Does Kerry-Boxer Improve on Waxman-Markey?

Plus, NGO reactions to the bill and hearings

The Chairman's Mark of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill is huge--923 pages. But the good news for those following the debate is that almost all of the material is derived from the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last June, with a few changes. The most important differences between the Senate bill and Waxman-Markey are that the Senate bill:

• improves on the GHG emissions reduction goal, from 17% by 2020 to 20% by 2020
• places more emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which is needed to attract support from coal states.
• specifically allocates allowances to transportation-sector improvements that will reduce GHG emissions.
• increases allowance allocations to utility-scale renewable energy projects
• specifically allocates allowances to energy efficiency programs, including a requirement that allowances going to the states be dedicated to the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program implemented by State Energy Offices.
• sets floors and ceilings on the price of emissions permits.

Reactions are beginning to come in from the NGO community. Francis Beinecke, president of Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), posted her reaction on the NRDC website today, saying she was encouraged by the draft, but that she would still like to see the bioenergy loophole (which treats all use of biomass for fuel as carbon neutral, whether mature trees or crop waste) closed, and would like to see strengthened energy efficiency provisions. (Recall, the original version of Waxman-Markey contained a separate energy efficiency resource standard (EERS) alongside the renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS). Once Dingell (D, MI) and Boucher (D, VA) were done with it, the EERS was folded into the REPS, and made no separate requirements.) Her comments can be viewed here.

[Update: Defenders of Wildlife is choosing to wear rose-colored glasses, announcing that "Sens. Bingaman, Baucus, Whitehouse and Udall champion legislation," here. And EarthJustice makes a statement here.]

The Breakthrough Institute, which put together a spreadsheet of how allowances are distributed in both Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey over the weekend, is unhappy that: "[l]ike its House sibling, the . . . Kerry-Boxer climate bill allocates the vast majority (64%) of the tens of billions annually in emissions allowances created by the bill's cap and trade program to shield energy consumers and industry from the impacts of carbon prices. Just 13% of the value of allowances . . . are invested in clean energy technologies." (The spreadsheet can be downloaded here, and a pie chart of the allowances here.)

ACEEE issued a report, timed to coincide with the start of committee hearings, urging that the place of energy efficiency be elevated in any bill to come out of the Senate.

Unfortunately, its not clear when any such amendments can be made. The bill will move quickly through EPW: Senator Boxer said this morning that she wants the bill to be out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by November 3. If Waxman-Markey is instructive, the bill will get watered down, not strengthened, as it goes through other committees in the Senate (although I would love to be corrected on this). And Senator Inhofe was intoning darkly this morning about what will happen when the bill gets to the floor.