California's Proposition 23
This coming campaign season, Californians will be given the opportunity to vote on Proposition 23, an initiative that would suspend California's clean energy legislation, the Global Warming Act of 2006 or AB32. The California Jobs Initiative, a movement reportedly financed by Texas oil companies, is charging that AB32 will cost California 1.1 million jobs and $3.7 billion a year in higher energy costs.
Continue Reading...Potential Battles Ahead on Energy and Climate Policy if the Republicans Win the House
The prospects of a Republican-led House have been increasing as the U.S. nears the November mid-term elections. If Republicans do win back control of the House, it will dramatically reshape the contours of the national debate on energy and climate policy. The discussion would shift from a discussion over legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions to the following issues.
Continue Reading...What now on Climate Legislation?
While faint glimmers of hope remain alive that the Senate will pass climate change legislation this Fall or during a lame duck session of Congress, most observers anticipate that cap-and-trade will have to wait for the future in terms of federal action. Two particularly interesting perspectives on the “What Now” question have emerged in the past week that deserve attention and analysis.
Continue Reading...A Time for Action
President Obama's first Oval Office address was highly anticipated, as there is mounting criticism of the Administration's management of the BP oil spill. Supporters of climate and clean energy legislation eagerly gathered around their televisions in hopes that the President would provide the much needed road map detailing how this tragedy should transform American thinking on energy policy going forward.
However, many were left disappointed as the President did not answer some key questions nor did he set forth specific expectations for the Senate's summer session. There was considerable rhetoric about the country's oil addiction and the need for compelling and immediate clean energy legislation, but President Obama offered few specifics, although he seemed to provide some support for combining elements of several bills. However, the President, did not go so far as to mention a price on carbon, raising the tax on gasoline, or placing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue Reading...A Plea for America's Green Energy Future from Top Industry Leaders
I have to hand it to star-studded leadership of The American Energy Innovation Council. They have true grit for issuing their report this morning right in the teeth of a strong economic wind with oil gushing into the Gulf and a balky and indecisive Congress poised for energy inaction. The Council's report, A Business Plan for America’s Energy Future, is an optimistic, energetic call to renew the national transition to clean, affordable, and secure supplies of energy.
Achieving Fast Mitigation: Kerry-Lieberman and UnSNAPing a Mobile Refrigerant
It's easy to overlook crucial provisions of the Senate climate bill that address strategies to reduce non-CO2 climate-forcing that accounts for almost half of the warming effect our activities cause. In the brouhaha the bill caused, it was also easy to overlook the significance of a petition from NGOs to EPA asking it to end the privileged status of the most widely used mobile air conditioning refrigerant, which has a global warming potential (GWP) up at 1,400. Yet these two closely-related actions, despite having nothing to do with CO2 emissions from the power plants targeted by the Senate bill, may well provide the most significant climate protections the US achieves in the near term.
Continue Reading...Kerry-Lieberman (Minus Graham) Release "The American Power Act"
Talking Points
- Senators Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Lieberman (I-Connecticut) have released the much anticipated discussion draft of the American Power Act (APA). Originally the bill was to include Senator Graham (R-South Carolina) as a co-sponsor as he played an integral role in the development of the legislation. However, Senator Graham withdrew from co-sponsoring prior to public release of the legislation, citing perceived Democratic shifting of priorities towards immigration reform as an act of bad faith by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and the White House.
- The bill has been released and is undergoing economic modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Agency. Senator Reid has indicated the bill will only go to the floor for a Senate vote if it has a real shot at passing. 60 votes necessary to overcome a likely filibuster are not yet secured. The bill could reach the floor in June or July.
- The APA has significant stakeholder support with endorsements from a range private sector interests including Dow, Florida Light & Power, General Electric and American Electric Power. The US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute both released statements welcoming the legislation but stopped short of specific endorsements. Several leading environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund support the bill.
- The bill is framed around 5 central themes: 1) Benefits to Consumers, 2) Energy Independence, 3) US Competitiveness and Job Creation, 4) Reducing Emissions differently for power plants, heavy industry and transportation, and 5) Regulatory Predictability.
Spill Baby Spill or Blow Man Blow?
This week we are seeing two starkly different uses of offshore natural resources playing out on a national stage. In the context of emerging climate and energy legislation, its worth taking another look at the risks and costs of both as Congress and the Obama Administration deliberate on policy incentives for offshore wind and oil that are pursued through legislation or Executive Branch action.
In Louisiana, an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day are leaking from BP's Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico after Transocean Ltd.'s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded a few days ago. Reports are that people in Louisiana can already smell the oil. BP is working to stop the flow of oil and experts suggest BP will need to drill a “relief well” to halt the leak. Such a mitigation process can take upwards of 3 months. BP is reportedly spending $6 million a day in this effort and preparation of two relief wells will cost an estimated $200 million. (Adding in US Government support costs, Evolution Securities suggests that the “net cost to BP of the cleanup operation so far plus the drilling of two relief wells would be around $845 million.” This figure does not necessarily address harm some experts anticipate to Louisiana coastal communities and their ecosystem services, and potential punitive damages that could emerge. The punitive damage figure for ExxonMobil as a result of the Valdez spill in Alaska was approximately $507.5 million after the Supreme Court struck down the original figure of $2.5 billion as excessive.)
Continue Reading...Jobs or Litigation?
It is now well-documented that Senator Graham has pulled back from co-sponsorship of a climate and energy bill. Whether Senator Graham gets assurances regarding sequencing of climate and energy before an immigration bill going to the Senate floor, and comes back into the fold over the next few days remains to be seen. But its fairly clear that a tough political hurdle to climb is now even more difficult than ever as a bipartisan vote that brings a few more Republicans on board becomes problematic without the Senator from South Carolina working his colleagues on that side of the aisle. If this is not turned around, the promise of green jobs in the US will make way to a season of litigation.
Continue Reading...Clean Energy Standard and Canadian Hydro1
Senator Graham has floated a “Clean Energy Standard” in place of a national “Renewable Energy Standard,” as part of his bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation with Senators Kerry and Lieberman. The provisions would create significant demand for increased use of natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture & storage alongside renewable energy. However, forgotten in this proposed standard is the role that Canadian hydropower plays in the US transition to a low carbon economy.
Hydropower produces 90 times fewer greenhouse gases than coal-fired plants and over 40 times fewer than the least carbon intensive of the thermal generation options, the natural gas combined cycle. Electricity from the Canadian province of Québec alone has contributed to reduce emissions in the Northeast region of the US by approximately 30 Mt of CO2 equivalent, from 2001 to 2008. Canada has plans to bring on significant new sources of hydropower. This energy in large part will be exported to the US utilities. All sources of hydropower energy sold in or to the United States, where such facilities are certified by regulatory authorities to have complied stringent environmental laws should qualify for clean energy standards. There is no doubt that large hydropower has its share of risks, but so do other sources of energy proposed for a clean energy standard and without the same climate benefits and Canadian hydro should not be put at a disadvantage by pending legislation.
Continue Reading...