Plus a higher starting floor price for carbon dioxide
The energy and climate bill Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) will unveil Wednesday will give states the right to veto offshore oil drilling in a neighboring state, according to sources briefed on the plan.
This is from the WP‘s Post Carbon blog. That confirms what I heard also.
The two Senators “tweaked the bill in a few ways to address concerns raised by” BP’s Titanic oil disaster. Here are some more details on the bill, which is being introduced tomorrow:
It requires an Interior Department study to determine which states could be economically and environmentally affected by a spill.Those affected states would then be able to veto drilling by passing a law. Those states that are able to go ahead with drilling will retain 37 percent of the federal revenue generated by that activity.
Any state will be allowed to opt out of drilling that would occur in waters within 75 miles of its shore.
The modifications may please Democratic offshore drilling opponents such as Sens. Robert Menendez (N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), but might keep some Republicans from endorsing the measure.
Overall, the plan returns more money to consumers–two-thirds of the revenue generated from auctioning carbon allowances in the utilities sector–and has more limited trading options than the House-passed climate bill.
In the utilities sector, for example, trading can only be conducted by entities that are covered under the federal carbon cap. That will curb the creation of a secondary carbon market, something that senators such as Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have argued against.
The transportation sector will not have any allowance trading, sources said. Instead, companies will have to buy quarterly carbon allowances that would be based on the average price in the previous quarter; the fee would be tacked on at a stage known in the industry as “the rack,” which is after the fuel has left the refinery but before it reaches gas stations….
The legislation would establish a price collar for carbon allowances in the utilities sector, with a $12 floor that will increase annually by 3 percent plus inflation and a $25 ceiling that will increase annually by 5 percent plus inflation.
I’m quite happy that the floor price (for carbon dioxide allowances) isn’t $10, but I do think it ought to rise as fast as the ceiling price (see How the Senate can fix cost containment in the climate bill with ‘price collar plus’).
From what I hear, it looks like this bill will satisfy most of the criteria discussed in this post — What to look for in the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill – but I await the details to make a final conclusion.
The sad thing is that while this is quite a politically moderate bill — it still won’t satisfy the pro-pollution, anti-science ideologues currently in charge of the conservative movement (see “Will anti-science ideologues be able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill?“)
Previous in TP Climate Progress
I was just reviewing the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR act and I see some similar language here now.
One thing in that act that Joe has objected to is a lack of regional kid gloves. However, I think he might be mistaken about that. 25% of the revenue raised in Cantwell-Collins can be put towards regional impacts. It may not be necessary to cozy up to coal companies to get a regional adjustment for employment changes. Help with establishing silicon refineries in WV can happen without a whole song and dance about CCS grants. Cantwell-Collins seems to say that goodies can come without lumps of coal.
cantwell.senate.gov/issues/CLEAR%20Act%20how%20it%20works.pdf
[JR: Uhh, no, C-C doesn't say that. No bill is possible without CCS. And is not clear to me what you mean by "cozy up to coal companies." Finally, what C-C's money could theoretically be put to is quite irrelevant to members of the Senate. That's why they haven't got more than 2 votes -- that, of course, and the fact that they haven't actually been trying.]
Joe in #1,
At least Cantwell says that it says that: “25% of auction revenues go into the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund to pay for
additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate
change adaptation, and related regional economic adjustment projects.”
Has the President said he won’t sign a bill that does not waste money on CCS?
Joe wrote: “No bill is possible without CCS.”
As far as I can tell, no bill that actually does what needs to be done is politically possible.
Joe wrote: “And is not clear to me what you mean by ‘cozy up to coal companies’.”
Well, squandering billions of taxpayer dollars on the “clean coal” hoax in order to justify continued mining and burning of coal and thereby protect the profits of the coal companies might fit that description.
Does this cover all 57 states?
1. I like the “veto offshore oil drilling in a neighboring state” idea, but how does that work with respect to the constitution? On land, if one state does something horribly toxic, can an affected nearby state sue?
2. Erase Jeremy Schwartz’s comment currently at #4. It’s a reference to a verbal slip Obama once made (accidentally said 57 instead of 47 when referring to the number of states he’d visited on the campaign trail) which was then spun into a bizarre conspiracy theory by the nutjobs. Details at Snopes; I won’t repeat them.
@GFW — I think it may depend somewhat on how the law is written. Though generally I don’t think states can sue each other. But they can sue entities that pollute in neighboring states. A good example is the Clean Air Act allows states to petition EPA to act on pollution from downwind states. Failing that, states can sue. North Carolina has successfully sued TVA for air pollution from power plants in Tennessee and Alabama (may still be on appeal?) under public nuisance law.
(by which I mean, it may depend on how the bill is written)
Re: 57 states … that’s disappointing. I thought it was a clever remark about US territories and the idea that Guam could veto all West coast drilling or something.
An anonymous poster over at Kevin Drum wrote:
“If anybody finds a dead manatees (or seabirds or oiled marshes)
They should stick a sign next to the poor dead thing that reads “BP did this” and take a photograph.
You know, a picture is worth a thousand words so that should pretty much fix big oil’s unregulated “drill, baby drill” lobbyist chant.”
This seems like a good idea. And a website could collect all the pictures.
This is great, Graham needs to be hammered on the good points of this bill in south carolina,
The reporting, which says, trading can only be conducted by entities that are covered under the federal carbon cap, is incorrect.
The reporters at Point Carbon News obtained a draft of the bill summary today, and it says “participation in the secondary market will be open to all participants, but it will only exist on a cash-cleared basis. It will be highly regulated, exchange traded and transparent.”
The full story can be found here: http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1443725
That will curb the creation of a secondary carbon market, something that senators such as Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have argued against.
I’m not quite sure how there isn’t a mad scramble to reach consensus on a greenhouse gas pollution and clean energy bill amongst senators of all political stripes. Even one that is larded with handouts such as CCS and nuclear (lets hope thorium reactors get some love !, yet still sets a limit of 60-70% carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.
The EPA is VERY CLEARLY on the verge of announcing ‘tailoring’ rules for the largest carbon emitters in the American economy. If I’m not mistaken, auto fuel and those entities which emit 75,000 tons of Co2 a year will have to meet carbon dioxide limits beginning in Jan 2011. And the regulations will keep rolling down until we hit the 25,000 ton limit.
There must be something that Lieberman and Kerry know about this bill’s chances that we poor public don’t. Obama will never sign any bill or resolution stripping EPA of its Supreme Court granted right to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act (maybe action under Clean Water Act too?)
Can’t have it both ways Senators. Man up.
EU Climate Chief: U.S. Climate Law Needed for Global Deal
US inaction is key obstacle to international progress, she says
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100511/eu-climate-chief-u-s-climate-law-needed-global-deal
Yes, the US needs to move now. Past biggest emitter and still. Update the technology – create jobs and a NEW economy.
Waiting on pins and needles for the details of this bill to come out tomorrow…
…and for Obama to tap into the existing public sentiment and connect the dots between the oil disaster, our fossil fuel addiction, and clean energy. Maybe he is waiting for catman306′s “dead manatee” pics.
Fellow CP readers. This post is about the presses coverage of the 255 NAS scientists letter from the other day.
Turns out that the 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences intended for their letter, about the attack on science and scientists, especially climate scientists, to be published in one of the major newspapers (i.e. the so called prestige press). In particular they asked the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal if they would publish their letter. All three refused so they published it in the journal Science. See the following story:
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/scientists-unite-against-climate-skeptics/?sort=oldest&offset=3
So let me see if I got this straight, the Washington Post publishes an OP-ed from Sarah Palin on energy issues, but they will not publish a joint letter from 255 NAS Scientists. One cannot expect much from the WSJ, but where was the NYTimes?
It is simply amazing to me how these once great institutions have abdicated their responsibility.
Interesting about the sponsors of the various bills: Cantwell and Collins have an average 82% score from the League of Conservation Voters. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have 69% and Waxman and Markey have 100%. I’d say go with the House bill. The House did that for the Senate on Health Care so it would be courteous to do the reverse on Climate.
Richard Miller: smaller newspapers have always had editorial direction that was in keeping with the wishes of their principal advertisers as well their owners who were probably their friends. Most small newspapers would favor the real estate and automotive issues that those big advertisers would approve. Once upon a time, the NYT, WP were above that. Now with shrinking circulations, they too must use the small newspaper business model.
Someone, somewhere, keeps track of the amount of ads placed in a newspaper by various business sectors. The editorial positions of the NYT and WP are principally dictated by the business sectors with the most advertising. The guy who pays the piper gets to name the tune.
The synergistic effects of CCS make it impossible to ignore, as Chu and others in the Obama Administration have pointed out.
Combined with biomass sources of energy, CCS is a crucial component of energy sources that are carbon negative- that actively put carbon back underground.
Bio-energy plus carbon capture and storage is also the only technology capable of getting us back to 350 ppm without asymptotically rising costs.
Carbon neutral is good, carbon negative is much, much better.
Yes, of course the energy bill must contain CCS. With CCS, it is possible to transform coal fired power plants from the biggest problem into the most effective solution. This sort of synergy is the only way to turn the corner on runaway global heating at this point, IMO.
Absent carbon negative energy sources, we are already past the tipping point, IMO. Only carbon negative energy sources can artificially move us back across the tipping point to stability, IMO.