A Carbon Rule is Not a Carbon Law
EPA announced a proposed rule on Tuesday to create a national registry for greenhouse gas emissions reporting.
This step is crucial to any effort to enact a law pricing GHG emissions, be it a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. The rule would mandate annual reporting from suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, as well as any other facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions.
Of course, this wasn’t news to us. We wrote about the rule and the 25,000 metric ton threshold last month.
While this step is important, far more difficult ones lie ahead. This week’s action simply required the Obama Administration to push a draft rule that had languished under its predecessor’s watch.
Now comes the hard part. The Administration must sell its larger vision for legislating carbon regulation in the halls of Congress and in the court of public opinion.
And the last week hasn’t been so encouraging.
Late last week Senator Jeff Bingaman, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called Obama’s vision of a 100 percent auction model (where a regulated party must purchase all allowances required to cover its GHG emissions, as opposed to initially receiving some allowances free under grandfathering provisions) “unlikely.”
This week, investor Warren Buffet, an Obama economic advisor, reiterated his concerns about embracing a cap-and-trade system at all. And finally, carbon tax advocates have not yet surrendered. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) is said to be close to introducing carbon tax legislation. The House Ways & Means Committee Chairman, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is also expected to push for a carbon tax.
Cap-and-trade proponents should savor the coming of the national GHG registry. It may be the best news they have for a while.
Ethanol's Fall and the Oil Price Floor
Earlier last week, I wrote about a recent study that demonstrated how cellulosic ethanol carries fewer public costs than corn ethanol primarily because it releases fewer fine particulate emissions. In part because of its attractive emissions profile, I suggested the future of cellulosic ethanol looked rosy.
Of course, that future depends on demand for ethanol of any kind. And that appears to be very much in question.
The New York Times wrote later this week about how collapsing demand for ethanol has set off a wave of plant closings and bankruptcies in the industry:
“Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group, estimated that of the country’s 150 ethanol companies and 180 plants, 10 or more companies have shut down 24 plants over the last three months.”
When oil was at $145 a barrel, ethanol demand far outpaced the amount needed to satisfy federal mandates for ethanol blending. But now, with oil trading under $40, demand has vanished. New production mandates set by Congress just one year ago seem unattainable as well.
Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said Congress may have to "reconsider" the mandate because oil and gas prices have plummeted and ethanol no longer looks like a go-go fuel.
What can we learn from the ethanol industry’s latest sudden turn? We have said it before; we now say it again: We simply must have prices for oil and gasoline that more closely reflect the fuels’ cost to society. All thoughtful economists, including most of the majority backing the stimulus package, agree that until oil costs are high enough, most national energy and climate policies won’t get off the ground.
The government must step in and set that higher price for oil. It can do it through a carbon cap-and-trade plan or a gas tax.
How do we prevent high gas prices having a disproportionate effect on any segment of society? The revenues of any scheme should go to ease the taxpayer burdens and to subsidize green energy technology, in that order, given the state of the economy today.
Our collective energies should go to designing the best and fairest price support under oil and other carbon-based energy sources, not rolling back biofuels mandates.
