Brad Plumer
@bradplumer.bsky.social did:plc:xhrtlzravw7teluu2dpph5xk
Reporter, NYT Climate. email: [email protected] signal: bradplumer.54
Bluesky’a katılma tarihi:
- Takipçi
- 12.871
- Takip edilen
- 1.020
- Post
- 55
- Sıralamaya girdiği gün
- 0
Özet
Brad Plumer (@bradplumer.bsky.social), 2 Ekim 2023 tarihinde katılan bir Bluesky kullanıcısı. 12.871 takipçisi var, 1.020 hesabı takip ediyor ve 55 post paylaştı.
Sıralama geçmişi
Bu hesabın postlarının Debya günlük listesine girdiği en iyi günler.
Bu hesap henüz günlük sıralamaya girmedi.
Son beğendiği postlar
Bluesky ağındaki herkese açık beğeniler.
Tagging in #EnergySky, what do yall think? @robgramlichdc.bsky.social @davidmindham.bsky.social @energylawjeff.bsky.social @christywalshdc.bsky.social
Postu gösterIf transmission plans change, IX gets messed up. The benefits of CPP rely on transmission plans sticking. Not that the status quo is much better...but we should consider whether another 2y pause in generation IX queues for a new rule is a good idea when a ton of new Tx cost needs to get allocated
Postu gösterI like many others think CPP is good in theory, but it's still being proven #EmergySky Proactive transmission + generation planning has problems. CAISO just saw a canceled Tx line nix 7.5 GW of deliverability in its queue--after directing folks to request IX specifically where capacity was expected
Postu gösterThe permitting bill requires FERC to make a new rule directing all RTOs to copy SPP's Consolidated Planning Process. SPP just announced its CPP will require $140K-$260K/MW for new generator IX at planned locations. And that's assuming planned Tx is built Not sure this should be in the bill
Postu gösterthanks @bradplumer.bsky.social
Postu göster
Blokladığı hesaplar
Bluesky’da bloklar herkese açık kayıtlardır.
