Search

Begin New Search Topic Carbon Emissions Political Geography North America

1. Improving the Efficiency of NRC Power Reactor Licensing: Environmental Reviews

Author:
Matt Bowen and Rama T. Ponangi
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Achieving net-zero emissions in the United States by mid-century requires the rapid buildout of low-carbon energy infrastructure. One challenge to this rapid buildout is the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are part of federal approval processes for new energy projects. This process has increasingly caused significant delays and added costs, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 was passed by Congress in part to address these issues through amendments to NEPA that impose timelines on environmental reviews. For nuclear power, a low-carbon energy source that has a role in many US net-zero scenarios, environmental reviews are conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of its reactor licensing process. Because this process has at times been lengthy and costly, Congress passed the 2024 ADVANCE Act in part to require the NRC to implement its responsibilities under NEPA more efficiently. During the 2000s and 2010s, most of the environmental impact statements (EISs) these reviews produced would not have complied with NEPA’s new FRA timeline (two years or fewer) and page limit (150, or in extraordinary cases 300). More recent NRC environmental reviews for test reactor deployments have been somewhat quicker and had shorter review documents, perhaps a recognition by the agency that the efficiency of this process needed improvement. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear licensing reform at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, focuses on how the NRC can fulfill the new legal mandates on time and page limits for environmental reviews and in general improve the efficiency of these reviews. The report demonstrates that earlier (1970s–80s) environmental reviews for nuclear power reactors licensed under the 10 CFR 50 licensing pathway took less time and generated shorter review documents than those conducted under 10 CFR 52 during the 2000s and 2010s. The latter reviews—all of which were for large light water reactor projects—also utilized substantial NRC resources, thereby incurring significant costs to the applicants. None of these reviews found that the reactor projects were expected to create what the NRC calls “large adverse” environmental impacts, which could destabilize environmental resources. Although some “moderate adverse” impacts were identified, they typically came from unavoidable elements such as new transmission lines and traffic that would result from any large construction project. And beneficial impacts always came in the form of jobs and taxes. At the very least, these findings raise questions about the allocation of time and resources to various aspects of the NRC’s environmental review.
Topic:
Environment, Regulation, Carbon Emissions, Nuclear Energy, and Permitting
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Cement and Concrete Companies Leading the Net-Zero Transition

Author:
Jamie Friedman
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
New technologies spurred by federal support show a cleaner path forward for the highly emissive cement and concrete industry.
Topic:
Climate Change, Industry, Carbon Emissions, Green Transition, Net Zero, and Concrete
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Economic Performance in US Fossil Fuel Communities

Author:
Noah Kaufman, Ariane Desrosiers, and Sarah Doctor
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels to address the severe threats of climate change requires economic transformations that pose challenges for regions heavily dependent on coal, oil, natural gas, or other carbon-intensive industries. The United States is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and the fourth-largest producer of coal, and communities across the country depend heavily on fossil fuel industries for jobs, investments, and public revenues that fund schools and other critical services. These communities will need considerable support to successfully navigate a global transition away from fossil fuels, and a better understanding of their local economies will help policymakers design and implement pragmatic support. However, scant evidence exists for such use today. This report, part of the Resilient Energy Economies initiative co-led by the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, uses a novel dataset and case studies to establish a baseline of local economic performance in fossil fuel–dependent communities between 2004 and 2019. This period captures the peak and first decade of decline of the US coal industry as well as the shale revolution that boosted US oil and gas production.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Finance, Fossil Fuels, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Outlook for Pending Generation in the PJM Interconnection Queue

Author:
Abraham Silverman, Zachary A. Wendling, and Kavyaa Rizal
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
The United States is witnessing rapidly growing interest in clean electricity generation, driven by soaring consumer demand for clean energy and the country’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In parallel, the time it takes for new, clean generation projects to move from design to execution in the US has lengthened, meaning that the rising interest has not been matched by supply. The country’s largest grid operator, PJM Interconnection (PJM), has experienced the most severe delays and backlog in new generation—projects entering the queue today have little chance of coming online before 2030. It is widely understood that an increasingly lengthy interconnection process, which involves a series of studies and upgrades grid operators must take to ensure projects can connect to the grid safely and reliably, is responsible for this state of affairs. It is not clear how this longer process interacts with other known project development challenges—such as siting and permitting issues, supply chain constraints, and inflationary pressures—and to what extent such interactions may lengthen the timeline for bringing projects online. Understanding these dynamics can help answer critical questions about grid reliability going forward, including whether it will be necessary to delay or cancel the planned retirement of aging fossil fuel-fired generation resources that the new generation is intended to replace. This report attempts to fill this knowledge gap. It presents results of an author-developed survey of those best positioned to understand the impacts of interconnection process delays: project developers in the PJM market. The key finding from the survey is that PJM’s increasingly lengthy interconnection process is exacerbating siting and permitting challenges and leading to knock-on delays in equipment procurement and financing decisions, suggesting the timeline for new generation in this market will likely remain long for the foreseeable future. Given the importance of new entry to keeping prices competitive and maintaining reliability amid the retirement of older fossil resources, PJM will need to find ways to reduce interconnection delays or reconsider when those fossil resources should be retired.
Topic:
Electricity, Carbon Emissions, Connectivity, and Inflation Reduction Act
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. The Science of Rapid Climate Change in Alaska and the Arctic: Sea Ice, Land Ice, and Sea Level

Author:
John P. Holdren
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Earth’s surface north of the Arctic Circle, which includes nearly a third of Alaska, is warming 3-4 times faster than the global average.1 Alaska as a whole is warming twice as fast as the lower 48 states.2 As is true for most of the manifestations of anthropogenic climate change, moreover, the extremes of temperature are growing faster than the averages: the highest-ever temperature north of the Arctic Circle—100.4°F—was recorded in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, in June 2020;3 Anchorage reached an all-time high of 90°F on July 4, 2019;4 and Utqiavgik, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. city, reached an all-time winter high of 40°F in December 2022.5 The reasons warming is so fast in the Far North are quite well understood scientifically. The most important factor is the ice-snow-albedo feedback, in which warming reduces the area of land and water covered by ice and snow, which means less reflectivity and more absorption of incident solar energy at the surface, hence further warming.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Carbon Emissions, and Sea Ice
Political Geography:
North America, Alaska, Arctic, and United States of America

6. Technological and policy pathways to accelerate US industrial decarbonization

Author:
Joseph Webster
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Industrial decarbonization in the United States will be an important element in lowering global emissions. US industry released 1.4 gigatons of carbon in 2021, about 28 percent of all US emissions. Lowering these greenhouse gas contributions and modeling effective strategies to achieve reductions will go a long way toward not only lowering the US carbon footprint, but also leading global decarbonization efforts. To accelerate US industrial decarbonization, policymakers should start with the lowest hanging fruit, such as electrification or cleaning hydrogen for existing use cases, and then expand to more difficult areas. Greening the electricity sector would sharply curtail emissions from electricity-intensive industries, while switching to clean hydrogen in refineries will likely accelerate hydrogen’s relevance for other promising but unproven use cases, such as in steelmaking. By targeting “easier” challenges, policymakers can achieve decarbonization gains as quickly as possible. The most effective paths to accelerate industrial decarbonization will require permitting reform and pursuing a comprehensive understanding of clean energy deployment, including in transmission. While the United States has enhanced fiscal support for clean energy development, policymakers across the country at all levels of government should reduce permitting review times and ensure that projects are not stuck in regulatory limbo indefinitely. The United States should also research methods of decarbonization, including nuclear energy development, and wires-vs-pipeline transportation costs for green hydrogen. To limit the consequences of climate change, the United States must urgently advance a suite of efforts to guarantee the domestic and international industrial emissions reductions the world needs.
Topic:
Environment, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Nuclear energy in a low-carbon future: Implications for the United States and Japan

Author:
Stephen S. Greene
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Nuclear power has received renewed global interest as a secure source of carbon-free energy. In the context of worsening climate change and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and resultant energy market constrictions, many countries are actively pursuing conventional and advanced nuclear development, while others are canceling or postponing scheduled shutdowns. As climate change continues to impact both energy supply and demand, nuclear energy is poised to play a major role in the reliability of the future clean energy mix. Challenges to nuclear rollout will require solutions. Construction timelines remain extended, as do licensing processes. Social constraints also hinder development prospects. These potential stumbling blocks require steadfast coordination between allies like the United States and Japan, especially as other nuclear energy heavyweights like Russia and China avoid many of those same bottlenecks in their pursuit of domestic buildout and export. Despite those issues, though, nuclear energy is forecasted to play a major role in the later stages of the energy transition, in which countries look to decarbonize the more difficult parts of their economies. The advent of advanced technologies and the completion of large-scale projects portends the arrival of nuclear energy’s reliability and versatility just as the global energy sector needs it.
Topic:
Climate Change, Nuclear Power, Carbon Emissions, and Energy
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America

8. Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage: Technologies and Costs in the U.S. Context

Author:
Jonathan M. Moch, William Xue, and John P. Holdren
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Biden administration has set a goal of reaching net zero economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.1 Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)—a suite of current and emerging technologies that remove carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) from energy or industrial processes and then either sequester the carbon underground or use it for production of a variety of fuels or products2—is very likely to be a key technology on most of the plausible paths for reaching this goal. Among various applications of the technology, CCUS in combination with natural gas powerplants can be used to provide firm baseload electricity or could serve as backup for intermittent renewable power in place of multi-day electricity storage.3 Additionally, CCUS could be used to decarbonize hard-to-electrify industrial processes4 and to provide synthetic fuels for decarbonizing nonelectric energy uses.5 The key barrier to CCUS filling these various roles and living up to its technical potential is high costs relative to current incentives: despite current U.S. government support through tax policy, CCUS is not economically competitive today in most of its applications. Unless and until it becomes so or is required by law, it will not achieve widespread deployment.
Topic:
Environment, Science and Technology, Natural Resources, Coal, Carbon Emissions, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. US-China Roundtable on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage

Author:
David B. Sandalow, Sally Qiu, and Zhiyuan Fan
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
On November 17, 2021, New York time/November 18, 2021, Beijing time, the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and Energy Foundation-China convened an online roundtable on carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) in the United States and China. Scholars, industry officials and policy makers exchanged information and ideas concerning CCUS development in each country. Participants discussed the role of CCUS in achieving net zero emissions, focusing on three topics in particular: CCUS costs, strategies for utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) and CCUS policies. This report summarizes key points made by participants at the roundtable, which was held under the Chatham House Rule.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

10. Comparing Government Financing of Reactor Exports: Considerations for US Policy Makers

Author:
Matt Bowen and Alec Apostoaei
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply by 2050 will require financing low-carbon energy projects at a cost of upwards of trillions of dollars. Nuclear energy is one of the few dispatchable low-carbon energy resources, and studies by the International Energy Agency have estimated a possible doubling of nuclear power as part of scenarios for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. Large, capital-intensive projects such as nuclear power plants can be challenging for some countries to finance, however. As a result, countries wishing to build nuclear reactors look for attractive financing from supplier nations in the form of loans and equity. This report, part of wider work on nuclear energy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, compares the financing terms offered between 2000 and 2021 by the world’s major exporters of nuclear power plants: Russia, France, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and the United States. Russia dominated this period, with 11 reactors connected to power grids in six countries, in part due to the attractive state-backed financing offers it made. At the beginning of 2022, Russia had 13 of its reactors under construction in other countries, more than all other countries’ reactor exports combined. The US government has been actively developing advanced reactor technologies, partly with the intention of exporting them to other countries to help them address their energy and environmental goals. However, for numerous reasons, the US government has not financed a new US reactor export in decades, even though the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the new International Development Financing Corporation (DFC) are capable of supporting exports of this scale. Given the recent absence of US financing, this report analyzes the earlier activities of EXIM related to nuclear energy and their relevance for potentially reviving such financing efforts in the near or medium term. A key factor shaping reactor vendor competitions is a nuclear arrangement by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in which France, the ROK, and the United States are members but China and Russia are not. This arrangement places limitations on OECD members regarding key loan terms for their reactor exports, including minimum interest rates and loan repayment terms, that can put them at a disadvantage compared to state-owned vendors from Russia and China. The arrangement does not restrict equity investments in reactor exports, posing an additional disadvantage for private vendors in the United States as they compete with larger, state-owned vendors in France and the ROK. As other countries develop their civil nuclear energy programs or begin new ones, the US government will need to decide whether it will assist in financing US reactor exports. The federal government has a variety of potential rationales for doing so, including creating jobs, assisting other countries in overcoming their energy and environmental challenges, and limiting Chinese and Russian influence. On the other hand, financing from EXIM or the DFC will come with financial risk, as some individual projects may not have successful outcomes.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America