Energy/Enviro Experts

Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Editor's Note: This week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and a contributor to this blog, is providing the question.

Last week, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing to examine the increased supply estimates for domestic natural gas from shale formations, and the contribution that those projected supplies could make to our energy security and climate protection objectives. One of the witnesses put forward a proposal to replace the least-efficient coal-fired electricity generators with newly built natural gas plants. He testified that replacing about 8-10 of these old coal plants per year in this manner would account for about 10 percent of the cumulative 2020 domestic emissions reduction contemplated by pending climate bills, and that these reductions would come at a cost equivalent to about $13 per ton of CO2 reduced.

What would be the pluses and minuses of such an initiative? If we greatly expand our use of natural gas in the utility sector, how would that affect the manufacturing sector, which also has a growing need for natural gas? How likely is it that utility fuel will switch to natural gas in any case, independent of the passage of climate legislation or specific initiatives?

-- Jeff Bingaman

David Parker responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 6, 2009 02:16 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Fuel Diversity is Key AGA’s position with respect to natural gas versus coal for electricity generation is: we need natural gas and coal for that purpose, just as we need to aggressively develop all of our other energy resources—nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, along with technologies that will maximize the utilization and efficiencies of each fuel. After all, demand for electricity will continue to grow, so our optimum energy strategy—both from a domestic-security and infrastructure-capability standpoint—is a flexible, diverse and regionally appropriate blend of electricity generation, in which natural gas plays a role, but so does every other fuel...

Paul Sullivan responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 6, 2009 12:38 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Energy Efficiency Paramount Replacing the coal plants with natural gas plants is not the best option in the long run. The dichotomy of coal or natural gas is not that clear. There are technologies to make natural gas out of coal, aka, coal gasification. This would be energy using and will produce effluents. However, the final result, syngas, or synthetic natural gas, burns more efficiently and cleanly than the original coal. In net effluent terms syngas can be more environmentally sound, if it is done right. We also have coal bed methane. There is methane, natural gas, locked into...

Paul N. Cicio responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 6, 2009 11:43 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Consumers Take A Double Hit A Dangerous Policy with Serious Negative Consequences Demand for natural gas by the power sector has increased from 5.2 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to over 6.6 trillion in 2008, a 27 percent increase while production has increased by only 6 percent. By anyone’s perspective, this is a significant increase in demand and was done without financial incentives and without cap and trade. Total US natural gas demand in that same time period increased only 7.9 percent. Consumers take a double hit. When demand for natural gas goes up, prices go up. And, because natural gas powered generation...

Rich Wells responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 5, 2009 06:43 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Concerns About A 'Dash To Gas' It would be a mistake for Congress to drive natural gas preferentially into power generation. Natural gas is an important, clean fuel that has a role in climate mitigation. At Dow, we hope the predictions about increased natural gas supply are right, but we think it’s too early to declare natural gas a silver bullet or bridge fuel solution. Natural gas should be a component of a comprehensive energy policy, but we must be sure that policy doesn’t create a “dash to gas” that destroys manufacturing jobs. As we testified last week, we...

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 5, 2009 02:10 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Relative Cost Advantage Of Fuel Key A key question is the relative cost advantage of natural gas over coal in a carbon-constrained world. In assessing the policy proposal to replace inefficient coal-fired generators with modern natural gas plants, many of the responses have cautioned against interfering with market forces in the setting of climate and energy policy. One responder argued that market forces are so complex that direct action such as this would be fraught with unintended consequences. Other responders have argued that current incentives for coal generation and renewables in pending climate legislation already distort the market for...

Cal Dooley responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 5, 2009 01:11 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Remember U.S. Manufacturing It’s highly likely that utilities will “fuel switch” from coal to natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, this is already happening. From 1997 to 2008, natural gas consumption for electricity generation went up 62 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This trend would accelerate in the event of federal climate legislation: Natural gas demand would soar because natural gas is one of the few lower-emission energy sources available today. Others such as nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage, and alternatives and renewables (e.g. wind and solar) are all important pieces of a...

Don Santa responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 4, 2009 02:07 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Acknowledging Bill Realities This proposal must be considered within the context of what already is part of the energy/climate change legislation. I appreciate the question from Chairman Bingaman and the opportunity to continue the interesting dialogue begun at last week’s hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The chairman asks several interrelated questions. The first question concerns the suggestion that energy/climate change legislation include measures intended to affect the retirement of the least efficient coal fired powerplants. As noted by the witnesses at the hearing, we should not lose sight of the overall purpose of climate legislation, which is to...

Hal Quinn responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 3, 2009 01:12 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

'Millions' Of Jobs Would Be Exported We do not believe that the public interest is well served by policies that approach our energy future as a zero-sum game. Public policies encouraging the replacement of coal based electricity generation with natural gas are the bridge for accelerating the export of our manufacturing base and, with it, millions of high-wage jobs. Look no further than actual experience over the past decade. As the use of natural gas increased for generating electricity, our manufacturing sector paid substantially higher prices for electricity (56 percent) and natural gas (200 percent). The Senate Energy and Natural...

Lee DeHihns responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 2, 2009 02:25 PM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Ensuring Smooth, Cost-Effective Shift In shifting to natural gas as a preferred source we need to be certain that the supply system can be created in a cost-effective manner and in time to meet the emissions reduction goals. We also need to be sure that siting such facilities meets with the expectations of the host communities. If a balanced portfolio of energy sources is to also be met with wind, solar, etc., what percentage is properly allocable to natural gas?...

William O'Keefe responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 2, 2009 09:27 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Regulation Would Hinder Shift To Gas The development and use of shale gas should be determined by the cost of production and technology. The promise of an abundance of shale gas and a shift from coal to gas in electric power generation is appealing. Clearly, there would be environmental benefits. But benefits that are achieved by interfering with market forces are likely to be illusory. Not too many decades ago, regulators curtailed natural gas consumption, even limiting its use for home heating as a result of policy induced shortages. Then as a result of decontrol, the pendulum swung in the...

Frank O'Brien-Bernini responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 2, 2009 09:09 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Building Efficiency Improvements Key Fuel switching to cleaner primary fuels for the production of electricity, while we build a more renewable infrastructure, is a perfectly logical bridging strategy. In doing this, it is critical that we create policy that most effectively increases the availability of cleaner fuels, specifically natural gas. One strategy that is often overlooked, or at least rarely treated analytically inside climate and/or energy policy options, is the major role buildings can play in this. In 2008, 41% of the energy consumed in the U. S. was used to operate buildings. This was split at 22% residential and...

Skip Horvath responded to Should We Start Swapping Coal For Gas? on November 2, 2009 07:43 AM

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:42:00 GMT

Incentives Needed For Natural Gas There are tremendous opportunities to reduce carbon emissions by putting natural gas to more use in the electric sector. It’s a no-brainer that we should provide incentives to encourage the retirement of power plants that are inefficient and produce high amounts of carbon, so that they can be replaced with cleaner, more efficient power plants. And it’s equally obvious that there are tremendous opportunities to reduce carbon emissions by putting natural gas to more use in the electric sector. For example, combined cycle natural gas-fired generators are often the most efficient generation facilities in service,...

The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Updated at 10:02 a.m. on Oct. 28.

If there is a devil in the detailed Kerry-Boxer, we're going to get a lot closer to finding it. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has released her chairman's mark, and the Environmental Protection Agency completed its analysis on the bill. And this week, Boxer's committee begins a series of hearings on the bill, with top administration officials set to testify Tuesday.

What's your initial take on the chairman's mark and EPA's analysis? What changes would you like to see and what changes do you expect? How do you think this EPA analysis compares to the agency's report on Waxman-Markey? Do you think the hearings will help trigger substantive discussion on key provisions now lacking in the bill? Or do other committees need to mark it up before certain provisions can be addressed?

Moderate Democrats Push Back

The big news of day one of the EPW hearings was Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., along with other moderate Democrats like Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, expressing concerns over the greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020 and EPA's regulatory authority.

Do you agree with Baucus that 20 percent below 2005 levels is too strict a reduction to meet by 2020? Do you think this target will need to be changed in order to get to 60 votes? What else do you think may need to be changed to get the votes?

Will the economics of climate change continue to dominate the debate Wednesday and Thursday?

David Parker responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 30, 2009 04:42 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Natural Gas Allocations Crucial Congress should treat all renewable energy sources equally, whether they are used to generate electricity or supplement natural gas supplies. The American Gas Association (AGA) commends Congress for keeping a spotlight on our nation’s energy issues by giving careful consideration to several different bills on the table right now, including Kerry-Boxer. By recognizing the role that clean, domestic and abundant natural gas can and will play in combating climate change, our legislators can help reach our nation’s energy goals sooner. AGA also urges members of Congress to take a look at the successful track record of...

Amy Harder responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 30, 2009 09:20 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

CBO, EPA Cost Estimates Too Low Pete Sepp, Vice President for Policy and Communications at the National Taxpayers Union, submitted the following: Households will suffer under a burden of between $2,000 and $4,000 per year. As the EPW Committee listens to testimonies this week from experts representing small business owners, farmers, truckers, and taxpayers more broadly, we can only hope that all Senators on the panel recognize one fact: millions of their constituents will bear the brunt of this "cap and trade" economic assault. No matter how many bells and whistles are attached to the Kerry-Boxer bill, be...

Carl Pope responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 29, 2009 05:45 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

20 Percent 'Alarmingly Unaggressive' It won't do as much as it should to jump-start the clean energy revolution we need for economic recovery. It's really quite amazing. The main response at Tuesday's opening hearing of the Senate Environment Committee on the Clean Energy Act was that its 2020 goal -- a 20% reduction in US emissions of greenhouse pollution -- was over-the-top ambitious. Senators both Republican and Democratic expressed grave concern that it would somehow tank the economy. In fact, its somewhat alarmingly unagressive, and won't do as much as it should to jump-start the clean energy revolution we...

Randall Swisher responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 29, 2009 01:36 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

20 Percent Reduction Achievable What defines a 20% reduction as "too strict"? Certainly not according to what will be required to stabilize global CO2 emissions. Any objective analysis of the proposed legislation has made clear that a 20% reduction is in fact readily achievable with the technology options, both supply side and demand side, that we currently have on the table. The most important thing is to establish a set of market rules - a cap - that will provide industry with the clear guidance necessary to inform investment decisions moving forward. Establish the cap and then turn American capitalism...

Thomas Gibson responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 29, 2009 11:12 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Manufacturing Sector At Risk If cutting manufacturing is the path to achieving climate goals, Senator Boxer has introduced the perfect bill to do the job. Senator Boxer’s bill is headed in the wrong direction, and definitely is a step backward from the Waxman-Markey bill. At the EPW hearings, Senator Boxer announced "we have already made 8-9% emissions reductions, so the real goal (20%) is easy to meet," without acknowledging this as being the result of the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. This is not the kind of logic you want to use to bolster your defense of a...

Margo Thorning responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 28, 2009 12:59 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Erroneous Assumptions Equal Bad Policy It is important to keep in mind that the quality put into an economic analysis is crucial to the quality of the product put out. With that in mind, there are some serious problems with current EPA analysis of Kerry-Boxer: First, it should be noted that the Kerry-Boxer analysis is based on their June 2009 analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill from the House of Representatives. Second, its important to note the assumption used in most scenarios in the new EPA report on Kerry Boxer about new nuclear plants for electricity generation. The EPA report says...

David Holt responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 28, 2009 12:22 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Where Is The 'Energy' In Kerry- Boxer? It seems much of the discussion around this bill, and even the analysis of its impact, ignores the issue of where we will get our energy today and tomorrow. If we are actually going to pass a climate change bill, shouldn’t we also be working to actively expand our near and long-term energy solutions? Our hope is that the analysis and discussions on this issue will press further to provide transparency into all aspects of the bill. This bill, if passed, could have a significant impact on the US economy and the process should be accessible to...

William O'Keefe responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 28, 2009 11:10 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

20 Percent Reduction Impossible The emission reduction mandate of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 lacks any connection to economic, energy, or technology realities. Over 40 years ago, a group called the Lovin Spoonful made the song Do You Believe in Magic popular. That should be the theme song for the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation and this week’s hearings. The emission reduction mandate of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 lacks any connection to economic, energy, or technology realities. According to analysis by the Energy Information Administration, achieving a reduction of that magnitude would require a reduction of about...

Jack Gerard responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 27, 2009 05:15 PM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Worse Than Waxman-Markey Kerry-Boxer would give a competitive advantage to non-U.S. refiners. The Kerry-Boxer bill is similar to the Waxman-Markey bill, but its impact would be even worse. Consumers, farmers, truckers, airline passengers, and all businesses relying on petroleum fuels would pay the lion's share of the costs. According to numerous studies about the Waxman-Markey bill, it appears that the more costly Kerry-Boxer bill could raise the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel to more than $5.00 a gallon, destroy more than 2 million U.S. jobs--even allowing for the creation of new green jobs--and would send jobs and refining capacity...

Bill Snape responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 26, 2009 08:27 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Don't Mess With Success: Clean Air Act The best thing that can be said about the new Kerry-Boxer mark is that it retains the Clean Air Act as a catalyst and backstop for reducing greenhouse pollutants that cause climate change. The Act is the only legal mechanism, a proven one at that, which can get U.S. emissions down to the requiste levels (e.g., 350 ppm of CO2) as demanded by science. It is no surprise that the oil, gas and coal industries are taking aim at the Act. But the public interest clearly mandates retention of the Clean Air Act. ...

Frances Beinecke responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 26, 2009 07:59 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Promising Starting Point The bill's energy efficiency provisions could be even stronger. The Chairman's Mark distributed on Friday provides an excellent starting point for Senate Environment Committee consideration. As expected, it specifies the distribution of allowance value, and I am pleased to see that the vast majority of the allowances go to well defined public purposes, such as helping consumers, providing a level playing field for energy intensive industries, deploying low-carbon technologies, and preventing deforestation. The bill includes several key elements. It has dedicated investments in energy efficiency, clean transportation, and renewable energy deployment. It also has an effective mechanism...

William O'Keefe responded to The Nitty-Gritty: What Will Hearings Offer? on October 26, 2009 07:58 AM

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:58:00 GMT

Cap-And-Trade Still Achilles' Heel The benefits, if any, are greatly outweighed by the cost to the economy and by unintended consequences. At close to midnight on Friday, Senators Kerry and Boxer released a 923-page version of global warming legislation with an overview of emission allocations that closely resembles the widely unpopular House cap and trade bill. Even with further modifications and compromises, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Senate legislation can secure the 60 votes necessary to pass. Climate legislation driven by wishful thinking rather than hard facts simply will not work. The Senate’s current efforts...

Does Nuclear Fit The Bill?

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.

What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?

Bill Johnson responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 27, 2009 02:02 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Nuclear Essential To Energy Mix If we’re serious about addressing global climate change, new nuclear power must be part of our strategy. Nuclear power currently accounts for about 20 percent of our country’s electricity production. But by 2050, when the final carbon emission reductions in proposed legislation would take effect, all of our existing nuclear power plants in the United States will be retired (including those approved for 20 additional years of operation). Add to that another 50 percent of current generating capacity that is likely to be shut down early (in the case of many older coal-fired plants)...

David Holt responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 23, 2009 01:03 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Greater Use Of Nuclear Necessary Of all forms of clean-air electricity, nuclear energy has the smallest impact on the environment. It is indeed encouraging to see Congress turning more attention towards nuclear energy as a source of affordable domestic energy. Greater use of nuclear energy is absolutely a necessary step to becoming a more environmentally responsible, energy-producing nation. Nuclear energy is not only the most readily available form of clean-air electricity, but it is also the most sustainable and cost-effective. Of all forms of clean-air electricity, nuclear energy has the smallest impact on the environment. If we invest in this form of...

Paul N. Cicio responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 21, 2009 04:14 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Diverse Energy Mix Needs Nuclear From a consumer perspective, the key to a reliable, abundant and affordable supply of energy for our country is a very diverse supply of energy. Consumers win when there is competition between and among energy supply options. Reliability and affordability becomes jeopardized, for example, if we become too dependent on anyone source of energy. It is important to keep nuclear in the mix and increase its capacity. It is a very reliable, secure and importantly, a low carbon option that we need. It is important that we develop a policy that will facilitate the construction of nuclear energy without...

Mark Cooper responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 21, 2009 03:50 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

All Risk, No Reward Nuclear reactors are uneconomic for supply-side and demand-side reasons. Nuclear power does not fit the bill because it is far from the least cost approach to meeting the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment. Nuclear reactors are uneconomic for supply-side and demand-side reasons. Studies by half a dozen major national research, Wall Street and consulting firms estimate power from nuclear reactors costs three or four times as much as efficiency. The California Energy Commission has identified a dozen supply-side options that cost at least 40% less than power from nuclear reactors. The technology-driven expansion of the resource base...

Randall Swisher responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 21, 2009 03:12 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

High Costs Constrain Nuclear The major barrier is financial in nature. The major barrier facing nuclear power in this country is not nuclear waste or safety concerns or regulatory constraints or public opposition. The major barrier is financial in nature. Getting a new power plant built is in many ways a matter of understanding, managing and pricing risk. Those plants with the lowest perceived risk are the ones that receive investment today. That is a major reason why both natural gas and wind have done as well as they have over the last five years. On the other hand, we have not...

David Parker responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 20, 2009 02:21 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Nuclear Vital To Electricity Grid Fuel diversity in electricity generation is critical to the success of a sustainable grid, and nuclear power can and should play a key role in producing clean, baseload energy for the nation. But the reality is that the last new nuclear reactor built in America was 32 years ago—in 1977—and today, despite having received applications for 26 new nuclear reactors, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to approve a single one, let alone the hundreds that would be needed to do the job that Sens. Kerry and Boxer seem to envision. The reasons are no...

William O'Keefe responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 20, 2009 12:54 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Pushing Public-Private Efforts Until the costs of production can be reduced, nuclear power’s growth in the market place will and should be limited. Electricity consumption is an indispensible contributor to prosperity. That can be seen in the strong correlation between economic growth and electric power consumption As our standard of living population continue to increase, so will our need for reliable and affordable electric power EIA's forecast to 2030 shows electricity consumption growing between 26% and 36%. Renewable energy is projected to grow much faster than overall electric power consumption but none the less is projected to supply no more...

Paul Sullivan responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 20, 2009 11:40 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Policy Uncertainty Plagues Industry Getting massive investments together in an environment of policy and financial uncertainty is proving to be very difficult. One of the major obstacles holding up nuclear development is policy uncertainty. If a company or a group of companies is thinking about investing $7-15 billion in a new nuclear facility then surely they would want policy environment that will be as favorable as possible. A cap and trade policy could be helpful to the nuclear industry given that nuclear plants are "green" to the extent that their CO2 output is tiny compared to conventional coal and natural...

David Kreutzer responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 20, 2009 11:06 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

'Irony' Of Cap-And-Trade Costs Regulatory impediments to safe nuclear power should be removed with or without carbon caps. Cap and trade will be very costly to the economy. In a great irony, many proponents cite studies showing the cost to be very low. The irony because the assumptions in the “postage stamp” studies are inimical to positions these groups take on certain topics—most notably on nuclear energy. Without going over all the strained assumptions necessary to keep the projected cap-and-trade costs below hundreds of billions of dollars per year, note that a consistent and critical assumption is the doubling of nuclear power...

Carl Pope responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 08:35 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Scrutinizing Low-Level Waste Representative Barton ought to know – in the case of the nuclear revival, waste disposal is a big elephant in the living room. Let us,for the moment, ignore the problem of storing high level waste – the stuff we don’t know what to do with and thought we could just dump at Yucca Mountain. Let’s look at low level waste – which in theory we ought to be able to take care of. And let us decide if we can really entrust nuclear energy to the nuclear industry and its allies like Barton. Andrews County, Texas, down the...

Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 03:26 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Regulatory Reform Essential We need regulatory reform in order to speed up the process of approving new nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is a viable, clean alternative form of energy that can help strengthen America’s energy infrastructure now. But, in order to make that happen, we need regulatory reform in order to speed up the process of approving new nuclear reactors, while ensuring the highest safety standards are observed. Our regulatory structure should be encouraging innovation, not stifling it. No legislation intended to move us toward clean energy should be taken seriously unless it includes nuclear energy. I fully support...

Marvin Fertel responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 01:46 PM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Nuclear: 'Central Part' Of Energy Mix We lag behind other technologically advanced nations in expanding the use of nuclear energy. Provisions to help expand the use of nuclear energy must be part of the Kerry-Boxer legislation if America is to meet the bill’s carbon reduction goals while holding the line on costs to consumers for electricity production. Leaders from both parties agree that nuclear energy is part of a common-sense, balanced approach as we shift toward low-carbon sources of energy. A diverse portfolio of clean energy sources is essential to protect our environment and promote energy security and reliability and...

Frank O'Brien-Bernini responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 10:23 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Renewables Will Trump Nuclear A simplistic response would be that our government should focus on setting goals and frameworks, and not be in the business of picking technology winners and losers. We all know this is unrealistic. As a nation, we pick winners and losers all the time through our public policies and market-nudging incentives and tax structures. This realization moves us from a discussion of technology selection to a more robust debate over the logic for selecting incentive structures around competing strategies. First, we are talking about electrical power supply here; however, inside this discussion we must also...

Arjun Makhijani responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 09:56 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Sixty Votes for A Nuclear Mirage? Pursuing nuclear may well result in a landscape littered with unfinished nuclear reactors. Having failed to birth nuclear power that would be “too cheap to meter,” the nuclear power establishment wants to deliver a nuclear “renaissance,” ostensibly to help save us from climate change. Many proponents of this view believe that excessive regulation and the difficulties of financing projects for a moribund industry are the main obstacles preventing new nuclear reactor construction. Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has already streamlined the licensing process. It has certified two new reactor designs – the...

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 08:39 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Nuclear Waste Storage Key Nuclear energy is emissions-free and it means real economic growth, jobs and affordable electricity for working families. However, first we'll need to restore some sanity to our nation's nuclear policy, both in the building of new plants and the storage of waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's published information indicates that the commission staff is conducting safety and environmental reviews for up to 12 of the pending applications by 2011 or 2012. But publicly, Chairman Gregory Jaczko says that he believes the NRC might review just one of the 18 filed combined license applications, covering 28 new...

Bill Snape responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 07:57 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Subsidizing A 'Risky' Industry Building new reactors will get in the way of climate goals. New subsidies for new reactors do not belong in this climate bill. If we are serious about addressing climate change, then we need to focus on the fastest, cheapest and cleanest technologies. Nuclear is slow, expensive, and polluting. No new reactor will go online in the U.S. before 2020, simply because they are complex and face predictable construction delays. Olkiluoto, the showcase French nuclear reactor being constructed in Finland, is currently 3.5 years behind schedule and 75% over-budget. But more importantly, new nuclear reactors are...

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. responded to Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? on October 19, 2009 07:54 AM

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:52:00 GMT

Nuclear Without Cap-And-Trade Tying nuclear provisions to a profoundly bad idea still leaves a profoundly bad idea. The talk of the Beltway climate change debate these days is nuclear power. Suddenly a potential compromise has emerged to couple cap-and-trade legislation with provisions to advance construction of new nuclear power plants. But is it real, or just another mirage concocted by the industry’s fiercest opponents? As of now, one can only speculate. But if last year’s debate on Lieberman-Warner is any guide, one should expect little of anything that matters for nuclear. During the debate, former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) said,...

Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., acknowledge their legislation introduced on Sept. 30 has a lot of placeholders, but they nonetheless tout it as a good starting point that will gather steam with input from other committees.

What do you see as its strong points? Weak points? What programs, incentives or industries' interests are missing that should be included or were in the House-passed bill? What are the missing components that should be front and center when other committees mark it up? If there's going to be one issue that serves as this bill's bottleneck, what will it be?

(Updated at 1:03 p.m. on Oct. 14) How do you think this weekend's New York Times op-ed by Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., changes the landscape for the bill? Environmentalists and industry representatives alike are calling this a game-changer; do you agree? Do you think this means more controversial issues, like offshore drilling and nuclear energy, are more likely to be included in the bill?

David Parker responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 19, 2009 05:35 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Natural Gas: Domestic, Abundant and Ready Right Now Senators Kerry and Graham’s recent opinion editorial, “Yes we Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation),” (October 11, 2009), and show of bipartisanship ignited thoughts that consensus on comprehensive climate change legislation this year might yet be possible. Admirable as that goal may be, we should not hold our breath. Regardless of how likely or unlikely it is that Congress will pass climate change legislation this year or next, or the year after, one thing is clear – climate change and the challenges and opportunities it presents are real and will be with us...

William O'Keefe responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 16, 2009 10:34 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Kerry-Graham: Suspending Disbelief I cannot understand how anyone could conclude that adding provisions for nuclear and offshore drilling will move the Senate closer to 60 votes. The Kerry-Graham grand alliance is only a game changer for those who practice suspending disbelief. Politics is supposed to be the practice of addition; not subtraction. I cannot understand how anyone could conclude that adding provisions for nuclear and offshore drilling will move the Senate closer to 60 votes. The environmental zealots in the Senate and their supporters are adamantly opposed to both nuclear power and more domestic oil production. So, from my perspective, the Kerry-Graham road will...

Arjun Makhijani responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 15, 2009 11:02 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

New Nuclear Is the Wrong Road The financial demands of the nuclear industry could suck all the financial air out of the room and leave efficiency and renewables marginalized. An agreement between two Democrat and Republican leaders in the Senate that climate change is a real threat and the the United States must lead is a huge step forward. it is the strongest point of the op ed by Senators Kerry and Graham . Some of the details on efficiency and renewables are also positive. But the details that are likely to dominate the actual evolution of energy under the approach...

Kevin Knobloch responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 15, 2009 10:49 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Excellent Start with Some Caveats Providing a disproportionate amount of subsidies for natural gas use could distort energy markets and undermine investments in cleaner technology. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and others who want Congress to take action to curb global warming were pleased to see that the Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger emissions reduction target than the House bill. That target -- cutting emissions 20 percent by 2020 -- shouldn’t be weakened. Short-term emissions reductions are going to put us on the right path to achieve the deep cuts we need to avoid the worst consequences of...

Jon A. Anda responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 15, 2009 08:04 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Kerry-Graham Pillars For the 4 pillars of Kerry-Graham - revitalized nuclear, the Saudi Arabia of clean coal, border taxes, and price collars - the beauty is in the details. For the first two, the question is how much base load capacity do we really need if financial incentives are changed from rate base to demand management? For the third, the concept of a globally coordinated border tax might avoid the trade war that a unilateral one risks. But the fourth pillar is where details matter the most - the dynamic process of a co2 market driving investment to find the...

Larry Schweiger responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 14, 2009 10:43 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

A path forward I find it hard to believe that Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, really believes it’s energy reform that threatens our national security. As Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) detailed in their op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times, it’s our energy status quo that’s the danger. The senators’ collaboration is a clear signal not only that clean energy & climate action are above partisan politics, but that the Senate can and will pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act this year. That message is being echoed in cities across...

David Parker responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 14, 2009 02:51 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

One Size Does Not Fit All Natural gas used directly in America’s homes and businesses is the easiest and fastest way to achieve a low- or zero-carbon option In the findings section of S. 1733, Senators Kerry and Boxer state that “Creating a clean energy future requires a comprehensive approach that includes support for the improvement of all energy sources.” We could not be in stronger agreement. There simply is no silver bullet or one-size panacea to the dilemma before the nation and this Congress, and Senators Kerry and Boxer are to be applauded for recognizing this at the outset....

Frances Beinecke responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 14, 2009 10:27 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Improvements Over Waxman-Markey The Kerry-Boxer bill avoids the overbroad changes to the Clean Air Act that occurred in the House bill. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is the right step at the right time. It will help us revive the economy, reduce carbon emissions before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, and create jobs when we need them most. The bill will no doubt change as it moves through the Senate. But it is starting off well. The bill’s target of reducing emissions by 20 percent by 2020 is slightly stricter than...

Chuck Gray responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 14, 2009 09:32 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Windfall Profits A Concern We have concerns that a merchant allocation will result in windfall profits, similar to what happened in the European Union. This is a tough question to answer right now because we know the bill will change as it goes through the legislative process. Chairman Boxer has already indicated she will produce a Chairman’s mark, so much of what we have seen thus far can and will likely change. That said, we see plenty to like and dislike. And, of course, there are lots of unknowns. As I’ve mentioned before in this forum, if Congress pursues a...

Mark Muro responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 07:05 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Energy Innovation Key The Senate needs to about double the House's clean energy innovation commitment. Well, there sure are a lot of placeholders in this thing. But on balance, the Kerry-Boxer climate bill provides as good a starting point as any for the imperfect wrangling, posturing, and dealmaking ahead. Whether that wrangling leads to a good bill will depend, then, on how those blanks are filled—and especially, on how the Senate deals with clean energy innovation issues. Basically, the Senate outline looks a lot like the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House earlier this year, for better and worse. Like...

Charles Drevna responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 03:43 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Energy Security Threatened The proposal’s emission reduction timetable is even more onerous and stringent than that of the House-passed legislation. H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives in June, represents policy that directly threatens our nation’s economy, our energy security, and American jobs. While the flaws in the House-passed measure are numerous enough to qualify the bill as nothing short of an abject policy failure, unfortunately the authors of the climate legislation proposed for consideration in the Senate chose not to learn from H.R. 2454’s significant shortcomings; nor did they seem to heed...

Jack Gerard responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 03:01 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Waxman-Markey Pitfalls Our chief concern is that Kerry-Boxer will advance the same complicated, grossly inequitable provisions as Waxman-Markey, threatening to eliminate millions of jobs, including some of the 9.2 million supported by America’s oil and natural gas industry, and risking sharply higher energy costs for farmers, truckers, the airlines, railroads, and anyone else who relies on petroleum fuels, including most American families and businesses. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Waxman-Markey could increase gasoline and diesel prices to above $5.00 a gallon and raise household energy costs by as much as $1,870. A study by EnSys Energy found...

Frank O'Brien-Bernini responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 02:54 PM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Key Launching-Off Point The best thing about Kerry-Boxer bill is that it has rekindled the discussion in the Senate in a way that might actually create some movement where things were otherwise stalled - including the possibility of bipartisan participation. The largest challenge to forward movement right now has nothing to do with this bill itself, and everything to do with current priorities, specifically healthcare. While we’re busy comparing a bill with a 17% reduction against a bill with a 20% reduction, and weighing one tactic against another, the real question is…”are we even in the right neighborhood?” ...

Thomas Gibson responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 11:52 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Higher Economic Burdens At this point, we can only characterize this bill is a major step backwards from the House version. It has major segments concerning energy intensive industries missing, and calls for a 20% absolute emissions reduction by 2020. Clearly, a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020 places a higher burden on our economy in general (compared to 17% in the House bill) and this burden would be particularly acute in the manufacturing sector. For example, does a 20% reduction (vs. 17% in the House) not place even more cost pressure on energy prices? The bill lacks specificity in the energy intensive provisions to give us...

Bill Snape responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 08:49 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

Baby Steps The United States must start somewhere and the best thing about the Kerry-Boxer bill is that it does not exempt all the effective provisions of the Clean Air Act as did the House bill. But the overall greenhouse pollution goals absolutely pale in comparison to what the best available science tells us (i.e., get atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm or less). So while some environmentalists and analysts are cheering the 20% cuts by 2020 from 2005 levels, the number should be at least 40% cuts in 2020 from 1990 levels. Will this be easy? No. Must it be...

William O'Keefe responded to Kerry-Boxer: Worth The Wait? on October 13, 2009 07:27 AM

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:26:00 GMT

20 Percent Reduction Unrealistic We currently do not possess the technology or energy alternatives to make absolute emission reductions while meeting the aspirations for a growing standard of living. Just as pigs can't fly and houses built on sand don't last long, there's no quick fix for legislation stemming from flawed concepts and unrealistic mandates. Though the Kerry-Boxer bill may contain several individually good ideas, its overall approach to climate policy is fatally flawed. Time has shown that the cap and trade system of the Kyoto Protocol and the EU trading system does not effectively reduce emissions. Hard targets may...

Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade?

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Editor's Note: This week Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is providing the question and joining in the discussion as the Senate begins consideration of the Kerry-Boxer climate change legislation.

Discussions over how to mitigate climate change's worst effects -- which policies we can and should implement -- have set off one of the most important and most complex debates to take place in Congress.

Only one idea, a carbon cap-and-trading scheme, has received significant attention on Capitol Hill. And yet, serious doubt has been cast on such a system's ability to keep energy affordable and our economy strong while still achieving substantive emission reductions. Other policy options -- a tax on carbon, massive investment in advancing clean energy technology, even geo-engineering -- have largely been ignored.

I recognize that time is short and that action is needed soon. But at what point did we decide cap-and-trade was the most effective way to address climate change? Setting politics aside, are there other approaches capable of achieving the same results at lower cost and with greater regulatory efficiency? Would the debate over climate policy benefit from an attempt to re-evaluate our options?

-- Lisa Murkowski

Marvin Odum responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 30, 2009 09:45 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Cap-And-Trade Proven To Work We are wise to build off the proven track record of cap-and-trade rather revisit unproven options. I share Senator Murkowski’s concern that we find a climate solution that triggers a strong investment in clean technologies and reduces CO2 emissions at the lowest possible cost. I believe that a properly designed cap-and-trade system does exactly that. Congress’s interest in cap-and-trade stems from the success of federal, state and local trading programs that have been in place since the 1980s. These programs overall are well known for reducing emissions much faster and more cheaply than command and...

Paul N. Cicio responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 16, 2009 02:58 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Senator Murkowski raises the right question - whether cap and trade is the best policy. The answer is no -- there are much better options than cap and trade. A good example is a sector approach that tailors a combination of incentives, and possibly mandates, coupled with technology development that is tailored to reflect the characteristics of each industry. A workable climate/energy policy should put a priority on the removal of barriers to accelerating usage of “existing” energy efficient products and technology. Common sense policies like removing barriers to greater use of highly energy efficient CHP and recycled energy...

Kevin Knobloch responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 9, 2009 02:58 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Kevin Knobloch is away. Lexi Shultz, Deputy Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Program is the author of this response. In response to Senator Murkowski’s follow-up, I’d like to point out that adopting a number of clean energy policies along with an emissions cap is the right strategy to maximize emissions reductions and deliver energy and gas cost savings to American households and businesses. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2030 Blueprint found that an emissions cap plus a suite of complementary energy and transportation policies -- such as energy efficiency standards, renewable electricity standards and clean car...

Steven Stoft responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 9, 2009 02:22 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

There are three elephants in this room. And all three indicate that Senator Murkowski is onto something big. The developing countries (elephant one) have not been mentioned once. Yet until July, the key argument for a U.S. cap was its ability to lead China and India into a global system and thereby cap global emissions. That agenda has failed. In fact, as I’ll explain, it has backfired. Also not mentioned, the U.S. negotiating strategy for Copenhagen shows the same bias Senator Murkowski notes for domestic policy. U.S. negotiators never mention a carbon tax, only carbon caps. But of all the...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 9, 2009 11:26 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

As the week wraps up, I’ve been asked to post a few concluding comments on this thread. I’d like to start by thanking the National Journal for this opportunity and all of the experts who submitted responses. While my intention was not to endorse one approach to climate policy over another, I do think it has been valuable to broaden the conversation and re-examine some proposals that are now habitually left out of it. Again, I believe it’s important to act quickly on climate change – but it’s more important to find the right policy. Whenever the slower pace...

Mark Muro responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 8, 2009 10:12 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Sen. Murkowski raises a legitimate question when she asks whether a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions should be the only option in the coming Senate debate on climate change. Of course it shouldn't be. Policymakers should always ask themselves if there is another way to achieve the same goal more cheaply and effectively. And the senator is right to imply that cap-and-trade did become prematurely a point of almost religious doctrine among environmentalists. Cap-and-trade need not have become the "only" option. And yet, for all that one is hard pressed to see what other truly adequate strategy Sen....

Kateri Callahan responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 8, 2009 08:57 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

The Alliance to Save Energy is neutral on the question of whether to reduce the cost to society of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through a cap-and-trade program, a tax or another policy. But it’s not clear how we can or should “set politics aside” in choosing among such policies. The realities are first, that we must act quickly and meaningfully if we are to avoid calamity (which sounds like too trite a word for what could happen as the Earth warms!); and second, that a cap-and-trade program is the only meaningful climate policy that has been well-vetted by Congress,...

Rob Stavins responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 8, 2009 07:11 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

I would like to comment briefly on Senator Murkowski's second message in this conversation, which begins "Both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer climate bills..." and concludes "... it's a threshold question." In this second message, the Senator's key message is that it is important not to load down a carbon pricing policy -- such as a cap-and-trade system -- with lots of additional, regulatory policies "which could reduce the efficiency of a carbon market." I completely agree. As I have written about elsewhere, the supplemental regulatory parts of the Waxman-Markey bill (and for that matter, the developing Senate legislation) will --...

Thomas J. Pyle responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 07:18 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Energy is – literally – the capacity to work. The availability of affordable and abundant energy is inextricably linked to our ability to grow our economy and enhance both our economic and environmental prosperity – prosperity made possible by the very sources of abundant, affordable energy that cap-and-trade seeks to make more expensive and less available. Indeed, the cap-and-trade plan, by its supporters own admission, is intentionally designed to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy that fuels the American economy and makes life as we know it possible. Increasing the price of energy not only limits...

Donna Harman responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 05:28 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

As Senator Murkowski points out, there could be more than one route to the country’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a robust discussion of all possible options is in the best interest of finding the best ideas. Forest products manufacturers believe the following principles should guide policymakers when they evaluate the alternatives for encouraging greenhouse gas reductions. Three of these key principles include: · Competitiveness matters. Climate change policies should strengthen the competitiveness of the forest products industry and the U.S. Economy. The U.S. forest products industry is facing growing competition from other high-emitting countries such as...

William O'Keefe responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 02:34 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Senator Murkowski suggests that long pieces of legislation are not necessarily bad. I would like to sugges that legislation addressing complex subjects tends to be so complex that unintended consequences are inevitable. In my opinion, taking bite size pieces and addressing them well is a much better way to go. Many of the comments try to build a case for cap and trade being preferable to a carbon tax. That case does not withstand close scrutiny because the virtue of fixing the outcome does not guarantee that it will be achieved as the EU trading system and Kyoto prove. Resources...

Jennifer Morgan responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 11:34 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

For all the different options that Congress has explored, there’s a reason we keep coming back to cap and trade. Experience tells us that emissions trading systems deliver what they are set up to do. Congress must put a price on carbon in order to effectively control greenhouse gas emissions. To do this, it can mandate a specific price on carbon, via a tax; or set a carbon emissions limit—a cap—and enable businesses to trade allowances to discharge emissions. A carbon tax is not as simple as it may sound. There is little evidence to suggest that the government could accurately...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 11:32 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Both the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer climate bills would do much more than put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Only about 200 of Waxman-Markey’s 1,428 pages are devoted to creating a carbon market; the rest would impose an unprecedented series of new federal programs, standards and requirements. The Kerry-Boxer proposal puts the Senate on the same track. A long bill is not necessarily a bad bill, and some ideas, such as the creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, are worth pursuing as complementary policies. But this year’s climate bills stand in stark contrast to those introduced last Congress...

Chuck Gray responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 10:42 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Politically, passing anything with the word “tax” in it is difficult. But many believe a “carbon tax” is the most efficient, fairest, and easiest way to attempt reducing carbon through a market-based system. NARUC endorses a market-based approach to control CO2 emissions. We have not specifically thrown our support behind cap-and-trade, though we have offered a set of principles Congress should consider to protect consumers if it were going to implement such a system. Any cap-and-trade system must be workable, flexible, and adaptable. It must provide the right structure so that consumers are not overly burdened and investments can be...

Dirk Forrister responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 7, 2009 09:53 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

At what point did we decide… good question. It certainly didn’t happen overnight. It took about 20 years, and it makes many of us feel old. We did not arrive here without a serious look at carbon taxes – in fact, we took a major detour toward taxes that failed miserably. Here is a quick recap: Congress first began considering an emissions trading model for climate change in 1989, right as the acid rain law neared final passage. It isn’t new. This first proposed legislation, introduced that year by Reps. Jim Cooper and the late Mike Synar, proposed capping power sector emissions and allowing offsets for...

Kevin Knobloch responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 6, 2009 09:27 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Congress certainly shouldn’t abandon the great progress it has already made in the House when it passed comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The Senate needs to follow suit and deliver a bill before the international climate treaty negotiations in December. The most effective way to address climate change is through a suite of policies and cap-and-trade is among the most important components. Other key elements include energy efficiency and renewable electricity standards, funding for research and development, and clean technology deployment. Fortunately, auctioning emissions allowances under a cap-and-trade system can raise revenue for many clean technology investments, as the success...

Larry Schweiger responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 04:13 PM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Why seek a different approach when cap-and-trade is not only proven to work, but supported by so many Americans? The system has already been used to dramatically lower acid rain pollution at only a fraction of the cost to consumers that was originally predicted. And 71% of American voters support the American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the House in June. Americans know we face interconnected economic, energy and climate crises. That's why they support comprehensive solutions like American Clean Energy and Security Act that passed the House and the Clean Energy Jobs Act in the Senate. Each bill would that cap global warming pollution and invest...

Paul Sullivan responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 09:26 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Cap and trade has become something of a yogic mantra for many in Washington and elsewhere who do not want to think about other options. There are many other options. One of the most important is to give proper incentives to companies via tax breaks, investment incentives and more to help drive them toward greater energy efficiency and less carbon effluent production. Take for example your typical gas or coal electric generating plant. About 85 percent of the fuel used is wasted in heat that goes up into the atmosphere at the plant, losses on transmission lines and other losses....

Jon A. Anda responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 09:17 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Updated at 10:32 a.m. on Oct. 5. Fair question. Does society want a cap on emissions or a cap on policy cost? If you view climate risk as a fat-tail risk of catastrophic consequences then capping emissions is better. Capping emissions ensures that low-carbon investments get made and that (with global participation) atmospheric concentrations of co2 decline. In theory, a variable carbon tax could do the same thing - but the reality of that is unlikely. Nonetheless, why not use both? Cap and trade for power plants and large industrial sources makes imminent sense (as Europe has done). I...

Rob Stavins responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 07:38 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

Cap-and-Trade versus the Alternatives Let’s credit Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) for raising questions about the viability of cap-and-trade versus other approaches for the United States to employ in addressing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions linked with global climate change. Senator Murkowski claims that only one approach – cap-and-trade – has received significant attention in the Congress. Let’s put aside for the moment the reality that most of the 1,428 pages of H.R. 2454 – the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey bill) – is not about cap-and-trade at all, but about a...

Robert C. Sisson responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 07:37 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

The single most important step that Congress must take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on carbon, either through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. Without a price on carbon, other strategies for reducing emissions would fall short. There would be limited incentive to develop and deploy cleaner energy technologies on the scale necessary to reduce emissions significantly. Likewise, there would be little inducement to invest in geo-engineering, which in any event is highly speculative at this point, with a bramble of unresolved technological, cost, environmental, legal, diplomatic, and national security issues. Lost in today’s...

William O'Keefe responded to Should We Nix Cap-And-Trade? on October 5, 2009 07:37 AM

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:36:00 GMT

President Clinton failed to send the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for ratification because the Senate had already indicated by a 95-0 vote that it would not approve a treaty that exempted developing countries and which would damage our economy. The Kyoto construct was fatally flawed in 1997. Time has not been kind to the targets and timetable advocates. Legislative proposals that are based on fixed targets and timetables over decades will result in the same problems that the European cap and trade scheme has experienced. The presumption that any group possesses the knowledge to set such targets is reflecting...