from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. In his free time, Tappan enjoys biking, board games, playing music and tacos.

In a surprising twist of fate, Senator Joe Manchin agreed to what would be the largest investment in climate change action that the federal government has ever made. Join Kaleb and Terrell this week as they dive into the details of the bill. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol | (house.gov). Here's how you can help the people of Ukraine: NPR Weekly episodes every Thursday. Have any questions or comments? Email us at dangerouslylikely@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram (@Dangerously_Likely) and on Twitter (@DngerouslyLikly). Please leave a review if you enjoy the show! Music produced by Rebbel. News articles sourced by: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-flooding-death-toll-climbs-governor-hundreds-unaccounted-for/ Summary of the Energy Security and Climate Change Investments in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (senate.gov) (1) Rhodium Group on Twitter: "Under federal and state policy currently on the books, the US is on track to reduce emissions by 24-35% below 2005 levels by 2030. (2/4) https://t.co/vVzGiwgUor" / Twitter https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-465f-dbd0-af97-d75f5c140000 (1) Burgess Everett on Twitter: "Schumer says Democrats will be adding in insulin legislation to reconciliation" / Twitter Democrats' Climate Deal Isn't Done Yet. Here Are the Remaining Hurdles. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) How Joe Manchin Shaped the Climate Change Bill - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Here's How Manchin's Climate Deal Could Make Energy Bills Cheaper - Bloomberg

China is now the largest market for movies globally, and there have long been whispers about exactly how this impacts Hollywood decisions when it comes to scripts and casting. This episode I'm joined by Erich Schwartzel, author of Red Carpet: Hollywood, China, and the Global Battle for Cultural Supremacy, for a deep dive into the world of Chinese cinema, Chinese movies abroad and China in Hollywood. Along with co-host Irene Liu, a research analyst at Rhodium Group, we get into: Why the director of Seven Years in Tibet apologized to China 15 years after its release Which tech giant has a minority stake in Steven Spielberg's production company Whether Richard Gere is unhireable Why the Kenyan official responsible for importing films loves Chinese ones The American movies makers involved in Wolf Warriors Irina Nistor, the Romanian translator of Rambo: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/opinion/vhs-vs-communism.html. Chuck Norris vs Communism was a fantastic movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znp1dNaPp3k Outro music: My New Swag (我的新衣) by VAVA feat. Ty. and Nina Wang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aknkofx2bHg Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices