As hope faded that the U.S. Senate will have even a solid framework for a climate bill before negotiations are scheduled to start on the next international climate treaty in Copenhagen in three weeks, President Obama and other world leaders huddled in Singapore over the weekend to try and salvage the importance of the summit. According to this Politico article, the Danish Prime Minister flew out to Singapore to join President Obama and other world leaders in a last-minute breakfast huddle about the upcoming climate talks over the weekend. There, they decided to come up with a "one agreement, two steps" framework (obviously influenced in spirit by the sort of numerical nomenclature used in Chinese policy discussions) in which Copenhagen will, in essence, be just the first act of climate negotiations that will reconvene a year from now, as well.
Update: Politico also reports that Senator Reid was meeting with various committee chairmen to figure out how to push things along, here.
The New York Times is also reporting on the development, explaining that "this weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year."
Tick tock, Senators, tick tock.
Showing posts with label Senate climate bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate climate bill. Show all posts
Monday, November 16, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Coal State Senators Push for Bigger Share of (Free) GHG Permits
Even though the Senate Climate Bill is currently more theoretical than real, a hypothetical bill that lies somewhere between Kerry-Boxer, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman, and whatever various Senate Committees might cook up, Senators in states that are heavily dependent on coal for power have already begun angling for a larger share of whatever free GHG emissions credits may be issued in the bill. In a letter issued yesterday, Senators Harkin (D, IA), Franken (D, MN), Dorgan (D, ND), Kohl (D, WI), Feingold (D, WI), Conrad (D, ND), Bennet (D, CO), Klobuchar (D, MN), Udall (D, CO), Byrd (D, WV), Levin (D, MI), Stabenow (D, MI), and Brown (D, OH) asked for a more "equitable" distribution of GHG emissions permits to help power companies that are more dependent on coal:
Given that these are 14 Democrats, and the Senate leadership is going to need every vote it can get to pass any climate bill, we can be assured that the distribution will be shifted as they ask. But you are right if this makes you uncomfortable. The coal-dependent power companies these Senators are defending have been warned for years by groups challenging their decisions to build new coal-fired power plants that the cost of coal power was bound to go up. These groups have consistently included in their comments before state utility commissions, state departments of environmental protection and federal authorities in charge of signing off on the plants the idea that the power companies really should be considering moves to diversify their power portfolio to wind, solar and energy efficiency--suggestions that the power companies have almost uniformly resisted (despite what their web sites often say about renewable energy and energy efficiency). So it is pretty disingenuous of them to act sad and helpless now that they are finally facing the prospect of paying up.
It is also disingenuous for the power companies, and the Senators from states in which they are powerful, to act as if their primary concern are their customers, when the lion's share of the customer rate increases they ask for (and almost always get from state utility commissions) are for building new power plants that are guaranteed to make the power companies money, but that the customers don't necessarily need. (Rate increases for energy efficiency improvements, though often the subject of much teeth gnashing by Republican state legislators all of a sudden concerned with rate payers, too, are generally tiny--especially in light of how much power they free up on the grid.) I may even be justified in saying that this is galling, in light of the sort of things that power companies expect customers to pay for, like $15,000 dinners and corporate spa retreats, as this article from the Colorado Independent discusses.
At any rate, Reuters reports on the letter here, the Hill here, and the Wall Street Journal here.
The House [Waxman-Markey] bill falls short of . . . equitable distribution . . . with its formula for allocating allowances to local distribution companies based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales. Unfortunately, the Senate bill currently under consideration includes the same 50/50 allocation provision. Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to their customers. Meanwhile, many utilities with relatively lesser emissions will receive sufficient allowances to completely cover their initial requirements. Thus, their customers will experience no price increases resulting from the legislation.The full letter can be read here.
We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors. We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector – and thus, electricity consumers -- be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.
Given that these are 14 Democrats, and the Senate leadership is going to need every vote it can get to pass any climate bill, we can be assured that the distribution will be shifted as they ask. But you are right if this makes you uncomfortable. The coal-dependent power companies these Senators are defending have been warned for years by groups challenging their decisions to build new coal-fired power plants that the cost of coal power was bound to go up. These groups have consistently included in their comments before state utility commissions, state departments of environmental protection and federal authorities in charge of signing off on the plants the idea that the power companies really should be considering moves to diversify their power portfolio to wind, solar and energy efficiency--suggestions that the power companies have almost uniformly resisted (despite what their web sites often say about renewable energy and energy efficiency). So it is pretty disingenuous of them to act sad and helpless now that they are finally facing the prospect of paying up.
It is also disingenuous for the power companies, and the Senators from states in which they are powerful, to act as if their primary concern are their customers, when the lion's share of the customer rate increases they ask for (and almost always get from state utility commissions) are for building new power plants that are guaranteed to make the power companies money, but that the customers don't necessarily need. (Rate increases for energy efficiency improvements, though often the subject of much teeth gnashing by Republican state legislators all of a sudden concerned with rate payers, too, are generally tiny--especially in light of how much power they free up on the grid.) I may even be justified in saying that this is galling, in light of the sort of things that power companies expect customers to pay for, like $15,000 dinners and corporate spa retreats, as this article from the Colorado Independent discusses.
At any rate, Reuters reports on the letter here, the Hill here, and the Wall Street Journal here.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Just in Case You Were Still Hoping
The Senate Climate bill won't go anywhere in the next six weeks, WSJ confirms.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, with plenty of quotes to back up the story, that the Senate Climate Bill won't be going anywhere before next year. Senator Baucus (D, MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (and was a no vote against Kerry-Boxer on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)) doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything. The article also reports that "Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
Of course, Harry Reid (D, NV) promised five weeks of analysis of any proposed bill, as was discussed in this earlier post. And Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are negotiating their own bill behind closed doors. And though it passed out of EPW, Kerry-Boxer is not winning any popularity contests in the Senate right now. This we knew before the EPA sent its endangerment finding on GHGs to the White House last Friday. But I guess this confirms that the move was not a sufficient shock to the system to jolt the Senate into action.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Modicum of Activity on Senate Climate Bill
Yesterday, Senators from various sides of the climate debate had a few opportunities to voice their positions on an eventual bill. As the Washington Independent reported, Senator Baucus (seen as a key indicator of moderate, coal-state Democratic sentiment on a climate bill) opened a Senate Finance Committee Hearing yesterday on the jobs impact of potential climate legislation with the following statement:
Meanwhile, as several outlets are reporting, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to urge them to push forward with climate change legislation in advance of next month's negotiations in Copenhagen. McClatchy reports the story here, and the Wall Street Journal here. Senator Lieberman (I, CT) told Secretary Ban that he was confident that he and Senator Kerry ahd come up with the framework that would eventually become the Senate climate bill, as Bloomberg reports here. Senator Richard Lugar (R, IN) begged to differ, telling Secretary Ban that "I don't see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support," and that "[w]e really have to start from scratch again." The Washington Post article detailing this exchange can be read here.
Today, we will consider whether climate legislation will create jobs in the energy sector. We’ll examine
further this Committee’s role in climate legislation. And we’ll discuss what we can do both to create
jobs and to ease the transition to an economy that accounts for the cost of carbon dioxide. I am committed to passing meaningful, balanced climate-change legislation.
I am committed to legislation that will protect our land and those whose livelihood depends on it. I want our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the outdoors the way that we can today. So I’m going to work to pass climate-change legislation that is both meaningful and that can muster enough votes to become law.
Today we’ll hear predictions — some optimistic, some otherwise — about the effects that climate legislation will have on American jobs and the American economy. We need to consider these predictions. But we also need to consider the consequences of failing to act. We can already see some of these consequences in my home state of Montana. We can see the consequences in forests near my hometown of Helena, destroyed by pine beetles that thrive in warmer temperatures. We can see the consequences in sustained drought and more frequent wildfires. And we can see the consequences in decreased snowpack and lower stream flows, reducing water for irrigated agriculture and starving our blue‐ribbon trout streams of cold water.So although Senator Baucus voted against the Kerry-Boxer bill in committee, and was seen as a doubting voice, he--at least at first blush--seems to be somewhat to the left of, say, Senator Graham, who is working with Kerry and Lieberman to come up with a version of the climate bill that endorses nuclear, "clean coal," and more offshore drilling. Senator Baucus's full statement can be viewed here. Archived footage of the hearing can be viewed here.
These are serious consequences. And I believe that we can mitigate their effects in a way that does not
harm the economy. . . . [W]e should recognize that in the case of acid rain [provisions included in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which Baucus helped author], the negative consequences were far less than projected. We should keep this in mind when similar claims are made about the effects of legislation to address climate change.
Meanwhile, as several outlets are reporting, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to urge them to push forward with climate change legislation in advance of next month's negotiations in Copenhagen. McClatchy reports the story here, and the Wall Street Journal here. Senator Lieberman (I, CT) told Secretary Ban that he was confident that he and Senator Kerry ahd come up with the framework that would eventually become the Senate climate bill, as Bloomberg reports here. Senator Richard Lugar (R, IN) begged to differ, telling Secretary Ban that "I don't see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support," and that "[w]e really have to start from scratch again." The Washington Post article detailing this exchange can be read here.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friends of the Earth Breaks with Mainstream Environmentalists in Decrying Kerry-Boxer
At least one group stands up and says the Emperor has no clothes.
As described in yesterday's post on NGO reaction to the passage of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, reaction from NRDC, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice to the action was uniformly positive. NRDC and Sierra Club even seemed excited about the version of the bill that Senator Kerry is negotiating on the side with Senator Lindsay Graham (R, SC)--even though the latter publicly stated that his solutions for climate change depend on "clean coal," nuclear power and offshore drilling.
Friends of the Earth is not so excited. They issued a statement yesterday decrying Kerry-Boxer as too weak, and sounding the alarm about whatever Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are cooking up. In other words, they are saying publicly what staffers in most of the major environmental groups are probably saying privately.
As described in yesterday's post on NGO reaction to the passage of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, reaction from NRDC, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice to the action was uniformly positive. NRDC and Sierra Club even seemed excited about the version of the bill that Senator Kerry is negotiating on the side with Senator Lindsay Graham (R, SC)--even though the latter publicly stated that his solutions for climate change depend on "clean coal," nuclear power and offshore drilling.
Friends of the Earth is not so excited. They issued a statement yesterday decrying Kerry-Boxer as too weak, and sounding the alarm about whatever Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are cooking up. In other words, they are saying publicly what staffers in most of the major environmental groups are probably saying privately.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
No More Mrs. Nice Guy
Boxer passed bill out of committee without Republicans
Despite the Republican boycott of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee meetings this week designed to prevent the Kerry-Boxer bill from passing out of committee, Senator Boxer (D, CA) and other committee democrats passed the bill today. The Houston Chronicle reports on the move here, the Wall Street Journal here, and Bloomberg here. Politico explains the parliamentary maneuver Boxer used, here.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Now a Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Climate Bill is in the Works
And it won't have much to offer if you don't support offshore drilling or believe in "clean coal".
Tossing another layer on top of the anarchy that has erupted in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee over the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill, Senator Kerry himself announced today that he would also be pushing a second climate bill on a "dual track" outside of the committee process, even as his first bill struggles forward. He will be working on this bill behind closed doors with Senators Graham (R, SC), and Lieberman (I, CT).
As this Washington Post article notes, other Senate committees have been working on their own climate bills as well, and all will have to be reconciled in the end. This just adds another to the heap. But the action by Kerry, who made his announcement alongside Senators Lieberman (I, CT) and Graham (R, SC) today, shows that Senate leaders don't have much faith that the Kerry-Boxer bill will win the necessary 60 votes in the end. (Or, you could look at all this with rose-colored glasses, like the Boston Globe, which is reporting that "Sens Kerry, Graham, Lieberman join forces to rescue climate bill.")
This country has a lot to do to curb GHG emissions, and strong federal mandates for renewable generation and energy efficiency should form the core of any good bill. Waxman-Markey emerged from the committee process in the House so badly weakened that environmentalists were privately dismayed, and publicly almost ready to withdraw support. So its a major (major) disappointment that the Senate may end up pitching more of the Waxman-Markey framework overboard. (Kerry-Boxer was 90% based on Waxman-Markey.) Even more worrisome, according to the Post "Graham said that the bill should protect the climate, but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on 'clean coal' technology." And Lieberman confirmed that the three were committed to a "cap and trade" scheme, "but noted that the scheme had 'a lot of moving parts you could negotiate on.'"
Tossing another layer on top of the anarchy that has erupted in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee over the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill, Senator Kerry himself announced today that he would also be pushing a second climate bill on a "dual track" outside of the committee process, even as his first bill struggles forward. He will be working on this bill behind closed doors with Senators Graham (R, SC), and Lieberman (I, CT).
As this Washington Post article notes, other Senate committees have been working on their own climate bills as well, and all will have to be reconciled in the end. This just adds another to the heap. But the action by Kerry, who made his announcement alongside Senators Lieberman (I, CT) and Graham (R, SC) today, shows that Senate leaders don't have much faith that the Kerry-Boxer bill will win the necessary 60 votes in the end. (Or, you could look at all this with rose-colored glasses, like the Boston Globe, which is reporting that "Sens Kerry, Graham, Lieberman join forces to rescue climate bill.")
This country has a lot to do to curb GHG emissions, and strong federal mandates for renewable generation and energy efficiency should form the core of any good bill. Waxman-Markey emerged from the committee process in the House so badly weakened that environmentalists were privately dismayed, and publicly almost ready to withdraw support. So its a major (major) disappointment that the Senate may end up pitching more of the Waxman-Markey framework overboard. (Kerry-Boxer was 90% based on Waxman-Markey.) Even more worrisome, according to the Post "Graham said that the bill should protect the climate, but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on 'clean coal' technology." And Lieberman confirmed that the three were committed to a "cap and trade" scheme, "but noted that the scheme had 'a lot of moving parts you could negotiate on.'"
The Huffington Post does not mince words, reporting the story as "Kerry, Graham, Lieberman Working on Weaker Climate Compromise," here.
Still Trying to Work
Senator Boxer and the Dems showed up again this morning, but the Republicans played hooky.
This morning, Senator Boxer reconvened a full business meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, so that the Republicans who boycotted yesterday's meeting would have an opportunity to participate in the committee mark up. But the Republicans still didn't show.
This morning, Senator Boxer reconvened a full business meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, so that the Republicans who boycotted yesterday's meeting would have an opportunity to participate in the committee mark up. But the Republicans still didn't show.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Senate Climate Bill Now at Least Seven Weeks Away
Harry Reid committed to five-week analysis period after bill gets through all committees to mollify Republicans
According to this Houston Chronicle article, Harry Reid (D, NV), told Barbara Boxer (D, CA), head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he will hold any climate bill to emerge out of her and other Senate committees for a five-week period so its economic costs can be fully analyzed. This should help Boxer possibly get the bill through committee today. (Though there was a near-total Republican boycott this morning, with only Senator Voinovich (R, OH) attending from the GOP to deliver this message, yesterday she promised that there would be opportunity to work on the bill through COB today.) It also answers the letter written by ranking Senate Republicans yesterday demanding further cost analysis. And it should temper concerns that Boxer's partisanism might sink the climate bill, as some say it did last year. (Politico ran a piece early this morning, warning what might happen if she rammed it through committee without GOP support, and minority members of EPW pointed that and six other pieces of analysis to that effect out here.)
According to this Houston Chronicle article, Harry Reid (D, NV), told Barbara Boxer (D, CA), head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he will hold any climate bill to emerge out of her and other Senate committees for a five-week period so its economic costs can be fully analyzed. This should help Boxer possibly get the bill through committee today. (Though there was a near-total Republican boycott this morning, with only Senator Voinovich (R, OH) attending from the GOP to deliver this message, yesterday she promised that there would be opportunity to work on the bill through COB today.) It also answers the letter written by ranking Senate Republicans yesterday demanding further cost analysis. And it should temper concerns that Boxer's partisanism might sink the climate bill, as some say it did last year. (Politico ran a piece early this morning, warning what might happen if she rammed it through committee without GOP support, and minority members of EPW pointed that and six other pieces of analysis to that effect out here.)
Monday, November 2, 2009
Letters Flying at Senate EPW over Kerry-Boxer
Tomorrow, Dirksen 406, Squirt Guns
Ranking Republican Senators "of the committees with jurisdiction over portions of the [Kerry-Boxer climate change] bill" issued a letter today to Chairman Boxer (D, CA), urging further analysis of the economic impact of the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. These include Senator Inhofe (R, OK) of EPW, Lisa Murkowski (R, AK), from Senate Environment and Natural Resources, Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) (agriculture), Chuck Grassley (R, IA) (finance), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) (commerce and transportation).
The full letter can be read here, and the press release here. An AP analysis of the letter can be read here.
Meanwhile, Chairman Boxer has responded to Senator Inhofe's threatened Republican boycott of the EPW committee meeting (mentioned in earlier posts here and here), with a letter of her own, on behalf of majority members of the committee, which says: "We urge Ranking Member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the Committee Republicans back to work on this issue. . . . We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this Committee."
According to Talking Points Memo, Senator Boxer "Boxer will begin the markup as planned Tuesday, but will extend the deadline for amendments until [COB], allowing Republicans who have boycotted the process to participate past the original deadline." TPM and Politico are also reporting that Boxer has offered to pause the markup process tomorrow afternoon so that another EPA official can answer any additional questions from the Republicans.
Ranking Republican Senators "of the committees with jurisdiction over portions of the [Kerry-Boxer climate change] bill" issued a letter today to Chairman Boxer (D, CA), urging further analysis of the economic impact of the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. These include Senator Inhofe (R, OK) of EPW, Lisa Murkowski (R, AK), from Senate Environment and Natural Resources, Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) (agriculture), Chuck Grassley (R, IA) (finance), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) (commerce and transportation).
The full letter can be read here, and the press release here. An AP analysis of the letter can be read here.
Meanwhile, Chairman Boxer has responded to Senator Inhofe's threatened Republican boycott of the EPW committee meeting (mentioned in earlier posts here and here), with a letter of her own, on behalf of majority members of the committee, which says: "We urge Ranking Member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the Committee Republicans back to work on this issue. . . . We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this Committee."
According to Talking Points Memo, Senator Boxer "Boxer will begin the markup as planned Tuesday, but will extend the deadline for amendments until [COB], allowing Republicans who have boycotted the process to participate past the original deadline." TPM and Politico are also reporting that Boxer has offered to pause the markup process tomorrow afternoon so that another EPA official can answer any additional questions from the Republicans.
Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ), who made a lot of statements at last week's hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill to the effect of "Come on, people, wake up!", told reporters that "[i]t's almost like school children over there" among EPW Republicans.
We should all look forward to what happens tomorrow. The committee meeting is scheduled for 9am in Dirksen 406.
We should all look forward to what happens tomorrow. The committee meeting is scheduled for 9am in Dirksen 406.
Predictions on Boxer and the Kerry-Boxer Bill
The Washington Post is reporting this morning that, to hedge her bets against Blue Dog Democrats who might sink the climate bill when it emerges from committee, Boxer made concessions on nuclear power in the Kerry-Boxer bill, here. The move, the article says, is meant to attract possible votes from moderate Republicans. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal confirms, here, that indeed, the Republicans are planning on boycotting tomorrow's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Meeting, to try and keep Kerry-Boxer from emerging from committee at all. And, as Politico reports here, Boxer has a plan up her sleeve to push the bill out of committee, anyway.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Republicans Spoiling for a Boycott on Kerry-Boxer
The New York Times is reporting that Senator Inhofe (R, OK) has signaled, himself, that "he has unanimous support among the panel's minority members to boycott the session until they get more data on the legislation from U.S. EPA and the Congressional Budget Office." The full article can be read here. The article further reports that Boxer continued to dismay committee Republicans by calling them out each time she thought they were distorting the truth (as I observed in an earlier post, here.) According to the article, "Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) complain[ed] yesterday that Boxer had been unfairly chiming in after any remarks that did not square with her point of view."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Morning News Roundup on Kerry-Boxer Bill: Day Three
This morning, Politico is describing the tough path ahead for the Senate climate bill, given the doubts expressed by Senator Baucus (D, WY), but also reports that Senator Boxer (D, CA) is determined to get the bill out of committee even without Baucus, given negotiations she conducted with Senator Carper (D, DE) "who played a major role in negotiating a deal with coal-state members and is expected to back the legislation." (It looks, given the grumvblings reported in the article, like Senator Boxer knew that she had to overshoot Waxman-Markey's 17% GHG reduction goal initially in order to hold firm on it in the end, because a lot of folks are taking aim at the 20% figure.)
ClimateWire is reporting that the generosity initially seen in Kerry-Boxer in allocating more allowances to pro-climate moves like sustainable transportation and energy efficiency (as an earlier post discusses here) may not really improve on the House bill, given required deficit-reduction measures, in "Reality Sets In; Senate Allocation Pie Smaller Than House Climate Bill's."
And NPR reports on the "Battle of [the] Statistics" at yesterday's hearings, in which Senator Boxer announced to the assembled Republicans "Since you held up a chart [on Tuesday] we're going to have our little chart wars today — you hold up one and we hold up one; it's kind of equal time." (Its nice to see Boxer tackling the naysayers head-on: On Tuesday, she responded to statistical pronouncements and descriptions of research papers that she felt were distorted immediately, prompting Republicans to complain that she might drag the proceedings into a tit for tat.) According to NPR, Boxer's tough tone didn't stop (fossil fuels) industry executives from trying to invoke scary job-loss numbers, however. The full article can be seen here.
ClimateWire is reporting that the generosity initially seen in Kerry-Boxer in allocating more allowances to pro-climate moves like sustainable transportation and energy efficiency (as an earlier post discusses here) may not really improve on the House bill, given required deficit-reduction measures, in "Reality Sets In; Senate Allocation Pie Smaller Than House Climate Bill's."
And NPR reports on the "Battle of [the] Statistics" at yesterday's hearings, in which Senator Boxer announced to the assembled Republicans "Since you held up a chart [on Tuesday] we're going to have our little chart wars today — you hold up one and we hold up one; it's kind of equal time." (Its nice to see Boxer tackling the naysayers head-on: On Tuesday, she responded to statistical pronouncements and descriptions of research papers that she felt were distorted immediately, prompting Republicans to complain that she might drag the proceedings into a tit for tat.) According to NPR, Boxer's tough tone didn't stop (fossil fuels) industry executives from trying to invoke scary job-loss numbers, however. The full article can be seen here.
Day Three of Hearings before Senate EPW on Kerry-Boxer
Hearings will start in half an hour before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. The full schedule can be viewed here. Again, the hearings will be split into four panels.
Panel 1 is a mixed panel, including, for example, the President of Exelon (which describes itself as "the nation's largest electric and natural gas utility" and has its own plan for emissions reduction underway [Ed's note: unevaluated by Ed.]), the President of Environmental Defense (EDF) (which has been active in lobbying for energy efficiency), the President of the Ohio Coal Miner's Association, and the President of the American Farm Bureau Association.
Panel 2 is focused on transportation efficiency and sustainable communities, including several transportation experts and the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (which provides transportation planning and funding for the Sacramento region).
Panel 3 will provide economists' takes on climate policy, from the presidents of the (progressive) Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Clean Air Policy, and World Resources Institute, as well as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Panel 4 is a mixed panel, including the head of the California EPA, the Director of the Climate Center for NRDC, two Union representatives, and two industry executives.
The full schedule can be accessed here, and the hearings heard here.
Panel 1 is a mixed panel, including, for example, the President of Exelon (which describes itself as "the nation's largest electric and natural gas utility" and has its own plan for emissions reduction underway [Ed's note: unevaluated by Ed.]), the President of Environmental Defense (EDF) (which has been active in lobbying for energy efficiency), the President of the Ohio Coal Miner's Association, and the President of the American Farm Bureau Association.
Panel 2 is focused on transportation efficiency and sustainable communities, including several transportation experts and the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (which provides transportation planning and funding for the Sacramento region).
Panel 3 will provide economists' takes on climate policy, from the presidents of the (progressive) Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Clean Air Policy, and World Resources Institute, as well as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Panel 4 is a mixed panel, including the head of the California EPA, the Director of the Climate Center for NRDC, two Union representatives, and two industry executives.
The full schedule can be accessed here, and the hearings heard here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Inhofe Still Fuming
But Baucus, Specter and others like them may be the ones to watch
Senator Inhofe (R, OK) has posted his opening statement from Wednesday morning's hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. It begins with "Based on all the evidence we've seen, in this and other committees in the Senate, I can say with confidence that Kerry-Boxer will destroy jobs, weaken our national security, and raise electricity prices for consumers" and continues in that vein. (You can read the complete statement here.)
It is becoming very clear that we are seeing a shift in our economy, from one based on non-renewable fossil fuels and some nuclear energy, to a more diversified method of providing for our energy needs through renewable energy, advanced batteries, demand response, and energy efficiency, as well as fossil fuels and nuclear energy. There will be winners and losers as investment, jobs and political capital shift from one set of industries to another. The folks on Senator Inhofe's team are the losers in this scenario, and he's not happy about it.
Senator Inhofe (R, OK) has posted his opening statement from Wednesday morning's hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. It begins with "Based on all the evidence we've seen, in this and other committees in the Senate, I can say with confidence that Kerry-Boxer will destroy jobs, weaken our national security, and raise electricity prices for consumers" and continues in that vein. (You can read the complete statement here.)
It is becoming very clear that we are seeing a shift in our economy, from one based on non-renewable fossil fuels and some nuclear energy, to a more diversified method of providing for our energy needs through renewable energy, advanced batteries, demand response, and energy efficiency, as well as fossil fuels and nuclear energy. There will be winners and losers as investment, jobs and political capital shift from one set of industries to another. The folks on Senator Inhofe's team are the losers in this scenario, and he's not happy about it.
But Inhofe's sour grapes should not distract from a more important set of signals that will foretell the direction of this bill--the opinions of moderate Democrats from fossil-fuel-dependent states. On the Environment and Public Works Committee these include Senator Baucus (D, WY), whose state produces 40% of the coal used in the U.S. every year, and Senator Specter (D, PA), whose state is home to massive bituminous coal fields.
As reported here, Senator Baucus expressed "serious reservations" about achieving the 20% GHG emissions reduction target in the Kerry-Boxer bill, stating that "We cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation.” He lines up with Republicans on the committee in asking that the bill include a preemption clause to prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs. And not only does he have a vote on EPW, but also, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he will have a crack at rewriting major provisions of the bill before it gets to the Senate floor.
Senator Specter, who only just defected from the Republican party, could be the critical 60th vote to overcome a potential Republican filibuster. In his opening statement on Tuesday, he staked out his position as follows: "My state, Pennsylvania, is a microcosm. It has been built upon coal and steel, and it is critical that any legislation take into account those factors. My state has a great deal of natural gas with the new Marcellus Shale opening clean fuel for the future. . . . A week ago today I held a hearing in Pittsburgh on the potential of green jobs, but at the same time I’m concerned as to what would happen in southwestern Pennsylvania in the coal mines." And he made it clear during questioning on Tuesday that he also wants to see a clause in the bill preventing EPA from using the CAA to regulate GHGs.
So while Inhofe may be making the most noise, just as with Waxman-Markey in the House, it will be the moderate Democrats who ultimately move this bill the most in the Senate.
As reported here, Senator Baucus expressed "serious reservations" about achieving the 20% GHG emissions reduction target in the Kerry-Boxer bill, stating that "We cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change but we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of legislation.” He lines up with Republicans on the committee in asking that the bill include a preemption clause to prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs. And not only does he have a vote on EPW, but also, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he will have a crack at rewriting major provisions of the bill before it gets to the Senate floor.
Senator Specter, who only just defected from the Republican party, could be the critical 60th vote to overcome a potential Republican filibuster. In his opening statement on Tuesday, he staked out his position as follows: "My state, Pennsylvania, is a microcosm. It has been built upon coal and steel, and it is critical that any legislation take into account those factors. My state has a great deal of natural gas with the new Marcellus Shale opening clean fuel for the future. . . . A week ago today I held a hearing in Pittsburgh on the potential of green jobs, but at the same time I’m concerned as to what would happen in southwestern Pennsylvania in the coal mines." And he made it clear during questioning on Tuesday that he also wants to see a clause in the bill preventing EPA from using the CAA to regulate GHGs.
So while Inhofe may be making the most noise, just as with Waxman-Markey in the House, it will be the moderate Democrats who ultimately move this bill the most in the Senate.
Reactions to Today's Hearings
Today, a number of panelists with expertise on different aspects of the climate change issue--energy economics, national security, impacts of climate change, and electricity--testified on the Kerry-Boxer bill before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Reuters describes the first group in this way: "Leaders at companies that develop low-carbon energy told a Senate panel that climate legislation would create millions of new jobs, but lawmakers from fossil-fuel dependent states said the bill would hit employment in the traditional energy economy." (The full article can be accessed here.) Greenwire goes into more detail about the gloom and doom forecast by the petroleum industry, here.
More reviews to follow.
More reviews to follow.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Morning News Roundup on Kerry-Boxer Bill: Day Two
The New York Times covered yesterday's hearings as part of a larger story entitled "White House Steps up Climate Efforts." They boiled the partisan battle down to this:
The Washington Post ran several stories, including this article, arguing that yesterday's hearings set the stage for a major fight over the impact of cap and trade on the economy, this article, pointing out that federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear were put in the bill to "woo" wavering Senators, and this column by Dana Milbank describing Senator Inhofe as ever-more isolated in his resistance to the reality of global warming. (The AP echoes the Post's story line that we should expect a debate ahead about the impact of the bill on the economy, here.)
Huffington Post doesn't mince words in its coverage of the hearings, saying that "If Tuesday was any indication, the Senate's climate-change bill has a ways to go before it gets weak enough to garner the 60 votes it needs for passage."
McClatchy Newspapers focuses a bit more on the panelists' presentations, here. The Dallas Morning News focuses on the impact on utilities and refineries, here.
Republicans on the committee dismissed the bill as an overly complex one that will harm the economy, kill jobs and favor some parts of the country over others. Democrats generally defended it as a market-based approach to a serious environmental problem that will create jobs by spurring energy innovation.
The Washington Post ran several stories, including this article, arguing that yesterday's hearings set the stage for a major fight over the impact of cap and trade on the economy, this article, pointing out that federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear were put in the bill to "woo" wavering Senators, and this column by Dana Milbank describing Senator Inhofe as ever-more isolated in his resistance to the reality of global warming. (The AP echoes the Post's story line that we should expect a debate ahead about the impact of the bill on the economy, here.)
Huffington Post doesn't mince words in its coverage of the hearings, saying that "If Tuesday was any indication, the Senate's climate-change bill has a ways to go before it gets weak enough to garner the 60 votes it needs for passage."
McClatchy Newspapers focuses a bit more on the panelists' presentations, here. The Dallas Morning News focuses on the impact on utilities and refineries, here.
Republican Exodus from EPW Hearing
If you can't beat them, leave them
Twelve senators asked questions at this mornings hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill. By the time they got to Senator Whitehouse (D, RI), number 10, all the Republicans had left the hearing. (He noted this, saying to the panelist: "The fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. (You can read a full run down of the Q & A session in this earlier post, here.) Daniel Stone, on Newsweek's The Gaggle, was forced to conclude the following:
Twelve senators asked questions at this mornings hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill. By the time they got to Senator Whitehouse (D, RI), number 10, all the Republicans had left the hearing. (He noted this, saying to the panelist: "The fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. (You can read a full run down of the Q & A session in this earlier post, here.) Daniel Stone, on Newsweek's The Gaggle, was forced to conclude the following:
Timing can often be unpredictable in committee hearings and most members keep strict schedules, so several empty seats on their own are not terribly newsworthy. But zero Republicans present to hear four cabinet secretaries shines light on the depth of the partisan disconnect on a climate-and-energy bill.I'm no expert on parliamentary niceties, but it did seem a bit rude. The rest of Mr. Stone's analysis is here.
Senate EPW Committee Questions Chu, Salazar, LaHood, Jackson, and Wellinghoff on Climate Bill
As it happened:
Senator Boxer (D, CA) opens the Q & A session with a request to Secretary Salazar to discuss the urgency of the bill. Secretary Salazar responds with anecdotes on the effect on public lands and national parks, including the almost certain prospect that there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2020. Turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Boxer asks about whether cap and trade is new. Catching the softball, Administrator Jackson describes the salutary effects of the cap and trade method of decreasing SO2 in prior programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Boxer then asks Secretary Chu about how important the certainty of incentives is to ensuring investments in renewable energy. Secretary Chu responds that, given the long-term investments required in the energy industry in any technology, the decision makers need to know that their investments will reap rewards for five or six decades into the future.
Senator Inhofe (R, OK), the very grumpy former chairman of the committee, starts by referring to the outrage of the teabaggers. (!) That they are worried about health care, and this "energy tax." He uses his questioning time to, instead of asking questions, refute points in Senator Kerry's presentation made at the beginning of the hearings--including refuting the science behind climate change. "The science is not settled," he says. "Everyone knows its not settled."
Finally turning to Administrator Jackson, he asks unspecified questions about acid rain, the endangerment finding for polar bears, and presumably its consequences. He then asks that each of the presenters address his assertion that the United States gas, oil and coal reserves are now the largest in the world, and what they plan to do to exploit that. He asks that the questions be answered in writing, however, and Senator Boxer asks the presenters that they make those available by COB tomorrow.
Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) takes the mic, asking Secretary Chu to talk about the signal that the bill will send to the private sector for energy investment--which is clearly the overwhelming point Secretary Chu is here to make. He talks about opportunities lost--that Germany has had more success than we have with wind turbines, because they provided sustained funding for the industry. And he talks about "brilliant ideas" popping up in various pilot programs, and Senator Klobuchar finishes his thought for him, that if we don't provided sustained signals for these entrepreneurs, then we will lose their poitential.
Senator Klobuchar also presses Secretary Chu for details on nuclear incentives. Secretary Chu describes this as "the beginning of the start of a new nuclear industry." As for the timeframe for getting a new nuclear power plant up and running, Secretary Chu can only answer "that depends," averting to the role of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). "Ideally," he says, "it could be between five and ten years."
Senator Voinovich (R, OH) is up, and this should be good, because he earlier decried EPA's lack of thoroughness in its analysis. Brushing past the fact that the Senate and House bills are extremely similar, and EPA analyzed the differences, Senator Voinovich intones that, nonetheless, "[t]he fact is that you have not done a full analysis, is that correct?" Administrator Jackson admits that it is true, and that it would take four to five weeks to run full models on the Senate bill. The Senator also talks about preemption, noting that, on his read, this legislation would not preempt the use of the CAA to regulate GHGs. Administrator Jackson says that she still believes that there would be no preemption--that the CAA can still be used to mitigate the harm of some GHG emissions, but that what is really needed is economy-wide action through a bill like this.
Turning to Secretary Chu, Senator Voinovich states his concern that we will not have the technology in place to meet the cap and trade goals. Seemingly wanting to meet them through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of emissions from coal plants, he notes that it is urgent that we have CCS in place by 2020, especially if we are going to continue to compete with China (which he notes, as many did in the Senators' preliminary statements, is building one or two coal-fired power plants per week.) Senator Chu responds that energy conservation--if "we really think hard about it"--is the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon, that solar and wind power is very promising, and that we need to press hard and act aggressively, but that we can meet the goals.
Next, Senator Specter (D, PA) addresses Administrator Jackson. He notes that a big selling point for people who don't like climate legislation is the idea that the EPA would no longer be able to come in and use the CAA to regulate CO2 or other GHG emissions. Apparently believing that Administrator Jackson is not familiar with basic strategic concepts, he asks whether she would be able to make concessions in this area. Administrator Jackson responds that, despite the benefits of a cap and trade bill, the EPA will still need the authority to, e.g., address localized pollution sinks that may remain (which is a bit confounding, since we are talking about GHGs, which have a global effect.). Senator Specter says, nonetheless, that he would like to see this bill given preemptive force over the CAA in the area of GHG regulation, and that "if there are other things that you want [to see in the bill], let us know about them," because there is a lot of value in certainty. He explains that "we don't want to buy a pig in a poke." Finally, turning to FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, Senator Specter notes that his constituents are very concerned about transmission lines and pipelines, and asks that he come out and hold hearings before making siting decisions.
Senator Sanders (D, VT), averting to Vermont's strides in energy efficiency, asks Secretary Chu about the benefits of a Smart Grid--specifically the cost savings that we can achieve through peak shifting. Secretary Chu responds that *just* peak shifting would achieve $100 billion in savings a year. Senator Sanders then presents a chart to Secretary Chu showing that the most cost-effective way to go forward is through wind and solar--and that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy. Secretary Chu, seeking good marks but not wanting to just parrot Sanders, responds that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of going about this. Senator Sanders, not satisfied, makes his own point for himself--that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cheapest form of new energy, but complains that everyone on the committee seems only to be talking about nuclear and coal.
Senator Sanders asks Secretary of Transportation LaHood why we don't have the same type of rail systems seen in Europe and Asia. The Secretary responds, promptly and boisterously, that its "lack of investment." That had Truman made the investment in railroads that he did in highways, we would have those rail systems. But "instead we have a state of the art interstate highway system." Then, Senator Sanders rounds out his questioning by playing to his constituency, extracting statements from the Secretary of his intent to invest in transportation links for rural America.
Senator Udall (D, CO) takes the mic, and ask FERC Chairman Wellinghoff about renewable energy. The Chairman replies that it is important that we have a national standard, and that this bill does that. Turning to Secretary Chu, the Senator asks about the importance of natural gas in future energy plans. Secretary Chu notes that they are funding pilot programs for fueling cars with natural gas, and talks about recovering natural gas from shale as a lower carbon option than some of our current fuel sources. (An answer that should dismay environmentalists aware of the devastating effects of oil shale extraction.) Finally, Senator Udall asks about the costs of wind and solar. Secretary Chu says he is optimistic that solar and wind costs are continuing to drop. Finally, he asks Secretary LaHood about the benefits of investing in passenger rail. Secretary LaHood replies, boisterous again, that it would "[t]ake a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2 [out] of the air. .... When someone gets on a train, they're out of their automobile, and the benefits will be enormous." Underscoring his point, he reprises that "I want to be clear on this, we haven't made the investments in America in passenger rail."
Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ) seeks another assurance from Secretary Chu on the achievability of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, asking if it can't be achieved through energy efficiency alone. Secretary Chu replies that it can be achieved, but that it will involve looking in every corner, and counting carbon offsets such as reforestation. Turning to Secretary LaHood, Senator Lautenberg asks for more specifics about the effects of increased train service on CO2 emissions, and Secretary LaHood promises a more detailed answer on the exact effects in writing. Senator Lautenberg averts, in the end, to the "cost of doing nothing."
Senator Merkley (D, OR) takes his turn, again talking about the extraordinary benefits of energy efficiency, referring to a McKinsey report issued last year. He notes that it is the cheapest way of providing for new energy needs by far, and will actually reduce household bills. So he asks, "Are we underinvesting in energy efficiency in this bill? Do we need to be going further, and actually have a separate standard?" (I can hear the cheering from ACEEE from where I sit.) Secretary Chu answers, point blank, "Yes." But "there are some barriers at work here. ... What we call market failures. Many people don't know what to do, its inconvenient, there's inertia, and there are also finance barriers. Energy efficiency, you can't just say make it happen. You have to be very proactive, because of these market barriers." Senator Merkley says that he would like to work further with the Department of Energy to help break down the barriers, saying that he would really like to see us achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 through energy efficiency alone, a technology "that pays us back." Secretary Chu replies that the Department will be trying to pilot programs over the next year to see if it can bring down costs--presumably, including barriers.
Finally Senator Merkley asks if we should really be pushing electric cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Secretary LaHood cheers for the GM Volt, but none address whether electric cars would really result in net emissions reductions.
Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) takes over, and notes "the fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. Turning to a specific issue, he urges that "as you look at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, that you look aggressively at the nuclear waste" and see about converting it into fuel. "One day, we should be burning this nuclear waste as fuel." Secretary Chu says that the Department has started a detailed look at this. He notes that only 1% of the energy content of the uranium dug out of the ground is actually used.
Senator Whitehouse asks Chairman Wellinghoff about dispatch orders for when power plants are turned on and off. "It is my understanding that these dispatch rules do not take the environmental effects into account whatsoever," and says he would like to work with FERC to make sure that those environmental effects are taken into account in the dispatch rule. Finally, turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Whitehouse states that "the perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters have been ducking and dodging on their responsibilities under the CAA" by building smokestacks. "Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the radio today could easily announce that today is a bad air day ... because of what is being rained down on us by these [out-of-state] power plants. . . . As we look at the CAA ... I very strongly believe that it is time that these power plants are held to account ... So I hope that you will stand firm on the CAA."
Senator Cardin (D, MD), bringing up the rear, thanks the panelists for their public service. He seeks to "underscore two points," about energy policy and investment. Transportation represents 30% of our GHGs, and 60-70% of our oil use. He notes that he would like to get public transportation going far beyond passenger rail, and thanks the Chairwoman for doing that with the bill. He then turns to how the panelists use their existing authority--and thanks Administrator Jackson for putting the environment back on the EPA's priority list. Again playing the good cheerleader, he says "We need to get this done. .... [But] be aggressive with the tools that are already available."
A great note on which to end today's hearings.
Senator Boxer (D, CA) opens the Q & A session with a request to Secretary Salazar to discuss the urgency of the bill. Secretary Salazar responds with anecdotes on the effect on public lands and national parks, including the almost certain prospect that there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2020. Turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Boxer asks about whether cap and trade is new. Catching the softball, Administrator Jackson describes the salutary effects of the cap and trade method of decreasing SO2 in prior programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Boxer then asks Secretary Chu about how important the certainty of incentives is to ensuring investments in renewable energy. Secretary Chu responds that, given the long-term investments required in the energy industry in any technology, the decision makers need to know that their investments will reap rewards for five or six decades into the future.
Senator Inhofe (R, OK), the very grumpy former chairman of the committee, starts by referring to the outrage of the teabaggers. (!) That they are worried about health care, and this "energy tax." He uses his questioning time to, instead of asking questions, refute points in Senator Kerry's presentation made at the beginning of the hearings--including refuting the science behind climate change. "The science is not settled," he says. "Everyone knows its not settled."
Finally turning to Administrator Jackson, he asks unspecified questions about acid rain, the endangerment finding for polar bears, and presumably its consequences. He then asks that each of the presenters address his assertion that the United States gas, oil and coal reserves are now the largest in the world, and what they plan to do to exploit that. He asks that the questions be answered in writing, however, and Senator Boxer asks the presenters that they make those available by COB tomorrow.
Senator Klobuchar (D, MN) takes the mic, asking Secretary Chu to talk about the signal that the bill will send to the private sector for energy investment--which is clearly the overwhelming point Secretary Chu is here to make. He talks about opportunities lost--that Germany has had more success than we have with wind turbines, because they provided sustained funding for the industry. And he talks about "brilliant ideas" popping up in various pilot programs, and Senator Klobuchar finishes his thought for him, that if we don't provided sustained signals for these entrepreneurs, then we will lose their poitential.
Senator Klobuchar also presses Secretary Chu for details on nuclear incentives. Secretary Chu describes this as "the beginning of the start of a new nuclear industry." As for the timeframe for getting a new nuclear power plant up and running, Secretary Chu can only answer "that depends," averting to the role of the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission (NERC). "Ideally," he says, "it could be between five and ten years."
Senator Voinovich (R, OH) is up, and this should be good, because he earlier decried EPA's lack of thoroughness in its analysis. Brushing past the fact that the Senate and House bills are extremely similar, and EPA analyzed the differences, Senator Voinovich intones that, nonetheless, "[t]he fact is that you have not done a full analysis, is that correct?" Administrator Jackson admits that it is true, and that it would take four to five weeks to run full models on the Senate bill. The Senator also talks about preemption, noting that, on his read, this legislation would not preempt the use of the CAA to regulate GHGs. Administrator Jackson says that she still believes that there would be no preemption--that the CAA can still be used to mitigate the harm of some GHG emissions, but that what is really needed is economy-wide action through a bill like this.
Turning to Secretary Chu, Senator Voinovich states his concern that we will not have the technology in place to meet the cap and trade goals. Seemingly wanting to meet them through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of emissions from coal plants, he notes that it is urgent that we have CCS in place by 2020, especially if we are going to continue to compete with China (which he notes, as many did in the Senators' preliminary statements, is building one or two coal-fired power plants per week.) Senator Chu responds that energy conservation--if "we really think hard about it"--is the most cost-effective way of reducing carbon, that solar and wind power is very promising, and that we need to press hard and act aggressively, but that we can meet the goals.
Next, Senator Specter (D, PA) addresses Administrator Jackson. He notes that a big selling point for people who don't like climate legislation is the idea that the EPA would no longer be able to come in and use the CAA to regulate CO2 or other GHG emissions. Apparently believing that Administrator Jackson is not familiar with basic strategic concepts, he asks whether she would be able to make concessions in this area. Administrator Jackson responds that, despite the benefits of a cap and trade bill, the EPA will still need the authority to, e.g., address localized pollution sinks that may remain (which is a bit confounding, since we are talking about GHGs, which have a global effect.). Senator Specter says, nonetheless, that he would like to see this bill given preemptive force over the CAA in the area of GHG regulation, and that "if there are other things that you want [to see in the bill], let us know about them," because there is a lot of value in certainty. He explains that "we don't want to buy a pig in a poke." Finally, turning to FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, Senator Specter notes that his constituents are very concerned about transmission lines and pipelines, and asks that he come out and hold hearings before making siting decisions.
Senator Sanders (D, VT), averting to Vermont's strides in energy efficiency, asks Secretary Chu about the benefits of a Smart Grid--specifically the cost savings that we can achieve through peak shifting. Secretary Chu responds that *just* peak shifting would achieve $100 billion in savings a year. Senator Sanders then presents a chart to Secretary Chu showing that the most cost-effective way to go forward is through wind and solar--and that nuclear is the most expensive form of new energy. Secretary Chu, seeking good marks but not wanting to just parrot Sanders, responds that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of going about this. Senator Sanders, not satisfied, makes his own point for himself--that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cheapest form of new energy, but complains that everyone on the committee seems only to be talking about nuclear and coal.
Senator Sanders asks Secretary of Transportation LaHood why we don't have the same type of rail systems seen in Europe and Asia. The Secretary responds, promptly and boisterously, that its "lack of investment." That had Truman made the investment in railroads that he did in highways, we would have those rail systems. But "instead we have a state of the art interstate highway system." Then, Senator Sanders rounds out his questioning by playing to his constituency, extracting statements from the Secretary of his intent to invest in transportation links for rural America.
Senator Udall (D, CO) takes the mic, and ask FERC Chairman Wellinghoff about renewable energy. The Chairman replies that it is important that we have a national standard, and that this bill does that. Turning to Secretary Chu, the Senator asks about the importance of natural gas in future energy plans. Secretary Chu notes that they are funding pilot programs for fueling cars with natural gas, and talks about recovering natural gas from shale as a lower carbon option than some of our current fuel sources. (An answer that should dismay environmentalists aware of the devastating effects of oil shale extraction.) Finally, Senator Udall asks about the costs of wind and solar. Secretary Chu says he is optimistic that solar and wind costs are continuing to drop. Finally, he asks Secretary LaHood about the benefits of investing in passenger rail. Secretary LaHood replies, boisterous again, that it would "[t]ake a lot of cars off the road, take a lot of CO2 [out] of the air. .... When someone gets on a train, they're out of their automobile, and the benefits will be enormous." Underscoring his point, he reprises that "I want to be clear on this, we haven't made the investments in America in passenger rail."
Senator Lautenberg (D, NJ) seeks another assurance from Secretary Chu on the achievability of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions, asking if it can't be achieved through energy efficiency alone. Secretary Chu replies that it can be achieved, but that it will involve looking in every corner, and counting carbon offsets such as reforestation. Turning to Secretary LaHood, Senator Lautenberg asks for more specifics about the effects of increased train service on CO2 emissions, and Secretary LaHood promises a more detailed answer on the exact effects in writing. Senator Lautenberg averts, in the end, to the "cost of doing nothing."
Senator Merkley (D, OR) takes his turn, again talking about the extraordinary benefits of energy efficiency, referring to a McKinsey report issued last year. He notes that it is the cheapest way of providing for new energy needs by far, and will actually reduce household bills. So he asks, "Are we underinvesting in energy efficiency in this bill? Do we need to be going further, and actually have a separate standard?" (I can hear the cheering from ACEEE from where I sit.) Secretary Chu answers, point blank, "Yes." But "there are some barriers at work here. ... What we call market failures. Many people don't know what to do, its inconvenient, there's inertia, and there are also finance barriers. Energy efficiency, you can't just say make it happen. You have to be very proactive, because of these market barriers." Senator Merkley says that he would like to work further with the Department of Energy to help break down the barriers, saying that he would really like to see us achieve the 20% reduction by 2020 through energy efficiency alone, a technology "that pays us back." Secretary Chu replies that the Department will be trying to pilot programs over the next year to see if it can bring down costs--presumably, including barriers.
Finally Senator Merkley asks if we should really be pushing electric cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Secretary LaHood cheers for the GM Volt, but none address whether electric cars would really result in net emissions reductions.
Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) takes over, and notes "the fact that every single one of our Republican colleagues has departed ... shows how difficult" the process is going to be. Turning to a specific issue, he urges that "as you look at the nuclear component of our energy portfolio, that you look aggressively at the nuclear waste" and see about converting it into fuel. "One day, we should be burning this nuclear waste as fuel." Secretary Chu says that the Department has started a detailed look at this. He notes that only 1% of the energy content of the uranium dug out of the ground is actually used.
Senator Whitehouse asks Chairman Wellinghoff about dispatch orders for when power plants are turned on and off. "It is my understanding that these dispatch rules do not take the environmental effects into account whatsoever," and says he would like to work with FERC to make sure that those environmental effects are taken into account in the dispatch rule. Finally, turning to Administrator Jackson, Senator Whitehouse states that "the perspective that I have on this is that for many years, corporate polluters have been ducking and dodging on their responsibilities under the CAA" by building smokestacks. "Right now, in Rhode Island, on a bright summer day, the radio today could easily announce that today is a bad air day ... because of what is being rained down on us by these [out-of-state] power plants. . . . As we look at the CAA ... I very strongly believe that it is time that these power plants are held to account ... So I hope that you will stand firm on the CAA."
Senator Cardin (D, MD), bringing up the rear, thanks the panelists for their public service. He seeks to "underscore two points," about energy policy and investment. Transportation represents 30% of our GHGs, and 60-70% of our oil use. He notes that he would like to get public transportation going far beyond passenger rail, and thanks the Chairwoman for doing that with the bill. He then turns to how the panelists use their existing authority--and thanks Administrator Jackson for putting the environment back on the EPA's priority list. Again playing the good cheerleader, he says "We need to get this done. .... [But] be aggressive with the tools that are already available."
A great note on which to end today's hearings.
Hearings on Kerry-Boxer Bill Today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
