The Art of the Possible in Energy and Environment Policy
Do the results of the 2012 election pave the way for Washington to achieve bipartisan energy and environment policies?
With President Obama winning another four years in the White House, Democrats retaining control of the Senate, and Republicans keeping control of the House, things look generally the same now as they did before Election Day. Democrats gained two seats in the Senate and are expected to gain a handful in the House as well. Time will tell whether these gains translate into a more ambitious--and successful--congressional agenda.
November 16, 2012 8:43 AM
Clean Energy for American Prosperity
By Phyllis Cuttino
Director, Pew Clean Energy Program
Amid the clamor of an election campaign season, the reality of America’s improving energy situation has been largely obscured. The truth is that the United States is making strides toward a cleaner, more secure energy sector, thereby enhancing our national prosperity.
We now import only 45 percent of the oil we consume, from a 2005 high of more than 60 percent. We have become self-sufficient with respect to natural gas, even as usage expands. Clean, renewable energy production has doubled in the last four years, helping to diversify our national energy mix. And according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, energy-related carbon emissions in this country will decline three percent in 2012, after falling two percent in 2011.
In short, with production up and emissions down, our energy system is getting more diverse, efficient, balanced and clean. But more can be done to continue these promising trends.
With the election behind us, Congress and the administration have an opportunity to build on recent progress for the benefit of the American people. Amon...
Amid the clamor of an election campaign season, the reality of America’s improving energy situation has been largely obscured. The truth is that the United States is making strides toward a cleaner, more secure energy sector, thereby enhancing our national prosperity.
We now import only 45 percent of the oil we consume, from a 2005 high of more than 60 percent. We have become self-sufficient with respect to natural gas, even as usage expands. Clean, renewable energy production has doubled in the last four years, helping to diversify our national energy mix. And according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, energy-related carbon emissions in this country will decline three percent in 2012, after falling two percent in 2011.
In short, with production up and emissions down, our energy system is getting more diverse, efficient, balanced and clean. But more can be done to continue these promising trends.
With the election behind us, Congress and the administration have an opportunity to build on recent progress for the benefit of the American people. Among the many possible priorities, three stand out.
First and foremost, Congress can forge consensus and adopt a farsighted clean energy standard (CES) to guide progress in the utility sector through 2030. A comprehensive CES would signal a clear long-term objective for the power sector—clean, secure and affordable electricity. This performance-based approach would offer opportunities for a range of energy technologies and interests and therefore should be able to attract broad political support. Properly structured with distinct targets for renewable energy sources, a CES could provide the demand signal that industry, investors and innovators all agree is needed. It is the single most important step that could be taken to stimulate the clean energy industry in the United States.
Second, there is broad bipartisan agreement about the value of federal investment in basic and applied energy research. The energy industry invests in research and development (R&D) at a far lower rate than other high-technology industries—in part because it is expensive, but also because of the necessities of global competition. Federal R&D has a record of success, leading to such innovations as the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing used in oil and gas production, to renewable energy and energy-efficiency breakthroughs. But U.S. leadership in energy innovation is challenged as never before by international competition. Moreover, numerous industry and academic studies have found that the United States is significantly underinvesting in energy innovation: Most studies recommend tripling the federal energy R&D budget. This should be a bipartisan priority in upcoming budgets so that the United States maintains its edge in innovation.
Industrial energy efficiency is a third opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in the next Congress. Industry consumes 30 percent of the power used in the United States. Combined heat and power (CHP) and other industrial efficiency technologies can help U.S. industry reduce power needs, save money, become more competitive and create jobs.
In recent years, leaders from both parties have put forward proposals for increasing industrial energy efficiency. There is a broad coalition of manufacturers, end users and developers eager to support initiatives that will help industry harness energy-efficiency opportunities.
President Obama recently set a basic goal of increasing CHP by 40 gigawatts by 2020. In 2013, the executive branch and Congress should work together on measures to achieve and exceed this goal.
There are any number of energy supply-and-demand options that could be pursued in the coming months. One of the clear takeaways from this year’s elections is that Americans want the political parties and government to work together in service of a more peaceful, prosperous future. In the energy sector, progress on a clean energy standard, R&D and industrial energy efficiency would go a long way toward demonstrating the resolve of policymakers in both parties to cooperate on energy policies to improve our economic, national security and environmental future.
Read More
November 15, 2012 11:57 AM
Level the Playing Field
By Jennifer Holmgren
Chief Executive Officer of LanzaTech.
As the dust settles after the US elections, the view remains much the same as before. A divided Congress, a recovering economy and general agreement about the need to control spending.
While both parties have yet to reach an agreement on an agenda to deal with climate change, the climate itself has pushed forward on its own agenda. From the historic drought in the Midwest this summer to the punishing waves and tides of Superstorm Sandy a few weeks ago, Mother Nature is not waiting for a consensus.
We need to rethink everything about how we’ve approached the push for renewables and low-carbon solutions. I believe there are three things we – and a divided Congress – can do in 2013 that would impact our industry for the better. They all have a single theme in common – leveling the playing field.
First, apply a technology-neutral and/or outcomes-based approach to setting standards. Right now, our mandates and standards for renewable fuels are based on feedstocks, rather than outcomes. Left unchanged, these policies can inhibit innovat...
As the dust settles after the US elections, the view remains much the same as before. A divided Congress, a recovering economy and general agreement about the need to control spending.
While both parties have yet to reach an agreement on an agenda to deal with climate change, the climate itself has pushed forward on its own agenda. From the historic drought in the Midwest this summer to the punishing waves and tides of Superstorm Sandy a few weeks ago, Mother Nature is not waiting for a consensus.
We need to rethink everything about how we’ve approached the push for renewables and low-carbon solutions. I believe there are three things we – and a divided Congress – can do in 2013 that would impact our industry for the better. They all have a single theme in common – leveling the playing field.
First, apply a technology-neutral and/or outcomes-based approach to setting standards. Right now, our mandates and standards for renewable fuels are based on feedstocks, rather than outcomes. Left unchanged, these policies can inhibit innovation because potential great new solutions are ineligible to participate in various programs.
An example of this is the Renewable Fuel Standard. It was originally developed in 2006, when many of the innovations in advanced biofuel technology were not in existence or were not close to commercialization. As such, these new, low-carbon fuels which can be derived from a variety of novel feedstocks are not as well supported in the RFS as first generation biofuels and now are at a regulatory and economic disadvantage.
We should, therefore, be setting standards for overall carbon reductions and then letting the market choose the winners, based on those whose products meet or exceed the standard at the lowest price. This approach to setting standards should be well received by free-market proponents as well as staunch environmentalists as I believe it would produce the most sustainable fuels at the lowest costs, and take the government out of picking technology winners and losers.
Furthermore, with global energy demand fast outpacing supply, we should be encouraging development of as many alternatives as possible to address the key social, environmental and economic issues affecting not only the U.S., but the world.
Second, there’s a phrase we’ve all heard that I think encapsulates my next recommendation – “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” I’m talking about a financing mechanism for major energy projects called Master Limited Partnerships (MLP). This provision in the tax code allows for the creation of a business structure (MLP) that is taxed like a partnership, but can be traded on a market, allowing access to capital at a lower cost. MLPs were created specifically for oil and gas projects more than 30 years ago, and currentlyexclude renewables.
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) has proposed a very simple – and short (200 words) - bill called the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act to effectively level the playing field between traditional fossil energy projects and renewable energy projects. Congress should pass this act in 2013.
Third, we have an opportunity right now to potentially level the playing field in yet another area of the tax code. Senate Bill 3581, introduced by Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), aims to make a few administrative changes to an existing tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration. Perhaps there is the potential to expand the types of technologies that qualify for the tax incentive as well?
Up until recently, carbon-containing emissions were widely considered as pure waste. As our society has traditionally done with waste, we have been looking for ways to bury it – or sequester it. Scientists have also discovered that CO2 can be injected into spent oil wells and help retrieve oil that was once considered unrecoverable. In such a way did “CO2 re-use” enter the lexicon.
Now, there are technologies from LanzaTech and others, that have further developed the notion of carbon reuse -- we’re able to “feed” these emissions to microbes that convert them into a range of valuable fuels and chemicals. So, instead of burying carbon underground, we can “store” it in a nylon or plastic, putting carbon to good use in products that would otherwise come from petroleum.
Since technologies like these were not in existence when the current tax incentives for carbon sequestration ($20 per ton) and reuse ($10 per ton) were created, they are unable to qualify, putting such technologies at a competitive disadvantage with others that accomplish similar outcomes. I’d love to see these existing tax incentives expanded to include new technologies.
I think entrepreneurs, the energy industry and the planet will be best served if we can create policies and incentives that reward outcomes rather than specific technologies. Our economy and climate both demand an increase in the pace of innovation and if we shackle incentives to incumbents and outdated technologies we will slow the beneficial impacts of new technologies on job creation, CO2 emission reductions and global energy production.
Read More
November 15, 2012 3:24 AM
2nd Term: More Regulations, Higher Costs
By Daniel Simmons
IER’s Director of Regulatory and State Affairs
Before taking office, candidate Obama announced his intentions to drive up energy costs in order to reduce energy consumption. More than four years later, there is little evidence to suggest a willingness to change course.
The only significant difference between now and four years ago when President Obama was first elected is that the House is controlled by Republicans rather than Democrats. The good news is that means prospects for advancing the more draconian aspects of his energy agenda through Congress are slim to none. The bad news is that he will pursue his anti-fossil fuel agenda nevertheless, albeit through regulation.
The Obama administration quietly delayed a number of new, costly regulations until after the election. Now they will likely waste little time in leveling a regulatory fusillade against affordable, reliable, domestic sources of energy. Here is a small preview:
Federal control of hydraulic fracturing regulation. Currently groundwater and activities affecting groundwater are regulated by the individual states, even for activities on...
Before taking office, candidate Obama announced his intentions to drive up energy costs in order to reduce energy consumption. More than four years later, there is little evidence to suggest a willingness to change course.
The only significant difference between now and four years ago when President Obama was first elected is that the House is controlled by Republicans rather than Democrats. The good news is that means prospects for advancing the more draconian aspects of his energy agenda through Congress are slim to none. The bad news is that he will pursue his anti-fossil fuel agenda nevertheless, albeit through regulation.
The Obama administration quietly delayed a number of new, costly regulations until after the election. Now they will likely waste little time in leveling a regulatory fusillade against affordable, reliable, domestic sources of energy. Here is a small preview:
Federal control of hydraulic fracturing regulation. Currently groundwater and activities affecting groundwater are regulated by the individual states, even for activities on federal land. Bureau of Land Management will finalize regulations to regulate hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands managed by the federal government—despite state groundwater regulations The rule is estimated to result in economic costs between $1.4 and $1.6 billion each year.
Increase the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline. EPA is expected to issue rules in the next few months that lower the allowable amount of sulfur in gasoline even further than the existing Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standard. According to the best available study, just a single component of the new “Tier 3” proposal would impose upfront compliance costs of almost $10 billion on gasoline refiners, and cause a permanent increase in refining costs of 6 to 9 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Ban on new coal-fired power plants. Insiders within the Environmental Protection Agency claim that more than 50 staff are working feverishly to finalize the New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Fossil-Fuel Power Plants rule in the coming days. The rule bans new coal-fired power plants that do not capture carbon dioxide emissions. Since it is cost-prohibitive to capture those emissions, this is effectively a ban on new coal-fired power plants.
Welfare for corn growers and ethanol producers. Several states petitioned EPA to waive the renewable fuels standard due to the severe drought and smaller corn crop in much of the country. EPA postponed a decision until after the election; an indication that the waiver is unlikely to be granted. Meanwhile the EPA continues to mandate that millions of gallons of cellulosic ethanol are mixed in gasoline, despite the fact that only 20,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol have been produced this year. In previous years, when biofuel wasn’t being commercially produced, EPA still imposed millions in fines on the refining industry for failing to meet the mandate to use the non-existent biofuel.
Sweetheart legal settlements. Organizations that support the administration’s agenda can be expected to use a “sue and settle” approach to reduce availability of affordable reliable domestic energy. It works by suing friendly agencies in order to achieve out-of-court settlements that meet both groups’ goals, without the usual scrutiny of the judicial system.
Bottom line. President Obama’s win means an increased emphasis on managing energy policy through agency fiat, the consequence of which will be four more years of ever-increasing difficulties in developing our oil, coal, and natural gas resources. Americans should expect to pay more at the pump, more for electricity, and more to heat their homes.
Read More
November 14, 2012 3:58 PM
Together We Move Forward
By Dennis McGinn
President of the American Council On Renewable Energy
With the election behind us, let’s hope this is the end to an ugly era of polarization in American politics. Over the past few years, Americans have listened to political bickering across almost every spectrum of policy on the state and national level. Despite many differences between our two parties, bipartisan support for renewable energy is growing and policymakers should take note. Many different points of view are constantly being expressed on which programs and policies work best, but politicians should understand that Americans expect our government to bring more renewable energy to scale. If Congress extends the Production Tax Credit, one of the most notable renewable energy tax credits by the end of the year, this will be a valuable indication that Washington has the ability to work together to achieve bipartisan policies for the good of the nation.
As divided as Congress has been, the American people are very much united behind clean, renewable energy. New ...
With the election behind us, let’s hope this is the end to an ugly era of polarization in American politics. Over the past few years, Americans have listened to political bickering across almost every spectrum of policy on the state and national level. Despite many differences between our two parties, bipartisan support for renewable energy is growing and policymakers should take note. Many different points of view are constantly being expressed on which programs and policies work best, but politicians should understand that Americans expect our government to bring more renewable energy to scale. If Congress extends the Production Tax Credit, one of the most notable renewable energy tax credits by the end of the year, this will be a valuable indication that Washington has the ability to work together to achieve bipartisan policies for the good of the nation.
As divided as Congress has been, the American people are very much united behind clean, renewable energy. New polling data conducted last week by the American Council On Renewable Energy shows that voters in swing states such as Iowa, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado, see energy as an important presidential issue. These same voters are significantly more supportive of candidates who advocate shifting to clean energy sources than those who do not (Iowa: 80%, Colorado: 75%, Virginia: 72%, Ohio: 70%). Even more telling, majorities in all four states support continued government investment in clean energy (Iowa: 77%, Virginia 76%, Ohio: 75%, Colorado: 72%). In many red states, gubernatorial leadership has demonstrated that renewable energy is not a democratic or republican issue; it’s a pocketbook issue. And if Congress wants the best for American business – red or blue –they should know Americans –red and blue-- expect supportive policies from Congress to help their businesses grow.
Support for American industries such as solar, wind, and biofuels is vital for adopting an “all of the above” energy strategy that most Americans yearn for. Supporting the wind and solar industries with tax credits is no different than the way in which nearly all forms of energy have been subsidized in America for decades. Oil has a very long history of receiving government subsidies and will continue to be a part of our energy mix for some time, especially with the revelation that America will be a net exporter of oil by 2020. But this does not mean the U.S. should remain overly dependent on oil as a transportation fuel. Continued support of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) has received bipartisan support in recent years and should continue to do so. The RFS has allowed for a reduction of $1.09 per gallon of gas at the pump which helps families fill their tanks and reduces carbon emissions and our dependence on oil. With policies like the RFS, continued bipartisan support is just as important as creating new support for new legislation.
It is too early to know if our country will adopt a new, long-term energy policy. What is clear is that Americans want to continue moving toward cleaner sources of energy because of the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy. By extending key tax credits for renewable energy sources, America is heading in the direction of adopting an “all of the above" energy strategy even if Congress doesn't pass comprehensive energy legislation all at once. At least for now, it’s better that Congress takes smaller steps for energy and the environment than reversing many of the policies that have created economic growth and a viable path toward a prosperous, more secure and homegrown, clean energy economy.
Read More
November 14, 2012 3:07 PM
Creativity Can Unlock Innovation
By Mary Rosenthal
First Executive Director for the Algal Biomass Organization
With election season out of the way there is a good chance that broad support for actions on climate and energy will begin to crystalize. With a little creativity it is possible to see several pathways to achieve the energy goals that the vast majority of Americans share. Just today in the President's press conference, he commented on the significant changes in weather we have seen in the last year and with that, we need to insure we are behind the science and technology for our future.
In the relatively new algae industry we see that a few changes to law could go a long way in unlocking American innovation and private investments that can promote clean, renewable energy. Many of these are budget-neutral approaches that will ease the transition of algae technologies into the commercial endeavors that will produce drop-in biofuels, fertilizers, feed and food, and a host of other sustainable products, all climate friendly.
First let’s start with approaches we’ve already seen in the states. In 2012 Arizona and Ohio passed new laws that will make...
With election season out of the way there is a good chance that broad support for actions on climate and energy will begin to crystalize. With a little creativity it is possible to see several pathways to achieve the energy goals that the vast majority of Americans share. Just today in the President's press conference, he commented on the significant changes in weather we have seen in the last year and with that, we need to insure we are behind the science and technology for our future.
In the relatively new algae industry we see that a few changes to law could go a long way in unlocking American innovation and private investments that can promote clean, renewable energy. Many of these are budget-neutral approaches that will ease the transition of algae technologies into the commercial endeavors that will produce drop-in biofuels, fertilizers, feed and food, and a host of other sustainable products, all climate friendly.
First let’s start with approaches we’ve already seen in the states. In 2012 Arizona and Ohio passed new laws that will make algae production much more attractive in those states, attracting jobs, investment and new research.
The legislation in Arizona was advanced by state representatives of both parties in close coordination with local algae businesses and the research community. Two bills, HB 2226 and HB 2225, widened the tax definitions of agricultural property by including lands dedicated to algae farming, and permitted the state land department to issue agricultural leases for algae operations.
These were relatively simple proposals to open the doors for a new technology that didn’t exist when the current statutes were written. Republican Governor Jan Brewer, recognizing that the changes could make Arizona a leader in algae production, signed both bills into law.
In Ohio House Bill 276 was proposed to define the production of algae as agricultural activity in the Ohio Revised Code. Proving the bipartisan potential of easing the development of algae farming, the bill passed both state houses unanimously and was signed into law by Ohio’s Republican Governor John Kasich.
Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture could work on similar modifications to federal law. Updating agricultural definitions and policies to reflect that a new generation of algae producers is part of America’s deep agriculture tradition is something Congressional members from rural and urban districts could proudly support.
Second, developing renewable energy requires a lot of capital, and one approach to get more money into these industries that wouldn’t stress budget negotiators is a proposal by Senator Chris Coons to modify how renewable energy companies can raise private investment. The Master Limited Partnerships Act would give clean energy development some of the same tax advantages as oil and gas by allowing clean energy businesses to be taxed as a partnership, but with ownership interests traded on a market. Unfortunately current statute prohibits clean energy from taking advantage of this arrangement because the law says that qualifying energy resources must be of the “depleteable” type.
Anyone serious about developing energy of all types, and allowing the winning technologies to emerge from market competition, should be able to support this 200-word legislation. There may not be another more straightforward, simple fix to unleash private investment and innovation on our nation’s energy challenges.
Finally, there is the question of carbon dioxide. Partisan feelings on climate change might make it difficult to pass legislation that reduces carbon emissions for just the environmental benefit, but the algae industry is one of several that are increasingly looking at carbon dioxide as a valuable feedstock for our products. Could we find bipartisan agreement to ease the use of CO2? One opportunity is coming up very quickly.
Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota has introduced S. 3581, which would make a few positive modifications recommended by industry, state regulators and environmental groups to an existing tax credit for projects that sequester carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately for those of us developing new energy technologies that feed on CO2, the credit will only apply to emissions that are “disposed of … in secure geological storage,” or “used ... as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project.”
ABO member companies are looking for large sources of CO2 that can feed algae farms producing biofuels and other products. Some of these products, like plastics, would sequester CO2 indefinitely. Others, like biofuels, would offset emissions that would otherwise come from fossil fuels.
If the credit modified by S. 3581 also applied to biological sequestration, such as the kind we are seeing in the algae industry, it would open entirely new technological approaches to the problem of CO2 emissions.
All of these options would support clean energy without upsetting deficit and tax negotiations. They also have already demonstrated bipartisan support. Certainly there are many more. Now that elections are over what better way to show voters that Washington can get things done than by making a few simple, proven changes to unleash the American propensity for innovation?
Read More
November 14, 2012 12:31 PM
Keep Commitment to Increasing Exports
By Bill Cooper
President of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas
The need to maintain a strong position on trade has long been understood by policymakers, regardless of their political affiliations. The U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids levying taxes on exports, and for good reason: Why should we limit opportunities for American businesses to participate in markets around the world? Simply put, when American businesses grow, we get more American jobs.
This is also why both Republicans and Democrats have cast aside their typical partisan differences to embrace the opportunities that increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will deliver. In fact, 81 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, from both parties and representing districts from Pennsylvania to Utah, have written letters to the U.S. Department of Energy urging approval for LNG export applications.
The Members all reference jobs and economic growth as major reasons to support LNG exports, and it’s easy to see why. A single natural gas export terminal will support as many as 9,000 American jobs. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,...
The need to maintain a strong position on trade has long been understood by policymakers, regardless of their political affiliations. The U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids levying taxes on exports, and for good reason: Why should we limit opportunities for American businesses to participate in markets around the world? Simply put, when American businesses grow, we get more American jobs.
This is also why both Republicans and Democrats have cast aside their typical partisan differences to embrace the opportunities that increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will deliver. In fact, 81 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, from both parties and representing districts from Pennsylvania to Utah, have written letters to the U.S. Department of Energy urging approval for LNG export applications.
The Members all reference jobs and economic growth as major reasons to support LNG exports, and it’s easy to see why. A single natural gas export terminal will support as many as 9,000 American jobs. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, each $1 billion worth of exports creates more than 6,000 new jobs, which means LNG exports could create as many as 150,000 new American jobs.
To his credit, President Obama has committed to doubling U.S. exports by 2015 as part of his National Export Initiative, a policy he has identified as a way to increase U.S. competitiveness and create “good high-paying jobs” for American workers.
With uncertainties relating to long-term public debt at all levels of government, our policymakers should also embrace options that can increase revenue. Indeed, each LNG facility is not just a direct, multi-billion dollar investment in American manufacturing; it’s also a source of new public funds. A single facility could generate as much as $10 million annually in new tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels – a figure that does not include the increased revenue from royalties and other payments made by natural gas producers and pipeline operators up the supply chain.
In the wake of an election where voters said “jobs and the economy” was their top concern, and with a looming “fiscal cliff” occupying the attention of every lawmaker inside the Beltway, embracing LNG exports is proof that good policy is also good politics.
Read More
November 14, 2012 11:35 AM
Why we might see climate change action
By Eileen Claussen
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
In his victory speech, President Barack Obama called for an America “that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” With mostly the same players who failed to pass any significant climate legislation returning to Washington, can we expect a different result?
Possibly -- and for two reasons.
First, Hurricane Sandy could be a game-changer. After a year of record drought, wildfires and heat waves, Americans were already making the connection between extreme weather and climate change. In a Yale survey released in September, 70 percent of Americans said they believe global warming is real.
Then came Hurricane Sandy -- a massive, costly, deadly storm whose rainfall and storm surge were intensified by warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea level.
It’s too early to know whether Hurricane Sandy will catalyze a strong national response in the way that chemical contamination in Love Canal in New York spurred...
In his victory speech, President Barack Obama called for an America “that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” With mostly the same players who failed to pass any significant climate legislation returning to Washington, can we expect a different result?
Possibly -- and for two reasons.
First, Hurricane Sandy could be a game-changer. After a year of record drought, wildfires and heat waves, Americans were already making the connection between extreme weather and climate change. In a Yale survey released in September, 70 percent of Americans said they believe global warming is real.
Then came Hurricane Sandy -- a massive, costly, deadly storm whose rainfall and storm surge were intensified by warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea level.
It’s too early to know whether Hurricane Sandy will catalyze a strong national response in the way that chemical contamination in Love Canal in New York spurred the creation of the Superfund program. But with Sandy’s costs still mounting, President Obama and other political leaders have an opportunity to press the case for stronger climate action.
Second, we don’t know when Congress will consider drafting a strong climate and energy policy, but we do know lawmakers absolutely cannot avoid confronting some very serious fiscal issues. And that may, oddly enough, provide an avenue for policy to help address climate change.
The fiscal challenges ahead -- tax reform, entitlement reform, deficit reduction, avoiding deep defense and domestic cuts – could be eased by additional revenue. A carbon tax is one potential source – and if used, for instance, to offset payroll or other taxes, could be revenue-neutral. Taxing things we don't want, like carbon emissions, and reducing taxes on things we want to encourage, like productivity and employment, could be one idea where we find common ground.
Putting a price on carbon as part of a broader fiscal or tax reform package would spur the development and deployment of clean technologies and put us on the path toward the steep emission reductions needed to avoid the worst projected impacts of climate change.
Meanwhile, we expect the president will continue pursuing an all-of-the-above energy policy, including strong support for renewables. And he’ll use the tools at his disposal to step up efforts at the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases and other pollutants associated with fossil fuel use.
We also see the possibility for targeted action. For example, a bipartisan Senate bill would promote the use of captured carbon dioxide for oil recovery, a proven technology that will boost domestic oil production while reducing carbon emissions. The bill would begin implementing the recommendations of the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, a coalition of industry, state, labor and environmental leaders we convened with the Great Plains Institute.
If we tackle some of these issues one by one, look for opportunities where interests converge, and are open to compromise, we can arrive at practical solutions that help both our economy and our environment.
Read More
November 13, 2012 3:45 PM
On Energy, Bring All Voices to the Table
By Lance Brown
Executive Director of the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE)
Some claim that Benjamin Franklin once described democracy as “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.” Key questions headed into the coming years, with a second-term president and a majority of his party in the Senate, is how large will be the administration’s appetite be for making major changes to American energy? And will there be meaningful compromise between the Administration and Congress?
It is plain to see that many of the EPA’s current and proposed policies could benefit from more partisan compromise. Among these are the landmark Utility MACT rule and new rules governing greenhouse gases. But looking beyond specific rulemaking in the pipeline, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to take a broader and more active role in helping to shape American energy policy. If not, EPA will do so in their stead. By having an active and constructive dialogue among the nation’s elected representatives, as opposed to de facto policy making by an unelected agency, we have the real possibility of uniting our nation behind shared goals rath...
Some claim that Benjamin Franklin once described democracy as “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.” Key questions headed into the coming years, with a second-term president and a majority of his party in the Senate, is how large will be the administration’s appetite be for making major changes to American energy? And will there be meaningful compromise between the Administration and Congress?
It is plain to see that many of the EPA’s current and proposed policies could benefit from more partisan compromise. Among these are the landmark Utility MACT rule and new rules governing greenhouse gases. But looking beyond specific rulemaking in the pipeline, it is incumbent upon lawmakers to take a broader and more active role in helping to shape American energy policy. If not, EPA will do so in their stead. By having an active and constructive dialogue among the nation’s elected representatives, as opposed to de facto policy making by an unelected agency, we have the real possibility of uniting our nation behind shared goals rather than picking which parts of the energy sector are on this week’s menu.
A bipartisan effort must be initiated by the Administration, since they are in the driver’s seat and have the political platform to set the general tone and direction of American energy policy. The president should reach out to key members of Congress and to stakeholders to determine what opportunities exist to make American energy more robust and to maintain reliability and affordability. The administration should also listen to voices with legitimate grievances about EPA regulation that threaten to weaken our national position and saddle American families and industry with higher costs. By taking this kind of approach, the administration can avoid mistakes such as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that was struck down by the courts because it exceeded EPA’s authority.
CSAPR is a regulation requiring power plants in 27 states to reduce emissions, but it hurt certain states more than others. Texas Governor Rick Perry called the regulation a “highly flawed, job-killing rule that was based on inaccurate and incomplete information.” While the EPA consistently refuted any criticism of the rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Governor Perry’s assessment. In fact, CSAPR was such a clear sign of dramatic EPA overreach that the Court struck down the rule in August- marking the 15th time a federal court has struck down an Obama Administration regulation. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal even stated that the ruling “underscores how much more damaging the EPA could be without re-election restraint in a second Obama term.”
If we are to bridge the partisan divide on energy issues in Washington, DC, President Obama’s Administration and Congress must each do their part to compromise. We must look past politically popular ideas and focus once again on what is truly going to power our nation’s progress decades into the future. Americans of all political persuasions are hungry for energy solutions that work for us all. Let’s invite consumers and their representatives to the table instead of eating them for dinner.
Read More
November 12, 2012 1:40 PM
Innovation and Coalitions
By Alex Trembath
Policy Associate with the Breakthrough Institute's Energy & Climate Program
Co-authored by Breakthrough Institute Program Associate Max Luke and Policy Analyst Alex Trembath.
President Obama presided over tremendous progress in clean energy industries during his first term. But as the government’s major support programs and investments expire, smart policy reforms that are respective to market and technology challenges will be required if the United States hopes to sustain the innovation and deployment required to build 21st century clean energy systems.
As we highlighted in our April 2012 report, "Beyond Boom and Bust," the major clean energy policies and programs in the United States – the section 1603 cash grants for renewables, tax credits for wind and solar, the tax credits for corn and cellulosic ethanol, the Section 1705 loan guarantee program, and others – have already lapsed or are on the verge of expiration. If incumbent policies are allowed to expire and new policies aren’t enacted, annual federal...
Co-authored by Breakthrough Institute Program Associate Max Luke and Policy Analyst Alex Trembath.
President Obama presided over tremendous progress in clean energy industries during his first term. But as the government’s major support programs and investments expire, smart policy reforms that are respective to market and technology challenges will be required if the United States hopes to sustain the innovation and deployment required to build 21st century clean energy systems.
As we highlighted in our April 2012 report, "Beyond Boom and Bust," the major clean energy policies and programs in the United States – the section 1603 cash grants for renewables, tax credits for wind and solar, the tax credits for corn and cellulosic ethanol, the Section 1705 loan guarantee program, and others – have already lapsed or are on the verge of expiration. If incumbent policies are allowed to expire and new policies aren’t enacted, annual federal support for clean tech will plummet from $30.7 billion in 2011 to $11 billion in 2014. But the fate of existing federal support for clean tech is not written in stone. The federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind, for instance, is an example of a subsidy that has shared bipartisan support but that is in need of reform. If the PTC is extended in the lame duck session of Congress, it may be amenable to significant reform in the coming year.
The fiscal cliff looms large on the near-term policy agenda in Congress and opens the possibility for comprehensive tax reform. A “grand bargain” deal may be worked out to reduce the structural deficit through a combination of revenue increases and entitlement reforms, and to the extent that negotiators consider existing federal tax expenditures opens an opportunity to smart subsidy reform. One possible revenue-raiser that has received considerable attention on both sides of the isle is an economy-wide carbon tax. If policymakers do fold a carbon tax into comprehensive tax reform, however, it will be vitally important that a significant portion of the revenues are directed toward clean tech innovation and smart deployment, rather than just toward deficit reduction. As Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution and the Breakthrough Institute have pointed out, while a carbon tax could be an excellent revenue raiser, its price signal alone is not sufficient to drive the type of clean tech innovation and deployment necessary for the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Importantly, the election results signal the potential for cross-sector energy coalitions to accelerate the diversification of our energy supply and ultimately accelerate the path to a low-carbon economy. More so than before the election, Congress is primed to adopt legislation that recognizes the importance of a diverse energy supply, but climate advocates and industry groups must be prepared to work together. President Obama took office for a second term with an all-of-the-above energy strategy in mind. In line with the President’s preferences, there are strong incentives for conventional and clean energy industries to find ways to help each other.
The United States has seen major success stories coming out of clean energy industries in the past four years. This summer, for instance, General Motors picked up an advanced lithium-ion battery design that has could revolutionize the EV industry. The battery’s designer, California-based Envia Systems, was one of many advanced energy companies funded by Department of Energy’s ARPA-E. ARPA-E, funded under the first Obama administration, enjoys bipartisan support and will continue to play an important role in the commercialization of advanced clean energy systems. The US military, recognizing the strategic imperative of oil-free fleets, has in the last few years become the single largest buyer of advanced biofuels in the country. Both the Air Force and Navy have announced ambitions to acquire half of their fleet energy needs from biofuels by 2020. In the last four years wind power capacity has doubled and solar PV capacity has quadrupled and both industries have experienced significant cost declines.
There is still a long way to go, however, and new policy support must be smart. EV batteries are still unable to provide long distance travel; more innovation in advanced battery designs is required. Advanced biofuels still require major reductions in cost and viable options for scalable feedstocks and production refineries. As wind and solar approach cost parity with fossil fuel electricity, subsidies should be gradually phased out and new institutions and investment structures erected to reduce the soft costs in these industries. More support for offshore wind, advanced solar technologies, and next-generation nuclear designs should be prioritized. These are all policy initiatives that — under the aegis of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, a re-elected President, and a Congress that supports a diverse energy portfolio — are possible to achieve within the next four years.
Read More
November 12, 2012 12:03 PM
Obama's Actions Speak Louder than Words
By Amy Harder
energy and environment reporter, National Journal
(These comments were submitted by James Valvo, director of policy at Americans for Prosperity.)
The potential abatement of the partisan atmosphere around energy and environment policy will largely be shaped by the President’s actions. He continuously claims to want bipartisanship but his actions speak louder than his words.
The past two years have been dominated by agency action, as the President refused to heed the message of the 2010 midterm elections and, in his words, worked around Congress. If the President continues his regulatory assault on traditional, affordable, dependable forms of energy, we should expect to see partisanship deepen; thankfully, congressional Republicans have refused to embrace these economically damaging policies. If the President’s EPA tightens their grip on coal-fired power plants (EGUs) through the finalization and likely expansion of the Section 111 New Source Performance Standards, opposition to his agenda will continue apace. It bears mentioning that the opposition to this agenda is not primarily partisan,...
(These comments were submitted by James Valvo, director of policy at Americans for Prosperity.)
The potential abatement of the partisan atmosphere around energy and environment policy will largely be shaped by the President’s actions. He continuously claims to want bipartisanship but his actions speak louder than his words.
The past two years have been dominated by agency action, as the President refused to heed the message of the 2010 midterm elections and, in his words, worked around Congress. If the President continues his regulatory assault on traditional, affordable, dependable forms of energy, we should expect to see partisanship deepen; thankfully, congressional Republicans have refused to embrace these economically damaging policies. If the President’s EPA tightens their grip on coal-fired power plants (EGUs) through the finalization and likely expansion of the Section 111 New Source Performance Standards, opposition to his agenda will continue apace. It bears mentioning that the opposition to this agenda is not primarily partisan, it’s economic.
One area where there is room for hope is the natural gas sector, which was resilient over the President’s first term thanks in no small part to the generally hands-off approach from Washington. National EPA is still studying whether and how aggressively they will inject themselves into this prosperous sector of the U.S. economy.
If the President recognizes that his energy agenda is hampering the economic recovery and trims his sails, there is significant room for improvement in partisan relations. If -- as is more likely -- the President continues to use agency action to force his agenda despite a lack of consensus in Congress, we are in for more overreaching agency rulemaking, Congressional Review Act resolutions of disapproval, judicial parsing of statutory constructs, and rising energy prices.
As Speaker Boehner said, this is your moment, Mr. President.
Read More
November 12, 2012 9:49 AM
Time to Get Back on Track With Climate
By Bill Snape
Senior Counsel, Center For Biological Diversity
Like her namesake, Cassandra, a mythological Greek prophetess, Superstorm Sandy gave us a warning that disaster will strike those who ignore signs of danger. Unfortunately those signs are now all too visible: Greenhouse gases continue to build, human populations are more and more vulnerable to the ravages of pollution and environmental destruction, and priceless wild animals and plants continue their plummeting trend toward extinction.
The good news is that the United States had the bipartisan forethought several decades ago to pass some of the world’s best environmental laws. While we’ve made some progress implementing those laws, the reality is that massive political pressure from polluting industries has limited their potential for success, while economic woes distract the public.
It’s time to get back on track. Now that President Barack Obama has secured a second term, here are five proposals to fix the physical damage to our planet and put us on a sustainable economic path.
First and foremost, we must finally tackle our global carbon di...
Like her namesake, Cassandra, a mythological Greek prophetess, Superstorm Sandy gave us a warning that disaster will strike those who ignore signs of danger. Unfortunately those signs are now all too visible: Greenhouse gases continue to build, human populations are more and more vulnerable to the ravages of pollution and environmental destruction, and priceless wild animals and plants continue their plummeting trend toward extinction.
The good news is that the United States had the bipartisan forethought several decades ago to pass some of the world’s best environmental laws. While we’ve made some progress implementing those laws, the reality is that massive political pressure from polluting industries has limited their potential for success, while economic woes distract the public.
It’s time to get back on track. Now that President Barack Obama has secured a second term, here are five proposals to fix the physical damage to our planet and put us on a sustainable economic path.
First and foremost, we must finally tackle our global carbon dioxide problems: climate change and ocean acidification. There’s no environmental crisis bigger than the one that’s dangerously transforming our atmosphere and oceans. We face irreversible climactic damage if we don’t act now with bold and sweeping moves to rein in methane, soot and industrial CO2 under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Although it’s true that some fossil-fuel sectors, such as dirty coal, need to be phased out, the advantages of escaping this oppressive dirty-energy regime far outweigh the costs. In fact, repeated studies have shown that our pollution statutes give us benefits 10 to 30 times greater than their alleged regulatory costs.
Second, we must stem the extinction crisis, which is killing off species with great value to us, both intrinsic and instrumental. As life forms around the globe disappear at a breakneck pace, our federal government should respond boldly. The Department of the Interior and National Marine Fisheries Service must tackle scientific petitions and requests that protect species’ critical habitat, promote their recovery and prevent harmful actions like wanton pesticide spraying, lead bullets in hunters’ ammunition and ill-advised natural resource extraction. The United States should also ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, joining the 193 countries that have already done so.
Third, we must keep petty politics out of the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The Endangered Species Act, signed by President Richard Nixon, will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year; ideologue politicians are attempting to irrationally inject unscientific factors into the listing process and grant special favors to every developer who asks. The National Environmental Policy Act, like the endangered species consultation process, merely asks that federal agencies “look before they leap” on actions such as major highway construction, national forest clear cuts, and the Keystone XL tarsands pipeline that would devastate property owners, aquifers and an array of wildlife. There’s a good reason tens of thousands of Americans circled the White House against this boondoggle.
Fourth, in the tradition of President Theodore Roosevelt, we must do a better job protecting our public lands, which are our last great hope for the survival of iconic American animals and a world-class wilderness heritage. Over the past months, the current House majority passed some of the most retrograde anti-public lands bills in history; hopefully none will pass in the lame-duck session. Perhaps the most poignant symbol of the “Big Wild” is the unparalleled Arctic, home to the polar bear and countless other majestic species such as the walrus and narwhal. Sadly, Big Oil lusts after the relatively modest deposits underneath the sea ice, whose extraction risks destroying this pristine area and accelerating climate change chaos.
Returning to point No. 1: Fossil fuels are a huge part of what’s gotten us into this current mess. The time to end our addiction is now. It makes no sense to continue investing in antiquated systems that will saddle us with massive problems and heartache for decades and perhaps centuries to come. The billions in federal subsidies given to these polluting industries must immediately be shifted to support continued advances in wind, solar and geothermal production, storage and transmission. Natural gas is not a safe or renewable fuel source, and clean coal is an oxymoron.
The choice is ours. We can pander to the few who profit by pillaging our national treasures, or we can give ourselves and future generations a real, fighting chance at living in a safe, sane world whose irreplaceable treasures remain intact.
Read More
November 12, 2012 8:53 AM
Common Ground + Trust = Progress
By William O'Keefe
CEO, George C. Marshall Institute
While the election maintained the status quo, more of the same is not a winning strategy for either party. The country faces serious economic problems and if excessive partisanship is not replaced with a healthy level of bi-partisan cooperation our economic and energy problems will only get worse. The stock market gave its reaction this week and the latest Congressional Budget Office report on the fiscal cliff was sobering.
Although the President won decisively in the electoral college, the actual vote count showed a clearly divided nation, a nation that is undecided about what direction to take to improve our economic well being and economic future. However, poll after poll has shown that the public overwhelmingly believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
If the President and Members of Congress are ...
While the election maintained the status quo, more of the same is not a winning strategy for either party. The country faces serious economic problems and if excessive partisanship is not replaced with a healthy level of bi-partisan cooperation our economic and energy problems will only get worse. The stock market gave its reaction this week and the latest Congressional Budget Office report on the fiscal cliff was sobering.
Although the President won decisively in the electoral college, the actual vote count showed a clearly divided nation, a nation that is undecided about what direction to take to improve our economic well being and economic future. However, poll after poll has shown that the public overwhelmingly believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
If the President and Members of Congress are serious about solving problems, be they economic, energy, foreign policy, or entitlements, they need to acknowledge that the foundation for progress begins with a genuine effort to establish some common ground. That should not be as difficult as it might appear if both Republicans and Democrats begin by focusing on those areas they can agree on.
All should agree that abundant and affordable energy is essential for restoring and maintaining a healthy economic growth. All should be able to agree that over the next three decades, we will consume more energy than we do today. All should be able to agree that the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) most recent report asserts that we need an energy mix that will prevail over that period of time.
The EIA Outlook makes clear that fossil energy will continue to be our dominant source of energy. We can produce more oil on federal lands even if the two sides cannot agree on Alaska’s coastal plain or offshore locations in federal waters. Lawmakers should focus on policies that promote oil development where there is agreement and production will continue to increase. Now that the election is over, the political obstacles to the Keystone XL pipeline should be set aside so that it is approved and US consumers can get the benefits of Canadian oil. There should be agreement that our pipeline infrastructure needs to be expanded and that necessary approvals should move ahead expeditiously.
Natural gas has been our energy success story. Both parties should be able to agree that it is important to avoid imposing impediments to its continued development and use. The fracking issue is being resolved at the state level and with better information on drilling fluids there should be less need for premature federal regulation. EPA should avoid a rush to judgment.
The abundance of natural gas and its low cost provide a great incentive for utilities to switch from coal. But, that takes time. Actions, like the Utility MACT, which force the premature shuttering of coal fired plants will only hurt economic growth and raise the cost of electrical power. Electric power demand will grow with the economy and EPA should impose burdens that create scarcity and higher prices. If the government avoids politically driven policies on natural gas, its use will spread and as it does, carbon dioxide emissions will decline.
It is doubtful that there is much common ground when it comes to renewables. Rather than waste a lot of time in fruitless debate, which will only hinder bi-partisanship, it would be better to focus on a long term R&D program to create the knowledge needed for new technologies and innovation.
If the White House and Congress focus on the areas of broad agreement, there can be faster action on energy with increasing trust being a by-product. As trust increases, it will be easier to tackle the more difficult and contentious issues.
Two major contentious issues are EPA over-reach and climate change. The President could go a long way in building trust by reigning in EPA’s regulatory tsunami. The regulatory excess of the past four years has done more harm than good and only the President can change that.
It is doubtful that much in the way of common ground can be found on climate change. In spite of this, it is a fact that C02 emissions have been declining and according to EIA will not exceed 1990 or 1995 levels until after 2035. That being the case, Congress and the White House could focus on technology development and deployment in developing countries instead of fighting over energy suppressing schemes.
The stakes are simply too high not to work smarter and work to expand areas that represent common ground.
Read More
November 12, 2012 7:34 AM
We Need to Drop Political Games
By Mindy Lubber
President, Ceres
The long campaign is over. The ballots have been counted, the super PAC money spent, and the country is ready to move on. “Forward,” as the Obama campaign put it.
Last week’s vote sent a strong signal that Americans want action on our environmental and economic challenges – not massive rollbacks in environmental regulations and fossil fuel-only energy solutions. But as the nation comes to term with fiscal challenges, sluggish job growth and residue of political bickering, how much environmental progress can we realistically expect?
I see big possibilities, but only if we drop the narrow-minded political games and pay closer heed to the American voters—and businesses—that are thirsting for stronger policies on clean energy and climate change.
Voters understand that common-sense government policies, environmental protections and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. They proved that on Election Day in states like Ohio, where a government bailout reinvigorated the auto industry and new robust fuel economy standards are s...
The long campaign is over. The ballots have been counted, the super PAC money spent, and the country is ready to move on. “Forward,” as the Obama campaign put it.
Last week’s vote sent a strong signal that Americans want action on our environmental and economic challenges – not massive rollbacks in environmental regulations and fossil fuel-only energy solutions. But as the nation comes to term with fiscal challenges, sluggish job growth and residue of political bickering, how much environmental progress can we realistically expect?
I see big possibilities, but only if we drop the narrow-minded political games and pay closer heed to the American voters—and businesses—that are thirsting for stronger policies on clean energy and climate change.
Voters understand that common-sense government policies, environmental protections and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. They proved that on Election Day in states like Ohio, where a government bailout reinvigorated the auto industry and new robust fuel economy standards are spawning new technologies, new companies and thousands of new jobs. The 54.5 miles per gallon standards will save drivers nearly $2 trillion on gasoline and reduce auto emissions that contribute to climate change.
After a campaign season marked by silence on the climate, Hurricane Sandy was a wakeup call. The storm reminded us of our nation’s vulnerability to extreme weather and the urgency for action. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and key members of the insurance industry like the CEO of Munich Re – none of them exactly, left leaning tree-huggers – are among those sounding the alarm to make our cities more resilient and to curb global warming pollution.
When you consider the fact that – despite the great toll on citizens and their property – the largest share of insured losses may come from “business interruption,” there is a clear, economic case for mitigating climate risks. And, the Administration may gain the support it needs from the business community to take action on the climate.
Even before Hurricane Sandy, large U.S. companies were pushing for stronger climate-related policies, particularly with regard to renewable energy. In September, a group of nearly 20 companies, including Sprint, Pitney Bowes and Yahoo!, wrote to Congressional leaders urging them to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC), a key federal provision supporting wind power set to expire at the end of the year. Last month, investors with $800 billion in assets joined them in a similar call.
These companies take clean energy seriously because they want to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, which are warming the planet and are prone to volatile price swings. Another benefit: renewable energy creates jobs. Navigant Consulting estimates that extending this tax credit for four additional years will create nearly 100,000 new wind-supported jobs and $16.3 billion in new investment by 2016. It’s common-sense policy that should be extended.
The Obama administration must call attention to these pressing energy and environmental concerns – and I have confidence it will. But when the President reaches inevitable roadblocks, he should look to the business community for support. On energy and the climate, smart companies are truly the ones moving “forward.”
Read More
November 12, 2012 7:30 AM
Bold Action on Climate Needed
By Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif.
US Representative, Silicon Valley
While gerrymandering saved the GOP the House majority, the results of the Presidential and Senate elections send a clear message that Americans support candidates who believe climate change is real and want leaders who will act to address the threat it poses to our country and the world. I hope that Republicans will be honest with themselves in their analysis of this election and recognize this.
To address climate change as the American public wants us to, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our economy, which requires a shift to renewable energy sources and more efficient use of energy. This isn’t something that drilling in more places for oil and gas or using more coal is going to solve.
There are some things that I believe we will be able to get agreement on in the short term in Congress, such as extending expired or expiring tax incentives for renewable energy and for research and development that will help to bring about improvements in the performance of renewables. We might see some action on legislation related to energy effici...
While gerrymandering saved the GOP the House majority, the results of the Presidential and Senate elections send a clear message that Americans support candidates who believe climate change is real and want leaders who will act to address the threat it poses to our country and the world. I hope that Republicans will be honest with themselves in their analysis of this election and recognize this.
To address climate change as the American public wants us to, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our economy, which requires a shift to renewable energy sources and more efficient use of energy. This isn’t something that drilling in more places for oil and gas or using more coal is going to solve.
There are some things that I believe we will be able to get agreement on in the short term in Congress, such as extending expired or expiring tax incentives for renewable energy and for research and development that will help to bring about improvements in the performance of renewables. We might see some action on legislation related to energy efficiency of certain appliances, although there is far more we can do in this area, including broadening our outlook to consider consumer electronic devices as I have envisioned in my own Smart Electronics Act, H.R. 2748.
Other ideas that deserve serious consideration in Congress include a renewable portfolio standard or clean energy standard to boost the fraction of renewable energy sources in our generating mix and a carbon tax or cap and trade system that will put a real price on the cost of using fossil fuels. With the eyes of the nation and indeed the world focused on how we plan to address the impending fiscal cliff, putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions can help address our nation’s fiscal problems and reduce our impact on the climate.
I am hopeful that in his second term, President Obama will be able to engage more productively in international negotiations to address climate issues. For example, there is a positive role that the US can play in ongoing International Civil Aviation Organization to resolve a dispute about the rules set up under the European Union’s Emissions Trading System to reduce emissions from international aviation. Instead of trying to block the implementation of these rules, as some in the Congress would like, the United States can play an instrumental role in helping achieve an international accord that recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and does not set a disturbing precedent by undermining the international rule of law.
This is an important moment in the history of our country. Recent extreme weather events such as Superstorm Sandy have demonstrated what is in store for America and the rest of our planet if we do not address climate change. A recent survey by George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication found that, despite the fossil fuel industry’s efforts, more than half of Americans now believe global warming is a result of human activities and are worried about the problem.
The public demands a response, and the public has sent a message through the election. Americans want the President and Congress, as policymakers, to take action and address climate change. It is up to us to open our eyes and ears, to see and hear this message, and to get to work on the job at hand.
Read More
November 12, 2012 7:28 AM
Natural Gas, Pipelines, Critical to Economic Growth
By Don Santa
President, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Energy, and particularly domestic natural gas, emerged as a major theme in this year’s presidential contest. Both nominees – President Obama and Governor Romney – spoke often about the economic gains and jobs created by domestic oil and natural gas production.
Many in Congress also now recognize the importance of U.S. oil and gas in America’s energy future. Four years ago, natural gas was viewed as little more than a “bridge fuel,” as a temporary stop-gap to a next generation of energy resources and technologies. Today, policymakers recognize that natural gas is a foundation fuel – a fuel that will help drive our nation’s energy future for many decades to come and that will complement emerging renewable energy sources.
We hope that the administration and the new Congress keep these new realities in mind as they work on the policies, laws and regulations that affect energy in the coming years. Just like the doctor’s ethical oath, we urge Congress and the administration to: “First, do no harm.” The ...
Energy, and particularly domestic natural gas, emerged as a major theme in this year’s presidential contest. Both nominees – President Obama and Governor Romney – spoke often about the economic gains and jobs created by domestic oil and natural gas production.
Many in Congress also now recognize the importance of U.S. oil and gas in America’s energy future. Four years ago, natural gas was viewed as little more than a “bridge fuel,” as a temporary stop-gap to a next generation of energy resources and technologies. Today, policymakers recognize that natural gas is a foundation fuel – a fuel that will help drive our nation’s energy future for many decades to come and that will complement emerging renewable energy sources.
We hope that the administration and the new Congress keep these new realities in mind as they work on the policies, laws and regulations that affect energy in the coming years. Just like the doctor’s ethical oath, we urge Congress and the administration to: “First, do no harm.” The U.S. is now the world’s largest producer of natural gas, and that abundant supply is driving an economic renaissance in our country.
Americans remain concerned about jobs, and natural gas and pipeline development supply them in spades. IHS Global Insight estimated that as of 2008, total natural gas production supported more than 2.8 million jobs in the United States. By increasing development of the nation's unconventional sources of natural gas alone—like shale gas and tight gas—the U.S. will add another 1.4 million jobs by 2035, according to the IHS study. Investment needed to build pipelines to transport domestic natural gas and oil production to market alone will support over 125,000 jobs each year from 2012 through 2035, according to a study done earlier this year by Black & Veatch on behalf of the INGAA Foundation.
The good news story about natural gas is not limited to jobs. A Bank of America/Merrill Lynch study estimated that the combined effect of lower U.S. energy costs, primarily attributable to natural gas, and increased exports of refined petroleum products and coal work out to a 2.2 percent increase in gross domestic product. When you consider how slowly the U.S. economy is growing, the case can be made that we would be on the brink of falling back into recession without the shot in the arm provided by abundant and affordable natural gas.
Moreover, lower cost natural gas is driving resurgence in American manufacturing and is bringing jobs that had been shipped overseas in past decades back to our shores. A recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the National Association of Manufacturers forecasts an additional one million U.S. jobs in manufacturing by 2025, thanks to our nation's vast, affordable supplies of natural gas.
More U.S. manufacturing, more jobs, lower prices for natural-gas intensive products like plastics and fertilizer, combined with lower energy bills, all benefit American consumers that have been struggling to make ends meet during this long economic slowdown.
On top of that, the dramatic switch to natural gas (largely from coal) in U.S. power generation is being hailed as the reason behind carbon dioxide emissions in the United States dropping to their lowest level in 20 years.
As a nation, we cannot afford policies that retard this important economic and environmental driver. Because pipelines are what make the oil and gas revolution possible – serving as the indispensable link between the supply and the market – it is important that new polices also do not hinder pipeline development.
Read More
November 12, 2012 7:25 AM
Bipartisan Action on Tax Credits, Cyber
By Scott Sklar
President, The Stella Group, Ltd & Adjunct Professor GWU
In the first term, Obama increased CAFE standards which will have a huge effect on cutting transportation emissions and oil imports and the Stimulus funded high speed rail and electric/plug-in vehicles which was another huge investment along the same lines. Obama's EPA rule on mercury combined with lower cost natural gas has closed coal plants that could never comply with the Clean Air Act and brought coal-generated electricity from 50% to 40% of the total US electricity generation. These three actions have done more for reducing GHG emissions than the Markey GHG Bill would have done with all it's exclusions. For the second term, The Administration can actually implement their initiatives opening federal lands for large-scale renewable energy deployment. And DOD is poised to dedicate over $5 billion for renewable and on-site distributed energy along with high value energy efficiency on military bases and other federal facilities which will save taxpayers money as well as insure these facilities have continuity of operations when mother nature or terrorism impair the electric grid...
In the first term, Obama increased CAFE standards which will have a huge effect on cutting transportation emissions and oil imports and the Stimulus funded high speed rail and electric/plug-in vehicles which was another huge investment along the same lines. Obama's EPA rule on mercury combined with lower cost natural gas has closed coal plants that could never comply with the Clean Air Act and brought coal-generated electricity from 50% to 40% of the total US electricity generation. These three actions have done more for reducing GHG emissions than the Markey GHG Bill would have done with all it's exclusions. For the second term, The Administration can actually implement their initiatives opening federal lands for large-scale renewable energy deployment. And DOD is poised to dedicate over $5 billion for renewable and on-site distributed energy along with high value energy efficiency on military bases and other federal facilities which will save taxpayers money as well as insure these facilities have continuity of operations when mother nature or terrorism impair the electric grid. This term will provide some opportunities for bipartisan energy actions in cybersecurity protection of the electric grid, extending expiring tax credits for the wind industry, and paring back some of the subsidies to conventional energy industries, albeit just a small sliver. Senator Wyden (D-OR) will likely assume the Chairmanship of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee after the departure of Senator Bingaman, and he is known as a skilled and moderate legislator who works well in a bipartisan manner, and who has a solid record on the green energy agenda. The Administration will pragmatically open up off-shore oil and gas (along with wind and marine energy generation) to soothe the “drill baby drill” crowd. But I expect they will also require more due diligence and protections for drilling and mining in the more pristine areas on federal lands and waterways so we do not have replays of the Gulf oil spill. So this second term will steadfastly continue what was started, but I also believe there is more both political parties agree to on energy policy than disagree, and that results in a recipe for some short term bipartisan action in the months ahead.
Read More