Energy/Enviro Experts

Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring?

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Tuesday announced that Democrats will wait until spring to debate climate change legislation on the Senate floor. He suggested that the bill could be part of a larger effort to address the economy. Does this help or hurt ongoing efforts to reach compromises on oil drilling and nuclear power? Could the added time help senators find consensus on such critical issues as agriculture, coal, natural gas and trade protection? Or could it prompt lawmakers to leave the climate change negotiating table to focus on other issues? Could the postponement make climate change a campaign issue in the 2010 congressional elections?

-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com

Gene Karpinski responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 20, 2009 01:00 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Clean Energy A 2010 Election Issue When the Senate considers clean energy and climate legislation next year, incumbents would be wise to vote for it and candidates would be wise to support it. There is no question that clean energy will be a 2010 election issue, and a politically potent one at that. When the Senate considers clean energy and climate legislation next year, incumbents would be wise to vote for it and candidates would be wise to support it. Embracing new, clean energy policies while exposing opponents’ ties to the greedy oil companies that oppose energy reform helped propel...

Michael C. Formica responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 20, 2009 11:11 AM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Delay Beneficial To Farmers One area that will clearly benefit from this delay is the pace of forestation. As I was growing up, my mother always reminded me that “all good things come to those that wait.” With so much on Congress’ plate, and the economy continuing to falter, Sen. Reid’s decision to slow down the pace of the energy and climate bill and give the Senate more time to work out the details is a wise one. For agriculture and rural America, it gives much-needed time to model and study all the consequences (intended and unintended) of Waxman-Markey...

Robert C. Sisson responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 20, 2009 08:36 AM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

2010 Elections Loom The Senate should not let the schedule slip beyond early spring. Extra time might be helpful in pulling together the compromises necessary to reach 60 votes, but the Senate should not let the schedule slip beyond early spring. Every day that passes increases the risk that climate legislation will be overtaken by 2010 campaign politics, pushing resolution of the issue out for at least another year. Every day that passes increases the risk of the U.S. losing energy technology manufacturing jobs to other countries. Every day that passes brings continuing uncertainty for utilities trying to...

Thomas J. Pyle responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 19, 2009 06:18 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

More Delay, The Better Every day the cap and tax legislation is not on the Senate floor is a good day for American families. Quite simply, the longer it is delayed, the greater the opportunity everyday Americans have to learn about its economic impacts. And the more they learn, the less they like. To even suggest that this job killing bill, which by design is intended to increase the cost of eighty-five percent of the energy we use to heat our homes, fuel our cars and power our businesses, could possibly be considered as part of a larger effort to address the...

Dirk Forrister responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 19, 2009 04:56 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

More Time Helps With Compromise The President could help galvanize a broad political consensus around an emissions trading solution to climate change. It’s better to do it right than to do it fast – so I think Senator Reid is making the right call. While I’d certainly prefer to have a climate bill sooner rather than later, delaying debate until the spring gives time to draw together the set of compromises that are going to be needed to make the bill palatable to at least 60 Senators – and especially to address concerns of the group of moderates who are...

William O'Keefe responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 19, 2009 04:56 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Inactions Speak Louder Than Words In the case of this week’s announcement of the Senate delay, inactions speak louder than words. By suspending further consideration of the climate bill until 2010, Democrats are signaling that it’s not high on their priority list. This move also suggests that they’re starting to realize that the high cost and incredible intrusiveness of cap and trade would only exacerbate the problems evident in trying to pass comprehensive health care legislation. So, from a political perspective, this delay wasn’t just a smart choice; it was a requisite one. Senate leadership is likely gambling that by...

Larry Schweiger responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 18, 2009 06:28 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Unfinished Business We can't afford to wait and let clean energy jobs go to other countries ready to invest in clean energy. Hope springs eternal, but the idea of waiting to "spring" for Senate action doesn't fill me with hope. In 2010, the Senate will convene in January, not March. The Senate's unfinished business on clean energy and climate should be on deck as the Senate's highest priority after health care. Speaker Pelosi and the House worked impressively already this year to pass a clean energy jobs bill that puts America on a leadership pathway for reducing pollution and tackling...

Cal Dooley responded to Is It Wise To Wait Till Spring? on November 18, 2009 06:06 PM

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Congress Should Move Before EPA Congress runs the very real risk of letting EPA’s regulatory deadlines overtake the legislative process. Yes, extra time can allow fresh ideas to enter the debate, but Congress also runs the very real risk of letting EPA’s regulatory deadlines overtake the legislative process. EPA action before Congress has had adequate time to develop a sound greenhouse gas reduction policy is the worst-case scenario. As early as March, EPA could issue rules that would lead to regulation of GHG emissions at stationary sources. This would stop smart investment in American manufacturing dead in its tracks. The...

Drilling For A Compromise?

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

A recent series of energy reports offered mixed news on the near future of the world oil market. According to studies by the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, world oil demand will rise as national economies recover. However, recent oil price spikes could imperil the global economic recovery. Meanwhile, the low energy prices that have predominated during the recession mean less money for oil and gas drillers to invest in new projects.

In the face of such uncertainty, should Congress give the U.S. oil industry a boost? Should the Senate climate change legislation include provisions to encourage domestic oil development -- as recommended by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.? If so, what kind of language would you like to see included? Would oil drilling provisions help the Senate reach the 60 votes necessary to pass a global warming bill?

David Parker responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 19, 2009 04:05 PM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

Diverse, Domestic Energy is Key America’s onshore and offshore oil and natural gas production has an exceptional record of safety and environmental stewardship. We cannot discuss the issue of domestic oil development in a vacuum because natural gas development is part of that story. That said, the short answer is yes, any legislation should include provisions to encourage domestic oil development. And it is not only the oil and natural gas industry that supports domestic production. Developing a reliable and home-grown energy supply is also a vital part of our national security. Many citizens of the states in which it would occur strongly...

Bill Meadows responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 19, 2009 10:08 AM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

No More Subsidies For Oil Industry Congress does not need to provide the oil and gas industry with any more “boosts” – the industry has been coddled by Congress with sweetheart tax breaks, exemptions from key environmental statutes, and various other benefits for far too long. These policies have been quite successful to date in encouraging the “Drill America First” energy policy that has resulted in the U.S. having more oil and gas wells by far than any other country, and an oil and gas industry with ready access to tens of millions of acres of onshore and offshore...

Carl Pope responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 16, 2009 01:36 PM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

Oil Execs Don't Offer Better Ideas The cold hard facts are that the world needs, desperately, to burn less, not more, oil. The initial postings from oil industry spokespeople on this blog don't look very promising for the idea of a compromise over energy and climate legislation -- at least with the oil industry. The cold hard facts are that the world needs, desperately, to burn less, not more, oil -- and that the US with only 3% of the world's oil reserves cannot expect, affordably, to continue to burn 25% of its annual production of oil. Nor can thise...

William O'Keefe responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 16, 2009 07:37 AM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

Fewer Regulatory Barriers Needed The oil industry has done a good job of meeting consumer needs without intervention from Capitol Hill. This week’s question brings to mind Will Rogers’ observation: Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, that don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous. That has certainly proven true in the last year when the government took over major companies in the name of saving our economy. Now, the last thing we need is more bureaucratic intervention in the private sector. The oil industry has faced supply and...

Jack Gerard responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 16, 2009 07:36 AM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

Current Legislation Not The Answer The government should uphold and live up to the principles that created the hugely successful oil and gas lease program for government lands. The cap-and-trade proposals Congress is considering are bad bills for many reasons, not the least of which is that they have the potential of costing millions of American jobs and driving up energy costs. Just as a new paint job would not make a clunker a better car, adding provisions to encourage domestic oil and natural gas development would not sufficiently improve them. Most senators understand that and are unlikely change their...

Charles Drevna responded to Drilling For A Compromise? on November 16, 2009 07:36 AM

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:35:00 GMT

A Counterproductive Compromise A proposed reduction in crude imports through increased domestic production incentives would actually result in increased imports of refined products. As the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade legislation emerges awkwardly from the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee to face an unknown fate, the whispers of “compromise” are already being heard in the cloakrooms. But what compromise could possibly make a cap-and-trade climate bill, in the midst of a severe recession, 10 percent unemployment, and fears of a jobless recovery, more palatable to legislators on the fence and environmentally conscious consumers back home? Not much of one. The idea of...

Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Despite a partisan standoff, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week advanced the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. Now a trio of senators -- John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- are hoping to forge compromise legislation that can secure 60 votes. However, the path to the finish line is steep -- Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., recently suggested that the Senate might wait until after the 2010 midterm elections to tackle climate change.

Should the Senate stop trying to pass an all-encompassing bill and instead concentrate on enacting the bipartisan energy package that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved earlier this year? What would be the ramifications -- both for the political landscape and the nation's energy mix -- of splitting the cap-and-trade bill from the energy measure? Can efforts by Kerry, Lieberman and Graham save climate change legislation?

Kevin Knobloch responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 13, 2009 11:57 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

A Comprehensive Bill Is Necessary Finalizing a bill similar to the one the Senate Energy Committee passed in June would take us a step backward. The Senate should not abandon its work on a truly comprehensive climate and energy package. We need a cap on carbon to reduce emissions and renewables and energy efficiency to reduce the cost of a climate bill. In fact, finalizing a bill similar to the one the Senate Energy Committee passed in June would take us a step backward. For example, the federal renewable energy standard in the bill -- which ostensibly would require utilities...

Paul Sullivan responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 12, 2009 06:36 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Apolitical Solutions Needed We need to do something smart and long lasting, not just something that is politically and diplomatically expedient. Overbearing partisanship has been the ruin of the ability of our leaders to make proper decisions in a timely manner on some of the most important issues we face. Such partisanship and group think also seem to be leading us into "two huddles in the muddle" on energy and climate legislation. This is not a true debate, but a simple taking of sides, on the very important issues that we face. The country deserves better. Can there be...

Thomas J. Pyle responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 11, 2009 04:47 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Pickpocketed Or Robbed At ATM? Studies from EPA, EIA, Brookings, MIT, and others all agree that cap-and-trade will reduce GDP and kill American jobs. With unemployment above 10 percent and poised to go even higher, Congress’ time would be best spent on anything other than these expensive, economically harmful energy policies. Asking whether the Senate should stop trying to pass Kerry-Boxer to focus on an alternative package is like asking Americans if they prefer to have their wallets stolen or be robbed at the ATM. Whether it is cap-and-trade or a nationwide renewable electricity mandate, the result is the...

David Parker responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 10, 2009 06:03 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Cap-And-Trade Not The Only Answer AGA’s position on climate change legislation is that our legislators can reach our nation’s energy goals sooner by recognizing the important role that clean, efficient and domestically abundant natural gas can and must play in combating climate change. Regardless of whether or not Congress passes a comprehensive climate bill, there are several important issues that it could address right now to help lower emissions and save energy. Congress should expand the existing Federal Trade Commission EnergyGuide labeling program for home appliances to include carbon footprint information. Clearly explaining the true carbon impact of major...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 10, 2009 04:28 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Urging Passage Of Senate Energy Bill As long as the energy bill remains on hold, we’ll continue to forgo its potential benefits. Substance aside, the process was enough to kill the climate bill in the EPW Committee. Climate legislation will require support from both sides of the aisle, but the only bipartisan feature of that bill was the opposition to it. It’s past time to start discussing what comes next. It’s important to act on climate change – but it’s more important to get it right. To develop a policy that balances environmental progress with economic strength, we must fully...

Randall Swisher responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 06:39 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Limited Time Before 2010 Elections It is foolish to think two different packages could be achieved within such a relatively short time. A year ago the strategy of two separate packages made sense – given the amount of time required to build consensus regarding climate, energy legislation could have moved as a high priority on a separate and faster track in the first half of 2009. A renewable energy standard had broad support and could have served as an early stage “down payment” on climate. An energy bill also would have allowed more time and attention for important questions such as...

Carl Pope responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 03:57 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Passing Both In Tandem Is Crucial We need both, we need them both quickly, but we need for them to work in harness. Any sensible plan to develop an innovative low-carbon, clean energy economy needs four elements: 1) An investment strategy to develop, scale and bring down the price of new clean energy technologies. 2) A set of market reforms designed to ensure that cost-effective clean energy solutions are not slowed down or denied market access by institutional barriers or the resistance of incumbent energy sector players with assets invested in the fossil fuel sector. 3) Incentives or mandates...

Denise Bode responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 03:31 PM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

'Comprehensive' Bill Needs A RES China will install more new wind generation capacity than any other country in the world--a position the U.S. held just last year. We thank Senator Graham for his courageous effort to break the partisan gridlock on energy and climate legislation, and very much hope that his work with Senators Kerry and Lieberman proves successful. We continue to support passage of a comprehensive energy and climate bill and to urge that it include a strong renewable electricity standard (RES) that will provide the certainty businesses need to invest billions of dollars in America and create...

Larry Schweiger responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Carbon Cap Essential To Clean Energy Simply put, the cap's the thing. Doing an energy bill without directly addressing our global warming pollution would miss the point of why we’re addressing the issue in the first place. Putting a limit (and with it, a price) on our global warming pollution will send a vastly clearer signal to the market than floating a raft of subsidies and hoping the folks downstream get the message. I’d also take issue with your contention that clean energy & climate legislation needs “saving.” In the House, the American Clean Energy & Security Act got more...

William O'Keefe responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 09:37 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Re-Examining Earlier Energy Acts If there was important energy legislation that could be passed and should be passed soon, it would make sense to separate energy from cap and trade. However, Washington has already generated two comprehensive pieces if energy legislation in the last four years. And since those policy acts included steps to increase investment in nuclear power, research and development in energy technology, improvements in energy efficiency and alternative energy, it is unclear what pressing energy needs must still be met by this Congress. Legislation to encourage more domestic oil exploration is important to slow the growth in...

Robert J. Shapiro responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 09:09 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Pushing For 'Plan B' Congress is very unlikely to ever pass a cap-and-trade system. The question of splitting climate reforms and the energy package comes down to how urgent we consider passing the energy provisions, since it’s clear that the Senate will not enact Kerry-Boxer or any other cap-and-trade system this year. In politics, it’s usually better to take a half loaf than none; but since the other half of this loaf is the most important part, it comes down to whether climate reforms can pass without energy reforms. The answer to that question is more complicated than it seems,...

Bill Snape responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 07:37 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Getting The Global Warming Job Done Passing any energy bill without significantly reducing greenhouse pollutants simultaneously would be a tremendous missed opportunity. The old Midas television commercial summarizes it all right now with regard to U.S. energy policy: “you can pay us now or pay us later.” Every day that the United States puts off passing strong science-based climate legislation the more expensive the final bill will be, and the more damage human beings and the natural environment will suffer. This is not to say that strong energy legislation that ramps up investment in renewable energy is not a good...

Jon A. Anda responded to Should Congress Split Up Energy And Cap-And-Trade? on November 9, 2009 07:36 AM

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:36:00 GMT

Energy Policy More Complicated Climate should go first for 3 reasons: 1) coincidence with clean domestic energy, 2) international credibility, and 3) inherent simplicity. Simple cap and trade might be something as follows: 83% cut by 2050 from large electric & industrial sources - with 2/3 to 3/4 auctioned and free pro-rata allocation (to emitters) in the early years. Energy policy is more complicated (note: 1426 pages of HR2454 avoided most real energy decisions). There should be 3 core components to an energy bill: transportation policy & fuel taxes, electric power supply, and electric power distribution (including incentives for utility...

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...