GAO Report Of 18 Expert Opinions On Climate Change Actions

Jun 9: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter report entitled, Climate Change: Expert Opinion on the Economics of Policy Options to Address Climate Change (GAO-08-605, May 9, 2008). The report was requested by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Interior, Environment (including EPA) and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

GAO was asked by the Senators to elicit the opinions of experts on: (1) actions the Congress might consider to address climate change and what is known about the potential benefits, costs, and uncertainties of these actions; and (2) the key strengths and limitations of policies or actions to address climate change. GAO worked with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to identify a panel of noted economists with expertise in analyzing the economic impacts of climate change policies and gathered their opinions through iterative, web-based questionnaires. The findings reported here represent the views of the 18 economists who responded to both questionnaires.

According to GAO, all of the panelists agreed that the Congress should consider using a market-based mechanism to establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 of the 18 panelists recommended additional actions as part of a portfolio to address climate change, such as investment in research and development of low-emissions technologies. Experts differed on the initial stringency of the market-based mechanism, with 14 of the 18 panelists recommending an initial price between less than $1 and $20 per ton of emissions. In addition, 14 of 18 panelists were at least moderately certain that the benefits of their recommended portfolio of actions would outweigh the costs.

To establish a price on emissions, most of the panelists preferred either a tax on emissions or a hybrid policy that incorporates features of both a tax and a cap-and-trade program. A tax would set a fixed price on every ton of emissions, whereas a cap-and-trade program would limit or cap total emissions and establish a market for trading (buying and selling) permits to emit a specific amount of greenhouse gases.

Under the cap-and-trade system, the market would determine the price of emissions. A hybrid system differs from a traditional cap-and-trade system in that the government would cap emissions, but could sell additional emissions permits if the permit price rose above a predetermined level. Panelists also identified general categories of benefits, such as avoided climate change damages, and costs, such as increases in energy prices, associated with their recommended actions.

Overall the panel rated estimates of costs as more useful than estimates of benefits for informing congressional decision making, with some panelists citing uncertainties associated with the future impacts of climate change as limitations to estimating benefits. Further, the majority of panelists agreed that the United States should establish a price on greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible regardless of the extent to which other countries adopt similar policies. At the same time, the majority of panelists said it was at least somewhat important to participate in international negotiations on climate change.

Panelists identified key strengths and limitations of alternative policy approaches that should be of assistance to the Congress in weighing the potential benefits and costs of different policies for addressing climate change. Many panelists said that a cap-and-trade program would be more effective in achieving a desired level of greenhouse gas emissions because, unlike a tax, it would provide certainty that emissions wouldn’t exceed a certain level. However, some of the panelists also said that taxes would be more cost-effective than a cap-and-trade program because the price of emissions would be certain and not susceptible to market fluctuations. Eight panelists therefore preferred a hybrid approach that incorporates features of both a tax and a cap-and-trade program. On average, the panelists rated cost effectiveness as the most important criterion for evaluating various policy options. Finally, panelists said an important strength of using a market-based approach is the ability for the government to raise revenue through a tax or the sale of emissions permits and to use that revenue to offset the adverse effects of the policy.

The 18 panelists included: Joseph Aldy, Resources for the Future; James Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Richard Howarth, Dartmouth College; Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University; Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University; William Nordhaus, Yale University; Sergey Paltsev, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Pizer, Resources for the Future; David Popp, Syracuse University; John Reilly, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future; Kathleen Segerson, University of Connecticut; Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University; Robert Stavins, Harvard University; Richard Tol, Economic and Social Research Institute; Martin Weitzman, Harvard University; Peter Wilcoxen, Syracuse University; and Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University.

Access the complete 81-page report (click here). [*Climate]

Senate Ends Debate On Climate Change Bill 48-36

Jun 6: As expected, the U.S. Senate voted 48-36 (16 not voting) on a cloture motion (60 votes necessary) that effectively ended the debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/5/08]. Many are viewing the vote as progress considering that a majority of the Senate (48 voting & 6 committed) support moving forward on legislation. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "While the bill could not survive continuing delay tactics, it garnered important new momentum that sets the stage for quick action in the next Congress."

Four Democrats voted with Republicans on the measure: Senators Byron Dorgan (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), Tim Johnson (SD) and Sherrod Brown (OH). Seven Republicans voted with Democrats including: John Warner (VA), Susan Collins (ME), Mel Martinez (FL), Elizabeth Dole (NC), John E. Sununu (NH), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Gordon Smith (OR). Presidential candidates John McCain (R-AZ) and Barak Obama (D-IL) were both absent but indicated that they would have voted for the motion.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a sponsor of the bill issued a statement on the Senate's vote to end a Republican filibuster and said, "Today's vote is a landmark moment in the fight against global warming. We had 54 Senators come down on the side of tackling this crucial issue now -- because it is one of the greatest challenges of our generation [Note: six Senators who couldn’t be at the vote entered statements that they would have voted “yes”]. This strong vote is up from 38 votes in 2005, and proves that our nation is ready to assume the mantle of leadership on global warming. What is extraordinary is that both Presidential candidates weighed in, in favor of addressing this issue now. Therefore, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to work with my colleagues to address their concerns as we anxiously await the inauguration of a President who will work with us to protect our planet and our people from the ravages of global warming."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement saying, "We saw this morning yet another example of Bush-McCain Republicans refusing to address one of the most important issues of our time. Given the opportunity to solve the urgent energy and economic crises of today and environmental crises of tomorrow, they ran away from the debate. Time and again Democrats have given Republicans the opportunity to address the rising cost of energy. We have tried to curb global warming, lower gas prices and invest in renewable energy -- but Republicans have squandered each opportunity. When you look at who Republicans have chosen as the new standard-bearer, this is not entirely surprising: Senator McCain says global warming is one of his top issues, but when he has the chance to do something about it, he doesn’t even show up to work. Democrats will continue fighting to reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, create good-paying green jobs here at home and break our dependence on oil.”

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement on what he called the "Climate Tax bill" saying, “The message is clear: the majority can’t abandon this bill fast enough. So now we’re in a most peculiar situation. On the one hand, the majority says climate change is the most important issue facing the planet. Yet they’ve rushed the debate on that topic and brought the bill to a premature end. They brought it down before we could vote on gas prices, on clean energy technology, or on protecting American jobs. This whole exercise will have had no effect on either climate change or gas prices. But it does send an unambiguous message: on the issue of high gas prices, our friends on the other side have no plan to lower the price at the pump.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, “This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.”

Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release from Senator Reid (click here). Access a release from Senator McConnell (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access links to various media reports and statements on the Senate action (click here). [*Climate]

Action On Climate Security Act Bill (S. 3036) Likely Dead

Jun 5: Following a series of arguments, political bickering, procedural maneuvering, and a complete break down in the political process, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled what will likely be an up or down vote on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/3/08] for noon on Friday, June 6. Insiders predict it will not be possible to obtain the 60 votes they need to break a Republican filibuster. Apparently, if the vote fails the Democrats will remove the bill from consideration.

On June 5, U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Democrat Majority’s had decided to block a fair and open amendment process on what Republicans are now calling the "$6.7 trillion, Boxer Climate Tax bill." Senator McConnell said, "I’m mystified as to why the Democrats decided to block consideration of any and all amendments designed to improve this bill – no consideration of gas prices, no consideration of clean energy technology. A bill with such widespread ramifications merits serious, thoughtful consideration, and a thorough debate. When the Senate considered the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, the process took 5 weeks on the floor; 180 amendments were offered, and 131 were ultimately acted upon by the full Senate. As things currently stand, we won’t even spend 5 days on this bill."

Republican sponsor, Senator John Warner (R-VA) essentially confirmed that action on the bill is dead, when he delivered a statement on the Floor saying that he hoped the extensive work that had been done on the S. 3036 would provide a foundation for further action in the next Administration and the next Congress. The other major sponsor, Joe Lieberman (I-CT), praised Senator Warner for his leadership on the issue and said it was disappointing and frustrating that political maneuvering was stopping further consideration of what he called a once in a lifetime opportunity to consider the very real threat of climate change to the economy, environment and national security.

Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access a release from Senator McConnell (click here). [*Climate]

20,000 Americans Die From Radon-Related Exposure Each Year

Jun 3: U.S. EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a report entitled, More Action Needed to Protect Public from Indoor Radon Risks (Report No. 08-P-0174, June 3, 2008). According to EPA and U.S. Surgeon General, indoor radon is the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers and the second leading cause of lung cancer in America. OIG conducted the evaluation to determine how EPA measures indoor radon program results, and whether changes at the Federal level could improve program effectiveness. OIG also identified challenges to implementing changes.

Radon is an odorless, tasteless, and invisible gas produced by decay of naturally occurring uranium in soil and water. Radon is found throughout the United States. Indoor residential exposure occurs when radon gas enters through cracks in floors, walls, and construction joints, or gaps in foundations around pipes, wires, and pumps. According to EPA, more than 20,000 Americans die from radon-related lung cancer every year.

Nearly two decades after passage of the 1988 Indoor Radon Abatement Act (IRAA), exposure to indoor radon continues to grow. Efforts to reduce exposure through mitigation or building with radon-resistant new construction have not kept pace. Of 6.7 million new single family detached homes built nationwide between 2001 and 2005, only about 469,000 incorporated radon-resistant features. Of 76.1 million existing single family homes in the United States in 2005, only about 2.1 million had radon-reducing features in place. The IRAA established the goal that indoor air should be as free of radon as outdoor air.

Since 1988, EPA has administered a voluntary program to reduce exposure to indoor radon by promoting awareness, testing, installation of radon mitigation systems in existing homes, and use of radon-resistant new construction techniques. Still, building codes in some areas do not require new homes to be built with radon-resistant new construction. Much of the progress made in reducing exposure has occurred as a result of real estate transactions. In those cases, a buyer, seller, mortgage lender, and/or real estate agent requested that a home be tested. Some States and localities do not require testing or the disclosure of test results during real estate transactions. The radon program is not achieving greater results for several reasons.

EPA’s ability to achieve results with a voluntary program is limited. Potential loss of a sale represents a disincentive for real estate agents and sellers to conduct radon tests during real estate transactions. Added expense represents a disincentive for builders to use radon-resistant new construction. Opportunities exist within the Federal community to substantially increase the number of homes tested and mitigated for radon. EPA has not decided how to use all the authorities or tools available to it to achieve the Act’s goals. Also, EPA has not been reporting program results in relation to homes at risk in its performance reporting.

OIG recommends that EPA develop a strategy for achieving the long-term goal of the IRAA that considers using the authorities authorized by Congress or explains its alternative strategy, which it agreed to do. OIG also recommended that EPA identify limitations to meeting the goal to Congress. EPA responded that it does not believe the IRAA goal is achievable. While EPA agrees that the problem of radon exposure gets worse each year, it did not agree to notify Congress that the goal set by the statute is unachievable. OIG considers the issue open and unresolved and recommended improvements as to how EPA measures and reports program results, which it agreed to do.

Access the complete 44-page report (click here). [*Air, *Toxics]

Senate Launches Lengthy Debate On Climate Change Bill (S. 3036)

Jun 2: The U.S. Senate voted 74-14 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/2/08]. Senator Boxer the chief sponsor of the Substitute now being considered said, "This gets us off to a strong start. Members are no longer saying in great numbers that global warming is not an issue. The real work on the Senate floor now begins, as we seek to strengthen this bill, not weaken it."

The Senate vote launches what will likely be a highly contentious debate generally pitting Republicans against Democrats and major business groups against environmental organizations. Initially, the Senate began on June 3, with 30 hours of general debate on the bill, followed by what could be lengthy debates on each of many individual amendments to be offered. The process will surely take days, if not weeks. Many Republicans are saying the bill has no chance of passage and as WIMS reported yesterday, the Administration has issued a 4-page Statement of Administration Policy indicating its reasons why the President will veto the bill (See below).

An initial confrontation occurred following the cloture vote regarding the 30 hours of general debate which Republicans intend to exercise. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), in response to Republicans who insisted on 30 hours of debate under the rules prior to beginning on the amendment process said, ". . .the first amendment that comes up is subject to endless debate. There is no limit. The notion that we have to have 30 hours before we can get to a debate on an amendment--each amendment is subject to endless debate; the bill itself is subject to endless debate. So the concept of coming out here and saying: Oh, we have to have 30 hours--this bill will be debated, every amendment will be debated. But it would serve the Senate's purpose to actually get to an amendment now and then we could spend 30, 40, 48 hours, a week--we all know this is going to take a while--legislating an important bill does take a while here. But this notion that we have to spend 30 hours without any amendment just to talk about the bill when the bill will be exhaustively talked about in the context of any amendment is, frankly, specious."

As the Senate begins its debate on S. 3036, the White House listed its reasons why it is the "wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The Administration said the wrong way of S. 3036 is:

• to sharply raise the price of gas, raise taxes, or demand drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy;
• to impose burdensome new mandates on top of ones that were enacted just last year;
• to leave limitations on nuclear power generation and waste disposal unaddressed;
• to establish unrealistic timeframes for massively restructuring the economy that assume the use of technologies not yet developed or demonstrated to be economically feasible;
• to create a system that will squeeze household income, cost many jobs, reduce growth in the economy, impose a huge new tax, and create uncontrolled spending;
• to take unilateral action that will undercut efforts to get developing countries to limit their emissions while having negligible effect on GHG concentrations and global temperatures;
• to impose counterproductive provisions that could ignite a carbon-based trade war; and
• to allow the misapplication of a patchwork of 30-year-old laws that were not designed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Administration said, "S. 3036’s approach to reducing greenhouse gases would force drastic and costly emission cuts. EPA estimates the costs necessary to achieve this GHG abatement are on the order of $10 trillion through 2050. This would make S. 3036 by far the single most expensive regulatory bill in our Nation's history. These costs would be passed on to consumers through higher electricity and heating bills and increased gasoline costs. In fact, the abatement costs for this bill are estimated to be approximately three times as much as previous Senate climate bills analyzed by EPA."

In response to the White House criticism, Senator Boxer said, "Just when we finally have a chance to get off of Big Oil and foreign oil, you can count on the Bush Administration to fight us every step of the way. Where were they when gas prices went to 250 percent of what they were at the start of this Administration? They did nothing. The new fuel economy standards passed by this Congress will offset their claims of a 50 cent increase in the price of gas over more than 20 years. And this bill also contains tax relief for consumer energy costs, though the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration's data show that it should not be needed to cover the price of gas."

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a statement saying, "The White House today put itself on a road to the wrong side of history by opposing a bipartisan bill that will fight climate change, reduce our oil dependence, and restore America’s competitiveness. They might as well have said, 'Let's do more of what we've been doing for the economy and the environment. We think its working really well.’ In opposing the Climate Security Act being debated in the Senate this week, the White House today complained that the cost of gasoline could go up 53 cents over the next 22 years if we finally deal with climate change. They apparently missed the fact that under our current oil-addicted energy policy, gas went up $1.10 in just five months last year – and continues to climb. The only answer to high gas prices is to break our over-dependence on oil, which is exactly what the Climate Security Act will do. Analysis based on data from MIT shows that the Climate Security Act would reduce oil imports by at least half a trillion dollars through 2030."

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also issued a statement saying, “After seven years of trying to mislead us on the science of global warming, the President is now trying to mislead us on the economics. The Climate Security Act will create good American jobs building our clean energy future and studies by the president’s own administration show that under this bill the economy will continue to grow. And, the cost of doing nothing will be far greater. Inaction is no longer an option.”

UPDATE June 4, 2008:

Tracking The Debate On The Climate Security Act (S. 3036) - Jun 4: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has begun to provide daily tracking and reporting on the progress of the debate on S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [See WIMS 6/2/08].


For example, today's June 4, AM report indicates that: The following Senators spoke in favor of the bill: Senators Boxer (D-CA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Warner (R-VA), Casey (D-PA), Dole (R-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Sanders (I-VT), Snowe (R-ME). It is worth noting that Sens. Dole and Warner did not vote for the Lieberman-McCain cap-and-trade bill in 2003 and 2005. The following Senators spoke strongly against the bill: Senators Inhofe (R-OK), Barrasso (R-WY), Corker (R-TN), Craig (R-ID), Domenici (R-NM), Enzi (R-WY), Grassley (R-IA). Other Senators -- Alexander (R-TN), Gregg (R-NH), and Specter (R-PA)—acknowledged the need to take climate action but spoke against the bill in its current form. These senators described changes they would like make to the bill and indicated forthcoming amendments to do so. [More details provided].

The Pew Center works with 42 major corporations in its Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). The primarily Fortune 500 companies together employ more than 3.8 million people and represent $2.8 trillion in market capitalization -- and they're working with the Center to shape policy and chart practical solutions to climate change. The corporations meet quarterly, participate in workshops and conferences, and review and offer comment on all Pew Center work. To maintain independence, the Pew Center accepts no monetary contributions from BELC companies.

Access the daily S. 3036 tracking website (click here). Access additional resources from the Pew Center including: a Brief Summary of the Bill (click here); an Expanded Summary (click here); a Comparison Chart: Economy-Wide Cap-and-Trade Proposals in the 110th Congress (click here); and a Letter to Senators from Pew Center President Eileen Claussen on Climate Bill (click here).
------------------------------------------------------------------

Access the roll call vote on cloture (

click here). Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record and floor debates (click here). Access the Statement of Administration Policy (click here). Access releases from Senator Boxer (click here); and (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a new 18-page summary of S. 3036 from the Pew Center (click here). [*Climate]

Historic Debate Begins On Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act

Jun 2: At approximately 2:00 PM this afternoon, the Senate began the highly anticipated historic debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (now S. 3036 substitute for S. 2191) [See WIMS 5/21/08]. The cloture motion reads in part, "We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 742, S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: Barbara Boxer, Richard Durbin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bill Nelson, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel K. Akaka, Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Daniel K. Inouye, Max Baucus, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Harry Reid."

As offered by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), "I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur on Monday, June 2, at 5:30 p.m., that the time between 4:30 and 5:30 be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, and the mandatory quorum be waived." Senator Inhofe (R-OK) indicated the debate may take several days or even weeks. The vote this evening is basically a procedural vote to proceed with the debate which is expected to pass.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) delivered last weeks Democratic Radio Address and also held a press briefing along with Senators Lieberman and Warner preceding the Senate debate. In her remarks she indicated, ". . .the Senate will begin debate on one of the most important issues of our time -- global warming. Senators have come together across party lines to write a law that will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence. Other benefits of our legislation will be cleaner air, energy efficiency, relief for consumers and the alternative energy choices that American families deserve. And, by acting wisely, America will regain the leadership we have lost these past seven years.

"There are some in the Senate who insist that global warming is nothing more than science fiction. These are the same kind of voices who said that the world was flat, cigarettes were safe and cars didn’t need airbags – long after the rest of us knew the truth. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now. They’ve told us of more intense weather events if we don’t act now. Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters. And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees. . ."

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Republican Leader, opened the debate with a floor statement saying, "that for American consumers, the Boxer bill is all cost and no benefit. There is a better way to move forward. Climate change is a serious issue, and we should continue taking action to address it, as we did in last year’s energy bill. But the way to proceed is to invest in clean energy technologies that allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming our economy, sending jobs overseas, and raising energy prices across the board for U.S. workers, families, farmers, and truckers. . .

"I will be voting in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed, and it’s my expectation that once we get on the bill, the Majority will allow for amendments, and for what I expect will be a rather robust debate on the merits of this climate tax legislation.”

Senator Barbara Boxer released an update of supporters of the bill listing various major businesses, entrepreneurs, government leaders, labor, environment, and sportsmen's organizations are expressing strong support for action in the "Boxer, Lieberman, Warner" Substitute to the Lieberman/Warner Climate Security Act. The release included links to letters and statements from the groups and organizations and will be updated as additional letters are submitted.

Major businesses included on the initial listing were: Alcoa; Avista Corporation; Calpine Corporation; Constellation Energy; E2; Entergy Corporation; Exelon Corporation; FPL Group; General Electric; National Grid; NRG Energy Inc.; PG&E Corporation; and Public Service Enterprise Group.

The Administration issued a lengthy Statement of Administration Policy on the bill and said S. 3036 and the Boxer Amendment is the "wrong way" to address climate change and the President would veto the bill.

Access legislative details on S. 3036 with links to the Congressional Record (click here). Access the floor vote details as they become available (click here). Access the opening statement of Senator Mitch McConnell (click here). Access the update of supporters and links from Senator Boxer (click here). Access a release on the sponsors press briefing with links to related information (click here). Access a statement of Administration Policy on the bill (click here). Access Senator Inhofe's website on the bill (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

Administration's Scientific Assessment Of Global Change On U.S.

May 29: The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), together with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), announced the release of a scientific assessment (Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States) of the effects of global change on the United States, with special emphasis on climate change. Additionally, an updated strategy, the Revised Research Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program," was also released.

Dr. Sharon Hays, Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said, "This assessment represents a comprehensive look at the effects of climate change for the United States and will be yet another tool for the Nation’s decision-makers to use when planning for the future." Dr. William Brennan, Acting Director of CCSP said, "Recognizing that this report reflects a snapshot of current research in an area of rapidly increasing knowledge, it’s important to outline an up-to-date strategy for continued research on climate change. The updated research plan that is also being released today does that."

The assessment summarizes and integrates recent findings from several Synthesis and Assessment Products of the CCSP as well as from assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Analyzing current and future trends in climate for the United States, the report assesses the present understanding of the impacts of climate change on key sectors of the Nation, such as water resources, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health.

Accompanying the scientific assessment is an updated research plan for the CCSP that provides direction for addressing remaining uncertainties in climate science, including impacts at regional scales and adaptation options. The plan also emphasizes the need for strengthened communication of scientific studies to decision-makers across the United States. An extended opportunity for public review was provided during the development of the revised plan.

The assessment points out that it addresses not only climate change, but also other change in the global environment -- including water resources, oceans, atmospheric chemistry, land productivity, and ecological systems -- that may alter the capacity of Earth to sustain life. This broader set of changes is referred to as ‘global change,’ as defined in the Global Change Research Act. It is indicated that, "The conclusions in this assessment build on the vast body of observations, modeling, decision-support, and other types of activities conducted under the auspices of CCSP. It draws on findings from previous assessments of the science, including reports and products by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), CCSP, and others. Together with CCSP’s 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products, this is arguably the most comprehensive assessment to date of the effects of global change, and especially climate, on the United States." Among the many conclusions:

• U.S. average temperatures increased during the 20th and into the 21st century, and the last decade is the warmest in more than a century of direct observations in the United States.
  
• Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates are expected to cause further warming and to induce many changes during the 21st century that will very likely be larger than those of the last century.
  
• It is very likely that temperature increases, increasing carbon dioxide levels, and altered patterns of precipitation are already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, biodiversity, and human health, among other things. And it is very likely that climate change will continue to have significant effects on these resources over the next few decades and beyond.
  
• The report presents key findings of climate impacts on the United States in the areas of: The Natural Environment; Agriculture; Water; Population and Society; Health; Energy; and Transportation.

The report indicates that regarding climate extremes, "Human activities have also likely influenced extremes in temperature. Many indicators of climate extremes -- including the annual numbers of frost days, warm and cold days, and warm and cold nights -- show changes that are consistent with warming. Studies for North America suggest that, in the future, abnormally hot days and nights and heat waves are very likely to become more frequent and that cold days and cold nights are very likely to become much less frequent. In addition to temperature extremes, analyses indicate that, on average for North America, precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases in tropical sea surface temperatures. However, projections of changes in hurricane frequency remain very uncertain. "

Access an Executive Summary of the report (click here). Access a Summary of Findings (click here). Access the complete 271-page report (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the Revised Research Agenda (click here). Access the complete 98-page Revised Research Agenda (click here). Access the NSTC website (click here). Access the CCSP website (click here). [*Climate]

Rep. Markey Announces "Investing In Climate Action & Protection Act"

May 28: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) announced the introduction of what he is calling "a revolutionary new global warming bill" that he said will reduce global warming pollution according to scientific targets, reinvest any revenue back to American workers and technology, and re-establish America as a leader in solving the globe’s greatest challenge, climate change. At a speech at the Center for American Progress, Representative Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committees, laid out his science- and consumer-based vision for climate legislation.

Markey said, “I am here today because the chorus for change is deafening. The time for action is now. We must cap pollution, we must invest in consumers, jobs and the technology of tomorrow, and America must lead the world in solving our greatest challenges, and we must start now.” Markey's bill is called the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act, or iCAP for short. The bill also proffers a new paradigm in global warming legislation: "the Cap-and-Invest system." The bill caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then uses an auction system that sets a price on carbon, and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system.

Markey's bill, precedes the highly anticipated Senate debate on the Climate Security Act (S. 2191/S. 3036), scheduled for June 2 [See WIMS 5/21/08], and follows by one day the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, release of another in a series of Climate Change Legislative Design White Papers entitled “Getting the Most Greenhouse Gas Reductions for Our Money” [See WIMS 5/28/08]. The White Paper release by Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) discusses a cap-and-trade regulatory program as the cornerstone of a mandatory climate change program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level [i.e. 60-80% by 2050] at the lowest possible overall cost to society and to lower the cost for regulated entities. [Note: S. 3036 is now the manager’s mark of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) and has been introduced as a new bill number and will be the bill for floor debate on climate change on June 2.]

In a release, Markey indicated his bill would take the expected $8 trillion in revenues from polluters over the length of the bill, and reinvests that money back to American families and workers and into promoting a clean energy economy. More than half of the funds from the bill goes directly back to low- and middle-income American families to offset any increases in energy costs from the transition of the economy to low- or zero-carbon energy. He said iCAP also invests in green collar job training for workers in a clean energy economy, mass transit and smart growth, energy efficiency programs, adaptation measures here in the United States and around the world, and many other programs that will benefit both the economy and the environment.

Markey said, "We must invest in the American economy and in American workers, and launch an energy technology renaissance that will rival the information technology revolution of the past decade. We all benefited from the Industrial Age, and we have watched the dawn of the Information Age. Today, let’s start the Clean Energy Age.” He indicated that the bill will be introduced next week when Congress is back in session.

According to an executive summary of the bill, the following “covered entities” would be regulated under the cap: (1) power plants and large industrial facilities; (2) entities that produce or import petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels; (3) entities that produce or import hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, or nitrogen trifluoride; (4) natural gas local distribution companies; and (5) geological carbon sequestration sites.

The iCAP Act begins by auctioning 94 percent of allowances in 2012 and transitions to a 100 percent auction in 2020. The 6 percent of allowances not initially auctioned are distributed as transitional assistance to U.S. industries that are energy-intensive and exposed to international trade competition (e.g., iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper). The iCAP Act permits any person to buy, sell, or transfer allowances or to “bank” them for future use. Covered entities also may borrow allowances from the allowance budget for future years, but these “loans” must be repaid within five years with interest. Covered entities can meet up to 15 percent of their annual obligations with EPA-approved domestic offset credits and up to an additional 15 percent with EPA-approved international emission allowances or offset credits.

The iCAP Act returns over half of auction proceeds to low- and middle-income households through rebates and tax credits. This will compensate all increased energy costs due to climate legislation for all households earning under $70,000 (66 percent of U.S. households), and will provide benefits to all households earning up to $110,000 (over 80 percent of U.S. households). The summary indicates that the bill include policies that will encourage major-emitting developing countries, like China and India, to take comparable action to reduce global warming pollution to protect the competitiveness of U.S. industry.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) issued a release saying, "Congressman Markey’s Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act appears to be the most comprehensive climate bill drafted in the House, and Congress should carefully consider the legislation as it crafts an effective response to climate change. . . We look forward to working with Congressman Markey, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House leadership to bring a strong bill to the House floor as soon as possible.” Other environmental organizations indicated support for the Markey bill including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the Markey speech to the Center for American Progress (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the legislation (click here). Access the Title by Title Section of iCAP (click here). Access the full text of iCAP (click here). Access legislative details for H.R 6186 (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). [*Climate]

House Committee Releases New Climate Change White Paper

May 27: As the Senate prepares for its historic vote on the Climate Security Act (S. 2191), scheduled for June 2 [See WIMS 5/21/08], the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, are issuing another in a series of Climate Change Legislative Design White Papers as their next step toward enactment of an economy-wide climate change program. The fourth White Paper, is entitled “Getting the Most Greenhouse Gas Reductions for Our Money.”

The White Paper discusses ways to keep costs as low as possible while still achieving environmental goals. In a brief memo to Committee members, full Committee Chair Representative John Dingell (D-MI), and Subcommittee Chair Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) encouraged members to review the papers and share their views and suggestions "regarding the potential methods for limiting the cost and maximizing the efficiency of a mandatory, comprehensive, climate change program." They said they would be holding hearings on the papers.

According to the latest paper if the climate change program is structured properly, significant cost reductions can be achieved by economically beneficial measures. "In large part, these measures are improvement in energy efficiency and productivity. The decision to have a cap-and-trade regulatory program as the cornerstone of a mandatory climate change program is driven in large part by the ability of such a program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a specified level [i.e. 60-80% by 2050] at the lowest possible overall cost to society and to lower the cost for regulated entities. As compared to more traditional forms of regulation, a well designed cap-and-trade program generally should achieve the same environmental results at a lower cost because it provides flexibility to emitters, creates incentives for sources to use low-cost compliance strategies, and provides incentives for technological advances."

The White Paper indicates that, the cap-and-trade program will include two important features to help reduce costs: (1) Regulated entities and other market participants will be able to "bank allowances" for later use; and (2) Regulated entities will also be able to use "offsets," provided they are real, verifiable, additional, and permanent. The paper also suggest that the Committee should consider a number of other optional features of cap-and-trade programs to help reduce costs including: "firm-level borrowing;" "compliance period longer than a year;" "a special cost containment mechanism to release additional allowances;" and, "setting a floor for allowance prices."

Access the Memo to Committee members (click here). Access the complete 43-page fourth White Paper (click here). Access the Committee's Climate Change website for links to all papers, letters, releases and related information (click here). Access WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the White Papers (click here). [*Climate]

Reports Probe International Dimensions Of U.S. Climate Policy

May 21: A new report from World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) indicates that U.S. climate change policy can reduce emissions and ensure fair international competition without carbon tariffs, by pursuing international agreements on key industries and targeting relief specifically to impacted domestic firms. The report, Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design, is the first in a series of publications from WRI and the Peterson Institute that will examine the international dimensions of U.S. climate policy. Jonathan Lash, WRI President said, “U.S. climate change policy must address international competition through smart policies aimed at the handful of most disadvantaged industries. We must take care to do more good than harm, and create opportunities, not barriers, for further international cooperation.”

The report provides an analysis of proposals that address international competition in climate change legislation, such as the Climate Security Act currently being considered by Congress. On the same day, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), and John Warner (R-VA) released their Substitute Amendment to Climate Security Act (S. 2191) which is expected to be voted on June 2, 2008 [See WIMS 5/22/08].

The report examines what effect “carbon emissions caps” would have on the industries likely to face the strongest international pressures from climate legislation: steel, copper, aluminum, cement, glass, paper, and basic chemicals. Electric utilities are also carbon intense but are not as vulnerable to international competition. According to a release, there is growing concern that domestic climate change legislation would increase costs for carbon-intensive industries, exposing them to greater competition from developing countries, which would have no similar regulations. Proposals to address these concerns include providing free emissions allocations, increasing costs on imported carbon-intense commodities, or encouraging other countries to impose emissions caps of their own.

However, the book finds that several of the proposed options would likely not provide the intended relief, and in some cases could either make things worse or have adverse consequences. For instance, broad carbon tariffs could be difficult to assess and enforce, and provide no opportunity for exporters in developing countries to benefit from adopting higher standards. But trade measures could be tailored to provide this incentive.

To date, many of the trade-specific measures have been intended to bring China to the climate negotiating table. However, China’s exports of carbon-intense goods to the U.S. are relatively small. Instead, the book finds that Canada is the leading exporter to the United States in all categories except basic chemicals, where the leader is Trinidad and Tobago. Europe and Russia are next in importance. Therefore, trade measures provide little incentive for China to adopt stricter emissions regulations, and could sour the prospects for international cooperation.

In addition, China is already seeking to curb exports of carbon-intensive goods due to local energy and environmental concerns, and has recently implemented border treatment for goods like steel that are equivalent to imposing a carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2. The book’s authors argue that the means of engaging China and other developing countries in reaching international agreements on key sectors is more promising than many think, and would more successfully address both competitiveness and climate concerns than unilateral carbon tariffs at the U.S. border. As part of an international sectoral agreement, trade-specific measures could play a role in creating incentives for individual foreign firms to reduce emissions.

Until an international agreement is reached, U.S. legislators can maintain a level playing field for carbon-intensive manufacturing through domestic policy design. Costs for trade-exposed industries, which account for less than 6 percent of U.S. emissions, can be controlled in a way that does not compromise the environmental effectiveness of U.S. climate policy or risk trade conflicts by imposing border tariffs unilaterally.

At a luncheon event announcing the report, WRI and PIIE indicated that, "In recent presidential-campaign developments, John McCain has backed away from the threat of carbon tariffs, while Barack Obama hints that the issue will serve as a litmus test for whether McCain is serious about climate policy. Trade links to climate policy will only continue to heat up as the full Senate begins debate on June 2 of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which includes provisions for carbon-based border tariffs. This new book argues that such a unilateral approach will be unsuccessful both in protecting U.S. industry and bringing other countries, such as China, to the negotiating table. Speakers will offer alternatives that would prevent U.S. industry from migrating to countries without climate policy, strengthen international negotiations under which those countries will reduce emissions, and avoid starting a trade war."

Access a release on the new report and links to related information (click here). Access an overview and related information including charts and US-CAP recommendations (click here). Access the complete 117-page report (click here). Access the WRI U.S. Climate Change Policy website for additional information (click here). Access links to the luncheon event introductions, audio/video presentations, & Q&A (click here). [*Climate]

GAO Adds To Reports Critical Of DOE's GNEP

Subscribers Note: We will not be publishing on Monday, May 26, 2008, in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.

May 22: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: DOE Should Reassess Its Approach to Designing and Building Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Facilities (GAO-08-483, April 22, 2008). In the report GAO recommends that the Department of Energy (DOE) reassess its preference for accelerating GNEP. DOE stated it will continue to assess alternative approaches to GNEP. The GAO report is the latest in a series of critical reviews of the GNEP (See additional information below).

The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to build facilities to begin recycling the nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel. GNEP's objectives include reducing radioactive waste disposed of in a geologic repository and mitigating the nuclear proliferation risks of existing recycling technologies. DOE originally planned a small engineering-scale demonstration of advanced recycling technologies being developed by DOE national laboratories. While DOE has not ruled out this approach, the current GNEP strategic plan favors working with industry to demonstrate the latest commercially available technology in full-scale facilities and to do so in a way that will attract industry investment.

DOE has funded four industry groups to prepare proposals for full-scale facilities. DOE officials expect the Secretary of Energy to decide on an approach to GNEP by the end of 2008. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOE would address GNEP's objectives under (1) its original engineering-scale approach and (2) the accelerated approach to building full-scale facilities. GAO analyzed DOE plans and industry proposals and interviewed DOE and industry officials concerning the pros and cons of both approaches.

DOE's original approach of building engineering-scale facilities would meet GNEP's objectives if the advanced technologies on which it focused can be successfully developed and commercialized. The advanced technologies would reduce waste to a greater degree than existing technologies by recycling radioactive material that a geologic repository has limited capacity to accommodate. The advanced technologies would also mitigate proliferation risks relative to existing technologies by increasing the difficulty of theft or diversion of weapons-usable nuclear material from recycling facilities.

Nonetheless, DOE's engineering-scale approach had two shortcomings. First, it lacked industry participation, potentially reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of the technologies. In particular, the approach included some technologies that may introduce unnecessary costs and technical challenges while creating waste management challenges; industry representatives have questioned whether such technologies could be commercialized. Second, DOE's schedule called for building one of the recycling facilities (a reprocessing plant for separating reusable materials from spent nuclear fuel and fabricating recycled fuel) before conducting R&D on recycled fuel that would help determine the plant's design requirements. This schedule unnecessarily increased the risk that the spent fuel would be separated in a form that cannot be recycled.

The other two facilities DOE had planned to build (an advanced reactor for using recycled fuel and an R&D facility) would allow DOE to conduct R&D that existing DOE facilities have limited capability to support. DOE's accelerated approach of building full-scale facilities would likely require using unproven evolutions of existing technologies that would reduce radioactive waste and mitigate proliferation risks to a much lesser degree than anticipated from more advanced technologies. Two of the four industry groups that have received funding under GNEP proposed evolutionary technologies for recycling spent fuel in existing reactors even though the GNEP strategic plan ruled out such technologies. While the evolutionary technologies could allow DOE to begin recycling a large amount of spent fuel sooner than under its original approach, fully meeting GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives would require a later transition to more advanced technologies.

Two other industry groups proposed technologies that would address GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives by using technologies that are not mature enough to allow DOE to accelerate construction of full-scale recycling facilities. Under any of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to attract enough industry investment to avoid the need for a large amount of government funding for full-scale facilities. For example, the industry groups have proposed that DOE fund an advanced reactor, which DOE and industry officials expect would at least initially be more expensive than existing reactors to build and operate and thus not be commercially competitive. DOE acknowledges the limitations of its accelerated approach but cites other benefits, such as the potential to exert more immediate international influence on nonproliferation issues.

As WIMS has reported previously [See WIMS 5/16/08], despite many critics and recommendations to alter the GNEP, DOE continues to push forward with the program. On March 31, 2008, a coalition of public interest, environmental and policy groups released a report detailing what they say are, "the severe shortcomings and false assertions" posed in the Administration's GNEP [See WIMS 4/2/08]. The GNEP has been criticized by others as well. The program recently came under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders that concluded, "that critical elements of the program [GNEP] are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."

Access the complete GAO report (click here). Access a release on the Risky Appropriations report with links to the complete 64-page report and fact sheet (click here). Access the GNEP website (click here). Access the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (click here). Access further information on DOE’s nuclear energy program website (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

Substitute Amendment To Climate Security Act S. 2191

May 21: With little fanfare, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), and John Warner (R-VA) released their Substitute Amendment to Climate Security Act (S. 2191) which is expected to be voted on June 2, 2008. Back on April 10, the three unveiled legislative language that, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), they said, ensures that the Climate Security Act (S.2191) would impose no cost on the Federal government. In a letter to CBO, the three Senators committed to including the new language in S.2191 when the bill is brought up in the full Senate for debate [See WIMS 4/11/08].

At the May 20 hearing of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee issued a statement warning of “dire consequences” if the proposed Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation becomes law [See WIMS 5/20/08]. Domenici commented that, "It is my understanding that a substitute for that bill is being developed and that substitute will be what is considered on the Senate floor in June. Obviously, that substitute has not been the subject of modeling as yet."

The Substitute Amendment calls for Capping Greenhouse Gas Emissions and allows a declining amount of greenhouse gas emissions between 2012 and 2050, reducing them by about two percent per year from 2005 levels. The bill will reduce emissions from covered facilities 19% below current levels by 2020, and 71% by 2050. It is estimated to reduce total US emissions (from all sources, capped and non‐capped) by up to 66% by 2050.

Of note, the "Emergency Off-Ramps" provision of the bill provides that if the price of carbon allowances reaches a certain price range, there is a mechanism that will automatically release additional emission allowances onto the market to lower the price. The additional allowances are borrowed so that the environmental integrity of the caps over the long term is protected. Also the Substitute includes: "Transition Assistance" through 2050 for Workers ($190 billion); Carbon‐intensive manufacturing industries ($213 billion); fossil electricity utilities ($307 billion); refiners of petroleum‐based fuel ($34 billion); natural gas processors ($20 billion); and $800 billion in tax relief for consumers.

The bill also calls for $911 billion through 2050 to consumers through local electricity and gas utilities (local distribution companies) to ensure that consumers are protected from increases in energy costs, and to promote low carbon energy, and energy efficiency. The bill also provides $254 billion through 2050 to states that rely heavily upon manufacturing and coal, to help them transition to a low‐carbon economy.

Also included through 2050 are: $171 billion in funding for mass transit; $136 billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program; rewards for states that take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of $566 billion; $253 billion to states and Indian tribes to help them adapt to climate change impacts; support for state wildlife adaptation programs by providing $237 billion; $30.7 billion for recognition of companies that take early steps to reduce emissions; $51 billion for energy efficient buildings; $51 billion for the Super‐Efficient Equipment and Appliances Deployment Program; $150 billion for deployment of renewable energy technologies; $109 billion for Low Carbon Electricity and Advanced Research; $15.7 billion and bonus allowances for Carbon Capture and Sequestration; $68 billion for advanced vehicle technology; $26 billion for cellulosic biofuels; $288 billion for wildlife and natural resources adapt to climate impacts; off-set credits and $68 billion for deforestation‐prevention activities; $342 billion for international adaptation and to protect national security; and $300 billion to support agriculture and forestry programs that cut emissions but don’t qualify to be used as offset.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented on the Lieberman-Warner Substitute Amendment and said, “The latest version is nothing more than window dressing for a bill that has been exposed by numerous government and private analyses as costly and damaging to America. Lieberman-Warner will redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief -- $7 paid for every $1 returned.

“The fact is that the Lieberman-Warner bill is the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. No matter how many revisions this bill undergoes, it remains a massive redistribution of wealth, the largest new tax and spend program in our Nation's history. The handouts being offered by the sponsors of this bill come straight from the pocket of families and workers in the form of higher gas, power, and heating bills. The newly revised Lieberman-Warner bill offers nothing new except more pain at the gas pump and more expensive consumer goods.”

Access the 157-page Substitute Amendment for S. 2191 (click here). Access a 10-page summary of the Substitute Amendment for S. 2191 (click here). Access a release from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access an April 10 announcement from the three Senators and links to the CBO letter and statement (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2191 (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]

Waxman Exposes Presidential Interference In EPA Rulemaking

May 20: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform indicates that the Committee's investigation has uncovered details of White House involvement in EPA’s regulation of ozone on the eve of a court imposed deadline, forcing EPA staff to scrap a standard supported by its independent panel and to perform “emergency rewrites” to the regulation. Waxman said, "Documents obtained by the Committee show that EPA staff raised serious concerns about the merits and legality of the decision." Waxman also released extensive documentation on the Committee's investigation of the California waiver request decision (See more below).

On March 12, 2008, at approximately 6 PM, on the court-ordered deadline date, U.S. EPA met its requirements under the Clean Air Act and a court-ordered deadline by signing the new primary 8-hour ozone the final National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) and the new secondary standard at a form and level identical to the primary standard. The previous primary and secondary standards were identical 8-hour standards, set at 0.08 ppm; however, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Panel had unanimously recommended a substantially stronger standard in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.

Waxman released a 12-page memorandum providing additional information about EPA's revision of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and said the findings were based on a review of approximately 30,000 pages of previously undisclosed documents received from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget, as well as publicly available documents. Many of the documents are posted on the Committee's website. The memo indicates that, "The Committee's investigation shows that the process that led to the new standards was highly unusual, particularly the process of setting the secondary standard. . ."

The memo continues, "Late on March 11, the evening before the court-ordered deadline, EPA was informed that the President had rejected the position of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This decision set off what one official described as an 'emergency rewrite' to justify setting the secondary standard at the same level as the primary standard, as the White House directed. The final rule dropped the language in the draft that concluded a cumulative, seasonal standard was 'necessary ... to ensure the requisite degree of protection.' In its place, the final rule stated: 'The Administrator ... does not believe that an alternative cumulative, seasonal standard is needed.' The documents show that the EPA staff questioned both the legality and motivation for the last-minute change in the secondary standard . . ."

"The Committee sought to learn the basis for the President's decision to reject the recommendations of the EPA Administrator and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. The White House, however, is withholding hundreds of pages of documents that would explain what happened inside the White House. . . "

On May 20, the Committee held a hearing on, “EPA’s New Ozone Standards.”Witnesses included: Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator; Susan Dudley, Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; and representatives of the Union Of Concerned Scientists; Natural Resources Defense Council; an Advisor on Toxicology and Human Heath Risk Analysis; and a Partner with the law firm of Sidley Austin, LLP.

In an opening statement, Representative Waxman said, "For months this Committee has been investigating recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions relating to both global warming and new air quality standards. And after reviewing nearly 60 thousand pages of internal documents and interviewing officials involved in the rulemakings, we have found evidence that the White House again ignored the facts and the law."

Waxman cites recent instances where the White House intervened in the California waiver petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks and then in the NAAQS ozone rulemaking. He said the Committee's investigation revealed that "EPA officials were astounded by the President's decision and said it wasn't supported by either the science or the law." One official wrote: "I have been working on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for over 30 years and have yet to see anything like this."

Waxman said, "The same thing happened in a third critical rulemaking. Last April, the Supreme Court directed EPA to determine whether CO2 emissions endanger health and the environment and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. . . In each of these rulemakings, the pattern is the same: the President apparently insisted on his judgment and overrode the unanimous recommendations of EPA's scientific and legal experts. Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence that the President based his decisions on the science, the record, or the law. Indeed, there's virtually no credible record of any kind in support of the decisions.

"I recognize and support the broad powers our Constitution vests with the President of the United States. But the President does not have absolute power and he is not above the law. The President may have a personal opinion about the new ozone standards, California's motor vehicle standards, and regulating CO2, but he is not allowed to elevate his view above the requirements of the law."

In a separate release of investigative documents, on May 19, Chairman Waxman posted extensive information on the Committee's investigation of California's request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Waxman said the new documents and testimony obtained by the Committee show that EPA career staff unanimously supported granting California’s request. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson also supported granting the petition, at least in part, until he communicated with the White House.

According to a 20-page Committee memo on the California waiver decision, "During the course of the investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and deposed or interviewed eight key officials. This memorandum summarizes some of the significant evidence the Committee has received. The record before the Committee shows: (l) the career staff at EPA unanimously supported granting California's petition; (2) Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator Johnson reversed his position after communications with officials in the White House."

Access the May 20 hearing website with links to all testimony and related information (click here). Access links to the May 20 Ozone memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access links to the May 19 CA waiver memo and extensive related documents (click here). Access various eNewsUSA Blog posts on the Ozone NAAQS issue (click here); and the CA waiver issue (click here). [*Air, *Climate, *Energy]

Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of S. 2191

May 15: The Open CRS project has posted a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) entitled, Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of S. 2191 (RL34489, May 15, 2008). This report examines six studies that project the costs of S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008) to 2030 or 2050. The report is important in light of the May 20 hearing of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation (See related article below) and the upcoming, tentatively scheduled June 2 vote in the Senate on S. 2191. In general, Republicans and the business community have concluded the bill would reek havoc on jobs and the economy; Democrats and environmental organizations are saying the bill will not have a significant affect on the economy and much cheaper than the eventual cost of doing nothing; and the bill sponsors say: "EPA's detailed analysis indicates that the U.S. can curb global warming without sacrificing economic prosperity;" and "EPA's analysis demonstrates what we have long known: You can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers."

According to the CRS report, "It is difficult (and some would consider it unwise) to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond. The already tenuous assumption that current regulatory standards will remain constant becomes more unrealistic, and other unforeseen events (such as technological breakthroughs) loom as critical issues which cannot be modeled. Longterm cost projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism. Despite models' inability to predict the future, cases examined here do provide insights on the costs and benefits of S. 2191."

First, if enacted, the ultimate cost of S. 2191 would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented by the bill. The bill provides numerous incentives for technology innovation. The potential for new technology to reduce the costs of S. 2191 is not fully analyzed by any of the cases, nor can it be. Technology development is not sufficiently understood at the current time for models to replicate with confidence. Likewise, it is difficult to determine if available incentives are directed in an optimal manner. The cases do suggest that S. 2191's Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) bonus allowances would encourage deployment of CCS, accelerating development by 5-10 years.

Second, a considerable amount of low-carbon generating capacity will have to be built under S. 2191 in order to meet the reduction requirement. How much capacity will be necessary depends on new and replacement capacity needs, along with consumer demand response to rising prices and incentives contained in S. 2191.

Third, offsets could be a valuable tool not only to potentially reduce costs, but also to buy time to permit further development of new, more efficient technologies. Cost could be lowered further by greater availability of offsets and international credits and with a broader definition of eligible international credits.

Fourth, the Carbon Market Efficiency Board could have an important effect on the cost of S. 2191 through its power to extend the availability of offsets and international credits. In this sense, the Board's powers could mesh with the previous insight about the potential effect of offsets on the bill's overall costs.

Fifth, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard could significantly raise fuel prices and limit supply. The effects will depend on what fuels are included, the emissions reductions achieved by alternatives, and the ability to produce those alternatives.

Finally, S. 2191's climate-related benefit is best considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort. The United States and other developed countries agreed both to reduce their own emissions to help stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to take the lead in reducing GHGs when they ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This context raises two issues for S. 2191: (1) whether S. 2191's GHG reduction program would be considered sufficiently credible by developing countries so that schemes for including them in future international agreements become more likely, and (2) whether S. 2191's reductions meet U.S. commitments to stabilization under the UNFCCC.

The CRS report indicates that the most comprehensive analysis has been conducted by U.S. EPA. The report is entitled: EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008: S. 2191 in 110th Congress (March 14, 2008) [See WIMS 3/17/08]. The analysis employs a suite of models and basecases, along with some useful sensitivity analyses. The CRS report focuses on three of the models, two basecases, and sensitivity analysis as appropriate.

The other analyses investigated by CRS include: (2) the Energy Information Administration (EIA), entitled Energy Market and Economic Impacts. (3) the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The report is an appendix to a more comprehensive analysis of cap-and-trade programs released in 2007.8 The appendix is titled: Appendix D: Analysis of the Cap and Trade Features of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191). (4) the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) by OnLocation. The report is titled The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act -- S.2191: A Summary of Modeling Results from the National Energy Modeling System (February 2008). (5) the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) by Science Applications International Corporation. The report is entitled Analysis of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). (6) the National Mining Association (NMA) by CRA International. The report is entitled Economic Analysis of the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 Using CRA’s MRN-NEEM Model (April 8, 2008).


Senate Hearing On Energy & Economic Effects Of Climate Bills

May 20: the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on Energy, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing to receive testimony on Energy and Related Economic Effects of Global Climate Change Legislation -- most notably S. 2191 (the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008). A substitute for S. 2191 is being developed and will be considered on the Senate floor in June. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included mostly highly technical representatives of the Congressional Research Service (CRS); Energy Information Administration; U.S. EPA; and the Congressional Budget Office [See related article above on the CRS report analyzing 6 separate model projections on the economic impacts of S. 2191].

Chairman Bingaman set the stage for the hearing saying, "Debates on climate legislation -- and energy policy in general -- have often focused heavily on analyses and predictions. On the extremes, models have been used to show that legislation will have massive disruptions to the economy and cause widespread unemployment. They have also been used to show that legislation will be free to society and a net-benefit to the U.S. economy. Given this wide disparity of findings, it can be difficult to navigate the space in between and understand what the true impacts of legislation will be. We are faced with the question: how can reasonable people and institutions analyze the same policy and find completely incompatible results about its impacts. This hearing will attempt to learn more about the broader issues of what models can and cannot tell us about the impacts of policy and what assumptions can be used that will influence the findings of those models. . ."

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Ranking Member of the Committee issued a statement warning of “dire consequences” if the proposed Lieberman-Warner cap and trade legislation becomes law. Domenici noted that all eleven economic analyses done on such legislation found that cap and trade would result in higher energy prices for Americans. Of those, seven have been specific to Lieberman-Warner, and all found that the bill will have a negative impact on the economy, ranging from $444 billion to $4.8 trillion by 2030.

Domenici said, ". . .a range of more than $4.5 trillion is as massive as it is inconclusive, and has left me concerned about the dire consequences that Lieberman-Warner could have for our nation." He cited as an example that, the Energy Information Administration’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook projected the price of oil in 2010 as $25 per barrel, "a prospect which seems very unlikely now, as oil approaches $129 a barrel today." He said the European Union began operating its cap and trade program in 2005, and has seen an annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about one percent per year.

Domenici said, "Assume for a moment that Congress passes, and the President signs, the Lieberman-Warner legislation. What then will we have accomplished for the environment? As it turns out, the answer is next to nothing. This is a global program, but without further international action, the Lieberman-Warner bill would reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by a mere one percent by 2050. To achieve that reduction, we may subject America’s economy, prosperity, and global competitiveness to irreparable harm." He noted that China has already surpassed the United States in greenhouse gas emissions, and that the U.S. has already stood strongly against the idea of unilateral action at a time when the American economy was significantly stronger than it is today [referring to the 1997, Senate passage of a resolution indicating its lack of support for the Kyoto Treaty on a 95-0 vote].

Domenici indicated that, “We, as a Congress and a nation, must realize that cap and trade is neither our only option nor our best option for addressing global climate change. Rather than choosing among cap and trade proposals, we should look at alternative measures -- promoting nuclear power, advancing clean energy tax incentives, and accelerating clean technologies.

Access the complete 79-page CRS report (click here). Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the opening statement from Senator Domenici (click here). [*Climate, *Energy]