The first quote is the Washington Post headline today. Can’t argue with the overall message — although I would like to know what those “house emissions” are. Roll Call‘s spin is more political, and thus more positive, “Waxman, Markey Announce Breakthrough on Climate Change Bill.” Or you can take Congress Daily AM’s spin, “Energy And Commerce Dems Reach Partial Deal On Climate And Energy.” Or Bloomberg’s, which cuts to the chase, “Democratic Climate Plan Would Trim CO2 Emissions 17%” by 2020.
The original Waxman-Markey has indeed been weakened. I’ll post the details as they become available, although most of the basics have already been reported. Certainly the bill is no longer a B+. I won’t be able to give it a final grade until we see all the details — I just learned something that wasn’t in any of the news stories, that the 5 to 4 “exchange” rate for offsets is gone. Dumb!
UPDATE: I’m informed that my original source was wrong and the 5 to 4 ratio is still in the bill! ["For every tonne of an entity's compliance obligation that is covered by an offset, an entity must turn in 1.25 offsets"].
That said, I see nothing to change Al Gore’s overall judgment: “One of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress “¦ has the moral significance” of 1960s civil rights legislation and Marshall Plan
The “good” news is that one of the most elements of the bill — the 2020 target — has been weakened less than earlier reports had suggested:
That first draft called for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Under the new agreement, the goal would be a 17 percent reduction.
The “bad” news is that renewable standard has been weakened and the energy efficiency resource standard appears to have been rolled in with it.
Also, the bill originally called for all states to get 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Under the new version, the standard would be lowered to 15 percent by 2020, plus a requirement to reduce energy use by 5 percent by then through improved energy efficiency.
Bloomberg adds the following detail:
Governors of states unable to reach the renewable goal could lower it to 12 percent if their utilities demonstrate an 8 percent reduction in energy use.
Whether that is okay depends on how the final bill language is written. Frankly, as I’ll blog later today, we need efficiency standards now more than we need renewable standards.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., though, said he is fine with the compromise. “I can support it as it’s written,” he said. The definition of the sources that be used to meet the mandate was expanded from one approved by the House two years ago to include more biomass.
Well, that was inevitable — maybe they read Climate Progress (see Southern Company embraces the only practical and affordable way to ‘capture’ emissions at a coal plant today “” run it on biomass and Another coal plant to be replaced by a ‘plant’ plant!). I’m gonna assume/hope that they go beyond requiring closed-loop 100% biomass and include cofiring (see “If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it? Part 2: An intro to biomass cofiring“).
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) said he believes there are enough votes in the committee for the renewables plan “if everything else works out,” Greenwire (subs. req’d) reported last night.
The “ugly” news — at least for many environmentalists and progressives — are the allocations to polluters:
Utilities would get 35 percent of the program’s allocations free. That should cover “90 percent of their needs,” said Representative G.K. Butterfield, a North Carolina Democrat. “They will still have to purchase a portion” of the permits they would need to comply with the law, he said.
And E&E News (subs. req’d) reports this morning:
Trade-intensive industries, including pulp, paper, cement and steel, also would get free credits — 15 percent starting in 2014 but phasing out by 2 percent per year.
The deal is not completely done:
Members have not yet settled on a free allowances figure for petroleum refiners, though offers are between 1 percent and 5 percent. The six committee Democrats with petroleum refineries in their districts — Reps. Gene Greene and Charles Gonzalez of Texas, Mike Ross of Arkansas, Charles Melancon of Louisiana, Jim Matheson of Utah and Del. Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands — plan to meet with Waxman today on the issue.
Interestingly,
In 2025, the bill would give the president authority to impose tariffs on carbon-intensive goods from developing countries.
Should the bill be better than this? Yes. Will it be weakened further in the Senate? I don’t know. Will team Obama step up their messaging — I assume so.
Anyway, the bottom line is about a B or B-, now, I think. But that grade is not on a curve.
Given what we are up against — rock-solid opposition and demagoguing by the entire Republican Party, well-funded opposition by polluters, and a status-quo media — it would be a stunning achievement for this country if this bill is passed out of committee, as Waxman believes it will be, and then passed out of the full House, as House leaders believe it will be.
To those who won’t support this, I guess I’d ask, what exactly is your politically attainable alternative?
And yes, I do expect that as the painful reality of climate change becomes more obvious, the future targets (and offset restrictions) will be tightened.
Related Posts:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Will there be any provision providing allowance value to states/LDC’s for delivery of EE programs?
[JR: Great question! I'm told that is a tricky issue because of how CBO scores it. Basically, if Congress cordones off any of the money than I believe the CBO treats that as spending. It may be left to Ways and Means to deal with this.]
The ultimate test of the bill is not what’s polticallly possible; rarher it is whether or not it will cut carbon enough to make a difference.
And without auctions and limits on offsets, I doubt the bill can deliver 17%.
Goals are important; means are more so.
C- at best.
What do auctions have to do with the target?
Seriously people — you are confusing two completely different things. The sulfur trading system set up under the clean air act auctioned 3% (!) of its allowances, gave away 97% free, and achieved deeper reductions faster and cheaper then everyone predicted!
What I worry about is that by reducing uncertainty, this bill could lead to more investment in coal fired power plants.
I like the cancellation numbers we have been seeing for planned coal plants, due to future uncertainty about regulation.
I hope that WM doesn’t stabilize the market to the extent that construction of new coal plants becomes an economically viable choice.
How could a price for carbon that is inevitably going to be ratcheted up, plus mandates for renewables and energy efficiency, which would easily swallow up what demand growth there will be, possibly lead to more investment in coal-fired power plants.
We already have Investment in coal plants. This bill is all but fatal to dirty coal.
Hi Joe-
I hope so. It will be instructive to look at the numbers, and see if the wave of coal plant cancellations continues.
How could WM lead to increased coal plant construction?
By reducing uncertainty, in the minds of investors.
In the congressional testimony for WM, over and over again the executives mentioned reduction of uncertainty as a desirable goal.
We’ll have to see how it plays out. Remember that the perversity of unintended consequences tends to a maximum.
Especially when the unintended consequences are actually intended and potentially profitable.
[JR: You could not have this more backwards! One of the main reasons that there has been a wave of cancellation of coal plants is the expectation among the money people (and utility planners) that there will be a climate bill and a carbon price soon, rendering coal plants less economical. If a bill fails, it will the Katie bar the door for the polluters, as the expectation will be that politicians won't try this again anytime soon.]
The fact is, if we want an A+ climate bill, we’re going to need to see a much bigger groundswell of public support and even mass direct action against coal. Waxman is doing the best he can with a very unenlightened populace (and Republican party) right now.
Now if this B or B- bill DOESN’T pass the House, watch out, organizations like Greenpeace are going to step it up a notch.
Is this stuff still in there? Seems like something pretty big to give up, hard to get back.
5 ‘‘PART C—EXEMPTIONS FROM OTHER PROGRAMS
6 ‘‘SEC. 831. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.
7 ‘‘No greenhouse gas may be listed under section
8 108(a) on the basis of its effect on climate change.
9 ‘‘SEC. 832. HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.
10 ‘‘No greenhouse gas may be added to the list of haz
11ardous air pollutants under section 112 unless such green
12house gas meets the listing criteria of section 112(b) inde
13pendent of its effects on climate change.
14 ‘‘SEC. 833. NEW SOURCE REVIEW.
15 ‘‘The provisions of part C of title I shall not apply
16 to a greenhouse gas solely on the basis of its effect on
17 climate change or regulation under title VII or this title.
18 ‘‘SEC. 834. TITLE V PERMITS.
19 ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of title III or V, in
20 determining whether a stationary source is required to
21 apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit under title V,
22 the Administrator shall not consider the source’s green
23house gas emissions.’’.
[JR: We aren't giving up anything yet since we haven't actually had any of these regulations on the books -- and won't until the endangerment finding get a lot further along the process.]
OK, fine, correction: Seems like a pretty big potential to give up.
Waxman deserves our gratitude for working so hard to get this started, and yes future action will be necessary as well.
If the bill fails, then more stringent controls will probably be adopted within the next 12-18mnths. If it passes this might not be the case. But this is all hypothetical.
Joe:
What can we do to ensure that the legislation makes it out of committee? My understanding from this Guardian article is that the battle is pitched; I wonder if we could help by making out voices heard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/us-climate-bill-oil-gas
How quickly does the new Waxman-Markey proposal move from the ~ 50% free allowances to a 100% auction system? Some free allowances are the necessary grease to make the legislative wheels turn (and a reasonable way to cushion the blow to hard-hit industries and to customers of the coal-burning utilities). But if they aren’t phased out at a reasonably rapid rate, the pressure to move away from fossil fuels is greatly diminished.
[JR: I'll post when I find out, Jack.]
How about promoting renewable energy with feed in tariffs as has been done by Germany? I don’t know the details of WM but suspect there is no mention of it in this bill? Anybody pushing for this in future bills?
Everyone,
I’m going to have to side with Joe on this one. Any price penalty on coal is all but a death knell for coal and the industry knows it. The cost of extraction and transport of coal then adding on the costs of cap and trade are going to force utility providers to rethink their priorities on how they source their electricity particularly in the light of the reduction in cost of wind turbine geneated power. With a smart grid being built thanks to the American Recover and Reinvestment Act coal plants are only going to become less desirable and not more.
Thank you, Max. And how about simply reducing the speed limit on federal highways to 55 mph? This has been done before. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394648/posts:
“The 55 miles-per-hour speed limit came as a result of the 1973 Arab oil embargo. The Nixon administration ordered states to lower their maximum limit to save fuel at a time when the first oil shock threatened to bring the economy to a standstill.
After steadily rising each year, gasoline demand suddenly stopped growing in 1974 and remained nearly flat for the next decade, keeping oil consumption in check.
Roland Hwang, the vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, estimated the savings of the speed limit in 1983 at 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, or 2.2 percent of the total use for these types of fuels.”
As far as I can tell, no one has done a calculation of the saving to the health care system of the reduction of number and severity of car accident injuries. Does anyone know, and if so, could you send me the information at info@westcoastclimateequity.org?
Leland’s point is that if the price of carbon emissions looks to be definitely no more than, say, $10/tCO2, some power companies may run the numbers and conclude that new coal plants still look economical.
[JR: Except that isn't how the math is going to work out. Also, you folks are totally forgetting about the impact on existing coal.]
Modesty — Great question. These provisions in W-M indicate an intent to cut out the pending EPA enforcement of the Clean Air Act with respect to CO2. This, and the free allowances covering 90% of coal emissions, proves that this bill is not a good faith effort to reduce CO2 emissions, but rather might reasonably be viewed as the opposite.
Hi Joe-
I hope that you are right, of course.
I hope that financial planners are not wrongheaded enough to think that Congress can control the climate, just by passing a law.
In other words, the future of coal is highly uncertain, no matter what Congress does, and what happens to coal plants is dependent mostly on the climate, not on Congress.
I just hope the financial guys know that.
If the goal is to reduce GHG emissions, why are we telling states how to get there? To my mind, the GHG, RPS and EE targets could be at odds with each other.
Southeastern states don’t have a chance of meeting national RPS targets in the time allowed because their only significant renewable power resource is biomass and you can’t develop a completely closed-loop system on the scale required in just 11 years. So why not tell them to meet a 17% reduction in GHGs by whatever means necessary, and give them some solid guidance on how to get there? Renewable power generation may not be their best solution; maybe they go all-out on EE, geothermal heat pumps, and mass-transit systems, for example.
When I worked on the Country Studies Program in the ’90s, I learned that most participating countries could cut their GHGs by 30%+ using zero net cost (!) EE measures. Some US states could probably accomplish all of their mandated GHG reductions with EE, so why don’t we let them choose that route if that’s what makes sense for them?
I certainly don’t believe we should hold them to a lower standard; instead, let them use their ingenuity.
I think the feds are overworking this. Mandating specific solutions is only likely to alienate Southern states. As you can probably tell, I am both a socialist and a strong advocate for states’ rights. I believe there is a middle ground that will satisfy both the overarching need for mandatory emissions reductions and the need of individual states to have control over their own destinies.
Freeway speed limits in parts of Utah are 75 mph cars, 65 mph trucks.
Alos, many on many bright lights burning all night around Great Salt Lake.
Natural gas reserves as of 2008 were pegged at 6,185 trillion cubic feet. With subsequent discoveries, that could be around 6,250. Coupled with Waxman-Markey, this should increase incentives to switch power plants from oil to natural gas — maybe even from coal to gas, although that’s harder.
Then if we can stop flaring off natural gas, we can do even better. This site says 5.3 trillion cubic feet gets flared off every year.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/01/natural-gas-discovery-and-waste.html
Lest we get too happy, we should remember that this is likely quantitatively insufficient to halt, let alone reverse global warming.
We have a long road. Journey of a thousand li begins with the first step, but this is only the first step.
Depending on WM is way to big a chance to be taking with the only biosphere we’ve got- the only one we know about that exists in the universe.
We should seize the coal plants, and simply transform them into carbon negative power plants, by direct socialist action.
It’s as if the planet was saying to us “your capitalism or your life” and we are saying “both please”. I think we can have one or the other, but not both, when it comes to these huge technological dinosaur plants, that have not changed their basic technology in maybe 70 years.
How Global Warming could lead to the EXTINCTION of Homo Sapiens even sooner:
Reference: “With Speed And Violence” by Fred Pearce, 2007
“Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas
It is too late. I want to move to Mars with my children and grand children.
Too many tipping points have already been crossed according to “With Speed And
Violence” by Fred Pearce. The probability that we humans will go extinct on
earth has exceeded any reasonable limit. Those tipping points include tundra
peat bogs that are already turning into lakes and outgassing so much methane
that they don’t freeze over in Siberian winter, methane clathrates at the bottom
of the ocean floor that are already releasing methane, the vanishing of the ice
on the Arctic Ocean, etc. There is enough methane that will be released
REGARDLESS of what we do to raise the global temperature by 18 to 21 degrees
Fahrenheit. As stated in “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas, another 10 degrees
Fahrenheit is the “For Sure Extinction” level for Homo Sapiens. I hope you
enjoy breathing H2S!
All coal fired power plants worldwide could have and should have been replaced
with nuclear power plants in the 1950s and 1960s. If that had been done, we
would have a fighting chance. Please read “With Speed And Violence” by
Fred Pearce, 2007.
Why don’t we use natural gas for cars, and build nuclear plants for electricity? Seems like the greenest alternative available for the next few decades. Cap and trade will be a big failure. Just cost money without providing results, as it is doing in Europe. We need to do something based on reality not fantasy.