NWF Campaign Targets 50 House Lawmakers 1
The National Wildlife Federation has launched a campaign to get a total of 218 sponsors for the Waxman (HR 1590, equivalent to Boxer-Sanders) or the Olver-Gilchrest (HR 620, equivalent to McCain-Lieberman) cap-and-trade climate bills. The two bills combined have 170 co-sponsors. NWF is targeting what they call The Final Fifty, fifty legislators who have not co-sponsored either bill.
LIHEAP: Overview and Current Issues
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee (Chairman McCarthy, D-N.Y.) of House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on the future of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
International climate change negotiations, focusing on restoring United States leadership
Sen. Kerry presiding.
Witnesses Panel 1- Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Department of State
- Dan Reifsnyder
- Timothy Wirth, President, United Nations Foundation
- Dr. Richard Sandor, Chairman and CEO, Chicago Climate Exchange
- Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Director, Climate, Energy, and Pollution Program, World Resources Institute
2:40 Kerry The 95-0 vote against the Kyoto treaty was not meant as a rejection of action on climate change.
2:45 Lugar It is critical that the international dialogue on climate change move beyond the disputes of the Kyoto protocols.
2:48 Dobriansky Climate change is a serious problem and humans are contributing to it. We are committed to doing our part. At Bali we will work to launch a new phase in climate diplomacy. The US is committed to concluding this effort by 2009. I recently met with key heads in Bogor, Indonesia. There are four key factors: mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology. We enter the Bali meeting with an open mind. Our deliberations will be guided by two considerations: environmentally effective and economically sustainable.
. . .3:46 Reifsnyder The threat of sanctions and tariffs is not popular.
Science and Society Grand Challenges: Meeting global energy demand
The events in the Science and Society: Grand Challenges series will be held every Monday night in November from 6pm to 7:30pm in the AAAS Auditorium at 1200 New York Avenue. A reception will start at 5pm.
November 12th’s discussion will be about “Meeting the Global Energy Demand”
Speakers- John Holdren, Director of the Science, Technology & Public Policy Program at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government
- Lori Ryerkerk, General Manager of Government Relations at the ExxonMobil Corporation.
The first discussion was on “Climate Change”, and future discussions will be on “Managing a Pandemic” and “Containing the Spread of WMDs” and will feature experts from the White House, and the Center for American Progress.
RSVP.
Mass. v. EPA and Coal: Johnson Gets Grilled
(Cross-posted from Warming Law, which focuses on covering and analyzing the fight against global warming from a legal perspective. My name is Sean Siperstein, and I run Warming Law as part of my work for Community Rights Counsel, a non-profit, public interest law firm that assists communities in protecting their health and welfare. Follow the links for more info. about Warming Law; about CRC’s work and history; and for those truly curious, about me. Thanks for the opportunity to join the discussion; I really look forward to it!)
On Thursday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) convened the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to delve into whether the EPA acted properly in approving a permit for a coal-fired power on tribal land in Utah—its first such decision since the Supreme Court’s determination that CO2 is an air pollutant—despite the continued opposition of several environmental groups. Readers can check out the committee’s website for complete video of the fireworks-filled hearing and all testimony.
The hearing’s central witness was EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who testified that because EPA is still in the process of formulating regulations in response to Mass. v. EPA, CO2 is, for the time being, still not a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act—and thus, EPA "simply lacks the legal authority…to impose emissions limitations for greenhouse gas emissions on power plants."
Under intense questioning, Johnson continued to stand by his basic talking points, arguing again that EPA’s failure to regulate CO2 keeps it from even beginning to consider it in assessing proposed power plants. Reporting on the hearing, Ryan Grim of the Politico parses Johnson’s testimony and sees something beyond legal reasoning possibly at play here:
Johnson has a tight line to walk: He has to show that he’s in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling while not committing to doing too much. “I have to abide by the law as it’s written today,” Johnson says.
He also thinks that “we must continue to improve our knowledge of the science,” but promises that the EPA is “developing regulations to pursue it from a regulatory standpoint” using a “deliberative and thoughtful process.”
Democrats aren’t buying. “No, you’re not,” Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) tells him flatly. “You’re looking for any avenue you can to avoid doing it.” Several Democrats bring up the EPA’s long-running refusal to approve a waiver for California to enact its own carbon regulation scheme.
The primary argument against Johnson’s take was provided by David Doniger of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who asserted that EPA does have a mandate to move forward, and in doing so should have quickly concluded that new coal-fired plants ought not be approved without significant mitigation strategies. In doing so, Doniger cites several decisions by businesses and state regulators indicating that concrete action is possible, and summarizes the four main arguments of environmental organizations’ latest formal comments objecting to EPA’s decision:
- As a result of the Supreme Court’s determination, in Massacuhsetts v. EPA, that the Clean Air Act is "unambiguous" on CO2’s status as a pollutant, CO2 is "plainly a ‘pollutant subject to regulation’ under the Act. This should trigger Section 165(a)(4) of the Act, which requires that the permit "include an emission limit reflecting the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) ‘for each pollutant subject to regulation.’"
- Even putting aside the Court’s ruling, CO2 is already a "regulated" pollutant for this purpose under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which require utilities to monitor, record and report CO2 emissions.
- Even in the absence of a BACT limitation for CO2, Sections 165(a)(4) and 169(3) of the Clean Air Act require that EPA consider other environmental impacts during its BACT analysis for "conventional pollutants (such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides)"; this requirement should force consideration of global warming, which would certainly qualify as an important environmental consideration, yet EPA has "refused to undertake even this critical analysis in connection with issuing air permits for new coal plants."
- Under Clean Air Act 165(a)(2), which deals with public comments, the agency is required to weigh comments on factors including air quality impacts, potential alternatives to the proposed plant, and control technology requirements; it also has the power to consider these factors even if they are not raised in public comments. Properly conducted, such a process would find a wide range of available alternatives to allowing conventional new coal plants, but yet again, EPA has failed to even conduct this analysis.
Rep. Waxman also used the hearing to introduce legislation that would essentially settle the issue, creating a temporary moratorium on the approval of new coal-fired plants until EPA finshes developing its regulations .
Climate Change and Energy Policy – UK and US Policy Approaches and Perspectives
The British-American Business Association is holding an energy briefing & reception on “Climate Change and Energy Policy – UK and US Policy Approaches and Perspectives”.
Panel Moderator:- Professor Wilfrid Kohl, Director International Energy and Environment Program, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University
- The Honorable Karen Harbert, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, US Department of Energy [invited]
- David Thomas, First Secretary, Energy & Environment, British Embassy, Washington DC
- John Jimison, Counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, US House of Representatives
- Chelsea Maxwell, Senior Policy Advisor to Senator John Warner of Virginia [invited]
Organized by the BABA Energy and Environment Committee
- 5:30 PM – Registration
- 6:00 – 7:30 PM – Presentation & Networking Reception
British Embassy Rotunda 3100 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC
Price: $40 / person (Members & their Guests) $50 / person (non-Members)
Boucher Says Bush Open to Coal-Friendly Cap-and-Trade Legislation 1
From E&E News (subs. req.): Boucher told a business forum that he has been in talks with the Bush’s environmental advisors, including Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, about crafting cap-and-trade legislation Bush would sign.
According to the E&E report, Boucher did not think that having a bill that largely preempted state efforts would be problematic. He went on to say that there need to be more protections for the coal industry, and a minimal cap on emissions for the next twenty years.
Boucher said any measure that forces coal-fired power plants to curb emissions too fast – before carbon capture and sequestration can be widely deployed – would cause major shifts to natural gas and drive up prices.Boucher said the upcoming climate bill will provide a “somewhat forgiving, a gentle introduction to controls” until carbon capture and storage is ready, which he said would be around 2025. Before that, he said, coal-fired utilities will need other options available to meet obligations, such as purchase of offsets.
“The schedule prior to 2025 has got to be more forgiving,” he told reporters. “The schedule after 2025 can be very rigorous.”
Boucher said Senate proposals would impose major limits too fast. “I don’t think the Senate bills adequately address that need because the control schedule is quite severe in the early years, before we have carbon capture and storage available,” he said. “If they default to natural gas, real harm to the economy occurs.”
CLIMATE: Boucher says White House open to mandatory controls (11/08/2007) Ben Geman, Greenwire senior reporter
A House Democrat writing legislation to require greenhouse gas limits said today that White House officials have privately indicated that President Bush might sign such a bill, despite the administration’s public stance against mandatory controls.
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) told a business forum that White House officials have not put up a “red light.”
But he outlined several big “ifs.”
“If a bill is presented to the White House that has a bipartisan foundation, if it is industry supported, if it is structured in such a way that it will not cause economic dislocation and that is digestible by the economy, that legislation will be welcomed, it would receive serious consideration and potentially be signed into law,” Boucher said at a climate change forum hosted by the Business Roundtable.
He later told reporters he has been speaking about climate legislation with Bush’s principal climate advisers, including Jim Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.
CEQ declined to respond directly to Boucher’s comment. “The president has made clear which policies he supports to combat climate change, and he is still waiting on Congress to pass his ‘20 in 10’ legislation,” the agency said in a statement. “We will take a look at all proposals and make our views known as they work their way through the legislative process. We aren’t going to speculate about anything that hasn’t been introduced yet.”
“20 in 10” refers to a White House initiative to curb gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years through increased use of alternative fuels and greater auto efficiency.
Boucher chairs the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. He and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, are planning a cap-and-trade system to control carbon dioxide and other gases that are contributing to global warming. Their plan will seek to curb U.S. emissions between 60 percent and 80 percent by 2050.
Boucher, a coal industry ally, has emphasized that his measure would not cause economic harm. State pre-emption at issue
Boucher would not say whether the bill he is writing would “pre-empt” state efforts – such as those in California and among Northeast states – to enact limits on greenhouse gases. But he suggested that the issue could resolve itself to some degree.
He noted that blocs of states had begun their own efforts to control sulfur dioxide when Congress passed the landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 but that these efforts abated when the federal SO2 cap-and-trade plan was established.
“The regional consortia just dropped away, and they really never materialized beyond whatever stage they had assumed at the time we passed the bill,” Boucher said.
“To some extent I think that is going to happen again,” he added. “Once we put a carbon dioxide control in place, a greenhouse gas control in place, that has nationwide application, I really think you are going to see many of the regional blocs say ‘okay, we are satisfied.’” He added, however, that there could be exceptions and California might be one of them.
Boucher’s comments underscore inevitable regional tensions on climate issues. In a nod to lawmakers from the Northeast and California, Senate climate legislation includes a provision that allows states to set stronger rules than the federal government. Concerns with Senate plans
Boucher said any measure that forces coal-fired power plants to curb emissions too fast – before carbon capture and sequestration can be widely deployed – would cause major shifts to natural gas and drive up prices.
Boucher said the upcoming climate bill will provide a “somewhat forgiving, a gentle introduction to controls” until carbon capture and storage is ready, which he said would be around 2025. Before that, he said, coal-fired utilities will need other options available to meet obligations, such as purchase of offsets.
“The schedule prior to 2025 has got to be more forgiving,” he told reporters. “The schedule after 2025 can be very rigorous.”
Boucher said Senate proposals would impose major limits too fast. “I don’t think the Senate bills adequately address that need because the control schedule is quite severe in the early years, before we have carbon capture and storage available,” he said. “If they default to natural gas, real harm to the economy occurs.”
He did not single any specific bills out for criticism. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently working on climate legislation sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.).
A major group of labor unions, the AFL-CIO, is concerned the Lieberman-Warner measure’s targets for 2020 are “overly aggressive” (E&E Daily, Nov. 8).
ASES: One in Four U.S. Jobs Could Be in Green Sector by 2030
The American Solar Energy Society unveiled a new report today in a briefing with Sen. Ken Salazar that says that 40 million U.S. jobs by 2030 in renewable energy and energy-efficiency (RE&EE) could be created if policymakers commit to growing the sector.
If U.S. policymakers aggressively commit to programs that support the sustained orderly development of RE&EE, the news gets even better. According to research conducted by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) and Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI), the renewable energy and energy efficiency industry could—in a crash effort—generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue in the United States and create 40 million new jobs by the year 2030. These 40 million jobs would represent nearly one out of every four jobs in 2030, and many would be jobs that could not easily be outsourced.
Continue reading for more excerpts.
Germany has about one-fourth the gross domestic product and population of the U.S., but has more RE jobs (214,000 vs. 194,000). RE employment in Germany has increased 36 percent in two years. We don’t even know how much RE employment has increased in the United States, because—until now—no one has estimated actual RE employment.
Despite some job losses, the net effect within a carbon-constrained energy economy is positive, creating roughly five jobs for each job lost. Because unionization rates are higher on average in more energy-intensive industries, the positive effect on union jobs is not as strong, but it is still true that four union jobs are created for every three lost.
A second implication of these results is the importance of revenue recycling. Much of the negative impact of carbon/energy taxes is based on the assumption that the revenue will not be recycled through cuts in other taxes. It is critical, therefore, that the pricing policy be accomplished either by permits that are sold or by energy taxes, not through permits that are given away to industries at no cost (i.e., “grandfathered” to existing companies).
If we fail to invest in RE&EE, the United States runs the risk of losing ground to international RE&EE programs and industries. If we refuse to address policy and regulatory barriers to the sustained, orderly development of the RE&EE industry, other countries will take the lead and reap the economic and environmental benefits. For the United States to be competitive in a carbon-constrained world, the RE&EE industry will be a critical economic driver.
Green Collar Jobs: Why Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency are Economic Powerhouses
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) invite you to a briefing at which a groundbreaking new report will be released entitled Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. This report from ASES is the nation’s first comprehensive study of the tremendous economic impact of these industries. It aims to answer the questions: how big are the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries and how large are they forecasted to grow? How many jobs and what types of jobs do they create? What are the economic development implications? The briefing will address these questions, as well as provide a special case study, and explore the important policy implications of this powerful research.
Speakers- Sen. Ken Salazar, (D-CO), Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and Finance Committees
- Brad Collins, Executive Director, American Solar Energy Society
- Drew McCracken, Director, Washington Office of the State of Ohio
- Roger Bezdek, Ph.D, President, Management Information Services, Inc.
While policymakers consider how to tackle climate change and energy policy, the study to be released shows that renewable energy and energy efficiency can offer the economic opportunity of the century – but only if we take advantage of this huge opportunity. Today, these industries generate 8.5 million jobs and nearly $1 trillion in annual revenue in the United States, and they contain some of the fastest growing sectors in the economy. Among the study’s findings are: if the country fails to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, it runs the risk of losing ground to global competitors. If policy and regulatory barriers to the sustained development of the industry are not addressed now, other countries like Germany, Denmark, and China will take the lead and reap the economic benefits. However, this new report also illustrates the tremendous opportunity for the United States to harvest these green collar jobs and how these industries, with the correct support, are poised to be economic powerhouses for the 21st century.
This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. For more information, contact Neal Lurie at the American Solar Energy Society at nlurie@ases.org or 303.443.3130×105 or Leanne Lamusga- EESI, llamusga@eesi.org or 202-662-1884.
Kerry Pushes Carbon Sequestration Development
Today Sen. Kerry chaired a hearing on geological carbon sequestration and introduced legislation to establish CCS demonstration projects.
The legislation provisions:- Establish 3-5 commercial-scale sequestration facilities
- Establish 3-5 “first-of-a-kind” coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture
- Establish an interagency process to determine a regulatory framework for CCS
- Direct USGS to perform a capacity assessment of sequestration potential; establish an aggressive CCS R&D program at DOE
- Authorize technology sharing agreements with China, India and other coal-intensive developing countries.
At the hearing the consensus was that the federal government should invest not only in a few large-scale projects, but also a greater number of small-scale pilot tests, and in use-directed fundamental research. The EPRI representative emphasized the advantages of starting R&D investment before carbon emissions pricing kicks in, and promoted the work EPRI has done to study advanced coal technologies and CO2 capture and sequestration.