Waxman-Markey was a win for the East in the brewing battle over renewable energy jobs, the New York Times reported yesterday.
Eastern states oppose a super-high voltage transcontinental grid that would reduce the need for wind farms in their region. Waxman-Markey blocks the federal government from overturning eastern state objections to new transmission lines.
Excessive reliance on wind power jeopardizes the UK’s energy security says, the business advocacy group CBI.
According to a report in the Financial Times, CBI warns,
Britain will see rapid growth both in wind power and in new gas-fired power stations – needed when the wind is not blowing.
That will make the country more dependent on imported gas, from Russia and elsewhere, more exposed to volatile commodity prices, and less able to cut the CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.
Instead, the CBI wants more help for investment in new nuclear reactors and “clean coal” power stations that can capture and store emissions.
It’s too bad that CBI doesn’t yet understand that, if CO2 emissions are all it’s worried about, then coal is already “clean.”
Waxman-Markey’s emissions reductions goals will be more difficult to meet than previously thought, warned the electric utility industry in a July 6 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV).
Edison Electric Institute chief Tom Kuhn wrote,
“H.R. 2454 would require a reduction of GHG emissions of 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012–only three years from now. In reality, accounting for growth in electricity demand since 2005, the 2012 requirement is closer to a 10 percent reduction in projected GHG emissions. Achieving this near-term reduction would impose an abrupt and significant price increase on electricity consumers. The House bill also would require a very aggressive 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. Again, we support a more reasonable and achievable 2020 target that will help cushion the cost impact on our consumers.”
So does EEI oppose Waxman-Markey? Amazingly, the answer is no. Instead EEI suggests: (1) price collars,
“We also strongly support inclusion of a price ‘collar,’ consisting of both a floor and a ceiling on emissions allowance prices, in climate legislation. This critical consumer protection measure would help limit economic harm to energy consumers, U.S. workers, and the economy, while discouraging market manipulation and encouraging technological development.”
(2) more free carbon allowances,
“Under H.R. 2454, allowances would sharply decline from 35 percent to zero over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Such a swift phase-out will lead to abruptly higher energy prices for consumers. Instead, we recommend a longer phase-out period of at least 15 years to help protect consumers from sudden energy price shocks.”
and (3) greater ability to participate in the fraudulent carbon offsets market,
“In addition, a number of improvements are needed in the offsets provisions. In the early years, offsets will be one of the few tools utilities will have for meeting targets. Quantitative restrictions, such as the 20 percent discount for international offsets, should be eliminated both to bolster the supply and to lower the price of domestic and international offsets. Moreover, a number of severe qualitative restrictions should be either eliminated or eased in order to assure a full and affordable supply of offsets.”
Like the American Chemistry Council’s Cal Dooley, EEI’s Tom Kuhn is ready to sell-out America to get a deal that he naively thinks will work for his industry.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is “days” away from releasing a Senate version of the Waxman-Markey bill that just passed the House, according to Carbon Control News.
Based on comments from Sen. John Kerry made at a July 8 hearing, the Senate version will “revise” [read “water down”] the Waxman-Markey imposition of tariffs on goods from countries that don’t reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Click here for a new GAO report on trade options for climate legislation.
Unions won’t be happy about a retreat on tariffs…
EPA officials have suggested to Kansas environmental officials that integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology be considered as “best available control technology” for the controversial coal-fired Holcomb Power Plant proposed to be built by Sunflower Electric Power Corp.
But this is a thinly-veiled effort by the EPA to apply pressure against the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
IGCC, which involves turning coal into gas before combustion, is an expensive and a not-ready-for-prime-time technology that could force utilities simply to opt out of coal and into natural gas.
An industry source told Carbon Control News,
“If IGCC is going to be considered BACT for coal generation, then you might as well throw in natural gas as well because in both cases you’re using entirely different forms of generation to achieve lower emissions.”
BACT is the EPA standard that must be met for new sources of air emissions.
In this Wall Street Journal op-ed “So Much for energy Independence,” Robert Bryce notes that,
The U.S. gets about 98 times as much energy from natural gas and oil as it does from ethanol and biofuels. And measured on a per-unit-of-energy basis, Congress lavishes ethanol and biofuels with subsidies that are 190 times as large as those given to oil and gas.
Bryce also notes that ethanol may be causing damage to engines:
In January, Toyota announced that it was recalling 214,570 Lexus vehicles. The reason: The company found that “ethanol fuels with a low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails.” (The rails carry fuel to the engine injectors.) Furthermore, there have been numerous media reports that ethanol-blended gasoline is fouling engines in lawn mowers, weed whackers and boats.
Lawyers in Florida have already sued a group of oil companies for damage allegedly done to boat fuel tanks and engines from ethanol fuel. They are claiming that consumers should be warned about the risk of using the fuel in their boats.
Then there’s the food problem:
There is also corn ethanol’s effect on food prices. Over the past two years at least a dozen studies have linked subsidies that have increased the production of corn ethanol with higher food prices.
Finally, Bryce observes:
Mr. Obama has been pro-ethanol and anti-oil for years. But he and his allies on Capitol Hill should understand that removing drilling incentives will mean less drilling, which will mean less domestic production and more imports of both oil and natural gas.
That’s hardly a recipe for “energy independence.”
At today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on carbon control, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) showed EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu a chart depicting the extremely limited impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations that would result from unilateral action on emissions by the US. The chart had been developed by the EPA for last year’s Warner-Lieberman bill.
When Inhofe asked Chu if he agreed with the chart — i.e., whether unilateral US action would have only a negligible impact on the CO2 level — Chu said he disagreed.
When Jackson got her turn to comment on the chart, she essentially agreed that the chart was correct and unilateral US action would accomplish little.
I guess Chu didn’t win his Nobel for honesty.
Here’s the video:
This analysis appeared this morning on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right, which is a web site that analyzes polling and voting data written by Nate Silver and Sean Quinn.
Click here for the 1428-page Waxman-Markey bill.
Michael Barone points out that the Waxman-Markey triumph in the House boils down to blue states (Northeast and West Coast) voting against red states (everywhere else) — to make one giant green state.
… let’s kill it in the Senate!