3-D US Electoral Map (Image by: Alexander O'Neill)

Article By Guest Contributor: Lynann Butkiewicz

As Congress convenes in the weeks before the mid-term elections, there is likely to be one final push for a comprehensive energy bill, although the chances of it passing are slim. Congress will be looking to pass top priority legislation addressing the key issues concerning the American public including job growth and an increase in credit for small businesses. Politicians will shy away from highly politicized issues, such as climate change, and vote for legislation that will rally the base.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would like to push for the new energy bill vote in the Senate before the elections, but he also told reporters he would allow a vote on blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing carbon emissions sometime after the elections this year.

Environmentalists had hoped that if the energy bill does not pass in Congress then the EPA could be a last resort in order to cut back on carbon emissions. An expected Republican majority in Congress after the elections would not only vote down the energy bill but also likely pass the vote on limiting the EPA. A Wonk Room survey reported this week that only one of the 37 Republican candidates up for Senate seats this year believe that climate change is manmade. With winds shifting the nation toward a Republican majority, the prospect of passing comprehensive climate legislation is doubtful.

The proposed Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act is significantly different to the last failed energy bill. In the 2009 bill, that was passed in the House of Representatives and killed in the Senate, there was a measure to price carbon, indicating the potential for a US national carbon market. The 2009 legislation barely passed, including 44 Democrats rejecting the bill.

This new proposed bill does not address pricing carbon, leaving open the question of if and when cap and trade will become a reality in the US and whether this energy bill will make a significant impact on climate change regulation in the lead-up to the negotiations in Cancun in November. If Democrats cannot pass comprehensive climate legislation with a majority in Congress before the elections, then the chances of having a national carbon market and clear carbon mitigation target are doubtful for the next several years.

Instead, this bill includes a Home Star rebate system in order to encourage consumers to purchase energy efficient upgrades, similar to the debated Cash for Clunkers scheme introduced in 2009. It also includes a measure for BP to pay for the damages caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The recession has put the brakes on carbon trading expansion worldwide, and the US is no exception. Opponents claim that new energy taxes will stifle job growth in the private sector and force the US to rely more on foreign oil, exactly the type of legislation the Democratic Congress is looking to avoid in an election year.

As former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville said in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

If the Democratic-majority Congress wants to succeed in passing climate legislation before the anticipated Republican majority takes over, it needs to be framed toward economic recovery.

The very title of the “Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act,” indicates that the bill will stimulate job growth and add accountability for BP’s role in the Gulf oil spill. Democrats will try to highlight this when lobbying for support of the bill before the elections, but Republicans are not looking for votes that will frame Congress as making progress. Instead, a tactic could be to make the Democratic-majority Congress look as if it is not getting legislation passed, encouraging voters to make a change in the establishment at the polls.

The Republican strategy up until the elections seems to be based on passing legislation in the House of Representatives and then killing it in the Senate, which was the fate of the last climate bill. If this continues to happen through to November, and Republicans sweep Congress, then climate legislation may not only be impossible for 2010, but also for the next several years.

Administrator Lisa Jackson signing the final rule (photo: EPA)

Starting on January 1^st 2010, any US fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers and other facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year, will be required to report their emissions data to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to the EPA this will cover approximately 85 percent of the United States’ GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.

These new rules lay the groundwork for regulating emissions, providing the basis of a monitoring system that should be in place by the time – if such a time arrives – that greenhouse gas emissions are to be regulated.

As Administrator Lisa Jackson, who signed the rules on Sep 22, stated – “The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

 While opposed by many business, claiming that the reporting requirement is a first step toward burdensome and needless government regulation, others have welcomed this move.

Even the United States Chamber of Commerce seems to be on board with the new rules – “We have always supported transparency and do not oppose the reporting requirement,” said Bill Kovacs, senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

This is somewhat surprising as the Chamber of Commerce stance has so far been very much in opposition to any action, legislative or otherwise, on climate change. Throughout the past months the Chamber has sided themselves with climate change deniers by repeatedly attacking the EPA’s use of climate science, and it was the same Bill Kovacs who said in August that the EPA doesn’t “have the science to support the endangerment finding,” when the Chamber recently demanded a “Scopes Monkey Trial” for climate change science. A call they have later retracted after receiving too much heat.

The Chamber’s continual opposition to climate legislation has recently resulted in several utilities – including the major Californian utility Pacific Gas and Electric – withdrawing their membership (mirroring similar desertions in other industry groups). Others, such as Nike and Johnson & Johnson, have also expressed their dissatisfaction over the Chamber’s approach, saying it does not represent the full spectrum of members’ views. I wonder if the support, or at least non-opposition, to the EPA’s new reporting rules is an attempt to soften the Chamber of Commerce’s position before more companies quite it.

Just in time for the UN summit in New York next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned earlier this week that due to the Senate’s busy schedule it might not act on a comprehensive climate change bill until 2010. Health care and regulatory reform are also high on the Senate’s agenda, and according to Reid’s statement, the climate change bill might have to wait until the other two are dealt with.

This follows Senators Boxer and Kerry’s announcement at the beginning of the month, that rather than early September, they are now aiming to unveil their version of the bill at the end of the month. A target that was repeated this week by Sen. Kerry saying that “We are aiming for this month.”

Reid’s statement naturally caused quite a stir, though it was later somewhat retracted by Reid’s spokesman, who commented that “no decisions have been made” on floor timing for a comprehensive climate and energy bill. And two days after his original comment, Reid insisted that he hopes to move a climate bill “as quickly as we can”

In response though, the EU ambassador to the US expressed his concern by the delay which will push the decision about a US climate policy until after the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, noting that “if this were to happen it would open the United States to the charge that it does not take its international commitments seriously, and that these commitments will always take second place to domestic politics“

This feeling is echoed by the concerns expressed by environmental organisations such as Environmental Defense Fund, whose international counsel Annie Petsonk pointed out that “The appearance to the international community would be that the U.S. Congress is just adrift,” and others who worry that this lack of domestic progress in the US will give other countries an excuse not to act as well.

Obama’s administration also acknowledges the importance of US legislation to international progress as was evident when Todd Stern, the State Department’s special climate change envoy, testified in front of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming saying that “Nothing the United States can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible” and stressing that “President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration are committed to action on this issue“

Progress Nonetheless

Even though the legislative process is delayed, the US is still making progress in its attempt to curb GHG emissions, as evident by two developments in the past week.

On Monday Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed an order setting up a Climate Change Response Council and eight regional response centres to study and respond to the expected impacts of climate change on wildlife and historic places. The order also includes a commitment to produce a plan to reduce the Interior Department’s own greenhouse gas emissions, including setting a firm target. The Interior Department, which manages 20 percent of the land in the United States, will also explore methods to sequester carbon by storing it underground and by absorbing it through forests and rangelands.

The following day the EPA ,along with the Department of Trasport, moved ahead with car emissions regulations – unveiling the proposed rules based on the outline presented by the president in May.

These two developments give somewhat more weight to Todd Stern’s warning to countries such as China and India, that if there is no cooperation on international action to reduce emissions, Congress is more likely to put in place protectionist measures, as at least the US can show some domestic progress.

These actions though, while beneficial in mitigation of CO2 emissions, are not as reassuring to other countries of the US willingness to tackle climate change as actual legislation. The US failure to ratify Kyoto is still very much on everybody’s mind and Obama will have to work hard to convince other countries, especially major players like the EU and China, that any agreement signed in Copenhagen – if one is at all signed – stands a good chance of later passing Congress. This might motivate him to be involved more closely with the legislation than he has been so far (more like he has been with health care reform), which in the end might result in a better bill. If that happens, Reid’s statement would have been for the better.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified on Tuesday before the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the proposed EPA FY 2010 Budget request. Tuesday’s discussion concentrated on how the budget request of $10.5 billion (USD), proposed by President Barack Obama, is designed to both contribute to the U.S economic recovery while also addressing today’s environmental challenges.

The FY 2010 budget is an increase of 37 percent over the budget for FY 2009, providing for a greater opportunity for the EPA to address environmental challenges by way of EPA programs. According to Jackson, this budget increase “reflects President Obama’s commitment to usher in a new era in environmental stewardship and puts us on a clear path to a cleaner and safer planet.”

In its press release issued yesterday, the EPA outlined the budget allocations addressing U.S. environmental protection priorities. Receiving the largest allocation in the FY 2010 funds are the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds with $3.9 billion – marking an increase of 157 percent over FY 2009. These Funds will finance water infrastructure projects across the United States including 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water projects.

Particular to the threat of climate change, the FY 2010 budget allocates an additional $19 million over FY 2009 budget provisions toward President Obama’s efforts to slow global warming. This funding will help the United States develop a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and collaborate with industries to provide greenhouse gas emission data reporting. Specifically, the money from this budget increase supports the development of the data management system, guidance and training materials, and sources measurement technologies as well as provides for the conducting of industry-specific workshops.

The allocation of ‘merely’ an additional $19 million toward slowing the progression of global warming seems small in comparison to the $3.9 billion allocated to water infrastructure projects. This may partially reflect public attitudes regarding environmental priorities within the United States. According to a recent Gallup Poll released in March 2009, issues regarding water pollution or contamination ranked highest amongst eight major environmental issues listed while climate change ranked last (see my previous post regarding this issue here).

Alternatively, the funding and implementation of such necessary repairs to U.S. water infrastructure may be better suited under the umbrella of the EPA in order to achieve the attention that it requires. Energy and climate change legislation are currently under development which could lead to the establishment of a new cap and trade or carbon tax program in the United States. A separate funding request for emissions reduction programs may lead to similar or greater financial provisions than the $3.9 billion that the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will receive under the FY 2010 EPA budget.

Which environmental concern deserves greater support is speculative and not up for debate at this time. Regardless of whether public attitudes or political strategy are motivating the budget allocations, the environment comes out on top. As stated by Obama and reiterated by Jackson in her testimony, “now is the time to make long overdue investments in clean energy and new infrastructure to create a platform for entrepreneurs and workers to build an economy that will lead us into a better future.” I’ll cheers to that.

EPA logo

In a landmark move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to declare an “endangerment finding” on GHGs, meaning they officially acknowledge them to be a threat to human health, and are therefore required to regulate them under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

This is the latest development in a process that started in 1999 when 12 states, 3 cities and several environmental organisations petitioned the EPA to regulate GHGs emissions from motor vehicles under the CAA. The case – known as Massachusetts v. EPA – eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and in April 2007 the Court ruled that as greenhouse gases meet the Act’s definition of air pollutants, the EPA must take action to regulate tailpipe emissions.

Following this decision the EPA was required to find whether or not GHGs emissions from vehicles endanger public health (unless it found that the science is too uncertain to make a judgement).

Unsurprisingly EPA scientists found that GHGs do in fact endanger human health as they contribute to global warming, but under the Bush administration the EPA stalled, taking over a year to publish just an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR is an informal action used when an agency seeks more information and public input before deciding what to propose).

Now the EPA, under the new director Lisa P. Jackson, has finally sent the Obama administration a proposed “endangerment finding”, which – if cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget – will pave the way for EPA regulation of GHGs.

While many agree that the 1970 Clean Air Act is not ideal for dealing with rising GHGs emissions (and anyway, this first stage deals with emissions from vehicles only), this will still be a step forward as it will likely put pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would be better suited for the task. Such a move will be welcomed both by environmentalists and the industry.

So what now? Now we wait for Ms. Jackson to sign the endangerment finding, probably in mid April, and see if this will indeed prompt Congress to act more swiftly on regulating US emissions of greenhouse gases.

EPA building with Washington Monument in the background

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first ever comprehensive system for reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In a press release issued yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson states that with the new reporting measures proposed “we will have comprehensive and accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases. This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment – all without placing an onerous burden on our nation’s small businesses.”

Much of the reporting requirements used in the development of the proposal are already underway in several states, regions and through various reporting programs. The EPA’s proposal applies reporting requirements to fossil fuel and industrial chemical suppliers, certain manufacturers, and large direct greenhouse gas emitters whose emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons per year. Most small businesses fall below this threshold and would not be required to report their emissions under the proposed rule.

This means that, if the proposed rule is enacted, 13,000 facilities across the United States will be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Industries affected include manufacturers of oil, cement, chemicals, iron and steel, automobiles, and many others. The proposed rule covers about 85-90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions originating in the United States.

The initial cost to the private sector to comply with reporting requirements is estimated at $160 million in its first year, with subsequent years dropping to $127 million annually. If on schedule, the proposed reporting is set to begin in 2011 after the monitoring of 2010 emissions. Vehicle and engine manufacturers will begin reporting for model year 2011.

The proposed rule comes under the heading of the Clean Air Act and is in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 signed into law in December 2007. The proposal was originally expected to come out last September. While this measure is a first of its kind for the United States, greenhouse gas emissions reporting is already underway in other countries. In Australia, for example, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was passed in September 2007 requiring mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy production and consumption.

While delayed in its release, the timing of this announcement by the EPA might be significant in that it underscores the environmental consciousness of the new administration. Despite its expected debut during Bush’s term in office, the Obama administration has managed to finally kick emissions regulation into gear and put the United States on track for a greener future.

On Thursday President Obama released an overview of his FY 2010 budget request, with the full details expected to be published in April.

Unsurprisingly, it continues the trends set out in the recovery plan such as tackling climate change head on. Two examples are the extra money ($15 billion a year, to be exact) allocated to developing alternative energy sources and the EPA’s budget which was increased by $3 billion over the previous year, making it the largest budget since the agency was founded 39 years ago. This includes $19 million allocated to a “greenhouse gas emissions inventory and related activities”, which will provide data for implementing a comprehensive climate change bill.

Plenty has already been said about the fact that part of the budget for the next 10 years is built around a cap-and-trade programme (a system that is not even in place yet), noting that a substantial part of the revenues from such a programme will be used to help people cope with rising energy prices which are expected once that cap-and-trade is operating (mainly by way of tax credits).

But one thing that specifically pleases me about this budget (after all, by now we’re starting to get used to a government that takes climate change seriously and the fact that this is “the first budget in U.S. history that is environmentally sustainable” is taken for granted. Well, almost…), is the fact that one of the key priorities mentioned in the Department of Transportation budget is to promote public transport. One manifestation if this prioritisation is a 5 year, $5 billion high-speed rail State grant programme, which comes in addition to the $8 billion allocated to high-speed trains in the stimulus package. As I’ve noted elsewhere, a large investment in public transport is desperately needed to start turning the tide away from private – and energy inefficient – transport.

On the other hand, I was a little disappointed not to find any mentions of funds allocated specifically for adaptation efforts. This may come when the details are published, though it is also likely that this issue is still being overlooked. But more on that in a different post…

For those not acquainted with the Bush Administration’s latest pastime I should probably introduce the concept of the ‘midnight ruling’.  Late in a presidency, an administration will often issue rulings that are unpopular but uphold the President’s worldview.  President Bush’s recent midnight rulings have predominantly been concerned with environmental deregulation.  The latest of these concerns the carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants.

As I reported earlier, a decision to disregard a Utah coal power plant’s carbon emissions when considering its environmental impact was overturned last Novermber.  However, on Thursday Stephen L. Johnson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), went on the record to reject November’s overturning, “the current concerns over global climate change should not drive [the] EPA into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls.”

California Senator Boxer soon issued a statement responding,

This illegal document issued by Stephen Johnson makes it clear that he has become a renegade administrator…  Mr. Johnson’s latest action is intended to make the job of combating global warming more difficult and will add to the millions of taxpayer dollars he has wasted in defending his illegal decisions.

Boxer also wrote a letter (available here) to the Attorney General asking him to “intervene immediately” with Johnson’s “blatantly illegal memo.” Senator James Inhofe, who frequently clashes with Boxer, responded with a statement siding with the EPA.

So what does all of this mean?  Well, first that the regulation of CO2 (or lack of) has been one of the defining features of the President Bush’s time in office, and that he is keen to ensure that greenhouse gases are not controlled during his presidency. Obama has pledged to use his “executive authority without waiting for congressional action” to reverse Bush’s midnight rulings. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) issued a statement saying,

The ultimate consolation, however, is that today’s EPA offense is so ham-handed, so divorced from the law, that it can and should be reversed by the Obama administration with the stroke of a pen.

If the Attorney General does not intervene (which is, in my opinion, likely) then there will be a number of coal-fired power stations that progress far enough down ‘the pipeline’ that Obama will not be able to stop their being built when he takes office on January 20th.  The Justice Department said that it would review Boxer’s letter and respond appropriately, to which Joe Romm of Climate Progress replied, ““Appropriately”? This is the Department that signed off on torture. What the heck is a few coal plants to them?”

Yesterday, Obama appointed John Holden as his Chief Science Advisor and Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which carries out most of the government research on climate change. Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.

“This is a superb appointment,” Sir David King, former UK chief scientific advisor, told the Observer. “Holdren is a top-rate scientist and his position on climate change is as clear as you could get. This is a signal from Barack Obama that he means business when it comes to dealing with global warming.”

Holdren has described the Bush Administration’s current approach to climate policy as like “being in a car with bad brakes driving towards a cliff in the fog.” (hat tip to Treehugger)

Alongside Steven Chu and Carol Browner, Holdren’s announcement puts three big-hitters advising Obama on climate change policy, so it will be intersting to know who will have the most sway with the incoming president.  It is likely that it will not be Holdren, as he does not control a government agency nor administer a large budget.  Additionally, in his new position he can be called upon to testify before congress, which means that Obama will be less likely to share politically-sensitive information with him. (hat tip to New Scientist)

My ‘most influence vote’ would go to Browner, who headed up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton Administration.  She will have “forceful support” in Congress according to the New York Times, and being located in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue* can’t hurt her chances!

In subtle recognition Al Gore’s work, Obama said during his announcement, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.”

* that’s the White House for those not in the know!

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals panel overturned a permit for a proposed coal-fired power station in Utah.  The panel ruled that the EPA’s Denver office had inadequately supported its decision to issue a permit to the plant without considering its carbon dioxide emissions.

In October 2007, the Sierra Club and others filed a request to overturn the permit, which had been issued to the proposed coal-fired power station, because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution.

The key word in the previous sentence, and the basis for this entire case, is ‘pollution’.  The term pollution, according to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in April 2007, can now be used to describe carbon dioxide, as a consequence of its ability to warm the climate.  This gave the EPA the ability to regulate carbon dioxide through the Clean Air Act, however the EPA, with the help of the Bush Administration, has been slow to act, and does not intend to regulate on the issue while President Bush is in the White House.

The Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder said that the decision will temporarily stop permits being handed out to any coal burning power plants, essentially putting the development of all coal-fired power stations on hold for the moment.

As the President-elect, it falls to Barack Obama to decide the future of carbon dioxide regulation in the US.  In an interview in October, Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy advisor who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of Energy, said that Obama would regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, “in the absence of congressional action” on climate change.

Yesterday, traders connected the dots and coal stocks plummeted by up to 12.5%.

By setting a precedent for many more lawsuits of a similar nature, Thursday’s ruling hints at the long-term consequences of the Supreme Court decision for carbon-intensive industries in the US.  This is “an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process,” the EPA appeals panel stated.