Energy/Enviro Experts

What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables?

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

How can renewable energy keep up the momentum?

In the last year, renewables have been booming, according to recent reports. But due to the recession, electricity demand isn't increasing as much as anticipated, and experts say that could translate into lower demand for all new sources of electricity, including renewables. On top of that, President Obama recently told Democrats that "we're not going to be able to ramp up solar and wind to suddenly replace every other energy source anytime soon, and the economy still needs to grow. So we've got to look at how to make existing technologies and options better." And in his State of the Union address, Obama threw his weight behind nuclear energy and offshore drilling.

For the immediate future, how can renewable sources of electricity position themselves to become the top energy source? How should Congress balance emerging technologies with existing ones? Is it wise for Obama to pour resources into adapting traditional technologies, like clean coal, or should he focus more on wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy?

Denise Bode responded to What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables? on February 9, 2010 09:20 PM

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Wind has a winning strategy: Jobs Wind has now accounted for over 40% of new electricity generation for two years running. Along with natural gas, wind was the largest source of new capacity added in the U.S. in 2009. I would say that we are well on our way to positioning ourselves to becoming 20% of capacity by 2030 as was predicted in a 2008 report produced by the Department of Energy—if the right policies are now put in place. Wind is cost-effective, plentiful, and has no environmental impact. Wind power also supports a wide range of jobs, especially in the manufacturing...

Gary Fazzino responded to What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables? on February 8, 2010 07:54 PM

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Renewables Need To Be Top of Mind I submit that many renewable sources of energy are already positioning themselves as top energy sources utilizing existing technologies. For example, over the last several years, wind energy has represented a significant share of new electric generation additions and solar is poised to break out in similar fashion. What both wind and solar have in common is that they represent manufactured energy, as they rely on the availability of increasingly sophisticated collection and conversion equipment to transform these naturally occurring but diffuse energy sources into concentrated energy sources such as electricity and...

Margo Thorning responded to What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables? on February 8, 2010 03:23 PM

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Renewables Alone Can't Renew Economy Renewables like wind, solar and biomass can certainly play a complementary role in U.S. energy supply, but because of their cost, the intermittency of wind and solar, (the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow) and need for a backup energy supplies it is foolish to think that they will replace large amounts of our more traditional energy sources in the next 10 to 20 years. Because each one percent increase in U.S. GDP growth is accompanied by a 0.2 percent increase in energy use, we are going to require every...

William O'Keefe responded to What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables? on February 8, 2010 08:43 AM

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

Don't Follow The Yellow Brick Road The current promise of renewables is founded in fantasy: a glittering yellow brick road that leads to nowhere. This is a harsh indictment but also an accurate one. Unless we adopt a different energy strategy for renewables, their potential will continue to be delayed. And tax dollars will continue to be wasted on rent-seekers. Over the past few decades, advocates of renewables -- primarily wind and solar -- have predicted they could soon provide 20% or more of our energy needs if only the government (ie taxpayers) gave them a helping hand. Washington has...

Lewis Hay responded to What's A Winning Strategy For Renewables? on February 8, 2010 08:40 AM

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:34:00 GMT

U.S. Not Serious About Renewables As the CEO of America’s largest provider of renewable energy, I obviously have a bias on this topic, but in my view we are simply not serious about building a robust renewable energy industry in the United States. In 2009, the federal government provided $1.5 billion in tax credits to wind power developers. More than $1 billion went to firms headquartered in Europe. Now, it does not trouble me that European firms are earning U.S. tax credits. They are playing by the rules, and their investments are helping to create jobs here in the United...

Budget Crunching: What Happens Now?

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

Nuclear power and renewable energy won out over the fossil fuel industries in the administration's FY2011 budget proposal. The Energy Department plan would triple nuclear loan guarantee funding, yank its application to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, and cut tax subsidies for the oil and natural gas industries. DOE would allocate $11 billion of its $28.4 billion budget to nuclear security, an increase of 14 percent. It also would dedicate between $4 billion and $5 billion to clean energy projects. Unlike last year, the budget doesn't include a specific estimate for revenue from a market-based climate change bill.

What's the likely impact of this year's budget proposal? Will the additional money for nuclear loans -- which Energy Secretary Steven Chu said could fund up to 10 reactors -- finally usher in the next generation of nuclear power plants? Will domestic oil and gas development be hindered? What signal is the administration sending Congress by including a placeholder for market-based climate bill revenue? Are the changes likely to withstand congressional scrutiny?

Paul Sullivan responded to Budget Crunching: What Happens Now? on February 4, 2010 02:13 PM

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

Look To The Private Sector Instead The budget proposal is more than just a budget proposal. It is a starting point for the negotiations on energy industry funding, regulation, taxation, subsidies and more to come. It is not the final word, but an initiating salvo. One should not read too much into this just yet. The political environment on The Hill is not the most receptive on new energy and environment ideas. The House and Senate are loaded for bear. Many are worried about their reelection chances. Many should be. Health Care, energy and the environment are now not the...

Marian Hopkins responded to Budget Crunching: What Happens Now? on February 4, 2010 09:50 AM

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

A Good Start The President made some very good points in his State of the Union address last week; he discussed the need for America to continue investing in energy efficiency, nuclear power and sustainable coal technologies. This week’s budget is a good start towards turning some of the promises he made into concrete action – to be sure, it contains a few excellent policies and some that could use refining. However, overall, it is a good start on the path to greater energy security and a healthier climate. I’m especially encouraged by the Administration’s large increase in funding for nuclear...

William O'Keefe responded to Budget Crunching: What Happens Now? on February 3, 2010 04:03 PM

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

Focus On Facts Not Associations The CEO of the Wildlife Federation would be well served to take a deep breath before going off on the irrelevant. The numbers cited in my response come from DOE and not the Marshall Institute. The continued dependence on fossil fuels for decades to come is a reality that is accepted by most people knowledgeable about energy. Advocacy to force the nation onto renewables before their time shows little regard for the effect on the economy or impact on lower income people. The reference to funding is an old political trick, if you can't discredit...

Larry Schweiger responded to Budget Crunching: What Happens Now? on February 3, 2010 01:34 PM

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

Budget Sets Right Goals in Tough Times It's no surprise to see the George C. Marshall Institute advocating for continued dependence on dirty fuels -- from 1999 to 2007 alone, the Marshall Institute received $840,000 from ExxonMobil. But as we look to pull ourselves out of our interconnected economic, energy & climate crises, if there's anything we don't need, it's more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place. We need a new direction to create jobs & save money. President Obama’s budget strikes the right balance in tough times, slashing taxpayer subsidies...

William O'Keefe responded to Budget Crunching: What Happens Now? on February 3, 2010 07:50 AM

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:34:44 GMT

A One Handed Secretary of Energy The proposed DOE budget is simply a veneer, masking the Administration’s misguided efforts to reshape the economy and our energy systems. If we are lucky, Congress -- which has been chastened by recent elections -- will reject Secretary Chu’s proposal as more pork and wasteful spending. DOE’s Outlook shows fossil and nuclear providing the bulk of our energy needs through 2035. Even with very optimistic and unrealistic estimates, renewables only account for approximately 12 percent of our energy needs, which are expected to grow by 25 percent over that time period. Right now, nuclear...

Can Obama Re-energize Climate?

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

In his State of the Union address, President Obama supported construction of new nuclear power plants, offshore oil and gas drilling, and development of advanced clean-coal technologies. In return, he called on Congress to pass "a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."

Will the White House's proposal energize Senate negotiations to curb U.S. emissions of global warming pollution? Can the nuclear, oil drilling and coal provisions win votes among fence-sitting moderates in both parties? Will the environmental groups stick with Obama, despite their past opposition to nuclear power, offshore oil drilling and new coal plants? Will corporate America rally behind the White House and push the Senate to act?

Frank M. Stewart responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 4, 2010 10:52 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

The Right Mix of Energy Incentives The President is right. America needs a comprehensive policy that will define the right mix of incentives that will support our energy and economic future. This does not mean a simpleminded, either-or choice between traditional fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) and “clean” fuels (solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels). We need, instead, a commitment to the wisest use of all available energy sources. Our issues of environmental responsibility, national security, and economic efficiency are each of fundamental importance. In addition to addressing nuclear, oil, natural gas and other energy related topics last week, President Obama...

Kevin Knobloch responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 2, 2010 11:27 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

The Senate must act During his State of the Union address, President Obama made a strong case for the Senate to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. It is clear that no legislation can make it through this Senate under the current rules without serious compromises, but the United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. The Senate needs to follow the House’s lead and pass a bill that cuts global warming pollution enough to stave off the worst consequences of climate change (pdf) and provides the framework we need to promote America’s clean energy industries....

Skip Horvath responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 2, 2010 11:13 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Gas Critical Part Of Solution President Obama’s State of the Union acknowledgment that offshore drilling for natural gas can be part of our energy solution was a welcome signal on the part of the administration. We only hope that it was a serious signal that the administration wants to encourage offshore drilling, and not a smoke signal. Accordingly, we look to the administration to move forward in allowing assessments of our natural gas resources in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The U.S. has natural gas in abundance, with at least 250 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable natural...

William O'Keefe responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 1, 2010 08:36 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama's Right, Words Must Mean Something President Obama has said “words must mean something.” And they should. Yet, for his SOTU promises about nuclear power and oil and gas development to have meaning, his Administration will have to take the necessary actions to translate that pledge into concrete results. Oil and gas development does not have to be limited to vast resources located just off America’s coasts. Our country has a great deal of onshore potential too, especially in Alaska. If the President is serious about keeping investment and jobs at home and reducing the problems associated with oil imports...

Arjun Makhijani responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 1, 2010 07:39 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Nuclear Not The Answer In his State of the Union address, President Obama formally abandoned his campaign promise on new nuclear plants. In 2008 he endorsed only continued operation of existing nuclear power plants. New ones would have to wait until safety, waste, and proliferation concerns are resolved. The latter two concerns are arguably more acute than before he took office. The Obama administration has rightly abandoned Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste – it is, in my judgment, the worst site that has been investigated in the United States. But his Commission on nuclear waste has...

Bill Snape responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on February 1, 2010 07:36 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama 'Business As Usual,' Not Change President Obama is correct that we need energy innovation and clean-energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean-energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised. The president has not used his bully pulpit to advocate a bright line goal for greenhouse gas reductions. Scientists have determined that reducing carbon pollution to 350 parts per million (ppm) is necessary...

Jack Gerard responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 29, 2010 06:22 PM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Time for a Restart We're encouraged to see that President Obama has turned his focus to jobs and opened the door to offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production. All credible projections indicate that this nation will need more of these traditional energy resources to power the economy for many years to come. The oil and gas industry stands ready to work with the administration and Congress to create jobs and secure the nation's energy future. If the government were to provide an opportunity to develop more domestic oil and natural gas, the industry could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, as well...

Marian Hopkins responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 29, 2010 02:22 PM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama Addresses Unfinished Business A few months ago, Business Roundtable released a report – Unfinished Business: The Missing Elements of a Sustainable Energy and Climate Policy – that outlined key areas policymakers must address in their effort to craft effective, workable climate and energy legislation. I’m proud to report that the President touched on many of our priority issues in his State of the Union address. He called for greater energy efficiency, for expansion of nuclear power and for investment in new coal technologies. Critically, he also called for “tough decisions” to be made on expanding development of our nation’s...

Daniel J. Weiss responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 29, 2010 10:01 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Running For First In Clean-Energy Race President Barack Obama reiterated in his State of the Union address last night his vision to get America running on clean energy. “Providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future,” he said, “because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” He used the annual address to advocate for a clean-energy investment agenda that would create jobs and reduce carbon pollution. The Obama administration’s efforts began on January 20,...

David Parker responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 29, 2010 08:58 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Natural gas is ready to lead I cannot begin to lay predictions on whether the President’s proposal will rally corporate America to get behind climate change legislation, but I can tell you that natural gas utilities and their customers stand ready to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as they have for the past 35 years. Wednesday night, the President clearly articulated the need for increased offshore oil and natural gas production, but he missed the opportunity to highlight the sustainable and immediately accessible resources of clean, abundant natural gas to be found throughout America that can be brought...

Amy Harder responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 29, 2010 07:31 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama’s Energy Muddle The following comments are from Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: The President’s remarks on energy were a muddle. On the one hand, he called for “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” On the other hand, he called for a cap-and-trade bill. Cap-and-trade could boost demand for gas in the short run (at the expense of coal), but would immediately suppress demand for oil and eventually make natural gas uncompetitive too. This one-foot-on-the-brakes, one-foot-on-the-accelerator proposal is not centrist; it is incoherent. President Obama says he supports...

Gary Fazzino responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 28, 2010 09:55 PM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama Has Right Message on Clean Energy I was deeply heartened to hear President Obama make such an impassioned appeal to America’s lawmakers last night about the need to invest in a clean energy future. He clearly understands that in order to create the jobs necessary to bring us back from the brink of double-digit unemployment, a focus on developing homegrown renewable sources of energy is imperative. The solar industry, in particular, has the potential for generating tens of thousands of well-paying jobs right here at home for Americans who desperately need them. The technology is here. The resources are...

Charles Drevna responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 28, 2010 03:27 PM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Avoid Counterproductive Policies There is little doubt that the Obama Administration looked at the odds of success this year for health care reform and a cap-and-trade climate bill and reconfigured its legislative priorities. Our industry is cautiously optimistic over the President’s decision to not aggressively articulate a desire for mandatory carbon controls in his state of the union speech. He alluded to House-passed climate legislation, but focused primarily on incentives for new technology and achieving greater efficiencies through innovation, something our member businesses excel at daily. We applaud that approach because it positively engages domestic industry across the board rather...

Jon A. Anda responded to Can Obama Re-energize Climate? on January 28, 2010 11:16 AM

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:54 GMT

Obama said what we need for a Cap A few quick numbers on the impact of US climate policy, courtesy of the ever terrific MIT team: With no new nuclear or CCS available, by 2050 real electricity costs rise to 28 cents/kwh (from 9 today) and market consumption is 4.3% lower in 2050 than it would have been without policy. If, however, we exploit a nuclear cost advantage, these electricity cost and consumption effects are reduced by over 60% (17 cents and 2.7% respectively). The President opened the door to an emissions cap that will boost domestic energy and jobs,...

Should Congress Stop EPA?

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, last week introduced a disapproval resolution -- essentially a congressional veto -- that would stop the EPA from controlling greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, argued that Congress, not EPA, should determine federal climate change policy.

Should EPA regulate carbon dioxide emissions? Is the Obama administration using the agency to force Congress to pass legislation? Could EPA regulation help industry plan for a low-carbon future? Should the agency's power be temporarily suspended to give Congress more time to hash out a bill? Or should EPA be barred from controlling greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act? How could this resolution affect the overall debate on climate legislation?

Richard Revesz responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 28, 2010 05:07 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

A Resolution Destined to Fail Almost everyone agrees that legislative climate action is preferred over regulation—it is the simpler, more democratic and longer lasting way to bring down our carbon emissions. But the congressional process has stalled out and Senator Murkowski’s attempt to shut down EPA’s ability to regulate is not helping. Procedurally, a disapproval resolution is destined to fail—at best it is a waste of time, but more likely a political move designed to slow down progress on climate legislation. First, it should be noted that the form of legislative action Senator Murkowski is suggesting has only been used successfully...

Cal Dooley responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 27, 2010 03:28 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Postpone EPA Reg of Stationary Sources EPA can promote both environmental improvement and economic recovery by postponing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. With Congress and the Administration hard at work on job creation and a national climate and energy policy, premature stationary source regulation could throw both efforts off course. The economic recovery package and new Administration proposals contain important investments in clean energy development that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and speed job creation. Yet these investments would be delayed, scaled back or cancelled if EPA moves ahead with stationary source regulation early this year...

Amy Harder responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 27, 2010 02:10 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Resolution Would Protect Economy The following comments are from Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: Sen. Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval is a gutsy action intended to safeguard the U.S. economy, government’s accountability to the people, and the separation of powers under the Constitution. Critics claim that the resolution attempts, in King Canute fashion, to repeal physics. They say it is equivalent to Congress voting to overturn the Surgeon General’s 1964 finding that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Rubbish! A strong case can be made that the endangerment finding is scientifically-challenged. But that’s not what the Murkowski resolution is about....

Margaret Kriz Hobson responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 27, 2010 12:43 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Congress: Fashion a Step Forward The following comments are from Frank M. Stewart, President and COO, American Association of Blacks in Energy The answer to questions regarding any EPA greenhouse gas regulation hinges on the answer to a broader question regarding national policy: are US legislators (and the voters who elected them) right to be skeptical of proposals that are not the product of a very broad, participatory process? The answer, in most cases, is “yes.” One can understand that members of the United States Senate are more than a bit frustrated by the difficulty and the complexity of crafting...

Amy Harder responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 27, 2010 07:43 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Natural Gas More Costly With Regulation Kathleen Sgamma, Director of Government Affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), submitted the following response: No, the EPA should not regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Regulation under CAA would be be intrusive, inefficient, and excessively costly. The CAA was meant to control traditional air pollution, not greenhouse gases that come from every home and commercial facility in America. Congressional action utilizing a market system that does not disadvantage natural gas is preferrable to an all-encompassing command-and-control approach. Natural gas is a clean...

Hal Quinn responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 26, 2010 04:50 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Murkowski/Lincoln Reflect Real Concerns Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Blanche Lincoln’s (D-Ark.) bipartisan disapproval resolution gives a legislative voice to all those who have been wringing their hands over the prospects of what Rep. John Dingell candidly assessed as a “glorious mess” if Congress left the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. President Obama, EPA Administrator Jackson and various members of Congress have expressed the same concern in somewhat less-colorful language. They have all said regulation under the Clean Air Act is not the best option, and...

David Holt responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 26, 2010 04:43 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Congress, Not EPA, Should Lead The Consumer Energy Alliance is concerned that using the EPA’s Clean Air Act as a vehicle to control greenhouse gas emissions could effectively bar Americans from being a part of this very important national climate change debate. Consumer Energy Alliance member companies are taking a hard look at EPA’s proposed action. While CEA has not taken a formal position on current climate change proposals, the climate change issues and potential legislative changes should be debated openly and should ensure that all consumers of energy, effectively all Americans, have a chance for their voices to be...

Stephen Eule responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 26, 2010 11:20 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

EPA Threat Stalling Action On Climate No, the Environmental Protection Agency should not regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Chamber’s been very clear that the CAA wasn’t designed for-- and is ill suited to address-- the complexities of reducing GHG emissions. Does anyone really believe, for example, that EPA can set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for greenhouse gases when the U.S. accounts for, on net, only about a 15% (and shrinking) share of global emissions? How can EPA set what it can’t control? One of the major selling points of a comprehensive...

Thomas Gibson responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 26, 2010 10:48 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Legislative Approach Is The Way To Go AISI strongly opposes any greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA. We agree with President Obama and his comments throughout the past year that a legislative approach is the right mechanism for pursuing the reduction of greenhouse gases. Regulation under the Clean Air Act would require new facilities and facilities undergoing major modifications to obtain permits covering their emissions. Without certainty on the availability and timing of permits and other issues affecting the cost of compliance with greenhouse gas regulation, the very investments that are needed to create jobs and further the nation’s economic...

Carl Pope responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 26, 2010 10:04 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Clean Air Act Is Tested; It Works The claim that the Clean Air Act can't work effectively to clean up carbon dioxide pollution is nonsense. Carbon dioxide is largely emitted from exactly those kinds of emission sources which the Clean Air Act has already cleaned up with great success; power plants, refineries, factories, vehicles. There is nothing new or unprecedented here. Yes, there are small sources that shouldn's be required to clean up, but that's true for pollutants like nitrogen oxides and particulates as well. (They come out of your fireplace, and you don't need a permit to light the yule log.)...

Frances Beinecke responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 06:46 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

It's Not the Dirty Air Act The EPA should regulate carbon emissions because that is what the Clean Air Act requires it to do. We can’t ignore a 40-year-old law simply because some polluters would prefer it. And we certainly can’t gut a bedrock law because the polluters’ political allies make erroneous claims about how that law works. Senator Murkowski asserts, for instance, that “the Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases.” That is incorrect. The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Clean Air Act unambiguously covers all kinds of...

Jon A. Anda responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 12:52 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Can Anyone Answer This? If the EPA wanted to push the legal envelope to limit large-source co2 emissions (without the inefficiency of command & control) an annual abatement obligation with debiting or crediting of abatement accounts (amongst regulated facilities) seems to have merit. This approach, call it baseline or abatement trading (or my www.justcapit.org name) doesn't distribute or even create permit assets - though it does create a "rent" if new sources are simply barred. While it seems entirely clear that EPA can't implement cap and trade on its own - and they are restricted in creating trading markets -...

Larry Schweiger responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 12:47 PM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Preserve the Clean Air Act's Protections Just last week, NASA announced 2009 was the 2nd-hottest year on record, with the 2000s being the hottest decade on record. That leaves Sen. Murkowski and her supporters in a delicate position. With climate science looking more dire by the day, why would they try to direct the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore scientific climate findings about global warming’s threat to human health? Sen. Murkowski’s effort would allow unlimited emissions of carbon pollution from the biggest corporate polluters and could stall the growth in clean energy jobs by creating uncertainty about our government’s commitment...

Bill Snape responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 09:14 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

EPA Must Regulate Emissions It is sad that we are still debating some of these questions. There is no doubt that EPA must and will regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse pollutants. It is a result sanctioned by statute, regulation, Supreme Court precedent and common sense. It is already happening. Still subject to debate, of course, are the additional rules or contingencies Congress will add to the equation of solving the climate crisis. The fact that Murkowski now doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to sever the Clean Air Act’s lifeline to greenhouse pollution reduction is testimony to...

Eileen Claussen responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 07:48 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

Wrong To Disarm EPA Steve Seidel, Vice President for Policy Analysis at the Pew Center, has written the below response in place of Eileen Claussen. With Thursday’s floor statement by Senator Murkowski announcing her joint resolution to override EPA’s endangerment finding, we were introduced to a new term to add to our lexicon – a disapproval resolution. If like me, you only had a vague recollection that Congress had given itself the ability to override any new federal regulation, some quick research was in order. This authority is contained in the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA) and was passed...

William O'Keefe responded to Should Congress Stop EPA? on January 25, 2010 07:46 AM

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:45:00 GMT

4 Reasons To Stop EPA Greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act would command and control into uncharted waters and be very bad for jobs, bad for economic recovery, and devastating for American competitiveness. Carbon dioxide is such a naturally occurring and intricately interwoven part of our daily lives that attempting to manage it through sweeping, command-and-control regulations intended to mitigate adverse health affects would be akin to deploying a nuclear bomb to open a locked door. (Ineffective and messy.) By allowing EPA to unleash this blunt tool on Americans, Congress would be failing to protect their constituents. This...

Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B?

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

What are the alternatives to an economy-wide cap-and-trade system for controlling greenhouse gas emissions?

Has the drive for a cap-and-trade bill run out of steam? Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, for one, predicts that the Senate won't pass a cap-and-trade bill this year. If so, what are other options? Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, proposed a cap-and-dividend system, which would cap carbon emissions at the source, such as oil or coal producers or importers, rather than regulating power companies or manufacturers. Other senators have suggested setting up a utility-only cap-and-trade program to control greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. Furthermore, some experts are speculating that a carbon tax would be more likely to be approved by Congress.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives? Is any effort to put a price on carbon doomed to fail this year?

Margo Thorning responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 22, 2010 07:52 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Better Solutions Than Cap-and-Trade Better Solutions Than Cap-and-Trade It seems that cap-and-trade is running out of steam, particularly when one looks at the heavy cost to industrial states. Last week, I spent several days in the Great Plains states speaking to business groups and the media on the acute economic effects that a cap and trade system on GHGs could have on their local economies. Residents from the Siouxland area in particular are very concerned about this impact. Jobs are clearly the dominant issue weighing on the mind of the electorate as demonstrated by this week’s stunning upset by Senator-elect...

Steven Stoft responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 22, 2010 12:50 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Think Globally for Action in the Senate Once again the developing countries said what they always say, but this time, a little louder. Fortunately, someone at Copenhagen had not drunk the capper’s Kool-Aid. Obama signed an Accord with no hint of caps for the top five poor countries. And then he finally dispelled the myth that Kyoto was built on. “Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.” Kyoto-style caps are a poison that has destroyed global climate policy. But like the deadly cyanide, the taste of poison has been masked by the Kool-Aid of tough targets and...

Tom Kuhn responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 21, 2010 02:16 PM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

The Path to 60 Votes It’s often tough to predict what will happen in the Senate, and that’s certainly the case right now. While some are looking at alternatives to an economy-wide climate bill, Majority Leader Reid recently reiterated his commitment to pursing comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year. The Edison Electric Institute continues to favor enactment of comprehensive legislation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, while providing strong consumer cost-containment provisions to help mitigate electricity price increases as we transition to a low-carbon future. This remains the best way to achieve environmental goals, while softening...

Graciela Chichilnisky responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 21, 2010 01:04 PM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Who Needs a Carbon Market? As our legislators weigh the pluses and minuses of a US cap and trade system -- a US carbon market -- a few critical features must be taken into consideration: 1. There is no need for any single nation to adopt a carbon market internally even if the nation is an active participant in the international carbon market. The international carbon market I designed and wrote into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 is generally identified with the European Union Trading System (or EUTS) that is now trading since 2005 and involves about $125 billion/year trading. Its trading doubles each year...

Jon A. Anda responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 21, 2010 10:44 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Why a Cap Matters Neo-classical economics would have us pick a price for carbon where marginal cost equals marginal benefit - and choose a price limit (i.e. a carbon tax) over a quantity limit where the marginal benefit curve is flat. A freshman economics class would not be the least bit challenged by this construct. They may be challenged, however, by the graph shown in the link below – not so much in what it means, but in choosing a policy to address it. Maybe, just maybe, this is why a hard emissions cap, and the capital investment it would...

Janet Larsen responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 21, 2010 10:01 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

“Time for Plan B” is Right! In our 2008 paper, “Time for Plan B: Cutting Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2020,” [PDF] Lester Brown, Jonathan Dorn, Frances Moore, and I lay out an ambitious plan to cut worldwide net carbon emissions 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2020. As part of that plan we call for tax restructuring: instating a carbon tax of $20 per ton that would increase predictably by $20 each year, and offset that with a reduction in income taxes (or credit, for those earning too little to pay income tax). A dividend system could work similarly. As others have...

William O'Keefe responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 21, 2010 07:32 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Mass. Race Raises New Questions The outcome of this week's Massachusetts special election leaves leaders on Capitol Hill facing a host of new questions. The biggest one is do they get the message that voters have been sending since the Tea Parties were first held and which was unambiguously sent on Tuesday? If they get it, the question about energy policy is how to successfully manage the Senate's new make up in order to pass an effective, sustainable climate policy? A complex question. Yet, the answer is simpler than it appears. Now that Democrats no longer have the 60-vote majority necessary...

Margaret Kriz Hobson responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 20, 2010 11:31 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Change in the Air? Yesterday’s Massachusetts Senate election changed the political dynamics in the Senate. No longer do the Democrats control the super majority needed to pass broad climate change legislation. Some pundits say the election was proof that the public opposes big government programs and higher energy prices linked to the comprehensive cap-and-trade bills passed by the House and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Does the election change what the federal government is likely to do on climate change? Or was the global warming legislative debate moving beyond cap-and-trade even before the election? ...

Jon A. Anda responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 09:16 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Free Goods and Markets Free Goods and Markets Capping a free good and letting a competitive market find replacements is a pro-business solution to a social need. Taxing a free good means the Government sets the price BUT will likely need to change that price over time (particularly with carbon). Free enterprise advocates who want a carbon tax - followed by their own future fights to keep the tax low - are advocating a free enterprise of convenience rather than competition....

William O'Keefe responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:43 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

President Kennedy’s Advice Key to Today’s Climate Debate There are basically three policy routes for controlling emissions—cap and trade, carbon tax, and policies and measures (CAFE, efficiency standards, incentives for new technology, etc). Although the last possibility, policies and measures, produced significant reductions in carbon intensity over the last 10 years, many in the environmental movement claim it’s no longer an acceptable choice, unless everything else fails. That effectively narrows our options to two. Cap and trade is enormously complex, leaving it vulnerable to rampant manipulation and outright fraud. Analysts worldwide have extensively documented its failings and its deficiencies relative...

Paul Portney responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:40 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Benefits Of A Carbon Tax It is still far from clear whether a cap-and-trade approach to carbon control will emerge from congress for signature by President Obama. The smart money seems to suggest that it will not. IF cap-and-trade fails, it’s fair to open up the debate again to see if there is an alternative that is preferable. Despite being in the minority on this issue, I believe that we would do much better in the U.S. to approach climate control using a carbon tax. To be sure, there are respects in which cap-and-trade may be preferable to a...

Dirk Forrister responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:31 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Cap-And-Trade Still Possible It’s way too soon to write an obituary for cap and trade this year. Yes, the Senate, like a boa constrictor, is trying hard to digest a major health care bill – and it has other major legislation to consider on financial services reform and jobs. But intelligently drawn climate legislation can help unleash major new clean energy and climate mitigation projects across the country, creating new jobs in a sector that’s been in the doldrums due, in part, to uncertainty about federal climate rules. It can also avoid a potential detour into EPA regulation under...

Alan Oxley responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:22 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

'Leave The Gun, Take The Carbon Credits' The collapse of any prospects for global emissions trading scheme at Copenhagen drove another nail in the coffin of the proposed US program. In order to understand the reason behind its fall, just dispatch the overly complex anti-growth and anti-free enterprise ogre in the cap and trade concept: the cap. Much has been made of the scams, profiteering and financial skullduggery which inevitably comes with a multi-billion commodities market. Take, for example, the incidence of fraud in Europe’s existing trading scheme. In less than two years, criminals were able to game the...

Bill Snape responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:15 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Plan A Should Be Fixing The Problem One of the more surreal aspects of the current climate change debate in Congress is how almost everyone wants to talk about everything except solving the actual problem. And the problem is that humanity is already above the target CO2-e part per million (ppm) standard in the atmosphere that the best available science tells us to achieve. Present atmospheric CO2 is at roughly 390ppm and science tells us to get to 350ppm or lower. But it is clear that the “business as usual” crowd finds loophole-laden and hyper-flexible economic mechanisms more comforting...

Jon A. Anda responded to Cap-And-Trade: Time For Plan B? on January 19, 2010 08:13 AM

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:40:00 GMT

Cap-And-Dividend Simpler Einstein supposedly remarked that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". The CLEAR proposal, with an upstream point of regulation and pro-rata rebate of auction revenue, might meet this test very well. A few key revisions, however, would keep it from slipping into “simpler”: 1. A price cap may turn CLEAR in CTEAR, thus ruining both the acronym and the environmental efficacy of the policy. Markets with price caps aren’t really markets - and unintended consequences from controlling prices are more a rule than an exception. And since CLEAR lets the Executive Branch...