Loan Guarantee Provisions in the 2007 Energy Bills: Does Nuclear Power Pose Significant Taxpayer Risk and Liability? 1
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to learn about the loan guarantee provisions in the 2007 energy bills that have passed the House and Senate and await conference (HR. 6/HR. 3221). The Senate bill’s provision would significantly alter how the Department of Energy (DOE) provides taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for new energy technologies, especially to costly nuclear power plants. Section 124(b) of the Senate bill (HR. 6) allows loan guarantees to be given to multiple projects to construct an existing nuclear power design; exempts DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) which allows DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without Congressional oversight; and gives DOE unfettered access to the Incentives for Innovative Technologies Fund (EPACT 2005) without requiring appropriations or any fiscal year limitation. This provision, if adopted, would eliminate Congressional authority and the safeguards provided through the appropriations process regarding expenditures for these potentially risky projects and shift enormous financial risk from Wall Street banks to America’s taxpayers. The House-passed legislation on loan guarantees is different; it says that no eligible technology can be excluded from consideration from loan guarantees.
Because of the likelihood of delays and cost overruns in building new nuclear power plants, Wall Street banks are unwilling to accept any financial risks for nuclear power loans. Six of the nation’s largest investment banks-Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley- recently told the DOE, “We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit.” Our briefing panel will discuss whether the loan guarantee provisions constitute a significant taxpayer liability and/or poor governance. Speakers include:
- Peter Bradford, President, Bradford Brook Associates; former Chair, New York State Public Service Commission and Maine Public Utilities Commission; and former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
- Jim Harding, CEO, Harding Consulting
- US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high, so is the risk. The Congressional Budget Office has said there is a good chance that the DOE will underestimate the costs of administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor projects will default on their loan repayments, leaving taxpayers at risk. U.S. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls. The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY 2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more than $50 billion in two years. According to the Congressional Research Service, this is more than the $49.7 billion spent by the DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years from 1973-2003. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for FY 2008.
This briefing is open to the public and no reservations are required.
Lieberman-Warner Subcommittee Markup on Thursday
On Thursday, the Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), will markup S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade climate legislation.
The LA Times calls for Congress to implement “simple carbon taxes that would assess polluters for the cost of their environmental damage and offset the resulting economic pain by lowering other taxes”, and failing that, 100% auction. The Roanoke Times supports L-W but calls for a tighter cap, citing UCS. The Center for American Progress, in an article primarily about the California wildfires, calls for these changes to L-W:
- Mandating that new coal fired power plants reduce their pollution by 85 percent using carbon and capture storage technology.
- Providing significantly more resources to protect people in Africa and Asia at risk from global warming impacts.
- Requiring all emitters to purchase allowances that allow them to emit greenhouse gases.
The Great Falls Tribune takes a look at the Montanan perspective, noting Baucus’s scripturally based support for the bill, the no-till agricultural offsets, allowances for rural electric cooperatives, CCS incentives, and the weak cap targets. The Helena Independent Record has more of Baucus’s perspective.
MarketWatch notes that hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, noting that environmentalists are calling for 100% auction and that US-CAP has avoided a stance, and links to the CBO report from this spring, Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions.
The Politico takes a look at the lobbying on L-W. Note to the Politico: “allocate” is not “legislative slang for ‘give away’”—auctions and free distribution are the alternative methods of allocation.
America’s Climate Security Act of 2007
Visit Hill Heat’s continuing coverage of. S 2191.
- 12-05 Full committee markup
- 11-15 Third full committee hearing
- 11-13 Second full committee hearing
- 11-08 First full committee hearing
- 11-01 Subcommittee markup
- 10-24 Subcommittee hearing
- Kevin Anton – president, Alcoa Materials Management
- Frances Beinecke – president, Natural Resources Defense Council
- William R. Moomaw – director, Institute for the Environment, Tufts University
- Will Roehm – vice president, Montana Grain Growers Association
- Paul Cicio – executive director, Industrial Energy Consumers of America
In order to assure that we get on, and stay on, the necessary emission reduction pathway, NRDC believes the coverage of the bill and the total amount of emissions reductions should be increased. . . . Scientists are telling us that we will need reductions in total U.S emissions on the order of 80% by 2050 in order to do our proportional part in a global program of preventing catastrophic impacts. Our calculations indicate that the bill will result in reducing total U.S. emissions by approximately 51-63 percent by 2050. In order to ensure that overall reductions keep pace with the science, NRDC believes that the bill’s coverage should be increased. The most important source of emissions that is not covered is the commercial and residential use of natural gas.It is important to distinguish between the abatement cost of a cap and trade system and its distributional implications. The abatement cost will be significant, but far less than the cost of inaction. At the same time, the value of the pollution allowances created by the law will be much higher: some estimates place their value between $30 and $100 billion per year.
The bill should be revised to allow EPA to take all necessary actions to avoid dangerous global warming by requiring additional reductions, including by changing applicable targets or through increasing the coverage of the bill.
The Sanders-Boxer bill contains two complementary performance standards for coal plants and we recommend the Subcommittee and Committee incorporate these concepts into S. 2191.
NRDC believes these pollution allowances are a public trust. They represent permission to use the atmosphere, which belongs to all of us, to dispose of global warming pollution. As such, they are not a private resource owned by historical emitters and such emitters do not have a permanent right to free allowances. The value of the allowances should be used for public purposes including promoting clean energy solutions, protecting the poor and other consumers, ensuring a just transition for workers in affected industries, and preventing human and ecosystem impacts both here and abroad, especially where they can lead to conflicts and threats to security.
The current bill’s allocation to electric power and industrial emitters, however, is still much higher than justified under “hold-harmless” principles and will result in windfall profits to the shareholders of emitters. For example, an economic analysis by Larry Goulder of Stanford University suggests that in an economy-wide upstream cap and trade program, only 13% of the allowances will be needed to cover the costs that fossil-fuel providers would not be able to pass on to their customers. Similar analyses, with similar results, have been conducted by Resources for The Future and the Congressional Budget Office.
As a result, NRDC believes that the bill should be improved substantially by reducing the starting percentage of free allowances to emitters and phasing them out faster – within 10-15 years of enactment.
House Passes Energy Storage and Industrial Energy Efficiency Bills
The House passed HR 3775 and 3776 today, both authored in the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Rep. Bart Gordon’s (D-TN) H.R. 3776, the Energy Storage Technology Advancement Act of 2007, provides for research, development, and demonstration programs to accelerate the development of advanced energy storage systems for vehicular, stationary, and electricity transmission and distribution applications, and support the ability of the United States to remain globally competitive in this field.
Endorsing groups include the Edison Electric Institute, American Electric Power, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, Johnson Controls, and Southern California Edison.
Rep. Nick Lampson’s (D-TX), H.R. 3775, the Industrial Energy Efficiency Research and Development Act of 2007, authorizes and supports research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of new industrial processes and technologies that will optimize energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic competitiveness of energy intensive industries. It also enhances ongoing efforts through better coordination of interdepartmental research, and expands Industrial Assessment Centers programs at universities to promote student training and adoption of energy efficient technologies and practices by small and medium-sized industries.
The budget for Industrial Technologies Program has decreased dramatically in recent years. The Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for Industrial Technologies was $45.6 million, an $11.3 million reduction from the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation. By comparison, appropriated levels as recently as Fiscal Year 2000 were as high as $175 million. These funding levels reflect a dramatic shift in priorities away from industrial efficiency R&D. H.R. 3775 works to restore this program and ensure continued gains in industrial energy efficiency and environmental performance through collaborative research and development.
Endorsing groups include the National Association of Manufacturers, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America and the Association of Materials Manufacturing Excellence.
Congress Nears Conference on Energy Bill 1
After negotiations with key Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday he was prepared to seek a conference with the House on energy policy legislation.“The Speaker wants to go to conference. I want to go to conference,” Reid, D-Nev., said on the floor Friday. “We know we can’t do a bill unless we include the Republicans in it.”
The unanimous consent to move to conference was blocked on a procedural basis by John Cornyn, R-Texas, Friday afternoon because many senators were traveling, but no objections were expected this week.
That said, the battle over CAFE standards remains strong, with the auto industry lobbying hard for the weaker Hill-Terry language (HR 2927). Last week GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner met with Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council, Nicole Nason, the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and EPA officials, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally is expected in DC this week.
Meanwhile, the natural gas industry is calling for expanded drilling:The American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and seven other trade associations representing natural gas producers, pipelines, and consumers jointly expressed strong concern Oct. 19 about US House energy legislation that they believe would reduce instead of increase domestic gas supplies. . . . The 2005 Energy Policy Act contains several provisions to encourage production in frontier areas, including ultradeep water, ultradeep gas, and offshore Alaska, which HR 3221 seeks to repeal, they said.
Lieberman-Warner Co-Sponsors
- Sen Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
- Sen Bob Casey (D-Penn.)
- Sen Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)
- Sen Susan Collins (R-Maine)
- Sen Liddy Dole (R-NC)
- Sen Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
- Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Cardin, Casey, and Klobuchar are also co-sponsors of Sanders-Boxer (S. 309). Casey and Harkin are co-sponsors of Binagaman-Specter (S. 1766). Coleman, Collins, and Klobuchar are co-sponsors of McCain-Lieberman (S. 280).
Casey is the author of the Climate Change Worker Assistance Program provision in S 2191.
Coleman is the chair of the Senate biofuels caucus.
Harkin is the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Klobuchar is the author of the Greenhouse Gas Registry provision in S 2191 (introduced as S 1387).
PG&E, Boxer, Sanders respond to Lieberman-Warner
More on the Lieberman-Warner legislation....
We believe America’s Climate Security Act provides a solid starting point for constructively advancing a comprehensive, national response to and policy on climate change. Senators Lieberman and Warner have developed a thoughtful proposal that recognizes the urgent need for action by designing a program to achieve significant emission reductions from all sectors of the economy.From Nature, Sen. Barbara Boxer:
Today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. We have the framework here. Every single issue that any one could raise about global warming has been raised in this bill, giving us the perfect place to start.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is more critical:
“The problem is even worse than many have previously suggested,” Sanders said. “If anything, the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January, the strongest legislation introduced in Congress to address global warming, is probably too conservative to address the problem. It is likely that we should be even more aggressive in our targets and timetables for mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”In a Senate floor statement, Sanders cited the views of major environmental groups on the Lieberman-Warner legislation.
Initial Responses to Lieberman-Warner
Environmental organizations have begun responding to the release of the Lieberman-Warner legislation.
Global warming legislation expected to be introduced tomorrow could provide giveaways worth hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to polluting industries, according to an analysis of a draft of the legislation conducted by Friends of the Earth. . . . The Friends of the Earth analysis found that the coal industry in particular stands to benefit from this legislation, precisely because it is currently the industry most responsible for global warming pollution. Depending on market conditions, the coal industry could receive permits worth up to $231 billion in the first year alone, 48 percent of the total permit allocation.
Lieberman and Warner have paved the way for a historic committee vote on a bill that promises to make great strides toward climate security and economic growth. Thanks to their thoughtful approach we’re moving beyond talk and quickly toward action. . . . The emissions goal is aggressive in the short-term and that will have a real impact on investment decisions made now. Most scientists say we need to cut U.S. emissions by about 80 percent, and we continue to believe that deeper reductions are needed long-term. This bill is a good start in that direction, and we will continue to work toward those longer term reductions.
The bill is a significant political step forward for the U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as introduced still falls short what is demanded by the science and the public to meet the challenge of global warming. . . .The Lieberman-Warner bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to catastrophic changes to the climate. Polluters should pay for what they do and any bill must allocate allowances for the public benefit, not private windfalls.The Sierra Club finds that the bill falls short of the standards of scientific integrity and economic fairness, calling for an economy-wide cap of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and full auction of emissions allowances.
Although this bill is a strong start, NRDC supports changes that would improve the bill by ensuring that emission reductions keep pace with the science, and by reducing free allocations and directing additional resources to provide more support for critical program features, including consumer and low-income protections, safeguards for affected workers, and faster deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions.
From our standpoint, it’s a good-faith political compromise, but it seems very unlikely to go very far unless President Bush does an unexpected 180 degree reversal. And it’s got some very significant warts.Clean Air Watch criticizes the giveaway of emissions credits and notes that the actual reductions in the bill come out to about 51% of overall US emissions by 2050 because the cap is not economy-wide.
We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership on global warming. . . . While we commend several of the improvements Senators Lieberman and Warner made to their bill, such as increasing the 2020 target to a 15% reduction in covered sectors and recognizing the vital check-and-balance role that enforcement must play in any climate bill, their bill must be strengthened in some vital areas.Earthjustice calls for economy-wide coverage, an 80% reduction (not 51-63% reduction) by 2050, increased auction, and the restoration of funding for international relief.
The Lieberman-Warner bill offers a strong starting point for action. . . . We are especially pleased by the commitment to conservation and protecting wildlife and habitat reflected in the bill. Senators Warner and Lieberman have been leaders in recognizing the magnitude of the challenge climate change poses for the natural world and for all of us.
Today’s introduction of America’s Climate Security Act marks an important step by this Congress to address the urgent problem of global warming. We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership and for their bipartisan commitment to moving America closer to real solutions to this very urgent problem. . . . We will continue to work to increase the reduction targets and the sectors covered in both the near and long term. We will also work to significantly increase the amount of allowances toward our goal of 100 percent auction, while ensuring that the auction revenues go to directly helping consumers, to increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and to helping impacted populations adapt to global warming both at home and abroad.
This is a bipartisan breakthrough on global warming that takes us a giant step closer to a historic vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for drafting a strong bill to protect people and wildlife from global warming.
Lieberman-Warner Releasing Draft Legislation: America's Climate Security Act 1
As reported at Gristmill, Sens. Lieberman and Warner intend to submit the draft of their cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), today. The legislation incorporated suggestions from stakeholders to adjust some figures from the draft outline released at the beginning of August. Notably, the 2020 reduction from 2005 emissions levels is increased from 10% to 15% (the Sanders-Boxer target), and the peak auction percentage (reached in 2036) is increased from 52% to 73%. There are numerous other components, adjustments, and details.
How does Lieberman-Warner stack up to the Sanders-Lautenberg principles or the Step It Up 2 provisions?
Sanders-Lautenberg- CAP: The 2020 target is as strong as Sanders-Boxer, but the 2050 target is much weaker (67% by 2050 instead of 80%) and only 75% of emissions are regulated; there are numerous explicit provisions to loosen controls to protect the economy but none to change them to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHG; however, it calls for a report every three years looks at both economic and environmental impacts
- POLLUTER PAYS: The bill does not transition quickly to a full auction. Spending of auction revenues is generally in line with Sanders-Lautenberg, though large amounts go to CCS development
- ENCOURAGE STATE LEADERSHIP: The bill explicitly rewards states with stricter standards than the federal cap
- ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: The bill includes green building standards and low-carbon fuel provisions, among others, but does not require new coal plants to have CCS
- NO LOOPHOLES AND LIMITED OFFSETS: The annual caps may be temporarily increased by as much as 20% if later caps are tightened and companies pay interest on “borrowed” allowances; offsets are limited to 15% of allowances and are held to the Sanders-Lautenberg standard
- GREEN JOBS: There is some funding for green jobs, but not 5 million by 2015
- EFFICIENCY: There is not a federal efficiency standard of 20% greater efficiency by 2015
- CAP: As decribed above, the cap is not economy-wide, and is 15% by 2020 and 67% by 2050, not 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
- NO NEW COAL: There is not a moratorium on new coal plants without CCS
Full comparison of October release with the original August draft below the jump.
Cap
The bill specifies an annual aggregate tonnage cap, expressed in terms of Co2 equivalence, for each year from 2012 through 2050. The cap that the bill will specify for 2012 will be the 2005 emissions level. And: 10% 15% below 2005 by 2020, 30% by 2030, 50% by 2030, 70% by 2050. With respect to 1990 levels: 19% above 1990 levels by 2012, at 1990 levels by 2020, 17% below by 2030, 40% by 2030, 67% by 2050.
The emissions monitoring and reporting system is modeled on Klobuchar-Snowe (S 1387).
Coverage
Covered sectors represent about 80% 75% of total US emissions. The agricultural sector is not covered. Residential appliances are not covered by the cap, but efficiency standards in the bill apply to them.
Allowances
- Each year from 2012 to 2016 20% of that year’s National Emission Allowance Account for free to covered entities within the industry sector, transitioning to zero by 2036.
- In 2012 20% of the NEAA will be allocated to the electric power sector. A portion of that 20% will be free to new entrants to the electric power sector. The allocation will be at 20% from 2012 – 2016, then transition to 0% by 2036.
- 10% will be allocated to load-serving entities to defray energy-cost impacts on low- and middle-income consumers and to promote demand-side energy efficency, some of it for free to rural electric cooperative facilities.
8%5% will be allocated to covered entities who have taken pre-enactment action since the 1994 Rio Treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That8%5% will transition to 0% by20202017.-
Each year 4% will be allocated to state governments, half based on population, half on historical state emissions.Each year 9% will be allocated to state governments as such:- 5% split 1/3 based on LIHEAP expenditures; 1/3 based on population; 1/3 based on amount of coal mining, natural gas processing, and petroleum refining
- 1% to states that have at least 90% of new buildings complying with the efficiency codes in the HR 3221
- 1% to states that have adopted decoupling regulations for any electric and natural gas utilities in the state
- 2% to states with a stricter cap than the federal cap
- Each year until 2035 4% will be placed into a reserve “Bonus Account”, to be allocated to
US coal minesfirms who successfully perform geologic sequestration of CO2 from electricity generation, with a multiplier of 4.5 per unit of CO2 sequestered in 2012 that decreases to zero in 2040 - Each year
7.5%5% will be allocated to farmers, foresters, and other landowners to store carbon in soils, crops, and forests. -
Each year 2.5% will be allocated to the transportation sector. - Each year 3% will be allocated for reducing the rate of tropical deforestation in other nations
- 6% of the 2012 allowances, 4% of 2013, and 2% of 2012 are to be disbursed in early auctions starting within one year of enactment and ending in 2011
Allowances for Auction
- 24% in 2012 will go to auction under the aegis of the Climate Change Credit Corporation; rising to
52% by 203573% by 2036.
Auction Proceeds
- 20% for a public-private partnership for power-sector technologies including CCS
- 20% for public-private partnership for CCS
- 20% for transportation sector technologies and reducing miles traveled
- 10% for environmental mitigation
- 10% for SO2, NOx, mercury emission reduction from coal plants
- 10% to state and local for low-income community mitigation
- 10% for international mitigation
- 55% to Energy Technology Deployment Program
- 20% to Energy Assistance Fund
- 20% to Adaptation Fund
- 5% to Climate Change Worker Training Fund
new Energy Technology Deployment Program
A series of financial incentive programs designed to accelerate the development and deployment of renewable electricity technologies, low-carbon electricity technologies, advanced bio-fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, CO2 capture and storage systems, electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and high-efficiency consumer products.
new Energy Assistance Fund
- 50% to LIHEAP
- 25% to the Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income Persons
- 25% to a new Rural Energy Assistance Program
new Climate Change Worker Training Fund
Funding for a new Department of Labor workforce education, training, and placement program.
new Adaptation Fund- 40% to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
- 20% to the Interior Department for funding endangered species, migratory bird, and other fish and wildlife programs.
- 5% to the Interior Department for cooperative grant programs that benefit wildlife.
- 5% to US Forest Service for adaptation activities carried out on National Forests and National Grasslands
- 25% split evenly between EPA and Army Corps for restoring large-scale freshwater and estuarine ecosystems
- 5% to Commerce Department for cooperative grant programs such as the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, the Community-Based Restoration Program, and programs established under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
CCS
CCS regulations and a legal framework for the Federal assumption of liability for geological storage will be proposed by a study group within two years of enactment.
Carbon Market Efficiency Board, Banking
- Up to 15% of the allowances a covered entity must submit may be comprised of borrowed allowances, with an interest rate
set by the Boardof 10%, adjustable by the Board. - Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of offset credits.
- Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of allowances purchased on a certified foreign greenhouse gas emissions trading market.
- the Board may increase the number of emissions credits if the average daily closing price of an emissions credit exceeds the upper end of the range predicted by the CBO prior to the start of the program.
- The Board may adjust the terms and interest rates of the emissions loans “as needed to avoid significant harm to the economy” and “in the event of more extreme economic circumstances” to raise the cap temporarily by as much as 5% provided that subsequent year’s caps are tightened so that cumulative reductions are unchanged.
Offsets
“The bill will set forth detailed, rigorous requirements for offsets, with the purpose of ensuring that they will represent real, additional, verifiable, and permanent emissions reductions.”
Foreign Tariffs
[Modeled on Bingaman-Specter (S 1766)] The President will be authorized eight years after enactment to require that importers of GHG-intensive products submit emissions allowances of a value equivalent to that of the allowances that the US system effectively requires of domestic manufacturers, if it is determined that nation has not taken commensurate action to reduce GHG emissions.
new Climate Change and National Security Council
The Secretary of State is the Council’s chair, and the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence are the Council’s other members.
The Council makes an annual report to the President and the Congress on how global climate change affects instability and conflict, and recommends spending to mitigate global warming impacts and conflict.
Up to five percent of auction proceeds, at the President’s discretion, may be used to carry out the report recommendations.
new Energy Efficiency
ACSA includes the appliance and building efficiency provisions of HR 3221.
new Reviews
Two National Academy of Sciences reports every three years:- a broad review to determine:
- whether the cap-and-trade system is functioning properly
- whether the emissions trading market is liquid, transparent, and relatively free of dangerous volatility
- whether US emissions are coming down as projected
- whether atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions are stabilizing, on account of US and overseas emissions trends
- whether any of the allocations or uses of auction proceeds should be changed
- whether additional measures are required to protect low- and moderate- income Americans to cope with cost changes
- whether technology deployment is enabling the US economy to comply with ACSA’s emissions caps without suffering hardship, and recommendations for a tightening or a loosening of the emissions caps
A one-time EPA report recommending policies to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
Regionally-specific analyses by the EPA of the new infrastructure, safety, health, land-use planning policies necessary for adaptation.
new Miscellaneous
The President is authorized to suspend the provisions of the bill in the event of a national emergency.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is required to require publicly traded companies to disclose global warming related financial risks.
Actions that EPA takes pursuant to ACSA are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Clean Air Act.
States are not preempted from enacting and enforcing greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal ones.
Solar Decathlon Showcases Green Homes for Today: How Energy Bill Provisions Can Support High-Performance Homes 2
The Solar Decathlon-taking place on the National Mall October 12 – 20- is an exciting competition in which 20 teams of college and university students from across the country, including four international teams, compete to design, build, and operate the most attractive, effective, and energy-efficient solar-powered house. The house must also be able to power an electric vehicle as well as be “off the grid.” These solar homes are powerful, comfortable, and stylish. They are relaxed and elegant, wasting neither space nor energy. High efficiency solar houses like these are using readily available technology and designs-not futuristic concepts. But policies like stronger building codes and the solar provisions in the energy bill are essential in helping make our homes greener and much more efficient-saving both energy and money.
- Rhone Resch, Executive Director, Solar Energy Industries Association
- Dr. Kaye Brubaker, Associate Professor, University of Maryland
- Bill Nesmith, Assistant Director for Conservation, Oregon Department of Energy
- Lowell Ungar, Director of Policy, Alliance to Save Energy
In addition to discussing the Solar Decathlon, the briefing will address the role of codes and standards in building energy efficiency. Measures to promote increased residential building energy efficiency are included in the House energy bill HR 3221, Title IX, Sec. 9031. “Encouraging Stronger Building Codes.” The briefing panel will also discuss the solar provisions in the energy bill, including tax incentives for solar energy.
This briefing is open to the public and no reservations are required. For more information, please contact Fred Beck at [email protected] or 202.662.1892.