Noah Kaufman
@noahqkaufman.bsky.social
Climate economist. Opinions are my own.
The study goes a bit deeper, and highlights some potential opportunities for policymakers pursuing (IMO very important!) decarbonization and affordability goals. Hope you'll take a look. /end www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications...
Climate Ambition and Electricity Affordability: Lessons from Connecticut - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP
This report represents the research and views of the authors. It does not necessarily represent...
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The study goes a bit deeper, and highlights some potential opportunities for policymakers pursuing (IMO very important!) decarbonization and affordability goals. Hope you'll take a look. /end www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications...
Combined, cap-and-trade emissions permits and the RPS credits cost a typical household about $10-$15 per month. The price signal from the emissions permits is effectively doing nothing to reduce emissions due to context in which the program operates.
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Combined, cap-and-trade emissions permits and the RPS credits cost a typical household about $10-$15 per month. The price signal from the emissions permits is effectively doing nothing to reduce emissions due to context in which the program operates.
Meanwhile, the analysis CT regulators published in 2021, which paved the way for statutory emissions targets, showed CT procuring offshore wind capacity of 3,700 to 5,700 MW by 2040, enough to cover about half the state's power demands. Current capacity online is zero MW.
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Meanwhile, the analysis CT regulators published in 2021, which paved the way for statutory emissions targets, showed CT procuring offshore wind capacity of 3,700 to 5,700 MW by 2040, enough to cover about half the state's power demands. Current capacity online is zero MW.
In contrast, rooftop solar is expensive. Per kilowatt hour of electricity, rooftop solar in CT is compensated at rates around three times higher than grid-scale solar.
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
In contrast, rooftop solar is expensive. Per kilowatt hour of electricity, rooftop solar in CT is compensated at rates around three times higher than grid-scale solar.
The news here often gives the impression that the Millstone nuclear plant (~1/3 of the state's power) is expensive because it often costs more than natural gas. But, compared to plausible new generation sources going forward, the state's 5 cents/kwh contract is super duper cheap
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The news here often gives the impression that the Millstone nuclear plant (~1/3 of the state's power) is expensive because it often costs more than natural gas. But, compared to plausible new generation sources going forward, the state's 5 cents/kwh contract is super duper cheap
Trends on load growth mirror other parts of the country, mainly due to expectations about electrification (not data centers here). Demand actually fell ~13% over the past decade and is expected to grow by about the same amount in the next decade (tho highly uncertain)
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Trends on load growth mirror other parts of the country, mainly due to expectations about electrification (not data centers here). Demand actually fell ~13% over the past decade and is expected to grow by about the same amount in the next decade (tho highly uncertain)
You might think more population dense places should have lower electricity prices because they can spread the fixed charges of the grid across more customers. But there’s a pretty clear correlation between population density and higher prices among US states.
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
You might think more population dense places should have lower electricity prices because they can spread the fixed charges of the grid across more customers. But there’s a pretty clear correlation between population density and higher prices among US states.
The lack of local fuel sources is huge. Prices (and emissions) spike each winter due to infrastructure constraints. Natural gas prices at CT power plants averaged $2.50 per thousand cubic feet last November, and over $14 in January
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The lack of local fuel sources is huge. Prices (and emissions) spike each winter due to infrastructure constraints. Natural gas prices at CT power plants averaged $2.50 per thousand cubic feet last November, and over $14 in January
Retail electricity prices in CT are ~2x those in PA, and not for any single reason. Generation, transmission, distribution, ratepayer-funded policies -- they all contribute to high prices in CT
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Retail electricity prices in CT are ~2x those in PA, and not for any single reason. Generation, transmission, distribution, ratepayer-funded policies -- they all contribute to high prices in CT
No I didn't know anything about that. I've just read both of their work, and Gates' writings have struck me as pretty rigorous, and Lomberg's the opposite.
November 3, 2025 at 6:24 PM
No I didn't know anything about that. I've just read both of their work, and Gates' writings have struck me as pretty rigorous, and Lomberg's the opposite.
I think this recommendation was in that NAS study on SCC also.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
August 14, 2025 at 1:46 AM
I think this recommendation was in that NAS study on SCC also.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
I’m not sure how much it matters.
Reasonable people can disagree with all this. But I’m still hoping we take advantage of this dark moment in the wilderness to have some worthwhile and overdue conversations like this one. /end
August 13, 2025 at 3:28 PM
Reasonable people can disagree with all this. But I’m still hoping we take advantage of this dark moment in the wilderness to have some worthwhile and overdue conversations like this one. /end
Of course, these aren't new insights at all. Scholars like Martin Weitzman made similar SCC critiques decades ago. The "alternative" I'm describing is basically what the IPCC is designed to do.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
August 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
Of course, these aren't new insights at all. Scholars like Martin Weitzman made similar SCC critiques decades ago. The "alternative" I'm describing is basically what the IPCC is designed to do.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
But, due largely to historical context and path dependency, US regulatory policy has stuck with SCCs.
So, I’ve come to realize that the situation is almost exactly the opposite of the instinctual economist response. Real-world SCC estimates convey roughly nothing to policymakers, whereas an alternative approach could provide at least something useful.
August 13, 2025 at 3:27 PM
So, I’ve come to realize that the situation is almost exactly the opposite of the instinctual economist response. Real-world SCC estimates convey roughly nothing to policymakers, whereas an alternative approach could provide at least something useful.
On the 2nd assumption: if we pull together a group of leading experts across relevant disciplines with the task of assessing climate risks and providing a science-based judgments on climate policy stringency, they will do better than an arbitrarily-picked target.
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
On the 2nd assumption: if we pull together a group of leading experts across relevant disciplines with the task of assessing climate risks and providing a science-based judgments on climate policy stringency, they will do better than an arbitrarily-picked target.
I explain in my recent article that estimating SCCs entails making methodological choices that are obviously wrong, but necessary to generate specific numbers (or ranges). That process produces results that have no coherent interpretation. www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...
The Social Cost of Carbon Is Gone — and That May Be Good News for Future US Climate Policy - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA | CGEP %
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
I explain in my recent article that estimating SCCs entails making methodological choices that are obviously wrong, but necessary to generate specific numbers (or ranges). That process produces results that have no coherent interpretation. www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-social-c...
But I don't think either assumption is true.
August 13, 2025 at 3:26 PM
But I don't think either assumption is true.
If these two assumptions were true, then Sunstein’s argument follows directly: the SCC provides policymakers with *some* valuable info, and something is better than nothing.
August 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
If these two assumptions were true, then Sunstein’s argument follows directly: the SCC provides policymakers with *some* valuable info, and something is better than nothing.
Second, it assumes that the alternative to SCC approach is to discard the rich information scholars have developed on climate effects, damages, emissions pathways, intergenerational transfers, etc. And to instead pick arbitrary numbers (that implicitly instead of explicitly value CO2).
August 13, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Second, it assumes that the alternative to SCC approach is to discard the rich information scholars have developed on climate effects, damages, emissions pathways, intergenerational transfers, etc. And to instead pick arbitrary numbers (that implicitly instead of explicitly value CO2).
First, it assumes that SCC estimates convey *some* useful info to policymakers about climate policy stringency. So, they are estimating something coherent (like an uncertain most likely estimate, or a lower bound estimate, or even a bad estimate with meaningful error bars).
August 13, 2025 at 3:24 PM
First, it assumes that SCC estimates convey *some* useful info to policymakers about climate policy stringency. So, they are estimating something coherent (like an uncertain most likely estimate, or a lower bound estimate, or even a bad estimate with meaningful error bars).
He's giving the instinctual response of economists to SCC critiques, and I get it. I used to say it myself. But I’ve come to realize that its validity rests on 2 problematic assumptions.
August 13, 2025 at 3:24 PM
He's giving the instinctual response of economists to SCC critiques, and I get it. I used to say it myself. But I’ve come to realize that its validity rests on 2 problematic assumptions.