Hill Heat

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.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists released a new version of “Cashing In on Clean Energy”, judging the economic and environmental effects of a 15% renewable electricity standard (RES) by 2020 (aka renewable portfolio standard (RPS)), the standard called for in HR 3221, the House energy bill. [The Senate version did not include the Bingaman amendment of the same standard, and the provision is at the negotiating table; the initial UCS study looked at a 20% by 2020 standard; the 1Sky/Step It Up campaign calls for 20% by 2015.]

Using an Energy Information Administration (EIA) model, The UCS found the following:

• Consumer savings would equal $13 billion to $18.1 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion by 2030 if the standard does not increase)
• Clean, renewable energy capacity would increase between 3.6 and 4.5 times over 2005 levels
• Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking between 13.7 and 20.6 million cars off the road

The ranges are generated for lower and higher RES scenarios, depending on implementation choices:

Under our “lower renewable energy case”: (1) all states opt into a provision that allows electric service providers to use energy efficiency to meet up to 27 percent of their annual targets, and (2) additional renewable energy generation from electric power providers having to meet higher targets under state standards is eligible. Under the “higher renewable energy case”: (1) states with renewable standards that are higher than the federal targets (there are 18) do not opt into the energy efficiency provision, and (2) additional renewable energy generation used to meet state standards is retired and not eligible for use under the national standard.

In a story reported by Associated Press (see Washington Post, ED, WattHead, CQ), Barbara Boxer revealed that CDC director Julie Gerberding’s written testimony (uncensored version) at Tuesday’s EPW hearing on global warming impacts on health was dramatically cut by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget after questions were raised by John H. Marburger III, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Six of the deleted pages detailed how global warming might affect Americans and they included a section with the title, “Climate Change is a Public Concern.”

On Wednesday, House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Brad Miller sent a letter to Marburger formally requesting all documents related to the matter by next Monday:

We expect our government researchers and scientists to provide to both Congress and the public the full results of their taxpayer-supported work without the filter that those of opposing views might like to impose. Otherwise, we cannot have a full and free scientific debate.

Marburger released a statement today (from Andy Revkin’s NYT Dot Earth blog), claiming:

Those commentators have missed or ignored several nuanced but important differences between the I.P.C.C. report’s findings and the draft testimony.

Barbara Boxer responsed:

Dr. Marburger’s statement is a lame defense of the White House action to censor information the American people deserve to know about the dangers of global warming.

DeSmogBlog shows what was cut from the report, saying:

These were not minor edits the White House PR spin machine would like us to believe. The word-count for the CDC Director’s Senate testimony went from 3,107 to 1,500 after the White House got through with it.

Whole sections on health related effects to extreme weather, air pollution-related health effect, allergic diseases, water and food-borne infectious diseases, food and water scarcity and the long term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects were completely wiped out of the testimony.

Last week, Markey sent this dear colleague letter (forwarded to Hill Heat) on the connection between wildfires and global warming, the subject of a Global Warming Committee hearing next week:

Record-Breaking Forest Fires in Western United State Increasingly Fueled By Global Warming

October 19, 2007

Dear Colleague,

Evidence shows that as a result of global warming, forest fires in our western states are burning more frequently and with greater intensity than we have ever seen before. Last year was the worst fire season in recorded history and this season is already second, with eight million acres burned.

What has brought this change about? A study published in the journal Science in 2006 revealed the frightening conclusion that global warming is contributing to the increased loss of our forests to fire. This publication revealed the impact of global warming, even while controlling for land use and management practices which also effect forest fires.

According to the Science paper, “Wildfires have consumed increasing areas of western United States forests in recent years, and fire-fighting expenditures by federal land-management agencies now regularly exceed US$1 billion/year. Hundreds of homes are burned annually by wildfires, and damages to natural resources are sometimes extreme and irreversible.” [1]

Global Warming’s impact on fires in the West and the threat that an increasing number of wild fires pose will be featured on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. 60 Minutes will speak with author Tom Swetnam, an author on the 2006 Science paper, on the role global warming has played on the frequency and intensity of these mega-fires. I encourage you watch this program to learn more about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey

Member of Congress

[1] C. Whitlock, Nature 432, 28 (2004).

As discussed by Sean Siperstein at Warming Law, Washington governor Christine Gregoire announced last week that her state would join California when it files suit against the EPA for delay on the waiver petition to allow California and 11 other states to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles (“clean car” regulations). This week the New York Times reported that New York and the other states intend to join the lawsuit as well.

California intended to file suit against the EPA on Monday, 181 days after its request for action following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA:

We provided 180-day notice on April 26, 2007, of our intent to sue under the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act, which provide mechanisms for compelling delayed agency action. However, we had frankly held out hope that this dispute would be resolved without the time and expense of a lengthy court battle. Given your comments in front of the Special Committee and the work of the U.S. Department of Transportation, a lawsuit on the 181st day now appears to be inevitable.

The filing of the lawsuit has been delayed by the raging wildfires in California.

As Lieberman-Warner has its first hearing, Sierra Club, Audobon, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. PIRG released these seven principles for climate change legislation:

• Reform energy policy: New national energy policies should encourage efficiency, innovation, competition, and fairness. We need more aggressive energy efficiency policies for electricity and buildings, increased CAFE standards like those passed by the Senate, and the renewable electricity standard included in the House energy bill.
• Promote a clean energy future: Invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy to create new industries and good jobs here at home.
• Cap and cut carbon emissions to science-based levels: Science tells us in order to prevent the worst impacts of global warming we must start cutting global warming pollution by 2012, with reductions in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of at least 15 to 20 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percent by mid-century.
• Use all public assets for public benefit: The value of carbon permits should benefit the public – through auctions or other mechanisms – not generate windfalls for polluting industries. Free allocations, if any, must be limited to a short transition period.
• Ensure a just transition: Allowances should be used to help finance a just transition that keeps and creates jobs, reduces impacts on low-and moderate-income citizens, and mitigates harm to affected workers and communities.
• Provide aid to adapt to an altered climate: Allowances should be used to help distressed and impoverished people around the world, as well as wildlife and ecosystems in the face of global warming’s varied threats.
• Manage costs without breaking the cap. “Safety valves” and other devices that break the cap on emissions must not be allowed. Any offsets must be real, surplus, verifiable, permanent, and enforceable.

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.

From CQ:

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.

New York Times:

When you are the wife of a movie mogul, you can do more than simply complain about the unusual weather that is wreaking havoc with your favorite surf break. Equipped with a Hollywood aura and impeccable social connections — not to mention sheaves of data-filled talking points — you can count on at least 20 minutes’ worth of respectful attention in Washington, with legislators willing to throw open their doors for activists who share the last names of some deep-pocketed donors.

Which is why a team of eco-wives from the entertainment industry descended on Washington last week, hoping to ride a bit of the momentum from Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize in a city that can be unusually receptive to Hollywood celebrity, even if it has been deadlocked over environmental legislation this year.

The Natural Resources Defense Council Action Forum was founded in 2000 by Laurie David and Elizabeth Wiatt, pulling in six other Hollywood wives by 2004. It’s being renamed to the Leadership Council.

The intial co-sponsors of Lieberman and Warner’s America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) are:

• 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).