Polluters Believe This May Be the Best Year for Climate Legislation

Posted by Brad Johnson on 17/01/2008 at 11:35AM

Representatives of the coal, oil, and gas lobby met yesterday at the United States Energy Association’s “State of the Energy Industry” conference at the National Press Club in Washington. They agreed that Lieberman-Warner may be the best legislation they can hope for, especially if issues like polar bear habitat set the standard for legislation.

Katherine Ling reports for E&E Daily that David Parker, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, said “Who would you rather have writing a bill in the Senate? I might guess it may set a tone for business to fully work with the Senate this year.” He continued that “the polar bear habitat is going to really drive this [climate change] debate. We all have a big education job to do and I think we need to do it collectively.”

Bill Scher has further commentary at Blog for Our Future.

At the Auto Show: Dingell Supports EPA's Denial of California Waiver

Posted by Brad Johnson on 16/01/2008 at 02:38PM

In a Detroit News piece entitled Dingell tours show; says state-by-state emissions rules would doom carmakers, David Shepardson writes that Dingell fully supported last month’s decision by the EPA to deny the California waiver to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

Dingell, D-Dearborn, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said if California got the waiver it could impose conflicting federal and state standards. The California standards could be make automobile production “so expensive that people won’t be able to buy and second of all get so difficult that the companies won’t be able to produce anyhow.”

Dingell said the California system could lead to 50 different standards. He said the EPA decision “makes good sense.”

As has been previously discussed on Hill Heat, the specter of 50 different standards is simply false. Under the Clean Air Act only California has the authority to get waivers from national standards. Other states can then follow California or the federal standards. At most there can be two different standards.

Dingell plans to introduce a climate change bill in his committee “as fast as we can” but wants to exclude the auto industry, arguing that the CAFE standards in the 2007 energy bill are sufficient regulation: “We’ve had everybody else get practically a free ride and auto industry has to come up with a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency,” Dingell said. “We’re going to try to see that the pain is shared equally all around.”

Update: Dingell has issued a clarification of his remarks, stating that he considers CAFE standards to be a “carbon constraint” and that the CAFE standard increase “tightens the cap on automobiles by 40 percent by 2020.” Any carbon cap would entail “further reductions” that would be have to matched by “comparable contributions” by other industries.

Shepardson also reports on an interview with Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s office of transportation and air quality. She didn’t expect the agency to issue a formal written denial “until next month at the earliest.” The EPA may be trying to argue that its the EPA press release announcing the denial isn’t actually grounds for a suit to overturn the decision. She also said that the EPA “completed its draft of its own new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” but didn’t provide details.

Lieberman-Warner Markup Summary: Morning

Posted by Brad Johnson on 05/12/2007 at 11:16AM

The morning part of the session was carried live on C-SPAN 2.

Sen. Bond’s chart from his opening statement:

Amendments

Amendments adopted: Sanders low-carbon manufacturing incentives, Lautenberg decoupling incentives, Cardin good government.

Amendments rejected: Craig offramps, Inhofe auto-industry job offramp, Bond low-income family cost-relief, Isakson nuclear title, Voinovich available-tech offramp.

Amendment withdrawn: Carper multiple-pollutant title.

Enviro-Energy Corp Report Says US Can Achieve Greenhouse Goals

Posted by Brad Johnson on 03/12/2007 at 11:09AM

Last week McKinsey & Company released a report, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, that found that the goals of current greenhouse gas emissions reduction legislation for 2030 are achievable with current technology and at manageable cost, although it warned:

Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future.

The report was commissioned by the environmental organizations Environmental Defense and National Resources Defense Council and the energy technology companies Honeywell, National Grid, PG&E Corporation, Shell, and DTE Energy. The Conference Board, the leading U.S. corporate think tank, endorsed the paper.

McKinsey found that a broad mix of abatement options need to be followed; no one strategy accounted for more than 11% of the total abatement, noting:

In regions with high-carbon grids, energy efficiency improvements, typically through upgrades to building standards, HVAC equipment, and appliances, are likely to be the most effective and lowest-cost strategies. Conversely, sectors and regions with access to low-carbon grid infrastructure offer more compelling applications of such emerging technologies as PHEVs (plug-in hybrid vehicles).

In its conclusion the report reiterated the importance of immediately implementing energy efficiency strategies, many of which end up saving more money than they cost, to “buy time” for emerging technologies to develop commercially.

New Lieberman-Warner Draft Circulated

Posted by Brad Johnson on 29/11/2007 at 11:58AM

From EE News (subs. req.), Sen. Boxer has led the drafting of a new version of Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191) in preparation for her committee markup a week from today.

An aide to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a lead co-author of the bill, said one of the biggest changes involves an “upstream” cap placed on the heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that come from natural gas processors. With the new bill’s natural gas section, more than 80 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that come from the U.S. economy will be covered under the legislation.

Previously, the bill dealt with about 75 percent of the U.S. economy.

Another change in the legislation speeds up by five years the end date for the free emission credits given out to power plants, manufacturers and other industrial sources. Free credits will now be phased out at the start of 2031, rather than the start of 2036.

Some of the other changes (see line-by-line comparison):

  • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are separately capped (all allowances freely distributed), to “remove the financial incentive for companies to shut down their plants that use HFCs and move them to countries that don’t have similar limits” (s. 1202, 3901, 3906, 10001-11002)
  • 25% of energy R&D funds explicitly allocated to renewable energy projects (an increase from a failed Sanders amendment in subcommittee markup) (s. 4401, s. 4406)
  • 0.5% of annual emissions allowances to go to a “program for achieving” methane emissions reductions from landfills and coal mines (s. 3907)
  • 1% of annual emissions allowances to go to states for mass transit funding, distributed following federal highway aid apportionment rules (s. 3304)
  • Per the request of international aid groups, the national-security requirement for the Climate Change and National Security Fund has been dropped (s. 4801-4804)
  • SEC requirement of corporate disclosure of climate risks dropped (s. 9002)
  • Interagency Climate Task Force headed by EPA Administrator to submit a report “make public and submit to the President a consensus report making recommendations, including specific legislation for the President to recommend to Congress” in 2019 based on the triennial National Academy of Sciences reports
  • Details added to Climate Change Worker Training Program (s. 4602-4606)
  • Details added to Adaptation Fund (including combatting ocean acidification) (s. 4702)
  • Details added to eligibility for carbon sequestration bonus allowances (s. 3602)

2007 CBO Director's Conference on Climate Change

CBO will hold the 2007 Director’s Conference on Climate Change on Friday, November 16, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CBO Director Peter Orszag will host the conference, which will feature leading researchers addressing key questions in the debate on climate change.

Allocating Allowances: Efficiency and Distributional Effects

  • Lawrence Goulder, Stanford University
  • Richard Goettle, Northeastern University
  • Dallas Burtraw, Resources for the Future
  • Gilbert Metcalf, Tufts University

Near-Term and Long-Term Emissions Reductions: Technology, Coverage, and Costs

  • Howard K. Gruenspecht, Energy Information Administration
  • Francisco De La Chesnaye, Environmental Protection Agency
  • Henry D. Jacoby, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • John P. Weyant, Stanford University

Space is limited so please register in advance by emailing the CBO Office of Communications contact below.

The Director’s Conference is held each year to bring outside experts together with CBO analysts in a collaborative effort that helps further the agency’s research agenda.

Press Contact: Melissa Merson Director of Communications (202) 226-2602 [email protected]

Congressional Budget Office
2168 Rayburn
16/11/2007 at 09:00AM

NWF Campaign Targets 50 House Lawmakers

Posted by Brad Johnson on 13/11/2007 at 04:38PM

The National Wildlife Federation has launched a campaign to get a total of 218 sponsors for the Waxman (HR 1590, equivalent to Boxer-Sanders) or the Olver-Gilchrest (HR 620, equivalent to McCain-Lieberman) cap-and-trade climate bills. The two bills combined have 170 co-sponsors. NWF is targeting what they call The Final Fifty, fifty legislators who have not co-sponsored either bill.

Boucher Says Bush Open to Coal-Friendly Cap-and-Trade Legislation

Posted by Brad Johnson on 08/11/2007 at 04:32PM

From E&E News (subs. req.): Boucher told a business forum that he has been in talks with the Bush’s environmental advisors, including Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, about crafting cap-and-trade legislation Bush would sign.

According to the E&E report, Boucher did not think that having a bill that largely preempted state efforts would be problematic. He went on to say that there need to be more protections for the coal industry, and a minimal cap on emissions for the next twenty years.

Boucher said any measure that forces coal-fired power plants to curb emissions too fast – before carbon capture and sequestration can be widely deployed – would cause major shifts to natural gas and drive up prices.

Boucher said the upcoming climate bill will provide a “somewhat forgiving, a gentle introduction to controls” until carbon capture and storage is ready, which he said would be around 2025. Before that, he said, coal-fired utilities will need other options available to meet obligations, such as purchase of offsets.

“The schedule prior to 2025 has got to be more forgiving,” he told reporters. “The schedule after 2025 can be very rigorous.”

Boucher said Senate proposals would impose major limits too fast. “I don’t think the Senate bills adequately address that need because the control schedule is quite severe in the early years, before we have carbon capture and storage available,” he said. “If they default to natural gas, real harm to the economy occurs.”

S.2191, to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases

Full committee hearing on Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation.

Witnesses

  • Peter A. Darbee, Chairman of the Board, CEO, and President, PG&E Corporation
  • Jonathan C. Pershing, Director, Climate, Energy and Pollution Program Climate and Energy, World Resources Institute
  • Anne E. Smith, Vice President, CRA International
  • Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation
  • Wiley Barbour, Executive Director, Environmental Resources Trust

PG&E and WRI are members of US-CAP. The Environmental Resources Trust is connected to Environmental Defense, another US-CAP member.

Thorning has appeared regularly as a minority witness challenging cap-and-trade in previous hearings. Anne Smith also has appeared as a minority witness challenging cap-and-trade in a recent House hearing.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen

08/11/2007 at 09:30AM

NWF at Power Shift on Cap-and-Auction

Posted by Brad Johnson on 07/11/2007 at 05:44PM

At the National Wildlife Federation table at Power Shift Youth Summit:

Q: Does the National Wildlife Federation support the idea of a cap and auction system?

A: Yeah, we’ve been working for a number of years on supporting the best cap-and-trade system possible. We support 100% auction of credits, or if there is distribution, there should only be distribution for public benefit, and want to see good legislation come out of Congress. Our time for strong action is rapidly dwindling and want to see the best legislation we can possibly pass as soon as we can possibly pass it.