Governor Schwarzenegger Struck Again
California Governor Schwarzenegger struck again last week. The Governor issued Executive Order S-21-09 requiring California utilities to obtain 33 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. The previous requirement was 20 percent by 2010. This law compliments the State goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Yet the Executive Order comes with controversy on the horizon.
Citing a variety of generation, siting, permitting and transmission barriers and a preference to avoid a protectionist approach to energy, the Governor issued the Executive Order just days after threatening to veto a California Legislature bill with the same target. Compared to the legislative proposal, the Executive Order provides more flexibility for utilities to purchase out-of-state sources of renewable energy in partnership with the Western Governor Association’s “Western Renewable Energy Zone” initiative, and creates a more streamlined approach at the California Fish and Game Department for permitting of renewables while taking ecosystem protections into account. Some view this second provision as a key for large solar power projects planned in Southern California deserts. Senator Feinstein has raised concerns with some solar projects in this region due to impacts on the landscape and vulnerable species such as the tortoise.
Going forward, the California Air Resources Board will craft implementation rules that will take on sensitive issues including potential expansion of the definition of “renewable energy” to allow run-of-river hydroelectricity from British Columbia into the system, and will try to find a balance between creation of jobs and energy in California, ecosystem impacts, energy costs and putting more low carbon power sources on the grid. There will be no shortage of challenges to achieve this 33 percent by 2020 target. These challenges -- and of course the inevitable political and philosophical differences -- have not prevented stakeholders out West from finding a way to move forward. The US Senate could learn a thing or two from California as it continues to debate a federal approach to the same challenges.
Paint the Roofs White
A low-cost, low-tech solution to fight climate change just won an endorsement from Energy Secretary Stephen Chu yesterday: paint the roofs white.
The idea is simple: Black roofs absorb most radiation as opposed to white roofs which reflect a good bit more. A two-page summary of a technical paper done by an old colleague of Chu's at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and a commissioner on the California Energy Commission advances the concept:
Most existing flat roofs are dark and reflect only 10 to 20 percent of sunlight. Resurfacing the roof with a white material that has a long-term solar reflectance of 0.60 or more increases its solar reflectance by at least 0.40. Akbari et al. estimate that so retrofitting 100 m2 (1000 ft2) of roof offsets 10 tonnes of CO2 emission. (For comparison purposes, we point out that a typical US house emits about 10 tonnes of CO2 per year.)
So painting 1,000 square feet of black rooftop white can offset the emissions of a typical US household. Or in the big picture, as Chu pointed out, lightening the color of roads and roofs could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.
Another booster for this idea has been Climate Progress' Joe Romm who wrote about the concept earlier this year and again today after Chu's comments.
California has been requiring this option for building owners since 2005, justified solely on energy efficiency gains. With carbon offsets for efficiency, there's also a possibility for owners to make money on the switch by monetizing the carbon reductions.
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.
For automakers, the agreement is also a much-needed win. They need no longer fear multiple standards across the states of the nation. The autos will obtain long sought-after certainty over the regulatory future of their businesses.
Dave McCurdy, head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said:
What's significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. We're all agreeing to work together on a National Program.
Some may see the agreement as a long-overdue revival of regulatory negotiation, a means of reaching agreement that last saw effective use in the 1980s. But the times, they are a-changing, and others see an entire new consensus-based approach to reaching accords on important issues of public policy. The President and the key participants managed to bring together and obtain the “yesses” of a remarkable group of historic adversaries, including those who were locked in litigation that for the most part now will be dismissed if the agreement holds.
One wonders if President Obama sensed this opportunity from his administration’s earliest days. One of the EPA’s first public actions was to announce a review California’s request for a Clean Air Act waiver to allow it to pursue stricter limits on tailpipe emissions. In his remarks, Obama suggested that it was the prospect of complying with and enforcing of a patchwork of state and federal regulations that ultimately brought the parties to the table.
Another fact that amazes me: they reached this deal without a word leaking to the press.
Finally, keep in mind that even if the agreement holds in the concept stage, the fine print is yet to come. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation will have to propose rules to implement the agreement, and anyone will be able to comment then. Will the consensus survive that process? In one notorious “reg neg” of the early 90s, corn ethanol interests first agreed on rules for implementing the renewable fuels standard of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Later, they reneged and the rulemaking turned much more difficult and contentious.
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.
Environmentalists are noting that neither Chrysler's bankruptcy announcement nor GM's most recent shareholder prospectus mention or endorse some of the administration's major environmental initiatives that impact the auto industry:
- EPA's pending GHG limit on the transportation sector
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's pending rule to tighten CAFE standards, or
- EPA's reconsideration of California's request to regulate tailpipe emissions.
As I've indicated before, I tend to be more sanguine about the prospects of melding a green economy and a recovery for the auto industry.
Detroit should take the initiative and leverage the administration's environmental inclinations to the hilt, recommending newer, bolder green innovations in exchange for additional support. For its part, the administration should hold the line and make sure that any auto industry that rises from the ashes because of taxpayer support is an environmentally sensitive industry as well.
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.”
The Post is right, and here’s why: we can impose emissions restrictions on the cars Detroit produces or we can shape the demand for Detroit’s products. Emission regulations like the ones California will pursue will do the former, but a consistent and high gasoline price signal will do the latter. If it were adopted, it would likely produce real emissions reductions more quickly and efficiently. There are many ways to do this, and Congress knows all of them. But the important thing is to support gas prices at consistent and high enough levels to allow market incentives to go to work. Cap-and-trade? Perhaps. Or a gas tax? Perhaps. And rebates to the public, as the Post says, are entirely consistent with this strategy.
It’s only been six months since John McCain and Hillary Clinton called for gas tax holidays during the Presidential race. President Obama wisely refused to support those efforts. Is he willing to go even further and work for a “a gradual rise in fuel prices that would not shock the system,” as the Post put it? Is Congress willing to do the same? That would be leadership.
It would also be leadership if the auto manufacturers took the initiative, as I suggested yesterday, and softened the path for the Administration and Congress by convening key interest groups and agencies to join with them in fashioning a single omnibus vehicle performance standard. Who knows? Out of such a group might come consensus on a gradual rise to a sustained gas price level that would incentivize people to buy fuel-efficient low-GHG emissions cars.
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.
If Congressional action doesn't follow an Obama decision in due course, we'll all be looking to the states led by bellwether California for emission standards for the auto industry. And how might the auto manufacturers best proceed to get the best deal from Congress in the Obama era? Consensus solutions and public-private collaboration to break policy deadlock are the new watchwords. The auto manufacturers might take a page from the many highly diverse multi-stakeholder groups that have sprung up recently to address everything from climate legislation to chemical testing and production.
The manufacturers might be well advised at this point to ask key state and federal agencies, labor unions, fleet purchasers, non-governmental environmental and consumer organizations, and other potential legislative “deal-breakers” to join with them in fashioning a single omnibus vehicle performance standard for mileage, emissions, air-conditioning refrigerant, electrification, and other green elements. This might be the best path to a uniform federal approach to autos in climate legislation.
Time for a More Climate-friendly Mobile Air-Conditioning Refrigerant?
What is driving the search for the next, “third generation” mobile refrigerant is both California's desire to move on and European Union regulations that will require air-conditioned vehicles sold in EU countries to use refrigerants with global warming potentials (GWP) less than 150 beginning in 2011 for new type vehicles and in all vehicles by 2017. HFC-134a has a 100-year GWP of 1,430, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But, these regulations cannot be complied with in the EU alone without unacceptable impacts on the global market for autos and trucks, which today is a fully integrated international market. Vehicle manufacturers feel they must select a single global refrigerant that satisfies regulatory authorities in all markets worldwide.
Systems satisfying the EU regulation using carbon dioxide (R-744) and HFC-152a (R-152a) have been engineered and tested, and component and systems suppliers have announced their commercial availability. Additionally, global chemical manufacturers have developed and are currently testing new refrigerants that meet the GWP 150 limit. They would like to optimize fuel savings, cost savings, and environmental benefits by selecting the refrigerant that best satisfies life-cycle performance accounting standards for both direct greenhouse gas emissions and the indirect greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel burned to power the air conditioner.
HFC-1234yf has a GWP of four (4); the air conditioning system that uses it is safe and not substantially different from the system used for HFC-134a; and, perhaps most important of all, its system efficiency would allow 12 billion gallons of gasoline to be saved worldwide by 2025. Its slightly greater cost would be more than made up in fuel cost savings to the driving public over the life of the vehicle. The numbers involved are truly impressive: globally, vehicle air-conditioning consumes between four and twenty percent of national transportation fuels, depending on climate, traffic congestion, national wealth, and other factors. In the US, six percent of fuel use -- seven billion gallons -- is consumed annually just to operate vehicle air-conditioners. Refrigerant emissions have the carbon equivalent of burning another seven billion gallons of fuel. US vehicle air-conditioning fuel and refrigerant GHG emissions are equivalent to about 130 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent or 36 million metric tons of carbon equivalent.
An HFC-1234yf air-conditioning system achieving 30 percent higher fuel efficiency worldwide would have an incremental cost of about $200 per car purchased but would save a typical car owner over $800 during the life of the car. Global benefits spread over 20 years might include 50 billion gallons of fuel saved -- a potential $200 billion benefit ($10 billion a year) if gasoline were valued at four dollars a gallon. Additional value for the carbon emissions saved if this fuel is not burned, and for HFC-134a emissions avoided, would add $4-6 billion more to the 20-year benefit total. These rough estimates are just that; they can be substantially refined by the vehicle manufacturers, research institutions, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and EPA, but for an initial indication of benefits of selecting HFC-1234yf, these “back-of-the-envelope” estimates show that significant benefits would accompany the switch in refrigerant.
What stands in the way of selection of HFC-1234yf? A number of issues need to be addressed, including EC REACH and US state approvals, some regional bans on flammable refrigerants, anti-trust concerns (cured if governmental agencies play a leading role), technology licensing to ensure competitive supply, “not invented here” syndrome, and ensuring leak-tight systems designed for high energy efficiency. But none of these problems is insurmountable, and great good can be achieved by not having to go as promptly to the fourth generation selection of a refrigerant because the third generation selection was not carefully done.
Perhaps what is most needed is for an appropriate entity -- perhaps the Transatlantic Economic Council is the place to start -- to convene the global vehicle manufacturers from the US, the EU, Japan, and perhaps India and China, as well as the relevant governmental agencies in these countries and California, environmental NGOs, and other key stakeholders, to seek prompt agreement on this solution.
The Addition of SF6 to DoD's Emerging Contaminants Action List
After years of controversy over the use of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) in both the public and private sectors, the Department of Defense has added SF6 to its emerging contaminants action list – notably ahead of any potential domestic greenhouse gas regulation. DoD believes that it is necessary to develop risk management measures, such as replacement options and cleanup technologies, in order to ensure that they avoid future problems and expense.
SF6 has military uses in radar systems, such as Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), helicopter rotor-blade leak tests, discharge testing in fire suppression systems, electrical switch gear, and propulsion systems. But, more importantly, the addition of SF6 to the DoD action list will likely result in reduced use and availability. Defense acquisitions, research, and development will bear the greatest burden.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), SF6 is the most potent of the six main greenhouse gases with a global warming potential (GWP) of 23,900 times that of CO2 over 100 years.* Although the concentration of SF6 in the atmosphere is lower than that of other GHGs, SF6 emissions are still a major problem because the GWP and atmospheric lifetime (3200 years) are so much higher. This means that that implementing new practices to reduce the use of one pound of SF6 is equivalent to retiring 11 tons of carbon.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with the DoD to identify military uses of SF6 through such efforts as the fifth conference on "The Importance of Military Organizations in Protecting the Climate" which will be held this November in Paris. DoD’s addition of SF6 to the action list is one way of acknowledging that the military could play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions – a point agreed upon 7 years ago at the 2001 conference – and will serve to stimulate technological innovation in both the public and private sectors. Additionally, with a market price of about US$25,000 per metric ton of SF6, the cost savings of finding alternatives to SF6 is surely appealing.
The EPA also has two voluntary Emission Reduction Partnerships in place that aim to reduce SF6 emissions through voluntary reductions, cost-efficient technologies, and other practices. Since the EPA’s implementation of the Emission Reduction Partnerships for Magnesium (in 1998) and Electric Power Systems (in 1999), SF6 emission rates in the US have gone down. Currently, the only other frameworks for curbing SF6 emissions are California’s proposed mandatory reporting under its reduction strategy for greenhouse gases and the Chicago Climate Exchange’s voluntary carbon reduction and trading program.
Approximately 8,000 metric tons of SF6 are produced annually, of which about 80 percent is used by the electrical power industry for arc interruption, cooling, and insulating. However, SF6 is also used to protect metals during the melting process, as a filler of double paned windows for soundproofing, as a tracer gas, and for medical procedures and testing. SF6 was, at one time, even used in the manufacturing of tennis balls, car tires, and sneakers. The point is, SF6 is an incredibly useful substance that is difficult to replace and, at the same time, it is clearly contributing to the decline of our environment.
Companies such as Nike have worked hard to replace SF6 with more environmentally friendly options like nitrogen, due to both the desire to be socially responsible and stakeholder pressure. In Nike’s case, it took nearly 14 years to develop an alternative technology to the SF6-filled Nike Air pockets. However, the company’s discovery that blow-molding 65 layers of plastic would allow for the use of nitrogen instead enabled Nike to actually improve their product line. The AirMax 360, for instance, has full length air cushioning in the sole that was made possible only by this new technology.
DoD’s plans to curtail uses and releases of SF6 in the procurement chain is consistent with its Green Procurement Strategy, which was implemented in 2004. The changes in procurement requirements will limit the ability of DoD contractors to sell products to the DoD that contain unnecessary amounts of SF6 as determined by DoD’s Phase II quantitative impact assessment. The decision by the DoD to cut back on SF6 use at all levels should push forward the timeline for increasing research and development on potential substitutes and clean up technologies.
In the future DoD may consider adding other GHGs to the list, which would place further restrictions on the supply chain. For the time being, the biggest hurdles for the DoD in reducing SF6 use will remain finding an alternative to SF6 for radar domes on AWACS aircraft and curbing its use in electrical equipment insulation. The good news is the Air Force has already begun to limit or eliminate the use of SF6 where possible which may yield best practices that the rest of DoD could follow. Additionally, DoD has implemented procedures for loading and tracking SF6 that have already resulted in a reductions of SF6 use; DoD continues to focus on reducing SF6 emissions through recapture and reuse; and DoD is supporting the research and development of substitutes, such as nitrogen, and new technologies.
* The only known substance to have a GWP higher than SF6 is Trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3), a close cousin and supposed byproduct from SF6 breakdown in high voltage electrical equipment, which is found in such small quantities that it has barely been discussed since its initial discovery in 2000.
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]
It’s a fine mess, the climate traffic jam. Led by California, some eighteen states have asserted a primary role in controlling vehicle greenhouse emissions. But the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to close off independent state action by denying California the Clean Air Act waiver it had to have before it (or any other state) could proceed on its own. Having blocked the states, and having lost a Supreme Court case in which it tried to avoid a role in greenhouse gas regulation, the EPA has begun to scour the Clean Air Act to establish its own primacy, not only over vehicle greenhouse emissions, but over a variety of other greenhouse gas sources as well (see accompanying blog).
The state-EPA-court dispute was bad enough, but it gets worse. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 render the states’ efforts a clashing nullity and directly challenge EPA’s lead on 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, horns blare, voices are being raised (the governors’ above the rest), but resolution is nowhere in sight.
The dispute focuses attention on the fact that vehicle mileage standards and direct emissions controls are inextricably intertwined approaches to combating greenhouse emissions. Altering one unavoidably clashes with the other. States like California want to set both mileage requirements and emissions controls under their own laws, and the EPA wants to control (well, may be forced to control) direct vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act, but the NHTSA says that the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act put it in charge by empowering it to set uniform national mileage standards that must not be impaired either by inconsistent state mileage standards or by state or federal tailpipe emissions standards. That makes NHTSA the lead agency on vehicle emissions, and other climate regulatory wannabes must step aside.
The details are that NHTSA has proposed standards for 2011-2015 model years that would culminate in a 2015 standard for cars of 35.7 mpg and 28.6 mpg for light trucks, which represent substantial increases in mpg over existing CAFE standards. It is very important to understand that these proposed new standards explicitly will take carbon dioxide impacts into account for the first time. NHTSA lost a Ninth Circuit appeal when it tried to bypass consideration of CO2 impacts by arguing that it could not put a value on a ton of CO2 emissions. Although it has asked for reconsideration of this decision, it has nevertheless apparently read the handwriting on the wall and decided to issue a proposed CAFE rule that takes carbon control benefits into account.
The big news recently has been the outrage a dozen governors expressed in companion letters to the President and congressional leaders on April 23rd regarding NHTSA’s “cynical attempt” to “subvert,” “usurp,” and “assault” congressional authority and “rewrite” the Clean Air Act’s provisions covering air pollution, “including greenhouse gases.” The governors could not have been clearer (could they?) that they view state authority to control greenhouse emissions as guaranteed by the Clean Air Act and principles of federalism and that, as far as they are concerned, the only relevant federal greenhouse gas control law is the Clean Air Act (with which they are not entirely pleased, but they like it better than putting the federal Department of Transportation in control).
The NHTSA may not appear at first glance to be an environmental protection agency, but the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may be the “vehicle” for an enforced education for NHTSA in climate science and policy. NHTSA’s debut in climate policy takes the form of a comprehensive NEPA environmental impact statement that the Administration has announced that it will draft on climate science and alternative ways to reduce vehicle greenhouse emissions (Federal Register Notice). The public and other agencies of federal and state government will be asked to provide comment. NHTSA wants to make its own collection of studies of greenhouse gas impacts on temperature, water, biological resources, human health and welfare, regional differences, and the time frame in which impacts may occur. If this sounds somewhat familiar, keep in mind that NHTSA comes somewhat new to the climate debate.
Thus, while EPA is asking for public comment on using the Clean Air Act’s provisions for climate management in the US, the NHTSA is creating another parallel public forum on the topic using the NEPA process and the triggering “major federal action” of its proposal of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. While Congress continues to review climate bills and hold hearings, the federal agencies are far from silent. While this election year grinds on, maneuvering for position quietly goes forward among the states and the federal agencies most involved with climate policy development.
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]
While the candidates count delegates, key Senators and Members count votes and try to predict how far toward climate legislation the Congress will progress this year. The short answer: final legislation is not likely this year, although both chambers may come very close. Because the Senate has targeted a vote in June, and the House by the end of the year, it would be a great mistake to view 2008 as a lost year on the climate front, however. To get to these votes, or even to try to get legislation in shape for a vote, means that the fundamental elements of the Senate and House bills will be debated and visible to all who probe beneath the surface. Passage is quite likely in 2009, but the fundamental regulatory structure and economic impact of climate legislation will have been thrashed over thoroughly. The Congress in 2009 will not by any means be writing on a clean slate. To interested stakeholders, the time to weigh in is now – if not already past.
In the Senate, Senator Lieberman optimistically reports that he believes a vote would be veto-proof at sixty votes if the June vote occurs after the Lieberman-Warner bill reaches the Senate floor soon after the Memorial Day recess. But approval may falter if the many amendments Senators are likely to seek come into play. To reach the 60-vote total, the co-sponsors may have to agree to amendments that, while attracting support from fence-sitting senators, may cause others thought safely on board to fall off the fence. Thus, for the US Senate to approve a strong bill this year, the managers will have to walk a fine line from here on out.
Does Senator John McCain support the bill? His support for decisive action on climate is well-documented. But his desire and determination for a role for nuclear power in addressing the climate challenge may place a serious obstacle in the path of approval, because many "climate senators," including the Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works that has favorably reported out the Lieberman-Warner bill, Barbara Boxer of California, have expressed opposition to inclusion of incentives for nuclear power. When other ticklish issues are added to the long list of amendment-prone provisions, the prospects for passage this session look decidedly less optimistic.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and special climate committee chair Edward Markey (D-MA) were not joking when on April Fools Day they expressed their determination to have climate legislation pass the House by the end of the year. But they have complicated their own task by stressing the importance of including India and China in climate solutions. Strictly speaking, there is no role for addressing these two nations' large GHG emissions totals in domestic US climate legislation; Pelosi and Markey are hoping that India and China will be addressed either through the Kyoto agreement process or through the time-tried pathway of bilateral agreements. But bringing up India and China, the twin Achilles' Heels of climate action, the two members appeared to be drawing attention to their critics' strongest reason for avoiding unilateral US action until the largest global emitters are brought into some sort of accord on joint action.
The issues to be addressed in a domestic climate law are truly daunting, and suggest that next calendar year, after the presidential election, is a more likely time to expect climate legislation for the US. Even then, the challenge cannot be overstated. The issues include negotiating out provisions to cover caps and baselines fairly and effectively, with key decisions to be made about how each plant, company, sector, and state will be expected to comply, not to mention vital assumptions going into a domestic framework regarding the limits to be placed on GHG emissions for the nation and the planet. Baselines need to be set, and the effects of mergers, acquisitions, and corporate reorganizations taken fairly into account. These issues exist even before taking up the much-discussed topic of the role trading/banking/offsets will play, especially vis-a-vis Clean Air Act-California AB 32-style performance standards. One of the very largest and most contentious areas will cover congressional decisions – no doubt after fierce lobbying – of the impact of legislation on different economic sectors (transportation, chemicals, manufacturing, not to mention electrical utilities and fuels production and consumption). In this connection, legislation can be made (or derailed) by proposed provisions regarding phase-in, byes and safety valves, and cost-spreading.
Allocating emissions allowances is about as controversial as the new legislation can possibly become, with major debate about the grandfathering existing sources, whether to auction all or just some of the rights to emit, and allowance retirement. After both creating enormous value in the form of legislative permission to emit GHGs, and auctioning or allocating the newly-minted rights to emit, already it is clear that a large federal direct and indirect subsidy program will be launched, that may favor green technology and conservation and disfavor existing unaltered high-GHG emitting technologies. Early action credits will certainly receive attention, but to what extent and in what form? This has yet to be fully resolved, nor has the point at which allowance purchase may finally be set to occur: upstream/downstream, at the point of energy use or the point of carbon release.
