More to say, but 2 big issues here:

1: the transport emissions modeling is opaque & done by an agency with a track record of lying to the public.

2: There's no recommended policies! Just a "good luck, guys!"

This is a #policyfail.

We at @climateactionri.org will be submitting comments. /8/end

Also, note that we are *not at all* on track to meet our targets for 2040 and 2050, and will need additional policies to get there.

You would think this document would list these policies, and that as a strategy it would make recommendations.

Nope. The EC4 totally punted on this one. /7

Unsurprisingly, the state thinks we are on track w/ current policies to meet the 2030 target! Hurray! But if you dig a little deeper it's not clear what assumptions were used in the modeling for #transportation - our biggest sector.

BTW this part was managed by our rouge transport agency (RIDOT) /6

So when you have a 2030 goal but you're already nearly halfway there it's much easier to meet. Setting this goalpost nearer than it could be if we used a more recent baseline does let the state off the hook somewhat for the deep emissions reductions that are needed to combat the #climatecrisis. /5

It's not clear. Census data shows Rhode Island's population had a healthy increase during this time. I only have GDP records to 1997, but these show continual growth. Shift from manufacturing to services? Perhaps. I don't have good records for this. Could also be energy efficiency? /4

This is interesting, because in the United States as a whole, emissions in 2025 are only slightly below 1990 levels - but a big decline since 2005. Whereas in Rhode Island, we've reduced emissions significantly.

How did this happen? /3

www.epa.gov/climate-indi...

1st: some background: Rhode Island's landmark Act on Climate was passed in 2001, and sets binding, economy-wide emissions reductions targets: 45% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and net zero by 2050 - from 1990 levels.

This last part is key. Per RIDEM, we're already down 19.5% /2

dem.ri.gov/environmenta...

By the way, if you are not yet following @electrek.co's work, I highly recommend them as my favorite publication for e-mobility topics. And they are not limited to #EVs and ebikes: @michelledlewis.bsky.social does great articles on broader #energytransition topics. /2/end

More people need to read the work of Catherine Belton and the other journalists who've been warning us for years about how Trump's financial alliances with the Russian mob led him straight into Putin's arms.

You can't make this shit up. /3/end

bookshop.org/p/books/puti...

Related: I don't want to hear any more from Republican China hawks in DC about how China is this great threat to US interests while they sleep on Trump essentially giving Ukraine to our biggest enemy (Russia).

The #Sinophobia of the Republicans is just a cover for being anti-clean energy. /2

On the national level, I haven't been as impressed; there is often sensationalism that I don't think serves this subject.

But @fieseler.bsky.social of @canarymedia.com stands out for solid coverage of under-reported aspects, incl. support by local fishermen. /4

www.canarymedia.com/articles/off...

But the local journalist who might impress me the most is @aelennon.bsky.social of @newbedfordlight.bsky.social. Very in-depth coverage of the industry, and she even made her own #offshorewind project tracker! /3

newbedfordlight.org/offshore-win...

2nd: @nancyklavin.bsky.social of @rhodeislandcurrent.com does some of the best local coverage of utility issues out there. She also broke the story that our PA-owned utility backed out of the contract with SouthCoast Wind. Overall just a great journalist. /2

rhodeislandcurrent.com/2025/11/14/r...

Note that in my first post above I am only estimating 400 MW from Vineyard Wind. It is likely that more than that is online, but not the whole 800 MW, and I had to draw the line somewhere.

There's still a substantial build-out of US #offshorewind projects for the next three years, and I expect that new projects will get permitted and begin construction after that.

Every OSW project that gets built reduces emissions, grows the industry & stabilizes power prices. They all matter./4/nd

It really comes down to whether or not these developers have the stomach for a legal battle. Some don't, and will fold or try to make a deal. Past those, it's fair to expect that no offshore wind permits will proceed until our Dear Leader is gone, so likely 2029.

But this industry is *not dead*. /3