Oct 13: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, held a press conference and issued a statement regarding further legislative actions on the Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act (S. 1733) [See WIMS 9/30/09]. Boxer said, "I am here today to bring you up to date on our effort to report a strong clean energy jobs bill to the full Senate as soon as possible." The Committee will hear testimony during the week of October 27, and a Committee markup could be held the week of November 2 or November 9.
Senator Boxer continued, "Members of the Committee and their staff, along with the EPW Committee staff, have been working day and night since the bill was introduced, and we have made great progress on the Chairman's Mark for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. Draft provisions of the Chairman's Mark have been sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis. We expect the EPA's analysis to be completed in time for legislative hearings later this month.
"We will begin a week of intensive legislative hearings on S. 1733 and the Chairman's Mark on Tuesday, October 27. We will hold hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday that week. At our first hearing, on Tuesday, October 27th at 9:30 AM, we will hear testimony from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, before our full Committee. The complete schedule for Wednesday's and Thursday's legislative hearings will be announced shortly.
"We will schedule a full Committee markup of the bill as soon as possible after our hearings. I am pleased to report we are continuing to expand support for our bill. Momentum for this effort is growing every day, and we are broadening and deepening our coalition with each step in the process. At the September 30 press conference where we introduced the bill, we were joined by a powerful and diverse coalition of organizations and constituencies united in their strong support for action to create clean energy jobs, increase our energy independence, strengthen our national and economic security, and protect our children and our planet from dangerous pollution.
"Standing with us on that stage were business leaders, national security experts and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Governors, mayors and other state and local officials were represented, as well as energy companies, labor unions, environmental organizations, entrepreneurs, and more. Since then, I can report that Evangelical groups and other religious communities have expressed their commitment to help us move the bill quickly. All of this adds up to growing momentum toward a successful vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee."
Access a release and link to an audio of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for S. 1733 (click here).
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Bangkok Climate Negotiations End In Tensions & Turmoil
Oct 9: The two-week climate negotiations in Bangkok concluded with the US climate negotiator saying it will be "extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number"; some developing countries walking out of the negotiations and accusing the EU of attempting to kill the Kyoto Protocol; and no clarity on finance and mid-term emission reduction targets. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer attempted to put a positive spin on the meetings saying, “A will has emerged in Bangkok to build the architecture to rapidly implement climate action; but, significant differences remain. In December, citizens everywhere in the world will have a right to know exactly what their governments will do to prevent dangerous climate change. It is time now to step back from self interest and let the common interest prevail.”
Tensions were already running high at the end of week one of the meetings as 180 countries met in Bangkok, Thailand at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings of two working groups -- the first part of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP); and the first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) [See WIMS 10/5/09]. Now, it appears that with just 58 days to go until the major meeting in Copenhagen, frustration levels are rising.
Despite the frustrations, Secretary de Boer reported in a final press briefing that parties made progress on the issues of adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building. He said they also reached agreement on technical issues such as forests and land use, how to assess the global warming potentials of new greenhouse gases and the number of options for strengthening the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
However, he emphasized that little progress was made on the issue of mid-term emission reduction targets for industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/07/09]. And clarity is lacking on the issue of finance that developing countries need to undertake additional actions to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. De Boer said, “A good example with regard to what industrialized countries can do to increase the level of their ambition in the context of an international agreement at Copenhagen is the minus 40% emissions reduction target announced by Norway today.”
The negotiations in Thailand will be followed by five days of pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Barcelona, Spain (November 2-6) before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-18). De Boer said, “Negotiators have three weeks back in their capitals to receive guidance from their political leaders to complete their work. Bold leadership must open the roadblocks around the essentials of targets and finance that the negotiators can complete their journey.
UNFCCC points out that one of the beacons to guide discussions identified by heads of state and government meeting in New York in September is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video of the closing press briefing (click here). Access a report on the negotiations from BNA (click here). Access a report from Bloomberg (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access additional links to various media reports on the meetings (click here).
Tensions were already running high at the end of week one of the meetings as 180 countries met in Bangkok, Thailand at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings of two working groups -- the first part of the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP); and the first part of the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) [See WIMS 10/5/09]. Now, it appears that with just 58 days to go until the major meeting in Copenhagen, frustration levels are rising.
Despite the frustrations, Secretary de Boer reported in a final press briefing that parties made progress on the issues of adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building. He said they also reached agreement on technical issues such as forests and land use, how to assess the global warming potentials of new greenhouse gases and the number of options for strengthening the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
However, he emphasized that little progress was made on the issue of mid-term emission reduction targets for industrialized countries [See WIMS 10/07/09]. And clarity is lacking on the issue of finance that developing countries need to undertake additional actions to limit their emissions growth and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change. De Boer said, “A good example with regard to what industrialized countries can do to increase the level of their ambition in the context of an international agreement at Copenhagen is the minus 40% emissions reduction target announced by Norway today.”
The negotiations in Thailand will be followed by five days of pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Barcelona, Spain (November 2-6) before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (December 7-18). De Boer said, “Negotiators have three weeks back in their capitals to receive guidance from their political leaders to complete their work. Bold leadership must open the roadblocks around the essentials of targets and finance that the negotiators can complete their journey.
UNFCCC points out that one of the beacons to guide discussions identified by heads of state and government meeting in New York in September is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s finding that an aggregate emission reduction by industrialized countries of between minus 25% and 40% over 1990 levels would be required by 2020, and that global emissions would need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
Access a release from UNFCCC (click here). Access a video of the closing press briefing (click here). Access a report on the negotiations from BNA (click here). Access a report from Bloomberg (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access additional links to various media reports on the meetings (click here).
Thursday, October 08, 2009
GAO Reports On Mercury Controls At Coal-Fired Power Plants
Oct 8: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Clean Air Act: Mercury Control Technologies at Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Achieved Substantial Emissions Reductions (GAO-10-47, October 8, 2009). The report was prepared at the request of Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) who serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety under the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
GAO indicates that the 491 U.S. coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury emissions nationwide, annually emitting about 48 tons of mercury -- a toxic element that poses health threats, including neurological disorders in children. In 2000, U.S. EPA determined that mercury emissions from these sources should be regulated, but the Agency has not set a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, as the Clean Air Act requires. Some power plants, however, must reduce mercury emissions to comply with state regulations or consent decrees.
After managing a long-term mercury control research and development program, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported in 2008 that systems that inject sorbents -- powdery substances to which mercury binds -- into the exhaust from boilers of coal-fired power plants were ready for commercial deployment. Tests of sorbent injection systems, the most mature mercury control technology, were conducted on a variety of coal types and boiler configurations -- that is, on boilers using different air pollution control devices. In this context, GAO was asked to examine (1) reductions achieved by mercury control technologies and the extent of their use at power plants; (2) the cost of mercury control technologies; and, (3) key issues EPA faces in regulating mercury emissions from power plants. GAO obtained data from power plants operating sorbent injection systems.
GAO reports that commercial deployments and 50 DOE and industry tests of sorbent injection systems have achieved, on average, 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions. These systems are being used on 25 boilers at 14 coal-fired plants, enabling them to meet state or other mercury emission requirements -- generally 80 percent to 90 percent reductions. Importantly, the substantial mercury reductions using these systems commercially and in tests were achieved with all three main types of coal and on boiler configurations that exist at nearly three-fourths of U.S. coal-fired power plants.
The cost of the mercury control technologies in use at power plants has varied, depending in large part on decisions regarding compliance with other pollution reduction requirements. The costs of purchasing and installing sorbent injection systems and monitoring equipment have averaged about $3.6 million for the 14 coal-fired boilers operating sorbent systems alone to meet state requirements. The cost is a fraction of the cost of other pollution control devices. When plants also installed a fabric filter device primarily to assist the sorbent injection system in mercury reduction, the average cost of $16 million is still relatively low compared with that of other air pollution control devices. Annual operating costs of sorbent injection systems, which often consist almost entirely of the cost of the sorbent itself, have been, on average, about $675,000. In addition, some plants have incurred other costs, primarily due to lost sales of a coal combustion byproduct -- fly ash -- that plants have sold for commercial use. The carbon in sorbents can render fly ash unusable for certain purposes.
EPA’s decisions on key regulatory issues will have implications for the effectiveness of its mercury emissions standard. In particular, the data EPA decides to use will impact: (1) the emissions reductions it starts with in developing its regulation; (2) whether it will establish varying standards for the three main coal types; and, (3) how the standard will take into account a full range of operating conditions at the plants. These issues can affect the stringency of the MACT standard EPA proposes. For example, if EPA uses data from its 1999 power plant survey as the basis for its mercury standard, the standard could be less stringent than what has been broadly demonstrated in recent commercial deployments and DOE tests of sorbent injection systems at power plants. On July 2, 2009, EPA announced that it would seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct an information collection request to update existing emissions data, among other things, from power plants.
Access the complete 47-page GAO report (click here).
GAO indicates that the 491 U.S. coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated industrial source of mercury emissions nationwide, annually emitting about 48 tons of mercury -- a toxic element that poses health threats, including neurological disorders in children. In 2000, U.S. EPA determined that mercury emissions from these sources should be regulated, but the Agency has not set a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, as the Clean Air Act requires. Some power plants, however, must reduce mercury emissions to comply with state regulations or consent decrees.
After managing a long-term mercury control research and development program, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported in 2008 that systems that inject sorbents -- powdery substances to which mercury binds -- into the exhaust from boilers of coal-fired power plants were ready for commercial deployment. Tests of sorbent injection systems, the most mature mercury control technology, were conducted on a variety of coal types and boiler configurations -- that is, on boilers using different air pollution control devices. In this context, GAO was asked to examine (1) reductions achieved by mercury control technologies and the extent of their use at power plants; (2) the cost of mercury control technologies; and, (3) key issues EPA faces in regulating mercury emissions from power plants. GAO obtained data from power plants operating sorbent injection systems.
GAO reports that commercial deployments and 50 DOE and industry tests of sorbent injection systems have achieved, on average, 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions. These systems are being used on 25 boilers at 14 coal-fired plants, enabling them to meet state or other mercury emission requirements -- generally 80 percent to 90 percent reductions. Importantly, the substantial mercury reductions using these systems commercially and in tests were achieved with all three main types of coal and on boiler configurations that exist at nearly three-fourths of U.S. coal-fired power plants.
The cost of the mercury control technologies in use at power plants has varied, depending in large part on decisions regarding compliance with other pollution reduction requirements. The costs of purchasing and installing sorbent injection systems and monitoring equipment have averaged about $3.6 million for the 14 coal-fired boilers operating sorbent systems alone to meet state requirements. The cost is a fraction of the cost of other pollution control devices. When plants also installed a fabric filter device primarily to assist the sorbent injection system in mercury reduction, the average cost of $16 million is still relatively low compared with that of other air pollution control devices. Annual operating costs of sorbent injection systems, which often consist almost entirely of the cost of the sorbent itself, have been, on average, about $675,000. In addition, some plants have incurred other costs, primarily due to lost sales of a coal combustion byproduct -- fly ash -- that plants have sold for commercial use. The carbon in sorbents can render fly ash unusable for certain purposes.
EPA’s decisions on key regulatory issues will have implications for the effectiveness of its mercury emissions standard. In particular, the data EPA decides to use will impact: (1) the emissions reductions it starts with in developing its regulation; (2) whether it will establish varying standards for the three main coal types; and, (3) how the standard will take into account a full range of operating conditions at the plants. These issues can affect the stringency of the MACT standard EPA proposes. For example, if EPA uses data from its 1999 power plant survey as the basis for its mercury standard, the standard could be less stringent than what has been broadly demonstrated in recent commercial deployments and DOE tests of sorbent injection systems at power plants. On July 2, 2009, EPA announced that it would seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct an information collection request to update existing emissions data, among other things, from power plants.
Access the complete 47-page GAO report (click here).
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Developed Countries GHG Reduction Commitments Fall Short
Oct 6: One of the most contentious arguments in the current international negotiations on climate change is the individual level of commitment from various developed countries to greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions by the 2020 interim deadline and the 2050 long-term deadline. Also contentious is the base year from which the target reductions are measured from -- e.g. from 1990 or 2005, or something else. Underlying the argument is the level of reduction absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change consequences -- i.e. the so-called "tipping point." And, the begging question; if the international community does something less than what is absolutely necessary -- is it worth doing at all.
A new analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) sheds some insight on the issues. WRI indicates that commitments made by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when added together, fall short of stabilizing global temperatures at a level that averts dangerous climate change. The analysis, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, examines the pledges made by the European Union, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belarus, Ukraine and Canada as negotiations on a new global climate agreement near their climax in Copenhagen this December. Also included is the United States’s emission reductions based on the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June.
WRI’s analysis reveals that commitments by these industrialized country parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would result in a 10 to 24 percent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 (the interim target). This is less than the 25 to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450ppm, a level associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting a two degrees Celsius goal. Both the G8 and the Major Economies Forum - representing the world’s 17 leading economies - recently agreed to a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
It should be noted, however, that the WRI analysis is based on the 450ppm science; while there is a major sector of interests that believe that number should actually be 350ppm. They (i.e. 350.org) argue that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
350.org indicates, "350 is a relatively new target being discussed in the scientific community, compared to 450ppm or 2 degrees Celsius that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports. Currently many policy-makers, institutions, and NGOs are still supporting targets that are out of date and greatly increase the risk of catastrophic climatic changes. . . the 350 target began to attract more endorsers as new scientific reports and evidence of early impacts made it clear that we are already above the safe level for CO2. In his annual speech, Nobel laureate Al Gore told delegates to the most recent climate negotiating session that we must now ‘toughen our goal’ to 350ppm. . ." The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) also support the 350ppm target. Also, NASA climate scientist James Hansen has issued papers about, and supporting the 350ppm target.
Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s climate and energy program said about the WRI analysis, “Our analysis provides a preliminary picture of where the world is headed in the run-up to Copenhagen. While emission reduction commitments by these countries could have an important and potentially substantial impact, they will not be enough to meet recommendations of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. WRI therefore urges industrialized countries to bring forward more ambitious pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The WRI report, which covers pledges by countries responsible for 98% of all developed country emissions, uses three metrics to compare country commitments -- per capita reductions, emission intensity reductions, and absolute reductions. The 10 to 24 percent reduction is based on the inclusion or omission of factors, such as changes in land use, forestry data and low vs. high pledges. Other key findings include: (1) The choice of metrics used by countries (such as whether to include offsets, land-use change or forestry emissions) can alter their emission reduction calculations significantly. (2) High regulatory standards and robust accounting rules will be critical to ensure that international emission reductions are real and additional.
Access an overview of the WRI analysis (click here). Access a second overview with highlighted recommendations (click here). Access the complete 23-page analysis with extensive links to sources and background documents and data (click here). Access the 350.org website for extensive background and information on the 350ppm target (click here).
A new analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI) sheds some insight on the issues. WRI indicates that commitments made by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when added together, fall short of stabilizing global temperatures at a level that averts dangerous climate change. The analysis, Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges, examines the pledges made by the European Union, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belarus, Ukraine and Canada as negotiations on a new global climate agreement near their climax in Copenhagen this December. Also included is the United States’s emission reductions based on the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives in June.
WRI’s analysis reveals that commitments by these industrialized country parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would result in a 10 to 24 percent reduction of global emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 (the interim target). This is less than the 25 to 40 percent range of emission reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states would be necessary for stabilizing concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450ppm, a level associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting a two degrees Celsius goal. Both the G8 and the Major Economies Forum - representing the world’s 17 leading economies - recently agreed to a goal of limiting average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
It should be noted, however, that the WRI analysis is based on the 450ppm science; while there is a major sector of interests that believe that number should actually be 350ppm. They (i.e. 350.org) argue that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
350.org indicates, "350 is a relatively new target being discussed in the scientific community, compared to 450ppm or 2 degrees Celsius that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports. Currently many policy-makers, institutions, and NGOs are still supporting targets that are out of date and greatly increase the risk of catastrophic climatic changes. . . the 350 target began to attract more endorsers as new scientific reports and evidence of early impacts made it clear that we are already above the safe level for CO2. In his annual speech, Nobel laureate Al Gore told delegates to the most recent climate negotiating session that we must now ‘toughen our goal’ to 350ppm. . ." The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) also support the 350ppm target. Also, NASA climate scientist James Hansen has issued papers about, and supporting the 350ppm target.
Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI’s climate and energy program said about the WRI analysis, “Our analysis provides a preliminary picture of where the world is headed in the run-up to Copenhagen. While emission reduction commitments by these countries could have an important and potentially substantial impact, they will not be enough to meet recommendations of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. WRI therefore urges industrialized countries to bring forward more ambitious pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
The WRI report, which covers pledges by countries responsible for 98% of all developed country emissions, uses three metrics to compare country commitments -- per capita reductions, emission intensity reductions, and absolute reductions. The 10 to 24 percent reduction is based on the inclusion or omission of factors, such as changes in land use, forestry data and low vs. high pledges. Other key findings include: (1) The choice of metrics used by countries (such as whether to include offsets, land-use change or forestry emissions) can alter their emission reduction calculations significantly. (2) High regulatory standards and robust accounting rules will be critical to ensure that international emission reductions are real and additional.
Access an overview of the WRI analysis (click here). Access a second overview with highlighted recommendations (click here). Access the complete 23-page analysis with extensive links to sources and background documents and data (click here). Access the 350.org website for extensive background and information on the 350ppm target (click here).
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
President's Signs Executive Order On Federal Sustainability
Oct 5: President Obama signed a new Executive Order on Federal Sustainability. The Executive Order (EO) challenges agencies to lead by example in energy and environmental performance and gives them 90 days to set a 2020 greenhouse reduction goal. It also sets targets for efficient, sustainable buildings, petroleum use reduction in fleets, water efficiency, waste reduction, purchasing green technologies and product, and supporting sustainable communities.
According to a blog post by Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), "By fulfilling the Executive Order, the Federal government will demonstrate that economic performance and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand. And by putting Federal purchasing power to work -- more than $500 billion per year in goods and services -- the government can build on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help turn good entrepreneurial ideas into great American enterprises that create jobs.
According to a release from the White House, the President said, "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies. This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."
The Federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.
The new EO requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including: 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020; 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020; 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015; 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements; Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement; Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and U.S. EPA.
Access the White House blog post (click here). Access the release from the White House (click here). Access the 15-page EO (click here).
According to a blog post by Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), "By fulfilling the Executive Order, the Federal government will demonstrate that economic performance and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand. And by putting Federal purchasing power to work -- more than $500 billion per year in goods and services -- the government can build on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help turn good entrepreneurial ideas into great American enterprises that create jobs.
According to a release from the White House, the President said, "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies. This Executive Order builds on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates the Federal government’s commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing emissions and saving money."
The Federal government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000 vehicles, employs more than 1.8 million civilians, and purchases more than $500 billion per year in goods and services. The Executive Order builds on and expands the energy reduction and environmental requirements of Executive Order 13423 by making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority of the Federal government, and by requiring agencies to develop sustainability plans focused on cost-effective projects and programs.
The new EO requires agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions toward agency-defined targets. It describes a process by which agency goals will be set and reported to the President by the Chair of CEQ. The Executive Order also requires agencies to meet a number of energy, water, and waste reduction targets, including: 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020; 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020; 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015; 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements; Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement; Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and U.S. EPA.
Access the White House blog post (click here). Access the release from the White House (click here). Access the 15-page EO (click here).
Monday, October 05, 2009
Expectations Dim; Tensions Mount In Climate Negotiations
Oct 2: At a Washington, DC "ideas forum" known as the First Draft of History, sponsored by the Atlantic magazine, Carol Browner, the White House climate chief offered some interesting insights into the Administration's thinking and expectations on climate change legislation in advance of the international meeting in Copenhagen in December. On the critical question of whether the White House expect to have climate change legislation by the end of the year or before Copenhagen, Browner said, "Obviously, we'd like to be through the process. However the chance of having a bill signed by the President and ready to go to Copenhagen. . . That's not likely to happen. But we could perhaps be out of committee... We could be out headed to the floor, there could be a leadership bill out there ... We will go to Copenhagen with whatever we have."
Another Atlantic magazine report indicates that Browner also floated the possibility of the EPA implementing cap-and-trade energy policies. . . (i.e. under the authority of the Clean Air Act). When asked, during an interview with Atlantic Media Political Director Ronald Brownstein, about the difficulties of passing the stalled energy/climate bill -- which would implement a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme -- through the Senate, Browner reportedly said, "We also have the reality of EPA, under current law, moving forward... to start the traditional regulatory clock." She then said that such an action would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress" -- since businesses could wind up with a less cohesive regulatory scheme, more difficult to comply with in multiple states, if the EPA moves forward on its own.
However, the Atlantic and Browner both emphasized that "the Obama administration strongly prefers a congressional consensus, as creating a cap-and-trade scheme would be a massive, controversial, and perhaps unprecedented undertaking for the EPA." Browner indicated "it's much better if Congress does it, and that's what the president wants," adding that legislation is "absolutely" the administration's preference over EPA action.
Meanwhile, as 180 countries begin their second week of talks in Bangkok, Thailand [See WIMS 9/28/09] the UK's Guardian is reporting that, developing countries are showing "their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on Kyoto's next round." Reportedly, Yu Qingtai China's special representative on climate talks said, "The reason why we are not making progress [in the talks] is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialized] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol. We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations."
Also reported is that, Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN's largest intergovernmental organization of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks has said, "Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol."
Another article in the Guardian reports that there is a high degree of secrecy in the Bangkok negotiations. They report, ". . .the press, the NGOs, even business - are not allowed to see or hear any of the negotiating sessions. And our EU leaders plan just one short session with the world's media on Friday afternoon when the talks here finish."
Additionally, the buzz in the climate change community is whether President Obama will make a return trip to Copenhagen in December after his recent trip to press for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. At a demonstration in Copenhagen, Greenpeace displayed a large banner St. Nicholas Church Tower reading Right city, wrong date.” Bloomberg reports that Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. Global Warming Campaign in Washington said, “I would hope since he went to push Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, he would go back in December to help save the world from climate change.” And, Annie Petsnok, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund said, "Other nations hope the president’s willingness to go to Copenhagen for the Olympics signals that he will be willing to do the same kind of outreach needed to move the climate issue forward."
In terms of what is being officially reported from the Bangkok meetings, at a press conference held midway through the Talks in Bangkok on October 2, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke of encouraging signals that the Talks can deliver the tools and rules essential to a successful climate change deal in Copenhagen. He said, "Solid progress has been made already in some key areas of a global agreement, such as adaptation, technology and capacity-building in developing countries." However, he reported there is lack of clarity on two issues that are key to success in Copenhagen: rich nation emission reduction targets and financial support for climate change action in developing countries. He said progress on industrialized nations' emissions cuts "remains disappointing," and movement on raising money and deploy assistance to developing countries also "remains slow."
Access a report and videos of Browner's remarks from the Atlantic (click here). Access a second article on Browner's comments from the Atlantic (click here). Access the Atlantic's First Draft of History website for more information (click here). Access a detailed article in the Guardian (click here). Access Guardian series of articles and reports "Countdown to Copenhagen" (click here). Access the G-77 website (click here). Access the Bloomberg's article on the President's Copenhagen return trip (click here). Access a video of the de Boer press briefing (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access IISD Twitter feed (click here).
Another Atlantic magazine report indicates that Browner also floated the possibility of the EPA implementing cap-and-trade energy policies. . . (i.e. under the authority of the Clean Air Act). When asked, during an interview with Atlantic Media Political Director Ronald Brownstein, about the difficulties of passing the stalled energy/climate bill -- which would implement a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme -- through the Senate, Browner reportedly said, "We also have the reality of EPA, under current law, moving forward... to start the traditional regulatory clock." She then said that such an action would "obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress" -- since businesses could wind up with a less cohesive regulatory scheme, more difficult to comply with in multiple states, if the EPA moves forward on its own.
However, the Atlantic and Browner both emphasized that "the Obama administration strongly prefers a congressional consensus, as creating a cap-and-trade scheme would be a massive, controversial, and perhaps unprecedented undertaking for the EPA." Browner indicated "it's much better if Congress does it, and that's what the president wants," adding that legislation is "absolutely" the administration's preference over EPA action.
Meanwhile, as 180 countries begin their second week of talks in Bangkok, Thailand [See WIMS 9/28/09] the UK's Guardian is reporting that, developing countries are showing "their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on Kyoto's next round." Reportedly, Yu Qingtai China's special representative on climate talks said, "The reason why we are not making progress [in the talks] is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialized] countries. There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol. We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations."
Also reported is that, Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN's largest intergovernmental organization of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks has said, "Feelings are running high in the G77. It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol."
Another article in the Guardian reports that there is a high degree of secrecy in the Bangkok negotiations. They report, ". . .the press, the NGOs, even business - are not allowed to see or hear any of the negotiating sessions. And our EU leaders plan just one short session with the world's media on Friday afternoon when the talks here finish."
Additionally, the buzz in the climate change community is whether President Obama will make a return trip to Copenhagen in December after his recent trip to press for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. At a demonstration in Copenhagen, Greenpeace displayed a large banner St. Nicholas Church Tower reading Right city, wrong date.” Bloomberg reports that Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. Global Warming Campaign in Washington said, “I would hope since he went to push Chicago’s bid for the Olympics, he would go back in December to help save the world from climate change.” And, Annie Petsnok, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund said, "Other nations hope the president’s willingness to go to Copenhagen for the Olympics signals that he will be willing to do the same kind of outreach needed to move the climate issue forward."
In terms of what is being officially reported from the Bangkok meetings, at a press conference held midway through the Talks in Bangkok on October 2, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke of encouraging signals that the Talks can deliver the tools and rules essential to a successful climate change deal in Copenhagen. He said, "Solid progress has been made already in some key areas of a global agreement, such as adaptation, technology and capacity-building in developing countries." However, he reported there is lack of clarity on two issues that are key to success in Copenhagen: rich nation emission reduction targets and financial support for climate change action in developing countries. He said progress on industrialized nations' emissions cuts "remains disappointing," and movement on raising money and deploy assistance to developing countries also "remains slow."
Access a report and videos of Browner's remarks from the Atlantic (click here). Access a second article on Browner's comments from the Atlantic (click here). Access the Atlantic's First Draft of History website for more information (click here). Access a detailed article in the Guardian (click here). Access Guardian series of articles and reports "Countdown to Copenhagen" (click here). Access the G-77 website (click here). Access the Bloomberg's article on the President's Copenhagen return trip (click here). Access a video of the de Boer press briefing (click here). Access complete details on the Bangkok meetings including on-demand webcasts and links to all documents for both meetings (click here). Access day-by-day reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (click here). Access IISD Twitter feed (click here).
Friday, October 02, 2009
Major GAO Report Examines Critical Ethanol, Biofuels & RFS Issues
Oct 2: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a major 184-page report, requested by Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) entitled, Biofuels: Potential Effects and Challenges of Required Increases in Production and Use (GAO-09-446, August 25, 2009). The report addresses issues surrounding the December 2007, expansion of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) by Congress, which requires increasing the use of ethanol and other biofuels, from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.
GAO says to meet the RFS, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE) are developing advanced biofuels that use cellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover and switchgrass. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the RFS. Specifically, the report examines: (1) the known agricultural and related effects of increased biofuels feedstock production in the United States; (2) the known environmental effects of increased feedstock cultivation and conversion and biofuels use in the United States; (3) the results, assumptions, and limitations of key scientific analyses of the lifecycle greenhouse gas effects of biofuels produced from different feedstocks; (4) federal support for developing a domestic biofuels industry; (5) federal funding for advanced biofuels research and development (R&D); and (6) key challenges in meeting the RFS’s specified levels. GAO extensively reviewed scientific studies, interviewed experts and agency officials, and visited five DOE and USDA laboratories.
GAO indicates that to meet the RFS, domestic biofuels production must increase significantly, with uncertain effects for agriculture and the environment. For agriculture, many experts said that biofuels production has contributed to crop price increases as well as increases in prices of livestock and poultry feed and, to a lesser extent, food. They believe that this trend may continue as the RFS expands. For the environment, many experts believe that increased biofuels production could impair water quality -- by increasing fertilizer runoff and soil erosion -- and also reduce water availability, degrade air and soil quality, and adversely affect wildlife habitat. However, GAO says the extent of these effects is uncertain and could be mitigated by such factors as improved crop yields, feedstock selection, use of conservation techniques, and improvements in biorefinery processing.
Except for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is currently not required by statute to assess environmental effects to determine what biofuels are eligible for inclusion in the RFS. Many researchers told GAO there is general agreement on the approach for measuring the direct effects of biofuels production on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions but disagreement about how to estimate the indirect effects on global land use change, which EPA is required to assess in determining RFS compliance. In particular, researchers disagree about what nonagricultural lands will be converted to sustain world food production to replace land used to grow biofuels crops.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), a 45-cent per gallon federal tax credit, was established to support the domestic ethanol industry. Unless crude oil prices rise significantly, the VEETC is not expected to stimulate ethanol consumption beyond the level the RFS specifies this year. The VEETC also may no longer be needed to stimulate conventional corn ethanol production because the domestic industry has matured, its processing is well understood, and its capacity is already near the effective RFS limit of 15 billion gallons per year for conventional ethanol. A separate $1.01 tax credit is available for producing advanced cellulosic biofuels.
The nation faces several key challenges in expanding biofuels production to achieve the RFS's 36-billion-gallon requirement in 2022. For example, farmers face risks in transitioning to cellulosic biofuels production and are uncertain whether growing switchgrass will eventually be profitable. USDA's new Biomass Crop Assistance Program may help mitigate these risks by providing payments to farmers through multi-year contracts. In addition, U.S. ethanol use is approaching the so-called blend wall -- the amount of ethanol that most U.S. vehicles can use, given EPA's 10 percent limit on the ethanol content in gasoline.
Research has been initiated on the long-term effects of using 15 percent or 20 percent ethanol blends, but expanding the use of 85 percent ethanol blends will require substantial new investment because ethanol is too corrosive for the petroleum distribution infrastructure and most vehicles. Alternatively, further R&D on biorefinery processing technologies might lead to price-competitive biofuels that are compatible with the existing petroleum distribution and storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles. GAO makes a number of recommendations as follows:
(1) To improve EPA's ability to determine biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions and define fuels eligible for consideration under the RFS, the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should develop a coordinated approach for identifying and researching unknown variables and major uncertainties in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of increased biofuels production. This approach should include a coordinated effort to develop parameters for using models and a standard set of assumptions and methods in assessing greenhouse gas emissions for the full biofuel lifecycle, such as secondary effects that would include indirect land-use changes associated with increased biofuels production.
(2) To minimize future blend wall issues and associated ethanol distribution infrastructure costs, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should give priority to research and development (R&D) on process technologies that produce biofuels that can be used by the existing petroleum-based distribution storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles.
(3) To address inconsistencies in existing statutory language, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, review and propose to the appropriate congressional committees any legislative changes the Administrator determines may be needed to clarify what biomass material - based on type of feedstock or type of land can be counted toward RFS.
Access the complete report (click here).
GAO says to meet the RFS, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Energy (DOE) are developing advanced biofuels that use cellulosic feedstocks, such as corn stover and switchgrass. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the RFS. Specifically, the report examines: (1) the known agricultural and related effects of increased biofuels feedstock production in the United States; (2) the known environmental effects of increased feedstock cultivation and conversion and biofuels use in the United States; (3) the results, assumptions, and limitations of key scientific analyses of the lifecycle greenhouse gas effects of biofuels produced from different feedstocks; (4) federal support for developing a domestic biofuels industry; (5) federal funding for advanced biofuels research and development (R&D); and (6) key challenges in meeting the RFS’s specified levels. GAO extensively reviewed scientific studies, interviewed experts and agency officials, and visited five DOE and USDA laboratories.
GAO indicates that to meet the RFS, domestic biofuels production must increase significantly, with uncertain effects for agriculture and the environment. For agriculture, many experts said that biofuels production has contributed to crop price increases as well as increases in prices of livestock and poultry feed and, to a lesser extent, food. They believe that this trend may continue as the RFS expands. For the environment, many experts believe that increased biofuels production could impair water quality -- by increasing fertilizer runoff and soil erosion -- and also reduce water availability, degrade air and soil quality, and adversely affect wildlife habitat. However, GAO says the extent of these effects is uncertain and could be mitigated by such factors as improved crop yields, feedstock selection, use of conservation techniques, and improvements in biorefinery processing.
Except for lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is currently not required by statute to assess environmental effects to determine what biofuels are eligible for inclusion in the RFS. Many researchers told GAO there is general agreement on the approach for measuring the direct effects of biofuels production on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions but disagreement about how to estimate the indirect effects on global land use change, which EPA is required to assess in determining RFS compliance. In particular, researchers disagree about what nonagricultural lands will be converted to sustain world food production to replace land used to grow biofuels crops.
The Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), a 45-cent per gallon federal tax credit, was established to support the domestic ethanol industry. Unless crude oil prices rise significantly, the VEETC is not expected to stimulate ethanol consumption beyond the level the RFS specifies this year. The VEETC also may no longer be needed to stimulate conventional corn ethanol production because the domestic industry has matured, its processing is well understood, and its capacity is already near the effective RFS limit of 15 billion gallons per year for conventional ethanol. A separate $1.01 tax credit is available for producing advanced cellulosic biofuels.
The nation faces several key challenges in expanding biofuels production to achieve the RFS's 36-billion-gallon requirement in 2022. For example, farmers face risks in transitioning to cellulosic biofuels production and are uncertain whether growing switchgrass will eventually be profitable. USDA's new Biomass Crop Assistance Program may help mitigate these risks by providing payments to farmers through multi-year contracts. In addition, U.S. ethanol use is approaching the so-called blend wall -- the amount of ethanol that most U.S. vehicles can use, given EPA's 10 percent limit on the ethanol content in gasoline.
Research has been initiated on the long-term effects of using 15 percent or 20 percent ethanol blends, but expanding the use of 85 percent ethanol blends will require substantial new investment because ethanol is too corrosive for the petroleum distribution infrastructure and most vehicles. Alternatively, further R&D on biorefinery processing technologies might lead to price-competitive biofuels that are compatible with the existing petroleum distribution and storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles. GAO makes a number of recommendations as follows:
(1) To improve EPA's ability to determine biofuels' greenhouse gas emissions and define fuels eligible for consideration under the RFS, the U.S. EPA Administrator and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should develop a coordinated approach for identifying and researching unknown variables and major uncertainties in the lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of increased biofuels production. This approach should include a coordinated effort to develop parameters for using models and a standard set of assumptions and methods in assessing greenhouse gas emissions for the full biofuel lifecycle, such as secondary effects that would include indirect land-use changes associated with increased biofuels production.
(2) To minimize future blend wall issues and associated ethanol distribution infrastructure costs, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy should give priority to research and development (R&D) on process technologies that produce biofuels that can be used by the existing petroleum-based distribution storage infrastructure and the current fleet of U.S. vehicles.
(3) To address inconsistencies in existing statutory language, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy, review and propose to the appropriate congressional committees any legislative changes the Administrator determines may be needed to clarify what biomass material - based on type of feedstock or type of land can be counted toward RFS.
Access the complete report (click here).
Thursday, October 01, 2009
EPA Proposes GHG Permits For Large Sources
Sep 30: U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator announced a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. EPA is calling the proposed rule the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule." The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain NSR and title V permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters -- including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. The permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.
Administrator Jackson said, “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources . . . This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best -- reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future -- all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
The large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such as farms and restaurants, and many other types of small facilities, would not be included in these requirements. EPA said with the proposed emissions thresholds, it estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. The proposed rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but is requesting comment on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.
In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating GHG emissions. EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy issued a statement saying, "The EPA’s legal authority to exempt small manufacturers and businesses from permits mandated by the Clean Air Act is unclear at best. This new rule is a slippery slope that could lead to costly economy-wide regulation of “stationary sources” such as small factories, hospitals and farms. Congress, not the EPA, is the appropriate authority for amending the Clean Air Act. The NAM opposes use of the Clean Air Act as a means of regulating GHG emissions. Today’s announcement from the EPA sets the stage for regulation of large industrial sources that will add significant costs to manufacturers as they struggle to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. The proposed rule establishes a precedent for economy-wide regulation that will cost jobs and hurt the nation’s economy at the worst possible time."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the full text of the Administrators (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 416-page proposed rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the proposed rule (click here). Access the proposed rules and related information (click here). Access the NAM statement (click here).
Administrator Jackson said, “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy. This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to only the largest sources . . . This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best -- reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future -- all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”
The large facilities would include power plants, refineries, and factories. Small businesses such as farms and restaurants, and many other types of small facilities, would not be included in these requirements. EPA said with the proposed emissions thresholds, it estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants. The proposed rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but is requesting comment on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.
In addition, EPA is requesting public comment on its previous interpretation of when certain pollutants, including CO2 and other GHGs, would be covered under the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act. A different interpretation could mean that large facilities would need to obtain permits prior to the finalization of a rule regulating GHG emissions. EPA will accept comment on these proposals for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for Energy & Resources Policy Keith McCoy issued a statement saying, "The EPA’s legal authority to exempt small manufacturers and businesses from permits mandated by the Clean Air Act is unclear at best. This new rule is a slippery slope that could lead to costly economy-wide regulation of “stationary sources” such as small factories, hospitals and farms. Congress, not the EPA, is the appropriate authority for amending the Clean Air Act. The NAM opposes use of the Clean Air Act as a means of regulating GHG emissions. Today’s announcement from the EPA sets the stage for regulation of large industrial sources that will add significant costs to manufacturers as they struggle to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. The proposed rule establishes a precedent for economy-wide regulation that will cost jobs and hurt the nation’s economy at the worst possible time."
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the full text of the Administrators (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 416-page proposed rule (click here). Access a fact sheet on the proposed rule (click here). Access the proposed rules and related information (click here). Access the NAM statement (click here).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Boxer-Kerry Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act
Sep 30: Following preliminary releases of two different versions of a Senate Climate Change bill, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, and Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hosted an event to introduce the official Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. They were joined by a broad coalition which they said showed "support for action in the U.S. Senate to address global warming." They were joined by Democratic Members of the EPW committee and other senators, as well as leaders from the business, faith, national security, energy and environmental community, and local and state officials.
According to a release from Senators Kerry and Boxer, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector. Senator Kerry said, "This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change. Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier’ that makes an already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer, for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children’s health and our environment.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time. Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge. American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early that this issue is about America’s national and economic security.”
In advance of the Democrats release of the bill, Republicans on the EPW Committee, lead by Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), outspoken critic of climate change science and legislation, sent a letter to Chairman Boxer urging the introduction of "a complete cap-and-trade bill with no placeholders." Senator Inhofe said in a statement, “My hope is that Chairman Boxer avoids repeating the process of pushing climate change legislation in the House, in which key portions of the bill were inserted at the last minute, and the American people were left guessing as to how it would impact their energy costs, their jobs, and America’s energy security. We must have a fair, open, and transparent process so we can have a debate on the facts and the substance of legislation with all its provisions, no matter how politically sensitive they may be.”
In their letter, the Republican Senators indicate in their letter, "We understand that your bill, as currently drafted, is incomplete in several important respects -- most notably, it lacks a formula to determine the allocation of emission allowances. Leaving out these and other key provisions makes it impossible to get an objective estimate of the economic impacts of your bill on consumers, especially those in energy-intensive regions that rely on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs. Moreover, farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food, and gasoline prices. . ."
Several documents are available including: a Bill Overview; a Bill Summary; a summary of the Pollution Reduction and Investment (PRI) is a mechanism; and a Section By Section Summary (See links below).
Some early reactions to the Senate legislation were available from : The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Greenpeace; Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); Friends of the Earth (FOI); and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
NRDC said, “This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. . . This is the right step at the right time. It confronts the growing problem of global warming head-on – before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It calls for a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s a strong and achievable goal. It will reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, while accelerating the move to a clean energy future for our country. A new analysis from UC Berkeley confirms that clean energy and climate legislation can strengthen our economy and create jobs. According to the report, comprehensive energy legislation with strong efficiency measures can create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.”
UCS said, "A stronger short-term target makes scientific sense. U.S. emissions levels are now lower than expected, so we're already well on our way to meeting these goals. Additionally, more of the carbon dioxide we're emitting today is staying in the atmosphere because the ocean is absorbing less carbon from the air. That means early cuts in emissions are even more critical to keep temperatures down and prevent the worst consequences of climate change."
Greenpeace said, "While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the US to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change. This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty. . . the legislation only proposes to cut emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 while the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that developed countries must cut emissions at least 25% – 40% under 1990 levels by 2020."
CBD said, "The Kerry-Boxer climate bill marks a baby step forward in the ever more urgent fight against climate catastrophe, but much bolder action is needed. . . While the Senate bill recognizes the absolute necessity of stronger emissions reduction targets, the targets in the Senate bill -- like those in the House bill -- are woefully inadequate. This legislation would not save the polar bear and numerous other species and ecosystems because it simply does not go far enough quickly enough. The scientific consensus is clear: We must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to no more than 350 parts per million. Leading climate scientists have called for reductions of approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels to avoid climate catastrophe, and yet this bill aims to deliver only a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels.”
FOI said, "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
API said, "Boxer-Kerry leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it appears to be following the pattern the House followed, which resulted in a political bidding process that picked winners and losers. The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses. . . We strongly urge the Senate not to follow the same pattern. It should craft a bill that provides equal treatment across the U.S. economy, recognizes and encourages more use of clean-burning natural gas, preempts EPA climate regulation under the Clean Air Act, and avoids the severest consequences of Waxman-Markey."
Access a release from Senators Boxer & Kerry and links to the additional documents (click here). Access a separate release from Senator Boxer with more summary information (click here). Access the 821-page bill (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe and link to the letter (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from FOI (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
According to a release from Senators Kerry and Boxer, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector. Senator Kerry said, "This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate change with American ingenuity. It is our country’s defense against the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate change. Our health, our security, our economy, our environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier’ that makes an already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer, for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children’s health and our environment.”
Senator Boxer said, “We know clean energy is the ticket to strong, stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time. Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge. American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early that this issue is about America’s national and economic security.”
In advance of the Democrats release of the bill, Republicans on the EPW Committee, lead by Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), outspoken critic of climate change science and legislation, sent a letter to Chairman Boxer urging the introduction of "a complete cap-and-trade bill with no placeholders." Senator Inhofe said in a statement, “My hope is that Chairman Boxer avoids repeating the process of pushing climate change legislation in the House, in which key portions of the bill were inserted at the last minute, and the American people were left guessing as to how it would impact their energy costs, their jobs, and America’s energy security. We must have a fair, open, and transparent process so we can have a debate on the facts and the substance of legislation with all its provisions, no matter how politically sensitive they may be.”
In their letter, the Republican Senators indicate in their letter, "We understand that your bill, as currently drafted, is incomplete in several important respects -- most notably, it lacks a formula to determine the allocation of emission allowances. Leaving out these and other key provisions makes it impossible to get an objective estimate of the economic impacts of your bill on consumers, especially those in energy-intensive regions that rely on coal for electricity and manufacturing for jobs. Moreover, farmers, families and workers have no way of gauging how acutely they will be affected from job losses, higher electricity, food, and gasoline prices. . ."
Several documents are available including: a Bill Overview; a Bill Summary; a summary of the Pollution Reduction and Investment (PRI) is a mechanism; and a Section By Section Summary (See links below).
Some early reactions to the Senate legislation were available from : The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Greenpeace; Center for Biological Diversity (CBD); Friends of the Earth (FOI); and the American Petroleum Institute (API).
NRDC said, “This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. . . This is the right step at the right time. It confronts the growing problem of global warming head-on – before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It calls for a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s a strong and achievable goal. It will reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, while accelerating the move to a clean energy future for our country. A new analysis from UC Berkeley confirms that clean energy and climate legislation can strengthen our economy and create jobs. According to the report, comprehensive energy legislation with strong efficiency measures can create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.”
UCS said, "A stronger short-term target makes scientific sense. U.S. emissions levels are now lower than expected, so we're already well on our way to meeting these goals. Additionally, more of the carbon dioxide we're emitting today is staying in the atmosphere because the ocean is absorbing less carbon from the air. That means early cuts in emissions are even more critical to keep temperatures down and prevent the worst consequences of climate change."
Greenpeace said, "While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the US to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change. This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty. . . the legislation only proposes to cut emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 while the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that developed countries must cut emissions at least 25% – 40% under 1990 levels by 2020."
CBD said, "The Kerry-Boxer climate bill marks a baby step forward in the ever more urgent fight against climate catastrophe, but much bolder action is needed. . . While the Senate bill recognizes the absolute necessity of stronger emissions reduction targets, the targets in the Senate bill -- like those in the House bill -- are woefully inadequate. This legislation would not save the polar bear and numerous other species and ecosystems because it simply does not go far enough quickly enough. The scientific consensus is clear: We must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to no more than 350 parts per million. Leading climate scientists have called for reductions of approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels to avoid climate catastrophe, and yet this bill aims to deliver only a 20-percent reduction from 2005 levels.”
FOI said, "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
API said, "Boxer-Kerry leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it appears to be following the pattern the House followed, which resulted in a political bidding process that picked winners and losers. The losers would be millions of Americans and American companies who rely on gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to get to work and to school and to run their businesses. . . We strongly urge the Senate not to follow the same pattern. It should craft a bill that provides equal treatment across the U.S. economy, recognizes and encourages more use of clean-burning natural gas, preempts EPA climate regulation under the Clean Air Act, and avoids the severest consequences of Waxman-Markey."
Access a release from Senators Boxer & Kerry and links to the additional documents (click here). Access a separate release from Senator Boxer with more summary information (click here). Access the 821-page bill (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe and link to the letter (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from CBD (click here). Access a release from FOI (click here). Access a release from API (click here).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Exelon Joins Others In Dropping U.S. Chamber Membership
Sep 28: Exelon Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe urged utility industry leaders, regulators and policymakers at the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE) national conference to continue pushing for sensible climate change legislation that puts a price on carbon. Rowe said, “The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible. Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.”
In his speech, Rowe recognized the need to balance our nation’s fragile economic recovery with the need to address climate change, and pointed to energy efficiency as a lower-cost way to meet those goals. Rowe discussed how Exelon utilities ComEd and PECO plan to spend $290 million per year over the next five years on energy-efficiency and demand response programs. The plan aims to help customers reduce their energy use by more than 3.7 million megawatt hours and cut peak load by 388 megawatts. Exelon’s energy-efficiency programs place the company third among the nation’s utilities in terms of customer energy savings.
Rowe announced that Exelon will not be renewing its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of their stance on climate change legislation. The company joins other recent similar announcements from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee; New Mexico power company PNM; and Duke Energy and Alstom who publicly gave up their membership in the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy. Also, Nike has said it fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change [See WIMS 9/24/09].
In making his announcement Rowe said, "Some see carbon legislation as just another issue they can use as a cudgel against President Obama. In the short term they may be right. But the EPA has received license from the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will. The result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable legislative solution. I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans and business groups can’t recognize this reality. Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US Chamber this year."
Chicago-based Exelon Corporation is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. The company distribute electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in Illinois (ComEd) and Pennsylvania (PECO), and gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area (PECO). Exelon has one of the industry’s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon operates what it says is the largest and most efficient nuclear fleet in the United States and the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world.
Access a release from Exelon (click here). Access the full text of Rowe's speech (click here). Access the Exelon website for more information (click here). Access ACEEE's website on the 5th annual conference on energy efficiency (click here). Access an E&ETV interview with PG&E's Peter Darbee (click here). Access various media reports from NYT, WSJ, WP and others (click here).
In his speech, Rowe recognized the need to balance our nation’s fragile economic recovery with the need to address climate change, and pointed to energy efficiency as a lower-cost way to meet those goals. Rowe discussed how Exelon utilities ComEd and PECO plan to spend $290 million per year over the next five years on energy-efficiency and demand response programs. The plan aims to help customers reduce their energy use by more than 3.7 million megawatt hours and cut peak load by 388 megawatts. Exelon’s energy-efficiency programs place the company third among the nation’s utilities in terms of customer energy savings.
Rowe announced that Exelon will not be renewing its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of their stance on climate change legislation. The company joins other recent similar announcements from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee; New Mexico power company PNM; and Duke Energy and Alstom who publicly gave up their membership in the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy. Also, Nike has said it fundamentally disagrees with the US Chamber of Commerce's position on climate change [See WIMS 9/24/09].
In making his announcement Rowe said, "Some see carbon legislation as just another issue they can use as a cudgel against President Obama. In the short term they may be right. But the EPA has received license from the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. If Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will. The result will be more arbitrary, more expensive and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable legislative solution. I am disappointed that Congressional Republicans and business groups can’t recognize this reality. Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US Chamber this year."
Chicago-based Exelon Corporation is one of the nation’s largest electric utilities with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. The company distribute electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in Illinois (ComEd) and Pennsylvania (PECO), and gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area (PECO). Exelon has one of the industry’s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon operates what it says is the largest and most efficient nuclear fleet in the United States and the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world.
Access a release from Exelon (click here). Access the full text of Rowe's speech (click here). Access the Exelon website for more information (click here). Access ACEEE's website on the 5th annual conference on energy efficiency (click here). Access an E&ETV interview with PG&E's Peter Darbee (click here). Access various media reports from NYT, WSJ, WP and others (click here).
Monday, September 28, 2009
G-20: "Will Spare No Effort To Reach Agreement In Copenhagen"
Sep 25: Among many other broad, general commitments, the G-20 members meeting in Pittsburgh September 24-25, agreed that they "will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen," at the UNFCCC COP15 meeting in Denmark scheduled for December 7-18. The G-20 includes the 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S., and a representative of the European Union. Some of the commitments related to energy, climate and sustainability are summarized as follows:- Our Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth is a compact that commits us to work together to assess how our policies fit together, to evaluate whether they are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced growth, and to act as necessary to meet our common objectives.
- Over four billion people remain undereducated, ill-equipped with capital and technology, and insufficiently integrated into the global economy. We need to work together to make the policy and institutional changes needed to accelerate the convergence of living standards and productivity in developing and emerging economies to the levels of the advanced economies. To start, we call on the World Bank to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.
- To phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.
- We call on our Energy and Finance Ministers to report to us their implementation strategies and timeline for acting to meet this critical commitment at our next meeting.
- We will promote energy market transparency and market stability as part of our broader effort to avoid excessive volatility. - To maintain our openness and move toward greener, more sustainable growth.
- We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.
In further details the G-20 members said, "Enhancing our energy efficiency can play an important, positive role in promoting energy security and fighting climate change. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the IEA have found that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 by ten percent. Many countries are reducing fossil fuel subsidies while preventing adverse impact on the poorest. Building on these efforts and recognizing the challenges of populations suffering from energy poverty, we commit to:
"Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based on their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit. We ask the international financial institutions to offer support to countries in this process. We call on all nations to adopt policies that will phase out such subsidies worldwide."
And, on the climate change issue they said, " Increasing clean and renewable energy supplies, improving energy efficiency, and promoting conservation are critical steps to protect our environment, promote sustainable growth and address the threat of climate change. Accelerated adoption of economically sound clean and renewable energy technology and energy efficiency measures diversifies our energy supplies and strengthens our energy security. We commit to:
(1) Stimulate investment in clean energy, renewables, and energy efficiency and provide financial and technical support for such projects in developing countries. (2) Take steps to facilitate the diffusion or transfer of clean energy technology including by conducting joint research and building capacity. The reduction or elimination of barriers to trade and investment in this area are being discussed and should be pursued on a voluntary basis and in appropriate fora.
"As leaders of the world’s major economies, we are working for a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We underscore anew our resolve to take strong action to address the threat of dangerous climate change. We reaffirm the objective, provisions, and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including common but differentiated responsibilities. We note the principles endorsed by Leaders at the Major Economies Forum in L’Aquila, Italy. We will intensify our efforts, in cooperation with other parties, to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the UNFCCC negotiation. An agreement must include mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing.
"As leaders of the world’s major economies, we are working for a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We underscore anew our resolve to take strong action to address the threat of dangerous climate change. We reaffirm the objective, provisions, and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including common but differentiated responsibilities. We note the principles endorsed by Leaders at the Major Economies Forum in L’Aquila, Italy. We will intensify our efforts, in cooperation with other parties, to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the UNFCCC negotiation. An agreement must include mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing.
"We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered in the UNFCCC negotiations at Copenhagen."
One of the most controversial issues included in the G-20 statement was the stance on eliminating "fossil fuel subsidies." The American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard issued a statement saying, "The Obama administration and Congress now face many difficult choices if they choose to comply with the G-20 commitment to phase-out 'fossil fuel subsidies.' Above all else, the president and Congress should not use this commitment as an excuse to raise energy taxes on American consumers and businesses. Does the president really think it wise to eliminate tax provisions that encourage investment in technology and exploration and development and would likely constrict future energy supplies, raise energy costs and kill jobs?
"The pledge made to the G-20 also raises questions about the administration's commitments to vitally important energy programs. Will the White House ultimately cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and deny our most vulnerable citizens winter heat? Will they eliminate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and undermine America's energy security? And what about the Highway Trust Fund? What America really needs is energy from all sources. . ."
In an earlier September 23, release from API in advance of the G-20 meeting, Gerard said, "As President Obama prepares to meet with the leaders of the G-20 nations Thursday, he should be commended for noting that climate change is a challenge for both developed and developing nations. But his call to 'phase out fossil fuel subsidies' is a wrong-headed approach that should be seen for what it really is: A giant tax hike on American consumers. . ."
Access the G-20 complete Leaders Statement (click here). Access the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit website for more information (click here). Access a series links to White House fact sheets on the G-20 Summit (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access the 9/23 release from API (click here).
"The pledge made to the G-20 also raises questions about the administration's commitments to vitally important energy programs. Will the White House ultimately cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and deny our most vulnerable citizens winter heat? Will they eliminate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and undermine America's energy security? And what about the Highway Trust Fund? What America really needs is energy from all sources. . ."
In an earlier September 23, release from API in advance of the G-20 meeting, Gerard said, "As President Obama prepares to meet with the leaders of the G-20 nations Thursday, he should be commended for noting that climate change is a challenge for both developed and developing nations. But his call to 'phase out fossil fuel subsidies' is a wrong-headed approach that should be seen for what it really is: A giant tax hike on American consumers. . ."
Access the G-20 complete Leaders Statement (click here). Access the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit website for more information (click here). Access a series links to White House fact sheets on the G-20 Summit (click here). Access a release from API (click here). Access the 9/23 release from API (click here).
Friday, September 25, 2009
U.S. Chamber Concerned With 2nd Circuit Public Nuisance Ruling
Sep 23: Calling it an "alarming reversal of established precedent, the U.S. Chamber of commerce is expressing real concern over the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit decision in Connecticut v. American Electric Power which upheld public nuisance claims in climate change litigation [See WIMS 9/22/09].
The major 139-page decision regarding citizen and government enforcement of greenhouse gas emissions is being hailed as a "landmark ruling" by environmental organizations. Interestingly, the case was finally decided by a two judge panel that noted, "The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, originally a member of the panel, was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 8, 2009. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter."
The ruling justices said in their opinion, "With regard to air pollution, particularly greenhouse gases, this case occupies a niche similar to the one Milwaukee I occupied with respect to water pollution. With that in mind, the concluding words of Milwaukee I have an eerie resonance almost forty years later. To paraphrase: 'It may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance. But until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance' by greenhouse gases. . ."
Commenting on the ruling, Lisa Rickard, President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform said, “We are deeply troubled that the Second Circuit has chosen to ignore well-settled law and allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ novel public nuisance claims to proceed. For the better part of the decade, key players within the plaintiffs’ bar have been aggressively advancing a twisted use of the public nuisance legal theory -- an 800-year-old legal concept historically applied to unreasonable interference with public rights -- as an avenue for new mass tort litigation to address issues not designed for judicial resolution. While courts have rightly repudiated this flawed legal scheme, America’s lawsuit industry needs only one precedent-setting victory to open up a public nuisance can of worms.
"Unfortunately, the Second Circuit’s decision to allow public nuisance claims to proceed against businesses for their contributions to global warming may be just the break the trial lawyers need to press ahead with their liability expanding crusade. If this decision is allowed to reverse the judicial trend, it will help further line the pockets of trial lawyers, but it will come at the expense of virtually every U.S. consumer and employer.”
Plaintiffs in thee case involved the states of CT, NY, CA, IA, NJ, RI, VT, and WI plus New York City, Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Defendants included: American Electric Power Company, Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Cinergy Corporation.
Access the statement from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the complete opinion (click here).
The major 139-page decision regarding citizen and government enforcement of greenhouse gas emissions is being hailed as a "landmark ruling" by environmental organizations. Interestingly, the case was finally decided by a two judge panel that noted, "The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, originally a member of the panel, was elevated to the Supreme Court on August 8, 2009. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter."
The ruling justices said in their opinion, "With regard to air pollution, particularly greenhouse gases, this case occupies a niche similar to the one Milwaukee I occupied with respect to water pollution. With that in mind, the concluding words of Milwaukee I have an eerie resonance almost forty years later. To paraphrase: 'It may happen that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance. But until that comes to pass, federal courts will be empowered to appraise the equities of the suits alleging creation of a public nuisance' by greenhouse gases. . ."
Commenting on the ruling, Lisa Rickard, President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform said, “We are deeply troubled that the Second Circuit has chosen to ignore well-settled law and allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ novel public nuisance claims to proceed. For the better part of the decade, key players within the plaintiffs’ bar have been aggressively advancing a twisted use of the public nuisance legal theory -- an 800-year-old legal concept historically applied to unreasonable interference with public rights -- as an avenue for new mass tort litigation to address issues not designed for judicial resolution. While courts have rightly repudiated this flawed legal scheme, America’s lawsuit industry needs only one precedent-setting victory to open up a public nuisance can of worms.
"Unfortunately, the Second Circuit’s decision to allow public nuisance claims to proceed against businesses for their contributions to global warming may be just the break the trial lawyers need to press ahead with their liability expanding crusade. If this decision is allowed to reverse the judicial trend, it will help further line the pockets of trial lawyers, but it will come at the expense of virtually every U.S. consumer and employer.”
Plaintiffs in thee case involved the states of CT, NY, CA, IA, NJ, RI, VT, and WI plus New York City, Open Space Institute, Inc., Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Defendants included: American Electric Power Company, Inc., American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Cinergy Corporation.
Access the statement from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Summing Up The UN Climate Change Summit In NYC
Sep 23: A release from the United Nations (UN) indicates that the Climate Change Summit convened by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon succeeded in mobilizing political will ahead of a major conference later this year by focusing the attention of world leaders on the urgent need for action on global warming [See WIMS 9/22/09]. The UN said the summit was the "largest-ever high-level gathering on the issue" -- attended by over 100 world leaders -- and was part of Ban’s efforts to mobilize momentum as governments work to "seal the deal" on an ambitious new agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions at the UN climate change conference to be held in December in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18. According to a release, the summit also succeeded in accomplishing another major goal, in that “there was a serious and sustained dialogue between the most vulnerable and the major economies. A UN official said, “It was very striking how much the leaders agreed that they need to agree and can agree in Copenhagen. This was an important recognition by all the leaders present that a deal was possible and that they are going to work very hard to achieve it.”
In addition, a number of important announcements were made, including by Japan, which pledged to slash their emissions by 25 per cent by 2020, and Maldives, which said it intends to become climate-neutral by 2020. One of the biggest outcomes of the day highlighted by the official was that financing finally took centre stage. He said financing is the sine qua non [essential prerequisite condition] of getting a successful deal in Copenhagen. He drew attention to a proposal put on the table for supporting "a minimum of $100 billion per annum over the next decade, which many leaders rallied around. " Leaders also apparently said they were prepared to come together again before Copenhagen, depending on how negotiations go. The Secretary-General said he is prepared to convene such a meeting, if desired.
In a key statement at the Summit, H.E.Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China said his country has adopted and is implementing the National Climate Change Program which includes "mandatory national targets for reducing energy intensity and the discharge of major pollutants, and increasing forest coverage and the share of renewable energy for the period of 2005 through 2010."
China said further that, in the years ahead it will take the following measures: (1) intensify effort to conserve energy and improve energy efficiency and cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by a "notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level." (2) "vigorously develop renewable and nuclear energy" seeking 15% non-fossil fuels by 2020. (3) increase forest carbon sinks by increasing forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 from 2005 levels. (4) "step up effort to develop" a green, low-carbon, circular economy and enhance R&D and "climate-friendly technologies."
In a related development, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced that a number of groups -- from cities and railways to postal services, industry and civil society organizations -- have pledged to significantly reduce their carbon footprint and promote greener living by joining the UN Climate Neutral Network. UNEP Executive Director-General Achim Steiner said, “The growth of the climate neutral movement around the world is a clear sign that people from all walks of life are committed to solving the climate crisis and bringing about low-carbon economies and societies." Launched in 2008, the UNEP-led Network has close to 100 participants worldwide, including several countries, cities, major international companies, UN agencies and leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Among the new groups joining forces with the Network are the University of California, Berkeley, and the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) located in Bangkok, Thailand, as well as the Universal Postal Union, the International Union of Railways and Japan Airlines.
In a related matter, at a High-level Event on Deforestation in Developing Countries, Ban called for increased funding for the UN Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) initiative. UN-REDD, launched last September by Ban, compensates developing countries for reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The initiative approved $18 million in funding in March, with roughly a third going to anti-deforestation initiatives in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania and Viet Nam. Ban said, “We now need to mobilize further funding for REDD and establish transparent systems to distribute payments and measure results.”
In addition to storing over one trillion tons of the world’s carbon, forests purify water, protect soils, prevent floods and droughts and are home to the majority of the world’s land-based species. At the same time, some 1.6 billion people depend on forests for sustenance and income. Almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than all the world’s cars, trucks, ships and planes combined -- result from deforestation and degradation of forests.
Access a release from the UN (click here). Access a summary of the UN press conference (click here). Access the statement from China's President (click here). Access a release on the REDD initiative and links to related information (click here). Access the climate Change Summit website for extensive information including all statements and program information (click here). Access links to videos of key speeches, events, statements, etc. for the September 22 and 23 meetings and more from the UN webcast archives (click here).
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
DOI Offshore Energy Strategy Receives 450,000+ Comments
Sep 22: Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Federal government has received more than 450,000 comments from the public regarding the development of a comprehensive offshore energy strategy for the Outer Continental Shelf. DOI's Minerals Management Service (MMS) received the comments during an extended public comment period that Salazar established for the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program in February [See WIMS 2/11/09].
The public comment period, which ended on September 21st, provided the public additional opportunity to provide input on a plan released by the previous administration on January 16, 2009, its last business day in office. Many of the comments came from four regional meetings that Secretary Salazar hosted in New Jersey, Louisiana, Alaska, and California. Salazar said, “In the meetings I hosted -- from New Orleans to Anchorage -- I was proud to see Americans play an active role in the development of a comprehensive offshore energy strategy for our nation. I heard broad agreement that we must confront our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, build a clean energy future, and make wise use of the limited resources we have while protecting our land, water, and wildlife.”
DOI indicated in a release that MMS is carefully reviewing all of the comments submitted. Following the review and analysis of the comments, which is expected to take several weeks due to the large number of comments, the next step in the process is to initiate environmental analysis and public scoping opportunities associated with the five year plan, required by law, for oil and gas development in the OCS.
Salazar said, “I look forward to reviewing MMS’s analysis of the public comments. The offshore energy program we are developing must address our nation’s energy security challenges, deliver a fair return to the taxpayers who own the resources, and account for the views of local communities, states, and tribal nations. In addition, it must take into account several key considerations, including areas of the ocean that are critical to military training and the nation’s defenses; other economic benefits of the oceans, including fisheries, tourism, and subsistence uses; environmental considerations; existing oil and gas infrastructure; interest from industry; and the availability of scientific and seismic data. I am confident that we will be able to expand our nation’s offshore energy portfolio by focusing on development in the right way in the right places.”
DOI oversees more than 1.7 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf -- an area roughly three-fourths of the size of the entire United States. In addition to overseeing oil and gas development in the OCS, the MMS has established the first-ever framework for offshore renewable energy development in order to guide environmentally responsible renewable energy development and to broaden the nation’s energy supplies.
Access a release from DOI with links to additional information (click here). Access the docket for this action (click here).
The public comment period, which ended on September 21st, provided the public additional opportunity to provide input on a plan released by the previous administration on January 16, 2009, its last business day in office. Many of the comments came from four regional meetings that Secretary Salazar hosted in New Jersey, Louisiana, Alaska, and California. Salazar said, “In the meetings I hosted -- from New Orleans to Anchorage -- I was proud to see Americans play an active role in the development of a comprehensive offshore energy strategy for our nation. I heard broad agreement that we must confront our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, build a clean energy future, and make wise use of the limited resources we have while protecting our land, water, and wildlife.”
DOI indicated in a release that MMS is carefully reviewing all of the comments submitted. Following the review and analysis of the comments, which is expected to take several weeks due to the large number of comments, the next step in the process is to initiate environmental analysis and public scoping opportunities associated with the five year plan, required by law, for oil and gas development in the OCS.
Salazar said, “I look forward to reviewing MMS’s analysis of the public comments. The offshore energy program we are developing must address our nation’s energy security challenges, deliver a fair return to the taxpayers who own the resources, and account for the views of local communities, states, and tribal nations. In addition, it must take into account several key considerations, including areas of the ocean that are critical to military training and the nation’s defenses; other economic benefits of the oceans, including fisheries, tourism, and subsistence uses; environmental considerations; existing oil and gas infrastructure; interest from industry; and the availability of scientific and seismic data. I am confident that we will be able to expand our nation’s offshore energy portfolio by focusing on development in the right way in the right places.”
DOI oversees more than 1.7 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf -- an area roughly three-fourths of the size of the entire United States. In addition to overseeing oil and gas development in the OCS, the MMS has established the first-ever framework for offshore renewable energy development in order to guide environmentally responsible renewable energy development and to broaden the nation’s energy supplies.
Access a release from DOI with links to additional information (click here). Access the docket for this action (click here).
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
President Obama Addresses UN Climate Summit In NYC
Sep 22: Nearly 100 heads of State and Government converged on United Nations Headquarters in New York City for a Climate Change Summit convened by un Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Just 75 days before the start of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, where nations are set to wrap up negotiations on an ambitious new international agreement on curbing the emission of harmful greenhouse gases, the Summit was designed to mobilize the political momentum to accelerate the pace of negotiations and emphasize the importance of the pending agreement. The event is also a part of the first-ever Climate Week NY°C.In a plea to the delegates present, Secretary-General opened the Summit saying, "Climate change is the pre-eminent geopolitical and economic issue of the 21st century. It rewrites the global equation for development, peace and security.” He countered claims that addressing global warming comes at too high a price tag and said, “They are wrong. The opposite is true. We will pay an unacceptable price if we do not act now.” He urged developed nations to take the first steps forward, with developing nations also needing to make strides. He said, “All countries must do more -- now.”
President Obama said, ". . .the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe. . . No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. . . The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, and our safety -- are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. . .
"I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. We are making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy -- an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. . . Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. . .
"Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward. . . We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations. But though many of our nations have taken bold action and share in this determination, we did not come here to celebrate progress today. We came because there's so much more progress to be made. We came because there's so much more work to be done. . .
"As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge. But I'm here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress. Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet -- and we must all do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.
"We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead -- and that includes the United States. And we will continue to do so -- by investing in renewable energy and promoting greater efficiency and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.
"But those rapidly growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part, as well. Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy. Still, they need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together. There's no other way.
"We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations -- especially the poorest and most vulnerable -- on a path to sustained growth. . . And that is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development. What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet. . .
"Mr. Secretary, as we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there's finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done. We know that our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to build a better world. . ."
Access a lengthy release from the UN with links to the Secretary-General's comments and more (click here). Access the full text of the President's address (click here). Access the Summit website for complete information including the background, the program, text and video statements from delegates, and much more (click here). Access the Climate Week NYC website for extensive information (click here).
Monday, September 21, 2009
Climate Legislation Debate Confused Over Cost Estimates
Sep 21: As the Senate begins debate over climate change legislation, conflicting reports on the overall costs are giving both sides of the issue reason to tout their claims. The following provides and overview of a recent report from CBO; the release of FOIA information on a 2008 Treasury Department memo; and a recent detailed report by the Congressional Research Service. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is currently conducting hearings on the cost associated with cap and trade, climate change legislation.
CBO Report On Economic Effects of GHG Legislation
Sep 18: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report -- The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions -- that summarizes its analyses of the economic effects of proposed policy changes aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). In its report CBO makes several points regarding the economic implications of policies that might be chosen to address climate change:
Republicans React To Cap & Trade Costs Estimates
Sep 16: U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee released a statement in response to the U.S. Treasury Department’s estimate that cap and trade legislation would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion annually. Senator Murkowski was reacting to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) information released a from a ... (FOIA) request to the Department of Treasury. The redacted November 8 memo from Treasury indicates it expects that the sort of plan that the president is calling for -- a plan that either immediately auctions off carbon dioxide emission permits or sells nearly all after a few years of giving industry most of its permits for free – would bring from $100-200 billion per year in revenue for the government. CEI indicated that "At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be $1,761 a year, on top of what they already pay in taxes to the government."
Senator Murkowski said, “It’s becoming apparent that the administration knew all along how much their cap and trade program would cost, yet they continue to claim it will cost no more than a postage stamp a day. I believe we need to do something about climate change, but I’m equally concerned about the health of the economy. We must focus on legislation that will effectively limit costs, establish a realistic compliance curve, and encourage the rest of the world to join the effort. Some have dismissed the costs of climate legislation as minimal, or surmountable, but we lawmakers must remember that we will be affected far less than many others. Those who will really feel its effects are trying to find jobs right now. They are trying to find a way to pay their bills and mortgages. We shouldn’t pass legislation that makes it harder for Americans to get back on their feet.”
CEI issued a release saying, “The cost of a cap-and-trade plan to businesses and consumers will be huge, which the Treasury Department internally acknowledges. The documents represent what the administration expects ‘cap and trade’ to cost, and raise. It's a candid perspective that must be told with as much openness to the American public as administration staff discuss with each other. Therefore, we call on the Administration to immediately release complete, un-redacted copies of these documents for all to see. No more hiding.”
The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is currently conducting hearings on the cost associated with cap and trade, climate change legislation. The Committee held a hearing on September 15 [See WIMS 9/16/09]. A second hearing, scheduled for September 17, was postponed until further notice.
A 100-page report -- Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 -- by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), released at the first Senate hearing and dated September 14, 2009 indicates, "Attempts to estimate household effects (or other fine-grained analyses) are fraught with numerous difficulties that reflect more on the philosophies and assumptions of the cases reviewed than on any credible future effect." The report, concludes with a range of cost per household based on various assumptions and estimates that are much lower than the cost indicated in the 2008 treasury memo.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, also issued a statement on the CEI release. Senator Inhofe said, During the campaign, President Obama promised tax relief for the middle class. That was then, this is now: the President’s own economic team said his cap-and-trade proposal would cost each family $1,761 per year. To keep his promise with the middle class, the President should have changed course. Instead, he eagerly supported cap-and-trade in the House. And he continues to support it now. And if President Obama gets his way, middle class families, indeed all families, will pay more for gasoline, food, electricity, and much more. This revelation also raises fundamental issues of trust and transparency. . ."
Access a blog posting from CBO summarizing the report (click here). Access the complete CBO report (click here). Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a release from CEI and link to the FOIA documents (click here). Access the CRS report on costs and benefits (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the first Senate hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access previous WIMS eNewsUSA postings on the cost of climate change legislation (click here).
CBO Report On Economic Effects of GHG Legislation
Sep 18: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report -- The Economic Effects of Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions -- that summarizes its analyses of the economic effects of proposed policy changes aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). In its report CBO makes several points regarding the economic implications of policies that might be chosen to address climate change:
- "The economic impact would depend importantly on the design of the policy. Decisions about whether to reduce greenhouse gases primarily through market-based systems (such as taxes or a cap-and-trade program) or primarily through traditional regulatory approaches that specify performance or technology standards would influence the total costs of reducing emissions and the distribution of those costs. The costs would also depend on the stringency of the policy; whether other countries imposed similar policies; the amount of flexibility about when, where, and how emissions would be reduced; and the allocation of allowances if a cap-and-trade system was used.
- "Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. A cap-and-trade system, for example, would lead to higher prices for energy from fossil fuels and for energy-intensive goods, which would in turn provide incentives for households and businesses to use less carbon-based energy and to develop energy sources that emit smaller amounts of carbon dioxide. Changes in the relative prices for energy and energy-intensive goods would also shift income among households at different points in the income distribution and across industries and regions of the country. Policymakers could counteract some of those income losses and shifts by having the government sell emission allowances and use the revenues to compensate certain households or businesses, or by having the government give allowances away to some households or businesses. Even so, some income losses and shifts would occur.
- "For example, CBO concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, would reduce GDP below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (that is, inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest. In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP because consumption falls by less than GDP and because households benefit from more time spent in nonmarket activities. Moreover, these measures of potential costs do not include any benefits of averting climate change.
- "Climate legislation would cause permanent shifts in production and employment away from industries that produce carbon-based energy and energy-intensive goods and services and toward industries that produce alternative energy sources and less-energy-intensive goods and services. While those shifts were occurring, total employment would probably be reduced a little compared with what it would have been without such a policy, because labor markets would most likely not adjust as quickly as would the composition of demand for different outputs.
- "CBO has estimated the loss in purchasing power that would result from the primary cap-and-trade program in H.R. 2454. CBO’s measure reflects the higher prices that households would face and the compensation they would receive, primarily through the allocation of allowances or the proceeds from their sale. However, the measure omits some channels of influence on households’ well-being that cannot be readily quantified. It appears that CBO’s measure probably understates the true burden to a small degree. As estimated, the loss in purchasing power would be modest and would rise over time as the cap became more stringent, accounting for 0.2 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.2 percent in 2050.
- "The distribution of the loss in purchasing power across households depends importantly on policymakers’ decisions about how to allocate the allowances. According to CBO’s calculation, households in the lowest fifth of households when arrayed by income would see gains in purchasing power in both 2020 and 2050, because the compensation they would receive would exceed the costs they would bear. However, households in the middle fifth would see net losses in purchasing power amounting to 0.6 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.1 percent in 2050."
Republicans React To Cap & Trade Costs Estimates
Sep 16: U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking Member of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee released a statement in response to the U.S. Treasury Department’s estimate that cap and trade legislation would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion annually. Senator Murkowski was reacting to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) information released a from a ... (FOIA) request to the Department of Treasury. The redacted November 8 memo from Treasury indicates it expects that the sort of plan that the president is calling for -- a plan that either immediately auctions off carbon dioxide emission permits or sells nearly all after a few years of giving industry most of its permits for free – would bring from $100-200 billion per year in revenue for the government. CEI indicated that "At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be $1,761 a year, on top of what they already pay in taxes to the government."
Senator Murkowski said, “It’s becoming apparent that the administration knew all along how much their cap and trade program would cost, yet they continue to claim it will cost no more than a postage stamp a day. I believe we need to do something about climate change, but I’m equally concerned about the health of the economy. We must focus on legislation that will effectively limit costs, establish a realistic compliance curve, and encourage the rest of the world to join the effort. Some have dismissed the costs of climate legislation as minimal, or surmountable, but we lawmakers must remember that we will be affected far less than many others. Those who will really feel its effects are trying to find jobs right now. They are trying to find a way to pay their bills and mortgages. We shouldn’t pass legislation that makes it harder for Americans to get back on their feet.”
CEI issued a release saying, “The cost of a cap-and-trade plan to businesses and consumers will be huge, which the Treasury Department internally acknowledges. The documents represent what the administration expects ‘cap and trade’ to cost, and raise. It's a candid perspective that must be told with as much openness to the American public as administration staff discuss with each other. Therefore, we call on the Administration to immediately release complete, un-redacted copies of these documents for all to see. No more hiding.”
The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is currently conducting hearings on the cost associated with cap and trade, climate change legislation. The Committee held a hearing on September 15 [See WIMS 9/16/09]. A second hearing, scheduled for September 17, was postponed until further notice.
A 100-page report -- Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 -- by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), released at the first Senate hearing and dated September 14, 2009 indicates, "Attempts to estimate household effects (or other fine-grained analyses) are fraught with numerous difficulties that reflect more on the philosophies and assumptions of the cases reviewed than on any credible future effect." The report, concludes with a range of cost per household based on various assumptions and estimates that are much lower than the cost indicated in the 2008 treasury memo.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, also issued a statement on the CEI release. Senator Inhofe said, During the campaign, President Obama promised tax relief for the middle class. That was then, this is now: the President’s own economic team said his cap-and-trade proposal would cost each family $1,761 per year. To keep his promise with the middle class, the President should have changed course. Instead, he eagerly supported cap-and-trade in the House. And he continues to support it now. And if President Obama gets his way, middle class families, indeed all families, will pay more for gasoline, food, electricity, and much more. This revelation also raises fundamental issues of trust and transparency. . ."
Access a blog posting from CBO summarizing the report (click here). Access the complete CBO report (click here). Access a release from Senator Murkowski (click here). Access a release from CEI and link to the FOIA documents (click here). Access the CRS report on costs and benefits (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access the first Senate hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access previous WIMS eNewsUSA postings on the cost of climate change legislation (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
