Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
...Manchin is not against other ways of mitigating climate change (as long as they don't reduce coal usage). He is ok with installing more electric charging stations, updating the power grid, and clean-energy tax credits....the main effect of Manchin's demand is just to slow down the decommissioning of existing coal-fired power plants.I think that's a little off - though it's refreshing to see an article acknowledging that Manchin's constituents might actually have interests that would be protected by him pushing back on the CEPP.But Manchin wasn't just pushing to save coal. One of his big demands was that the CEPP include natural gas as part of the equation:https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/574808-manchin...And when you think about it, that makes a lot of sense. It's an area where the climate provisions could actually be a win-win proposition. West Virginia has huge natural gas reserves. Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions considerably. Getting federal incentive money that could pay for the development of new natgas electric plants, and thus stimulate the development of the natgas fields themselves, would have a beneficial effect on the West Virginia economy. You'd create new jobs, let West Virginia keep its competitive advantage in low electricity costs, and reduce carbon emissions by a fair amount. And since natural gas production has a much brighter (or at least longer term) future than coal, it starts West Virginia's transition into the longer-term energy economy.But having any fossil fuel development qualify under any of these programs is utterly anathema to climate advocates. So that particular alternative was shot down.Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |