McKenna Long & Aldridge Launches "Politics, Law & Policy" Blog
The team here at Climate Change Insights wants to welcome a phenomenal group of commentators to the McKenna Long & Aldridge blogosphere. Earlier this week, MLA launched its newest blog, “Politics, Law and Policy,” authored by a bipartisan group of attorneys and public policy advisors in the firm’s nationally-recognized government affairs practice. The blog will serve as an important resource for those seeking analysis and resources on the impact of federal and state politics and public policies on a wide range of issues and debates, including health care, energy, infrastructure, taxes, transportation, cybersecurity, and campaign and election compliance.
Continue Reading...Will California LCFS ruling affect other state and regional climate initiatives?
On December 29, U.S. District Judge Lawrence O’Neil issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) low carbon fuel standard (“LCFS”). The lawsuit, brought by the ethanol, oil and trucking industries, alleged that California’s LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by federal law. Judge O’Neil held that California’s LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because the regulation impermissibly attempts to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling, however, dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that federal law preempted California’s LCFS. An important question will be the influence that this recent decision will have on other state and regional climate initiatives.
Continue Reading...Watch What Happens: Top 5 U.S. Climate & Energy Questions in 2012
President Obama came into his first term in office focused on 3 key energy and climate issues: 1) cap & trade legislation, 2) offshore oil production and 3) scaled-up support for nuclear energy. 2011 saw all those issues depart as centerpieces of U.S. policy direction. 2012 will bring a set of high stakes questions that will set the direction.
Continue Reading...Would a CES Raise Electricity Prices?
At the request of House Science and Technology Committee Chair Ralph Hall (R-TX), the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) released a study this week on the potential impacts of a clean energy standard (“CES”). In January’s State of the Union address, President Obama called for Congress to pass legislation creating a CES, which would require that utilities generate 80% of their electricity from “clean” sources by 2035. “Clean” sources would include not only renewables but also nuclear, natural gas and coal-fired power plants employing carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Rhetoric increases over alleged EPA regulatory "train wreck" but will reliability really be imperiled?
As part of their fall jobs agenda, House Republicans are targeting a number of controversial EPA regulations, including the utility MACT and cross-state air pollution (“CSAP”) rules. Opponents of these and other rules argue that they will result in a regulatory “train wreck,” which could threaten the reliability of domestic electricity grid. Next week, the House is expected to consider H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, which would require an analysis of the cumulative economic impacts of EPA’s air, waste, water and climate change rules. In addition, two House Committees held hearings this week regarding the potential impacts of these rules. The House Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing with commissioners from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on the potential reliability and costs implications of the utility MACT, CSAP and other proposed EPA regulatory actions. A House Science Committee also heard testimony from EPA, utilities and state regulators regarding the CSAP rule.
Continue Reading...U.S. Solar Spin, China Moves Ahead
Congressional oversight and press coverage of DoE’s failed $500 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now bankrupt
With President Obama’s green jobs push, it is easy to see why Solyndra is such a hot political button. There are also reports of campaign contributions linked to both the decision to approve by solar interests and zealous scrutiny by some critics in Congress linked to fossil fuel interests.
Continue Reading...Blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline Won't Help Climate Change
Beginning this past weekend, environmentalists descended onto Washington, D.C. for a two-week protest designed to pressure President Obama to deny a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline project. TransCanada is seeking to construct this pipeline, which would transport up to 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Alberta to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas, where the product will be refined. The State Department is expected to decide by the end of the year as to whether to grant TransCanada a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL project.
Continue Reading...DOE-Commissioned Study Highlights Role that U.S. Can Play in Helping Other Countries Responsibly Develop Shale Resources
Last week, Rice University’s James Baker’s Institute for Public Policy released a Department of Energy-commissioned study entitled “Shale Gas and U.S. National Security.” Consistent with other recent studies, the report concluded the new U.S. domestic shale development offers significant benefits, including reduced liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports and lower natural gas prices.
Continue Reading...A Challenging Legislative Environment - Democratic and Republican Staff Directors Provide Legislative Outlook for Energy Policy
In a Politico sponsored event this morning, the Republican and Democratic Staff Directors for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources (SENR) Committee both called this current Congress “the most difficult legislative environment” since either one of them has worked on Capitol Hill. This sentiment is common on the Hill with a divided Congress and deep ideological and partisan divides.
Continue Reading...Coal is King? EIA says the answer is yes but with some key caveats.
Last week the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its Annual Energy Outlook for 2011. The report projected that by 2035 coal will continue to constitute the largest share of electricity generation in the U.S. Despite EIA predicting that few new coal-fired power plants will come online over the next 25 years, coal’s share of the electricity market will only decline from its current share of 45% to 43%.
Continue Reading...Can the Nat Gas Act be a Political Panacea for rising crude oil prices?
Rising gasoline prices, often sparked by instability abroad, typically cause the issues of energy security and oil dependence to gain more attention among lawmakers. While our nation has long lacked a national energy policy, rising gasoline prices can sometimes result in Congressional action. Thus, today’s rising gasoline prices would seem to make this current moment ripe for bipartisan action.
Proposal to Handicap EPA's Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Evaporates in Senate
Earlier this week, Senate Republicans failed in their attempts to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this is a short term victory for the Obama administration, the nature of the vote raises questions about the EPA’s congressional support in the not so distant future.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R., KY.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R., OK.), introduced an ambitious measure that would reject the EPA’s finding that climate change is a threat to public health and welfare, and rein in the Obama administration’s environmental policies. Ultimately the proposal failed with only four Democrats joining the ranks of Republicans seeking to restrict the EPA’s authority. A companion measure in the Republican-held House passed 255-172 the next day, but was more a symbolic vote given the lack of Senate support and promised presidential veto.
Continue Reading...If Not Yucca, where?
There has been vigorous debate on the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad since Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. Regardless of whether the Japan crisis tempers supports for nuclear energy, U.S. policy makers will have to confront the challenges posed by the management and disposal of nuclear waste. Japan’s nuclear crisis could spur new momentum for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository due to heightened concerns among the pubic and politicians related to the current storage of spent fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants. Currently, the majority of nuclear waste is stored at cooling pools that are similar to those at the Fukushima Daiichi facility in Japan, and this fact is sparking debate on the safety of these pools.
Continue Reading...Support for nuclear persists but will the Japanese crisis instead kill negotiations over a clean energy standard?
Amidst the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan, the Obama Administration and key Congressional leaders continue to express their support for nuclear energy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu testified this week that the Administration opposes a halt in licensing for nuclear plants, and he also reiterated support for the White House’s budget request of $36 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. At a National Energy Resources Organization luncheon, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, stated that it is “too premature to suggest the nuclear renaissance is dead.” Other key Congressional leaders, including House Energy and Natural Resources Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), have issued statements over the past several days signaling their continuing support for nuclear energy.
Continue Reading...President's Council on Jobs & Competitiveness: Green Recommendations Ahead?
Last week President Obama’s Council on Jobs & Competitiveness began in earnest with a meeting of its members at the White House. According to the President, the Council was created to “provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.” Based on the first meeting, it is clear that clean energy and energy efficiency will be part of the ultimate recommendations from the Council. As this process moves forward it will be interesting to see what specific recommendations on a clean energy economy are made by business interests at the table.
Continue Reading...EPA, Clean Air Act & Climate Change: Consider the Facts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a lot of hits from those opposed to greenhouse gas regulations in the past week. In the House of Representatives, tough hearings led by U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, (R-KY), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy, were held with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Jackson’s testimony followed that of lead witness Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who promoted his upcoming book, “The Hoax,” which takes aim at the science of climate change. The House subsequently passed an amendment to the proposed Continuing Resolution that would strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHG emissions and significantly decrease funding for environmental and clean energy programs. Meanwhile, outside of Washington, D.C., the first two permits considered by EPA suggest cleaner facilities and job creation can be compatible with new regulations as opposed to some of the concerns expressed in the hearings and continuing resolution.
Continue Reading...Clean Energy Standard Update
Since President Obama’s State of the Union address announcing the Administration goal of setting a Clean Energy Standard (CES) deliberations have shifted to Congress. The President has called for utilities to meet a target of 80 percent of their electricity from sources such as solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear and so-called clean coal by 2035 but the real work now begins in moving this through the legislative process. Bipartisan congressional leadership is where this will have to begin and end if the President’s goal is to become a reality.
Continue Reading...Can Congress get behind a "Clean Energy Bank?"
With Washington focused on a clean energy standard and legislative efforts to block EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, proposals to establish a “clean energy bank” are quietly gaining significant support. Last Congress, both the Waxman-Markey and Senate Energy Committee bills included provisions that would have established a clean energy deployment administration (i.e. a clean energy bank). These bills differed slightly on how to establish and structure CEDA, but generally the agency would operate as either an independent or quasi-independent agency to provide loan guarantees and other financing to support clean energy. CEDA addresses a critical problem many renewable projects face – gaining access to capital to move beyond the R&D phase to deployment.
Continue Reading..."Our generation's Sputnik moment": President Obama calls for 80% "clean" electricity by 2035
In his State of the Union address, President Obama challenged Congress to pass legislation establishing a clean energy standard (CES) that would require that 80 percent of America’s electricity come from “clean” sources by 2035. President Obama signaled that a standard would recognize electricity derived from not only renewables but also nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. Calling the clean energy push “our generation’s Sputnik moment,” the President’s speech framed a CES in the larger context of improving U.S.’s competitiveness in the changing global economy. The focus on clean energy and not GHG emissions also reflects a dramatically altered political landscape than what President Obama faced over his first two years in office. With cap-and-trade legislation off the table, President Obama is reaching out to Republicans by expressing his support for clean coal and nuclear in any energy legislation.
Continue Reading...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...Another Go At Climate Consensus in the United States Senate
The much anticipated energy and climate bill from Senators Graham (R-SC), Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) appears close to a public unveiling. So far there is an 8-page outline of the legislation that was reportedly provided to captains of industry such as the US Chamber of Commerce in a recent closed-door meeting, but this document has not as of yet been made public. A bill should be released to the public within days. There are a wide variety of issues that will make or break this bill in terms of achieving enough votes to pass the Senate. Here are 3 key issues to watch while assessing political feasibility:
1. A Cap Here, A Tax There
All reports indicate that the bill will take a sector-by-sector approach to the energy and climate challenge. The sector approach is a departure from the House bill passed last year that set an economy-wide cap on emissions. Electric utilities and the manufacturing sectors will undoubtedly still fall under some revised version carbon emissions limits. The political challenge will be ensuring that the emission caps are indeed hard caps while providing ample incentives to ensure industry buy-in. Other sectors will face different strategies to reduce emissions. Recognizing complaints from oil & gas constituents with a cap and trade approach, a carbon tax on transportation fuels is the likely alternative for this greenhouse gas intensive sector. A key political challenge will be finding the right approach for setting the price of such a tax based on factors including price of carbon in other sectors and carbon content of fuel. It is safe to say that a sector approach may bring on more votes. However, the corresponding environmental integrity of the US approach to reducing carbon emissions will be under close watch.
Continue Reading...Fifty-five Countries Meet Copenhagen Accord Deadline for Stating their Greenhouse Gas Cutback Goals
The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says that it has received pledges from 55 countries to limit and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. For companies, particularly large multi-nationals with facilities around the world, the pledges are a useful indication of the first or additional requirements the companies will have to meet.
Continue Reading...Top 5 Climate & Energy Issues for US Business in 2010: Rocky Road or French Silk?
5. Where Will Things Go Internationally?
Coming out of the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen, the role of the COP in international climate negotiations is in flux. Some issues will be negotiated in this forum, yet other issues may move out of this forum. The role of the Copenhagen Accord is uncertain. It remains to be seen what new governance structures will emerge and where different countries will place their political priorities. Relatedly, enhanced China-US bilateral cooperation on reducing emissions and sharing technology promises to be an important prong of the Obama Administration in 2010.
Business Concern: Private sector interests from both climate change risk and opportunity perspectives will need to monitor and understand the direction of international negotiations and cooperation particularly as related to climate finance and post-2012 carbon market design.
Continue Reading...Memo to Senator Murkowski: Legislate for Logical Solution
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has a point. There are many, if not a vast majority of policymakers, who agree with the senator that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is best left to thoughtful Congressional legislation, not EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. Thus her looming threats to introduce amendments or resolutions or other procedural maneuverings to “take a time out,” slowing down EPA rulemaking procedures aimed at addressing climate change.
But failing to seize her moment in the spotlight and put forward a specific legislative solution is where her logic falls apart and observers note the senator’s ear to certain greenhouse-gas-intensive industries that oppose action on climate change. This leaves me to believe that if we take climate change seriously, then perhaps EPA action is in fact better than no action at all.
Continue Reading...Copenhagen Outcomes: Lots of Bark, But The Bite Needs Work
Heading into Copenhagen, I provided a “Fab 5” of necessary outcomes for COP-15 to be a success. The Copenhagen Accord took a number of pragmatic steps on finance, accountability and endorsing market-based approaches to tackling the challenge of global climate change. The Accord will likely play well in the US Senate with a view to getting more support for domestic action through cap-and-trade legislation as it brings China, India, Brazil and South Africa along in bending the curve of business-as-usual emissions. It also establishes accountability procedures for developing countries to report on those obligations through the Conference of the Parties. Additionally, the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, never popular in domestic politics, appears dubious at best. So these issues play well domestically.
However, in the trade-off for these pragmatic steps, the United Nations Conference of the Parties process was left in tatters. While most countries signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, it was done so with a disdain for the process and skepticism for the result. It will be difficult to regain the level of political momentum and multilateral engagement that was achieved in the lead up to Copenhagen through the UN. Science-based targets to reduce emissions backed by a legally binding UN treaty to fulfill all commitments were lost, for now, in that effort.
Continue Reading...ANDERSON's NOTEBOOK: What Can We Make of the Copenhagen Accord?
Fred Anderson is providing an inside look at COP-15 in Copenhagen to The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) World Climate Change Report.
Today, Anderson's Notebook (12/21/09), discusses what we can make of the Copenhagen Accord.
To read the full entry, please click here.
This Just In From Copenhagen: Accord Reached By Key Parties!
Attached is the draft Copenhagen Accord, which was hammered out by the United States, China, India and South Africa, and made available less than two hours ago. The Conference of the Parties is still in session; reportedly 26 other nations are reviewing the draft and may join the Accord. Details regarding wider acceptance of this draft are sketchy at this point.
The major issues that have caused controversy among the delegates have been addressed, such as: a commitment by the developed world countries to provide financing to the developing world countries to assist with mitigation and adaptation, amounting to $30 billion between 2010 and 2012, rising to $100 billion by 2020; prevention of deforestation and market mechanisms to enhance forest programs; a recognition of the importance of keeping the rise in temperature to less than 2 degrees; and a commitment to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to below 50 percent of 1990 level, with Annex I parties committing to reduce their emissions individually or jointly by 80 percent. Finally, implementation of the Accord shall be reviewed in 2016 to determine if the long-term goal of a less than 2 degree rise in temperature should be reduced to 1.5 degrees.
COP-15 Day 11: Snow, Money, Gore and More!!!
It seems as though the moods of optimism and pessimism with respect to reaching a deal in Copenhagen change by the hour. Last evening, there was supreme doubt a deal could get done with many observers beginning to retrench to old positions of blaming US intransigence. The US, familiar to the villain role in climate proceedings, was viewed as having a weak target with little assurance it can deliver on anything back in the Senate, yet strong demands of developing countries particularly of China and little finance to provide poorer countries as promised in the Bali Action Plan.
Continue Reading...Peter Gray Discusses Copenhagen & US Climate Change Legislation on Fox Business Network
During a December 15 interview with Fox Business Network, Peter Gray discusses what has been happening in Copenhagen and how the talks there could change the way companies do business in the US.
To watch the interview, please visit: http://video.mww.com/ftpupload/FTPinbox/15/FoxBiz-Gray-12-15-09.wmv.
COP-15 Day 10: Copenhagen - Moving from Rhetoric to Reality?
As heads of state begin to arrive, the mood remains quite anxious in Copenhagen. Significant amounts of negotiating text still remain in brackets and unresolved. Clearly political level help is necessary. Information suggests that in fact high level talks began in the past few days from respective capitals. There will be little time for informal negotiations once all key heads of state arrive, so ministerial negotiations will need to continue in parallel as it is unrealistic to expect all nuances of climate policy text to be taken care of at the highest level. Heads of state will only be asked to address the bigger picture issues: targets & timetables for reductions, finance and a timeline for achieving a legally binding agreement.
Continue Reading...Peter Gray Discusses the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Bloomberg Radio
During the December 15 edition of The Hayes Advantage on Bloomberg Radio, Peter Gray discusses the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen as well as the chances of passage of a climate change bill.
To listen to the interview, please visit: http://video.mww.com/ftpupload/FTPinbox/15/Gray-Bloomberg.mp3.
COP-15 Day 9: Political Horses are Coming to Water
The UN climate negotiations are getting more tense by the day. Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer, reflecting on his work today, noted that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” in reference to the Heads of State who will be arriving over the next 48 hours with a view to a political agreement being reached.
Continue Reading...COP-15 Day 8: Chaos in Copenhagen
The Bella Center is hot, crowded and beyond its capacity. Lines are hours long to even enter the building. Security is tightening up. Around the city, Copenhagen is ground zero for climate change this week as there are countless business events, protests, and conferences all day and night.
Negotiations were suspended as G77 nations, led by African delegates in this instance, walked out. Their desire is a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and pushing developed countries for bigger carbon cuts and international climate finance. Speculation is that this action is about negotiation theatrics to raise the stakes in Week 2 and they will come back to the table soon. Informal negotiations took place over the weekend in an upscale warehouse district of Copenhagen that were reported to be positive, so the latest G77 action caught some delegates by surprise.
Continue Reading...Climategate: Tempest in a Teapot -- or a Tea Bagger Special?
It has taken decades of effort, the investment of tens of millions in research dollars, and the dedication of some of the brightest minds around the globe to collect, sift through and analyze the scientific evidence, which establishes a link between the change in the climate and man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. But in an age driven by the 24-hour news cycle, declining standards of journalism and point-counterpoint segments in which the truth is “debated,” a single email stolen from the files of a little-known but highly respected group of climate researchers places all of that work in jeopardy.
Continue Reading...COP-15 Day 4: Talks Continue With Cautious Optimism
President Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize was center stage at the COP-15 Conference. As the ceremony was broadcast on giant screens, attendees eagerly watched President Obama's acceptance of the prestigious award with his commitment to the issues before the United Nations conference on climate change.
Meanwhile, negotiators faced tough sledding as solid language implementing confirmable climate change commitments remained elusive. Various working groups continue focusing on separate tracks in hopes of creating some solid building blocks for an overall agreement. In addition, diplomatic efforts are underway to craft concrete language "locking in" various countries' promises in emissions reductions as "targets" which are verifiable.
Continue Reading...COP-15 Day 4: Reaching a Political Agreement and the Role of the UN
'Political agreement' was the word of the day in late briefings yesterday and continuing today. Its definition varies from country to country.
For the United States, it means an agreement that President Obama can sign when he comes next week with the full expectation that the United States will honor its terms even without Congressional action. While the preference is for adoption by the Congress by simple majority votes as legislation (as opposed to ratification by the Senate as a treaty with a 2/3 vote), Parties have been assured that President Obama can implement his commitments without Congressional action.
A serious and growing issue remains the role of the UN in monitoring, verifying, and enforcing emissions reductions commitments. African countries have taken a high profile and vocal role in opposing early proposals for an supervising entity outside of the UN. So far, the United States remains firm on its pre-conference position regarding a newly created structure outside of the UN for monitoring and enforcement. Most regard this issue as one of the most significant impediments to a political agreement at COP-15.
COP-15 Day 2: Leaders of Developing Countries Pressed for Commitments Necessary for a Formal Accord
Utilizing the momentum of the announcements from the United States and the United Kingdom, COP-15 representatives pressed leaders of developing countries for commitments necessary for a formal accord among the participating parties. India and China hold the keys to meaningful language committing developing countries to material changes in their total greenhouse gas emissions trajectories.
Continue Reading...COP-15 Day 2: UK's Gordon Brown Pledges 30% UK GHG Reductions; Developing Countries Shift Focus to Transition Aid
The United States jumpstarted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP-15) with solid commitments by the Obama Administration for reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and funding. On Day Two, the United Kingdom confirmed that it would move well beyond the US commitments in hopes of keeping the pressure on for an accord among the participating parties.
Continue Reading...EPA Endangerment Finding: Certainty from the United States
So much remains to be resolved as the McKenna Long & Aldridge team heads to Copenhagen this week. There is much speculation regarding what Congress will do to move forward on climate change. Bottom-line positions from the Obama Administration at the Copenhagen negotiations remain to be seen. But one thing is certain: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
Continue Reading...US Envoy Johnathan Pershing Opens Copenhagen Talks with US Commitment to 17% GHG Reduction Targets
Expectations ramped up with the announcement by Jonathan Pershing, US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change, that the United States would commit to specific Greenhouse Gas Emission targets (17%) in line with various climate change legislation pending before the United States Congress.
I sat in on the Plenary Session in which Pershing spoke. The response of the packed room was skeptical with polite spattered applause. The comments by the US negotiator were the most specific to date by any representative of the United States government. Following these comments and several others, I visited with delegates and representatives from several countries around the world as well as from a coupe of states from the United States. There is a genuine sense that negotiators have been given the boundaries for a Copenhagen Accord to be finalized when President Obama visits Copenhagen on December 18, 2009. Several important parties to any successful accord, including India, made clear their reluctance to agree to enforceable defined limits. With the outline of the Obama Administration's commitments, negotiators will now attempt to create an outline of an agreement that is broad enough to accomodate the concerns of many developing countries, while capitalizing on the specifics of the United States' committment.
Economy-Wide Cap-and-Trade Doubtful; Narrower Bill May Fare Better
Climate change policy experts speaking on the first day of the "Carbon Economy" summit in Washington, DC, sponsored by The Economist, expressed skepticism over the chances of passing an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill in 2010.
Continue Reading...OPIC and the Export-Import Bank After the NEPA Settlement: A Tale of Two Agencies
In early 2009 two US agencies, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), settled a longstanding climate change lawsuit in the 9th Circuit and pledged to reduce emissions in their lending portfolios while increasing support for clean energy. Their approaches to implementing the settlement agreement are taking starkly different paths: OPIC appears to have entered the “age of wisdom,” while Ex-Im remains in the “age of foolishness,” to borrow from Charles Dickens.
In 2002, the city of Boulder, Colorado and the California cities of Oakland, Santa Monica, and Arcata, along with members of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, filed a groundbreaking climate change lawsuit (Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al v. Spenelli et al).
Continue Reading...A Moving Climate Storm on the Gulf Coast. Plaintiffs Move Forward, While Senate Deliberates
When the fury of Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, many saw this as a tipping point in US public perception towards the reality of climate change. Levees broke, people died, clean water was not available, valuable property flooded, buildings were left hazardous and roads were destroyed. As Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA), Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has stated, “Perhaps no weather disaster highlights our weakness to climate challenges than our inadequate response to Katrina, which still haunts us several years later.” Not coincidentally, President Obama took the opportunity in his recent trip to New Orleans to plead for bipartisan approaches to passing comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.
Continue Reading...CO2 Is Green
I was watching television Sunday night when a political ad comes on urging viewers to "contact their Senators today" to oppose Congressional efforts to regulate CO2. Having seen a number of these before, it barely registered - except when midway through the piece, the voice over states "In fact higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the Earth's ecosystem and support more plant and animal life." Wait a minute, is this one of those joke commercials from Saturday Night Live? Nope, it is the work of a new campaign by an interest group that goes by the name "CO2 Is Green." The group seeks to challenge the lies being pushed by those foolish climate scientists, those silly PhDs, who seem to believe that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is causing climate change. If you peruse the "CO2isgreen.com" website, you will laugh and cry at the same time.
Continue Reading...Climate Legislation and The Redskins
Its fall in Washington, DC and there are two things most have agreed upon this season: the Redskins football squad looks bad as do any hopes of the Senate passing climate legislation prior to UN negotiations in Copenhagen. While the Redskins offense continues to lack a passing game, a new playbook focused on corporate leadership and bipartisanship may be turning things around in the Senate. Yet pessimism remains as some observers believe one key political gap is a quarterback in the White House who will engage and make it a legislative priority.
Continue Reading...Climate Week In New York: Hope Over Pessimism?
As President Obama spoke at the United Nations today and now heads to the G-20, international skepticism is obvious. The United States still has not taken definitive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The lack of movement in the Senate on a climate bill is now cited as the primary reason that the US cannot make the level of concrete commitments necessary to forge a global agreement. This lack of Senate action does not bode well for Obama to position the US as a global leader on climate change. As Politico reported yesterday, the European Union’s ambassador to the US, John Bruton, is not happy about Senate delay stating that “(i)f this were to happen, it would open the United States to the charge that it does not take its international commitments seriously, and that these commitments will always take second place to domestic politics. I submit that asking an international Conference to sit around looking out the window for months, while one chamber of the legislature of one country deals with its other business, is simply not a realistic political position.”
Yet despite the growing gloom in climate policy circles, signs of optimism are there.
Continue Reading...New Rules for Forest Offset Projects
We were pleased to see the extensive provisions in the House's Waxman Markey bill for foreign forest offsets generated by reducing deforestation and forest degradation projects. Today, California's Climate Action Reserve released an updated set of rules for forest offset projects, "Forest Project Protocol version 3.0." This new protocol opens the door for forest-related offset projects to be included in efforts across the US to mitigate climate change. The new protocol raises the bar for rigorous national standards for forest-related projects that sequester carbon emissions.
Continue Reading...Making the Business Case for International Funding in US Climate Legislation
As the Senate deliberates on climate change legislation this Fall, strong provisions related to international cooperation and investment in greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and adaptation are necessary. Recent news reports show that various fossil fuel intensive industries are ramping up for even greater free allowance allocations to meet their emerging climate risk obligations. It is imperative that the slice of the allowance set aside and auction revenue pie, marked for international finance and embedded in the Waxman-Markey bill from the House, is not lost in this feeding frenzy. The Waxman-Markey approach strategically avoids the annual appropriations process for financing climate mitigation efforts abroad and creates the beginnings of self-sustaining finance mechanisms. State Department Climate Envoy Todd Stern testified on the importance of these provisions in a September 10th hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Continue Reading...Health Care Legislation > Climate Change Legislation > Copenhagen Agreement on Emission Limits
President Obama's address on health care reform to joint session of Congress, as well as the rancorous reactions by some Republicans, leads me to the following inescapable conclusion: the chances of Congress passing climate change legislation in 2009 just got a lot dimmer. The President has essentially thrown down the gauntlet and staked his reputation -- indeed perhaps even his presidency -- on succeeding in passing comprehensive health care reform. We can expect a full court press by the White House to get a bill passed and signed into law. And given the obvious level of rancor and opposition, you can expect this to be an all-out brawl. That means that few resources will be diverted from this battle to pass climate change legislation. Senate leaders have already laid the groundwork for a hiatus on climate change legislation. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had been slated to introduce the bill after returning from the August recess. In a joint statement with Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), she said the bill is now expected “later in September.”
Continue Reading...Swing Votes in the Senate on Climate Change
As the Senate prepares to consider energy and climate legislation this Fall, the vote counting begins again on cap & trade. Assuming a cap & trade bill moves forward, 60 votes are necessary for a procedural vote (cloture) to cut off debate on a motion to proceed on a floor vote. Reaching this filibuster proof 60 vote count threshold remains a steep hill to climb despite 59-60 Democratic votes in the Senate. Climate positions don’t fall along party lines. Further, the challenge has just grown harder with Senator Kennedy’s death and no replacement likely until January 2010.
Climate Change Insights takes a look at three swing Senate votes that are indicative of the political landscape and substantive policy issues in play. There are different accounts of how various Senators might vote but it is fair to say that the following 3 Senators are representative of the key issues under consideration: the level of ambition for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, industry specific allowances, protections and incentives, a priori limits on the price of carbon and pure politics.
Continue Reading...Why the Tariff Provisions in the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACESA) Will Survive
I previously wrote that the Obama Administration should back off its opposition to language in Waxman-Markey that imposes a tariff on imports from countries that do not require equivalent levels of GHG emissions reductions. This tariff provision is the only effective way to discourage US businesses from moving production overseas to countries with less stringent climate change laws, thereby defeating the goals of cap-and-trade by emitting over there what they cannot emit here. Opponents to the tariff provision claim that the bill's generous allocation of free emission allowances compensates firms for this disparity and thereby levels the playing field so that competitors in foreign countries lacking carbon emission controls do not enjoy a competitive advantage over carbon-capped US businesses.
Continue Reading...Seeing "REDD" -- International Avoided Deforestation is a Big Winner in Waxman-Markey
I have written about the eleventh-hour concessions the House agreed to in order to secure the support of farm-state lawmakers for Waxman-Markey, see here and here, but what may be overlooked in the brouhaha over domestic agriculture's clout in the House climate debate are the significant resources Waxman-Markey would devote to reducing deforestation in the developing world. As the NGO Forest Trends wrote, "advocates of using forestry offsets to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) have little to complain about."
Continue Reading...Webcast: Analyses of the Groundbreaking American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACESA)
Co-presented by McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, the Association of Climate Change Officers (ACCO) and the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA)
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved game-changing climate change legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), also called Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) -- the first major environmental legislation to be approved by either the House or the Senate in almost twenty years. The bill would require a 3% cut in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2012, 17% by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050. This would transform the US economy and in particular the energy sector, and create a multi-billion dollar new market in valuable rights to emit greenhouse gases.
|
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, the Association of Climate Change Officers (ACCO) and the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) invite you to a webcast that will help identify the key issues you will need to address as the debate moves to the Senate. The program will:
-
Cover the bill’s major provisions and political future;
-
Discuss the multi-billion dollar emissions allowances market it creates;
-
Provide insight on the industrial sectors that are likely to receive a significant amount of the allowances and incentives;
-
Analyze how the new renewable electricity standard and efficiency requirements will impact the energy sector;
-
Discuss the projected roles of EPA, states, regional pacts and other federal oversight agencies; and
-
Identify important next steps for the Senate and for stakeholders like American industry.
To register for this complimentary webcast, please click here.
Palin's Folly
To kick off her new career as a pundit, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has chosen to train her critical eyes on the climate change legislation under consideration in Congress. Unfortunately, instead of sharing new thinking, insights or ideas, Gov. Palin's punditry is nothing more than a rehash of the party line.
Palin's column does not even mention "climate change" or "renewable energy"! Instead, she frames the issue entirely as a question of how best to achieve energy independence and security. President Obama's "cap-and-trade energy tax" is the wrong approach, she says, because it makes "energy scarcer and more expensive." A better approach to energy independence, she says, would be...say it with me...drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (She's also comfortable with mining more coal.)
Continue Reading...Don't Yank the Tariff Provisions from the House Climate Change Bill
President Obama deserves a share of the credit for the historic vote by the House June 26 to pass the first climate change bill. The bill is far from perfect, but it is an important step in the right direction. In comments following the House vote, however, President Obama took a step in the wrong direction. In urging the Senate to swiftly pass their counterpart to the House bill, President Obama raised questions about a provision that would impose a tariff on the import of goods from countries where the cost of such good benefits from weaker climate change laws:
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there….I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary, given all the other stuff that was done and had been negotiated on behalf of energy-intensive industries."
Continue Reading...House of Representatives Passes Groundbreaking Climate and Energy Bill -- The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) Now Heads to the Senate for Debate
Late last week, the House of Representatives narrowly approved game-changing climate change legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), also called Waxman-Markey (HR 2454), the first major environmental legislation to be approved by either the House or the Senate in almost twenty years. Much has already been said about ACES that industry may find confusing, and this alert sorts out what the bill does -- and doesn't -- do and identifies the key issues you will need to address as the debate moves to the Senate.
Continue Reading...The Importance of Incentivizing the Agricultural Industry to Participate in Climate Change Response (and How Did We Forget About Biochar)?
There has been plenty of criticism - some warranted, some not - of new language, pushed by the farm lobby, governing carbon offsets in the climate change legislation. Prior to this amendment, precisely what qualified as an offset was unstated. EPA would be given responsibility for promulgating rules that would define offsets, within broad parameters set forth in the legislation. By contrast, Title V - "Agricultural and Forestry Related Offsets" - identifies an "initial list" of specific types of agricultural and forestry practices that would qualify as offsets, and gives the Department of Agriculture authority to establish a program governing the generation of offset credits from agricultural and forestry-based sources.
Continue Reading...The Loyal Opposition -- Take 2
Recently I wrote about the need for smart criticism from those opposed to Henry Waxman's cap-and-trade plan. This week, former Virginia Governor George Allen who is out touting his new energy policy think tank, made it clear that smart criticism won't come from him. Allen did an interview with Monica Trauzzi on Energy & Environment TV. A transcript is posted at E&E here (subscription required) and Allen's talking points were positively backward. Here's a taste:
Monica Trauzzi: So, do you see a way forward about how we can handle the global warming issue legislatively then?
George Allen: Well, and this is all supposedly for global warming and they estimate 50 years from now there'll be some negligible impact on climate. Gosh, you watch the news and they'll only forecast about four or five days out and a lot of times those aren't right forecasts. I'm not a meteorologist, but they rarely get those right and they're trying to forecast 10, 50 years from now.
Continue Reading...Black Carbon Impact on People and the Planet
The justly well-regarded Health Effects Institute is out with a new study that has obvious implications for public health, but I believe it should impact the climate change debate as well.
The study suggests people exposed to airborne soot are nearly twice as likely to die from heart disease that previously thought. Here's a description from The New York Times article:
The review found that the risk of having a condition that is a precursor to deadly heart attacks for people living in soot-laden areas goes up by 24 percent rather than 12 percent, as particle concentrations increase.
A variety of sources produce fine particles, and they include diesel engines, automobile tires, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries.
When you see the source of these emissions, you can start to see why this public health study makes climate news as well.
Continue Reading...How to Win China and India
Reagan-era economist Martin Feldstein weighed in on the current cap-and-trade plan under consideration in Congress with an op-ed in today's Washington Post.
I'd like to celebrate his contribution, since I noted last week how little thoughtful criticism was coming from Republicans, but unfortunately I can't. Feldstein uses dubious logic and selective inputs to argue that the Waxman Markey bill is a bad idea.
Feldstein argues that the cost of the scheme to taxpayers -- $1600 per typical household, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate -- is too high since the impact on global warming would be "virtually unnoticeable." Instead, Feldstein argues, the United States "should wait until there is a global agreement that includes China and India."
I agree with Feldstein that climate change cannot be solved without the cooperation of China and India. But unless and until the United States takes a leadership role in battling climate change, those two countries are not going to play ball.
Continue Reading...The Loyal Opposition
The Waxman-Markey bill that the House Energy & Commerce Committee's approved on last week is flawed. But it represents the first serious step to examining one of the most pressing issue of our time.
Fights over social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and health care, are trivial when you consider the future of the billion people who depend on water Asian glaciers that could disappear in a matter of decades.
It is against this backdrop that I must comment on the state of the country's opposition party, the Republicans.
I'm not the first. Frank Rich and Jim Hightower, as well as many others, have made this observation in the past few weeks. But when it comes to climate change, the GOP's performance is particularly unsettling.
Auto Mileage and Carbon Emissions Agreement: Harbinger of Good Things to Come?
This week, President Obama announced a plan to increase national automobile emissions and mileage standards for cars and trucks in the United States starting in 2012. If it survives a public review process, this agreement will create a single new national standard for the US car and light truck fleets that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today -- an average 35.5 miles per gallon (as reported in the NY Times).
The announcement resonates loudly in national climate change policy, because it marks the first federal regulatory standard for carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. It will also mean federal regulation of a sector (transportation) which accounts for a third of the nation’s carbon emissions.
The announcement also resonates in the energy community, since President Obama predicted that as result of the agreement, demand for oil would fall by 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold over the next five years.
It is also significant in the broader national quest for overall air quality improvements because per-mile-traveled particulate, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions will drop as well.
Continue Reading...Chairman Waxman's Climate Bill
To paraphrase German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, don't ask how legislation or pork pies are made.
Think of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's new compromise on climate legislation as freshly baked pork pie.
Let's first consider the US emissions reductions goals. Did the Committee bake a pie small enough to get the US on the track to meeting scientifically defensible emissions reductions targets? No.
The bill would cap emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, instead of the original draft’s 20 percent below. Committee chair/chef Henry Waxman essentially promised (again with some poetic license to your author) to bake a smaller pie -- later. He noted the bill retains its original target reductions in the future: 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. We will see -- later.
Breaking News: Climate Compromise in the House
The big news today in Washington is that the House committee working on climate change legislation has actually reached a major compromise that allows significant progress toward federal climate legislation this year.
The new deal calls for a 15 percent renewables target for a Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020, with an additional 5 percent to come from energy efficiency measures. The deal will expand the amount of biomass generation included, a crucial concession for southern lawmakers who worry their region might suffer economic impacts dispropornal to the rest of the nation.
Continue Reading...Climate versus Growth?
The Obama Administration says it is laying the groundwork for a long, green, economic recovery. But plenty of people argue that the recovery part and the green part contradict each other.
One piece of evidence to support the pessimists emerged from Washington last week. Inside EPA reports that the administration environmental champions are not getting their way when it comes to the ongoing restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors.
Four Bright Green Spots in the Budget
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been spending a lot of time this year helping clients see how the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) can help support their environmental initiatives.
But last week, when the President sent Congress the fine print of his proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget, even I had a start: Never before has US government set out to make its spending so green. Not even the stimulus.
Continue Reading...Is a Climate Deal Imminent?
Here in Washington, every day brings a new rumor about the fate of the attempt to pass comprehensive climate change legislation this year.
Today, the same day The New York Times ran an editorial supporting quick action on climate change, the Capitol is abuzz with the possibility that a deal is in the works.
Not My Inconvenient Truth
The polling site Five Thirty Eight has an analysis of a sobering George Mason University survey on climate change. Unlike years past, people now believe climate change is a significant problem....just not for them. The poll shows that most Americans still see climate change as an abstraction far removed from their day-to-day lives. While Nate Silver notes climate change policy is polling pretty well right now, this perspective has to remain a concern for those who want to see legislation enacted soon.
Climate Legislation Made Easy
Democrats in Congress released their most recent climate change bill yesterday.
The so-called Waxman-Markey discussion draft attempts to satisfy all constituencies:
The US Climate Partnership -- the powerful coalition of utilities, car makers, manufacturers and environmental organizations -- got its vision of a cap-and-trade scheme adopted. That means the environmentalists are pleased with strong GHG emission reduction targets (80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050). Meanwhile, heavy industrials (iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, chemicals and paper) will benefit from a 15 percent reserve of the system's emission allowances -- a structure designed to keep down allowance prices (and thus the cost of compliance) for businesses most vulnerable to international competition.
The renewable industry got a renewable portfolio standard, which would force utilities to provide at least 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025. The coal industry also came out with $10 billion to fund carbon capture and sequestration research. (That's on top of the billions already provided under the recently enacted stimulus plan.)
Adaptation Time
As the Climate Summit at the National Academy of Sciences progresses today, it is increasingly clear that a broad swath of mainstream climate scientists agree: not only are humans unequivocally warming the planet, serious impacts are inevitable. It is time to start preparing adaptation plans. (A topic this blog has addressed before.)
The preoccupation with adaptation among scientists here is sobering. Politicians may debate climate impact and mitigation proposals, but the scientists have moved on. We need legislation, but we must also prepare for more frequent and intense storms, rising sea levels, species relocation and disappearance, drought, and flooding (perhaps repeatedly of the Red River?).
Is a National Climate Service Enough?
At the National Academy of Science's Climate Summit today, the new head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator (NOAA) Jane Lubchenco endorsed the idea of creating a National Climate Service.
This new organization, to be housed within NOAA, would act as a one-stop aggregation point for all of the government's climate science data and information. It would ideally provide policy makers and the public better information on climate change.
Continue Reading...Science Comes to Washington
Editor's Note: Frederick Anderson is blogging from the National Academy of Science's Summit on America's Climate Choices.
The head of GM is out, but science and technology are in, and the National Academy of Sciences convened today with Congress's blessing a Summit on America's Climate Choices. The purpose of the two-day meeting is to kick off the development of a scientifically-credible "framework for a national response to climate change."
Look at this effort the way Congressman Alan Mollohan (D-WV) invited participants to do a minute ago: this Academy study will lay down a science marker for Congress and policy makers going forward.
Getting Our Fill of Ethanol
The support appears to be growing since the request was made to the EPA to grant a Clean Air Act waiver on Friday. Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack expressed his support for the move today.
Critics say the government should study the impact of burning more ethanol on the environment before granting a waiver. But there’s plenty of hard data to examine.
Continue Reading...How the EPA Forced Congress' Hand
Last week, word surfaced that the EPA would act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At first glance, this news might seem like evidence that the Obama Administration would prefer to rely on the Clean Air Act (CAA) to fight climate change as opposed to getting new legislation through Congress. In fact, the news likely means the opposite. Here's why.
Continue Reading...The United States Through a Carbon Lens
We wrote earlier this week about the prospect of a national GHG registry that could provide an up-close view of the nation’s carbon emitters. While we’re waiting, a team at Purdue has delivered a fascinating tool that provides a taste of that future. The Vulcan Project is a initiative funded by NASA and DOE that is taking emissions data from 2002 and presenting it in extraordinarily accessible ways.
Continue Reading...Coming Soon...National GHG Reporting
Praise for a Climate Policy in Regression?
The praise keeps pouring in for the Administration’s recent first steps toward withdrawing EPA’s objections to California's effort to implement tough emission standards for automobiles. I wrote about this earlier, pointing out that Congress needs to act quickly or get left behind.
Today’s editorial page of the Washington Post suggests that the most effective action might not be regulation at all, or at least not regulation alone -- state or federal. The editorial writers at the Post say the best way to proceed would be to “change the incentives so that people want to buy fuel-efficient vehicles; then companies will make such cars, even without commands from Washington.”
Continue Reading...California 1, US 0
The Obama Administration has taken the first steps toward withdrawing EPA’s objections to a California's effort to implement tough emission standards for automobiles. Could that be bad news for those hungry for federal action on transportation emissions?
At first glance, the news seems to be a win for federal leadership, since the lifting of the roadblock in Washington makes California's efforts possible. But the roadblock's removal could soon be seen as a victory for the states. And that could end up leaving Washington's aspirations to lead the regulation of emissions from cars in the dust.
For years, the Bush administration rebuffed California's effort to regulate carbon emissions from cars, officially a waiver of a Clean Air Act allowing the state to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) in automobiles. The automobile industry has objected strongly to state-based regulation efforts, stating that different standards in different states are confusing and expensive. In practice, state standard-making forces the industry to design cars to meet all standards, which means the decision is up to the strictest state with a market that the autos can't ignore. Enter the California Air Resources Board.
Continue Reading...Greening the Detroit Bailout
Detroit’s request for a bailout presents the Obama administration with an opportunity to “put its money where its mouth is.” President-elect Obama’s pledge to advance the dual goals of energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be advanced by imposing the following condition on the Detroit bailout: insist that Detroit commit to development of plug-in electric hybrid cars.
As Thomas Friedman notes in his outstanding new book Hot, Flat and Crowded, electric plug-in hybrid cars “have the potential to make a huge impact on lowering energy demand, promoting renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions.” (You can add making Detroit competitive to the list of reasons for moving toward plug-in hybrid cars.)
Friedman’s argument is impregnable. Approximately 30 percent of GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, so weaning our vehicles off gasoline could make a big difference. Conceptually, plug-in hybrids would be all-electric; that is, they would be powered entirely by electricity from the grid. Thus, converting to plug-in hybrids would dramatically shift the US away from dependence on foreign oil.
Continue Reading...Observations on The National Clean Energy Summit
I had the privilege of attending the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas on August 18th and 19th. Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and the Center for American Progress, the summit brought to together an extraordinary number of state and national policy makers to discuss the mandate for a clean energy agenda.
The conference opened with President Bill Clinton and included such major luminaries as T. Boone Pickens, Robert Rubin, and Michael Bloomberg, not to mention the governors of Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. In addition, there were speakers from academia, utilities, finance, and technology related initiatives.
I want to share some of my observations:
First, there is a mandate for a clean energy future. It is bipartisan and it is imminent. Greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on foreign oil are the driving factors. While state and local governments are well in front of the federal government, policy makers are anxious for Congress to take decisive action.
Second, there were a number of common themes expressed by the vast majority of speakers -- so much so -- that they virtually became the “holy grail” of the summit. Here is what they are:
- Tax Credits - Speaker after speaker called for the extension of current energy tax credits. Beyond that, longer term tax incentives (in the form of both guarantees and credits) were considered essential to jump start and sustain solar, wind, and geothermal industries.
- Energy Conservation and Efficiency - The great low hanging fruit of clean energy. President Clinton’s “no brainer.” The thought is that through energy conservation and efficiency initiatives new generation can be avoided. Paths included utility decoupling, along with utility incentives, longer term financing, and application of new technologies, particularly in lighting and smart meters.
- A Price on Carbon - Unanimity that carbon had to have a price, for social, health, and economic reasons. Most of the time, this meant a cap and trade system. Mayor Bloomberg called for a straight-forward carbon tax. The prevailing view was that it didn’t matter who became next President as both candidates were committed to sign cap and trade legislation.
- The Electric Grid - Perhaps the most prevailing theme was the call for a revamped national transmission structure. In short, both wind and solar are located where the grid is weakest -- wind in the Midwest and solar in the Southwest. A projected $60 billion will be necessary to create an effective national grid that moves these cleaner fuels to populated markets.
The big surprise at the summit, at least to me, was Dan Reicher’s, of Google, presentation that the future of clean renewable energy lay primarily in “enhanced” geothermal energy. In essence, enhanced geothermal means uses the earth’s abundance of hot spots as a heat exchanger. Holes (using newly developed and less expensive drilling technology) are drilled to these hot zones, water is poured into the hole, and steam rises to drive turbines. Google is convinced we can produce massive amounts of clean electricity world-wide using this process.
Continue Reading...Offshore Drilling
I have the following theory about the fallacy of opening offshore areas of the US coastline to drilling as a strategy to push down oil prices:
- Any additional crude oil that could be recovered from US offshore areas does materially not increase OUR oil supply.
- Regardless of whether the firm drilling for such crude is ExxonMobil, Chevron or any other US firm, it would simply become part of the WORLD crude supply and would be sold at whatever the spot price for crude is on a given date.
- Such crude would NOT be sold preferentially to US citizens at a discount but rather at the going price. The fact that it is locally produced may translate into a slight reduction in transport costs (over Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and other nearby oil-producing regions). But, the reality is that the difference at the pump for US consumers would be inconsequential.
- Yes, by increasing the WORLD supply of oil, the price of crude will drop some, but the amount we are talking about here is relatively small (and the effect on price at the pump likely would be even smaller). And that effect is years off.
- The primary effect of drilling offshore would be to increase the amount of product that US oil companies could sell, in other words increase their sales and profits.
- Moreover, drilling offshore would undermine the battle against climate change. Rather than accelerate the pace of drilling, we should encourage US energy firms to invest in alternative energy sources.
The New York Legislature Takes Action on a Number of Pieces of Legislation Related to Climate Change
The 2008 New York legislative session came to a close on June 27th. With so much attention on climate change and rising energy prices, its not surprising that several pieces of legislation relating to the environment and energy were passed by both the State Senate and the State Assembly and are currently awaiting action by the Governor.
One significant legislative initiative driven by Governor David Paterson was the adoption by the Senate and Assembly of an expanded net metering law to allow businesses, municipalities and non-profit utility customers to receive credit on their utility bill for excess energy produced through solar or wind technologies. Under current law only residential customers are allowed to sell power back to the utilities. While non-residential customers will be capped at the lesser of 2 mega watts or their peak load, the expansion of net-metering is expected to further spur the development of solar and wind projects in New York.
The Senate and Assembly also came together to pass legislation that provides a 4 year real property tax abatement for solar electric generating systems placed in service in New York City. The abatement ranges from 5 percent - 8 ¾ percent of the cost of the solar equipment depending on whether the equipment is placed in service. Again, this legislation (coupled with the net-metering expansion mentioned above) is expected to spur development of solar projects in New York City.
Continue Reading...Climate Change and Aviation Fuel: A Tough Problem to Solve
Large aircraft require high energy fuel, and lots of it. But jet fuel is very difficult to clean up to satisfy climate protection imperatives, which has led to a major dispute in the US over the role coal-to-liquids and other alternative aviation fuels may play. Congress, the US Air Force, the major airlines, the US Environmental Protection Agency, its Federal Aviation Administration, a special Defense Department task force, coal-state senators, and many, many others are getting into the dogfight, which may go on for a long time.
Continue Reading...NGO Campaign Addresses NEPA and Climate
A recent spate of activities by environmental organizations shows the expanded scope and sophistication of the campaign by non-governmental environmental organizations (NGOs) to convince, or force, federal agencies to analyze potential climate impacts in environmental impact statements mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A recent blog addressed efforts to get federal NEPA guidelines amended to require this, but this is just one small step in a wider effort.
Continue Reading...Who's in the Driver's Seat? Washington vs the States, Agency vs Agency
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently dealt a blow to both EPA and the states by proposing preemptive federal fuel economy standards (corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards) that not only negate the states’ efforts to regulate fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse emissions but also directly challenge EPA’s leading role in regulating vehicle emissions. Will the courts, Congress, or a presidential administration sort out the traffic jam over authority to reduce vehicle greenhouse emissions? At this writing, the governors of twelve states are weighing in against what they view as a “cynical” power grab by the NHTSA, but resolution is nowhere in sight. [summary]
Continue Reading...The US's Existing Climate Protection Laws: Will They Work?
Congress in 2008
Federal climate change legislation may be on the way. The Senate has targeted a vote in June, and the House by the end of the year, although a bill both chambers can agree upon is unlikely until 2009, if then. It would be a great mistake, however, to view 2008 as a lost year on the climate front. The fundamental elements of Senate and House bills will be debated and accessible to all who probe beneath the surface. The fundamental regulatory structure and economic impact of climate legislation will have been thrashed over thoroughly by the end of the year. To interested stakeholders, the time to weigh in is now. [summary]
Obtaining GHG Credits Through Managing Water Supply Systems
Most recent climate-oriented discussions of water supply and quality have focused on the potential for altered precipitation, stream flows, groundwater recharge, and other impacts of regional climate change. These impacts are more likely than not to be severe in some locales, and thought is being given to the development of new infrastructure to address these changes (see related item on climate adaptation). But in addition to these obvious impacts on water supply and quality, it is now apparent that "non-trivial" greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the treatment of drinking water and sewage. [summary]
Continue Reading...Global Climate Change Under NEPA
Increasingly, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being seen as a vehicle for ensuring that the federal government considers the impact of its actions on global climate change. Relying on a string of judicial decisions that require agency NEPA impact statements specifically to address the climate consequences of agency actions, environmental organizations have petitioned the President’s Council on Environmental Quality to conform its NEPA guidelines to the requirements of these cases. Climate will clearly figure prominently in future federal impact statements, and non-federal stakeholders, who often are the real parties in interest in NEPA compliance, would be wise to address climate early and often when developing their NEPA compliance strategies. [summary]
Continue Reading...Food vs. Fuel and Impacts on Climate Change: Biofuels Under Siege
Concern about world food prices and shortages is causing law makers in both the EU and the US to consider either a moratorium or a cutback in biofuels production. In particular, ethanol produced from corn is being blamed as a significant contributor to the world food crisis. [summary]
Continue Reading...The SEC is Getting Hot and Bothered over Climate Change
Publicly-traded companies should evaluate whether global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change) is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the company's future financial performance. If the company concludes that there is a material impact, it must disclose that conclusion to the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) in various periodic reports.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its 2007 report, evidence of climate change "is unequivocal, as it is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" (see IPCC Report, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis at 5). Thus, the only question is whether the potential consequences of these physical effects of global warming on the company - such as damage to company property, interruption of revenue streams that such property generate, increased costs to comply with regulations attempting to minimize global warming, and potential liability in lawsuits seeking damages from parties perceived as causing global warming - are "reasonably likely" to have a "material" impact on a company's financial performance.
How to interpret and apply these two expansive and as-yet poorly defined terms in the context of climate change, given the unknown time horizons during which the financial impacts may arise, is the $64 or $640 million question publicly traded companies must now answer. [summary]
