As a result, new nuclear, geothermal, and other energy projects will get a 10% bonus if they build in cities, suburbs, or exurbs, but probably won't be eligible for this bonus if they build in rural and remote places.

Congress can fix this, but it will require more attention to technical details.

In the OBBBA, Congress expanded the definition of "energy communities" to include places that have a (very low) level of nuclear employment. The definition also excludes most rural places. The original "energy communities" definition in the IRA was already quite odd:
www.rff.org/publications...

And there will be prizes!

It is not karaoke. It is a surprise!

Interesting point--thanks Bernie! I'm pretty sure the vast majority of LNG will flow through the Gulf of Mexico/America, but there are also some Pacific Coast proposals. I'm curious if there's research on this topic you're aware of? I'd be interested to learn more.

Sure, we're not in that policy environment right now. But we know two things: (1) many oil and gas communities are struggling today, and (2) when we address climate change - as we must - many more will face major economic challenges.

When we think about struggling energy communities, it's not just Appalachia. In a world where we meet the climate challenge and reduce global demand for fossil fuels, this will be an existential issue for hundreds of communities across the US.

In short, production growth has been led by a handful of super productive basins, particularly the Appalachian (for gas) and Permian (for oil). Most other regions with "conventional" production have been declining for decades. Declines have been driven by geology and economics, not policy.

I think the transcription service may have misheard the wet blanket:
“We already have plenty of profitable shell plates in the United States.”
🤣