Hill Heat

• Scott Barrett, director of the SAIS International Policy Program, will discuss “Prospects for a New Carbon Regime”
• Michelle Billig, senior director of political risk at PIRA Energy Group and member of GEEI’s advisory board, will discuss “Political Risks on the Rise”
• Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank and a member of GEEI’s advisory board, will discuss “New Dynamics in the Markets.”

Sponsored by the SAIS Global Energy and Environment Initiative.

For more information and to RSVP, contact 202.663.5786 or geei.sais@jhu.edu.

Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Kenney Auditorium 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C.

From the Wonk Room.

A major new study of the success of California’s green economy by economist David Roland-Holst finds that “California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000.” Today, California’s per-capita electricity demand is 40 percent below the national average:

Total electricity use, per capita, 1960-2001

Instead of household income being lost to the capital intensive energy sector, Californians have enjoyed the benefits of their wages being plowed into job creating sectors, such that “induced job growth has contributed approximately $45 billion to the California economy since 1972.”

When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries, for example, one dollar is removed from a relatively simple, capital intensive supply chain dominated by electric power generation and carbon fuel delivery. When the dollar goes to groceries, it animates much more job intensive expenditure chains including retailers, wholesalers, food processors, transport, and farming. Moreover, a larger proportion of these supply chains (and particularly services that are the dominant part of expenditure) resides within the state, capturing more job creation from Californians for California. Moreover, the state reduced its energy import dependence, while directing a greater percent of its consumption to in-state economic activities.

As a new year gets underway for the nation’s school children, the High-Performance Buildings Congressional Caucus Coalition invites you to a briefing to learn how some school districts are building facilities that save thousands of dollars a year on energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impact, and are “healthier” and safer than conventional schools. The following speakers will also discuss measures the 110th Congress has advanced to provide funding for “high-performance,” “green” public school construction and renovation:

• Phil Page, Legislative Fellow, Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO)
• Cade Clurman, Legislative Director, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL)
• Deane Evans, FAIA, Executive Director, Center for Architecture and Building Science Research, New Jersey Institute of Technology: If you want to make a real difference in the quality and affordability of education today, designing high-performance schools is the place to start. Deane Evans will explain the elements of high-performance schools, why they are valuable, and how they can be procured.
• Anja Caldwell, LEED AP, Principal of ecoipso LLC: With a focus on meeting the demand for new and updated facilities, Anja Caldwell will discuss the first green school project in Maryland and options for greening existing school buildings.
• Lloyd Horwich, Education Counsel and Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor: Lloyd Horwich will discuss legislative options for supporting green school buildings.

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. For more information, please contact Ellen Vaughan at evaughan@eesi.org or (202) 662-1893.

The High-Performance Buildings Congressional Caucus Coalition (HPBCC) is a private sector coalition providing guidance and support to the High-Performance Buildings Caucus, which is co-chaired by Reps. Carnahan and Biggert. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC), and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) are lead sponsors of this briefing and members of the HPBCCC. Co-sponsors of this briefing include the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Carpet and Rug Institute, American National Standards Institute, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Ecobuild America, American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), Green Building Initiative (GBI), International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Green Mechanical Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA), Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association (PHCC), and Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance.

By Robert M. Sussman, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and former Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, for the Wonk Room.

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion piece, The Carbon Ultimatum, accuses Barack Obama of planning to unleash the bureaucracy of the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to “bludgeon” Congress into enacting climate change legislation:

He plans to issue an ultimatum to Congress: Either impose new taxes and limits on carbon that he finds amenable, or the EPA carbon police will be let loose to ravage the countryside.

To support this charge, the Journal points to recent comments by Jason Grumet, an Obama energy advisor: “The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action. If there’s no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.’‘

This opinion piece, which uses the time-honored ploy of opponents of environmental progress of demonizing the EPA and ascribing sinister motives to its political overseers, has two fatal flaws. One, the specter of bureaucrats running amok and strangling the economy – by intruding into small businesses and individual households and banning fuels on which millions of Americans depend – is a fantasy of die-hard free-market zealots. In fact, a new administration could enforce new global warming regulations with common sense, focusing on large emitters of greenhouse gases to achieve reasonable reductions while spurring trillions of dollars worth of economic growth and green-collar jobs.

The problem with the WSJ’s narrative is that Grumet is describing nothing more than what is legally required as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Under that decision, the EPA is effectively obligated to begin the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. If the law is not amended, and the next Administration fails to act, environmentalist groups will file suit to force their hand – and win.

The Court’s decision came after years of evading climate change by the Bush Administration despite the mounting evidence of rising temperatures and their consequences for our ecosystems and economy. Unfortunately, the EPA remains in default on its fundamental legal responsibilities. EPA’s July Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – which the Journal describes as as a “roadmap” for blanketing the US economy with onerous regulation – was in fact a further Bush delay. Instead of a scientific “endangerment” analysis, the White House directed EPA to prepare a neutral and non-committal discussion of its legal authority – a stick in the eye of the Supreme Court. They then went further by taking the unprecedented step of belittling and disowning EPA’s technical and legal analysis to score points with its allies in industry and the Republican base.

If anything, allowing EPA to move ahead under the Clean Air Act would be “non-political” because it would honor the terms of a Supreme Court ruling that the outgoing Administration has chosen to defy. How simple respect for the nation’s highest court and the law of the land equates to issuing an “ultimatum” to Congress is baffling.

From the Wonk Room.

The Bush Administration is rushing forward with plans to mine the Grand Canyon for uranium, ignoring a command from Congress to cease such operations. Since 2003, mining interests have staked out over 800 uranium claims within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park. As Mineweb reports, “The Bureau of Land Management has published a proposed rule which rejects the House Natural Resources Emergency House Resolution enacted in June that bans uranium mining and exploration near the Grand Canyon National Park.” The Arizona Republic explains what’s at stake:

Never mind that the drinking water of more than 25 million people, served by the Colorado River, is at risk.

Or that Arizona Game and Fish warns about the impact on wildlife.

Or that Grand Canyon National Park is still dealing with the toxic mess from past mines.

The proposed BLM rule would not only reject the House’s emergency withdrawal of over one million acres of federal land near Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining, but also eliminate the provisions that allow Congress to make such withdrawals in the future. The proposed rule, published on Friday, has a remarkably short comment period, closing in less than two weeks on October 27. House Parks Subcommittee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) blasted BLM’s action, saying, “This last-minute move by this ‘see if we can get it under the clock’ administration is cowardly.”

But McCain’s claim to Roosevelt-style environmentalism has been badly bruised by his silence on uranium mining near the park and on the Navajo Nation.

“McCain gave us hope that he might be a Teddy Roosevelt type of Republican,” said Roger Clark, air and water director for The Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff, Ariz., environmental group. “Since the beginning of his run for president, including 2000, that has kind of crumbled.”

The Arizona Republic’s editorial concludes that it’s legacy time at the administration>

Surely President Bush doesn’t want his to include tainted water and a contaminated landscape. We must keep the temporary ban on uranium mining near Grand Canyon.

Written comments should be submitted online or sent to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L St., NW, Room 401, Washington, DC 20036, Attention: RIN 1004-AEO5.

NRDC, Organization of American States and PODER Magazine

• José Miguel Insulza, Organization of American States Secretary General
• Alvaro Umana, UN Energy and Environment Group Leader
• Peter Lehner, NRDC Executive Director
• Maria Hinojosa, NPR Award-winning Journalist

Cocktail reception, live Latin jazz and a special dance presentation

OAS Historic Building – 17th & Constitution Avenue NW

RSVP: Richard Ackerman rackerman@nrdc.org

With the launch of the Climate Investment Funds, the World Bank has positioned itself as a major player in international climate funding and policy. Speakers on this panel will discuss the World Bank’s past, current, and potential future role in climate change, including examinations of the Bank from Southern country perspectives. The implications of the World Bank’s role for both U.S. climate policy and the financing mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will also be discussed.

• Elena Gerebizza, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (Italy)
• Lidy Nacpil, Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (Philippines)
• Chima Williams, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth-Nigeria
• Vice Yu, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre

Moderator: Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth-US

Sponsored by ActionAid USA, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Friends of the Earth International, Jubilee USA, Oil Change International, and Sustainable Energy and Economy Network.

Location: Friends of the Earth-US, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC

For more information, please contact Karen Orenstein, International Finance Campaign Coordinator, Friends of the Earth US, korenstein@foe.org, 202-222-0717.

From the Wonk Room.

As the 110th Congress comes to a close, two of the legislators in charge of climate legislation in the House of Representatives yesterday released a draft climate plan. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), chair of the Energy and Air Quality subcommittee, have primary jurisdiction in the House for legislation that puts mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Although such legislation has been a top priority for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) since she became Speaker of the House in January 2007, Dingell and Boucher declared they would not be rushed, instead working on the 2007 energy bill, holding several hearings and releasing four white papers from October to May of this year. Dingell’s district is in the heart of the U.S. auto industry; Boucher represents Virginia’s coal country. Below is an analysis of some of the key issues raised in their 460-page draft legislation, an ambitious effort by the two congressmen.

EMISSIONS TARGETS. Dingell and Boucher call for emissions reductions of 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050, in line with the minimum of scientific recommendations, but with reductions of only six percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Punting any significant reductions until after 2020 means that the Dingell-Boucher plan falls grossly short of what is needed to forestall catastrophe:

In contrast, Europe is maintaining its commitment to unilateral reductions of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

REGULATORY STRUCTURE. In their letter to other members, Dingell and Boucher criticize the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases, saying, “We believe that elected and accountable representatives in the Congress, not the Executive Branch, should properly design that regulatory program.” Their legislation would overturn the Supreme Court ruling by removing greenhouse gases from the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulations.

The draft provides a broad range of options for dealing with vehicle emissions standards, ranging from preempting the right of California and other states to provide additional protection from automotive pollution to allowing the EPA and the states to implement such protections. They also signal that they see state-level regulation of emissions as an economic threat, saying their actions “could be disruptive to interstate commerce and counterproductive to the goal of limiting national greenhouse gas emissions.” Their draft legislation would outlaw any state or regional cap and trade program.

MONEY. The Center for American Progress strongly supports the “polluter pays” principle for cap and trade programs to reduce global warming. The cost of pollution allowances should not be shifted to the taxpayer. Giving free permits to polluters would be a global warming bailout. The polluting industries are lobbying heavily to receive most if not all permits for free, particularly in initial years of the program. The European cap-and-trade system originally gave away permits, resulting in massive windfall profits for polluters. They are moving to a full auction of permits, like the new Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program that covers northeastern states.

The Dingell-Boucher draft does not take a position on how permits should be allocated initially, instead detailing four scenarios, three of which involve massive giveaways to covered industries. In every scenario, Dingell-Boucher would protect low-income consumers from increases in energy prices through tax breaks and rebates, and invest heavily in new technology deployment (e.g., renewables, advanced coal, advanced vehicles). Although their allocation scenarios are risible in detail, they do a good job of covering the competing priorities in moving to a low-carbon economy:

1. Protect low-income consumers from energy costs
2. Minimize compliance costs for covered polluters
3. Invest in technology development and deployment
4. Invest in complementary programs in efficiency and clean energy
5. Support international efforts and adaptation
6. Give rebates to middle- and upper-income consumers

Dingell and Boucher believe that low-income families must be protected, that industry should receive pollution cost protection and new technology support, and that all else is up for debate. Nearly two-thirds of their Democratic colleagues indicated last week a very different set of priorities, that focuses not on protecting polluters but on respecting scientific urgency, delivering economic equity, and capturing the energy opportunity.

From the Wonk Room.

Today, 152 members of the House of Representatives – over one-third of all members and nearly two-thirds of all Democrats – signed and submitted a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating their guiding principles for “comprehensive global warming legislation” to “save the planet from calamitous global warming.” The letter, led by representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA), was delivered to Pelosi this morning.

1. Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming;
2. Transition America to a clean energy economy;
3. Recognize and minimize any economic impacts from global warming legislation; and
4. Aid communities and ecosystems vulnerable to harm from global warming.

• “The United States must do its part to keep global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels.”
• “Total U.S. emissions must be capped by a date certain, decline every year, be reduced to 15% to 20% below current levels in 2020, and fall to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.”
• “A mechanism for periodic scientific review is necessary, and EPA, and other agencies as appropriate, must adjust the regulatory response if the latest science indicates that more reductions are needed.”
• “Cost-containment measures must not break the cap on global warming pollution.”
• “The United States must reengage in the international negotiations to establish binding emissions reductions goals under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . . . for the United States and other developed nations to achieve combined emissions reductions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, as called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” .

Join USCHPA for a strategy session featuring policymakers, practitioners, financiers and pundits discussing the future of clean energy technologies and offering guidance on ways to maximize the role of clean heat and power as a solution to climate change.

Tentative Agenda

• Continental Breakfast

• Welcome Back, Jessica Bridges, Executive Director, USCHPA

• Future Market Opportunities for Energy Efficiency

Session Leader: Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies This session will address the future of clean heat and power from the C-level perspective. Where are the big opportunities? Will increasing climate change sensitivities, carbon reduction initiatives, and fuel prices align to create the perfect opportunity for energy efficient technologies? If so, what do CEOs need and want from Wall Street?

• Financial Forecast for Clean Heat and Power

Session Leader: Justin Rathke, Director, Policy and Business Development, Capstone Turbine Corporation

Policymakers, industry, and the general public are all talking carbon reduction; what’s the financial impact? How is industry reacting to, and where does Wall Street stand on a potential U.S. carbon trading regime? This session will focus on industry trends for clean heat and power from an investor perspective.

• Break

• International Perspectives on CHP: How to Lead Not Follow

Session Leader: Richard Brent, Government Affairs, Solar Turbines, Inc The U.S. could learn a thing or two about combined heat and power (CHP) deployment from our peers on the world stage. Panelists in this session will focus on best practices and lessons learned from international leaders in the deployment of CHP, and recommend strategies for U.S. industry and policymakers to follow to realize the levels of CHP success achieved in other countries.

• Closing Remarks – Moving Forward

Paul Thomsen, USCHPA Vice Chairman and Director of Policy and Business Development, Ormat Technologies

• Adjourn

DoubleTree Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia