Regulatory aspects of carbon capture, transportation, and sequestration and related bills, S.2323 and S.2144
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the regulatory aspects of carbon capture, transportation, and sequestration and to receive testimony on two related bills: S. 2323, a bill to provide for the conduct of carbon capture and storage technology research, development and demonstration projects, and for other purposes; and S. 2144, a bill to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of the feasibility relating to the construction and operation of pipelines and carbon dioxide sequestration facilities, and for other purposes.
Witnesses
Panel 1- Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Krista Edwards, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- C. Stephen Allred, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of Interior
- James Slutz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Oil and Natural Gas, U.S. Department of Energy
- Lawrence Bengal, Director, Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission
- Scott Anderson, Senior Policy Adviser, Environmental Defense
- Tracy Evans, Senior Vice President, Reservoir Engineering, Denbury Resources, Inc.
Senate Finance Committee Includes Green Jobs, Renewables In Stimulus Package
- the renewable electricity production credit
- solar, fuel cell, and microturbine credits
- energy-efficient building deductions and credits;
- the high-efficiency appliances manufacturing credit
- stripper well depreciation credit
- energy-efficient home retrofitting credit
Full details are available here.
Last Friday, 33 senators sent a letter to the Committee leadership urging support for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and green jobs incentives.
According to the Sierra Club, by today the number of Senators was up to forty:Senators who have expressed support for the inclusion of the renewable energy incentives include: Cantwell, Snowe, Wyden, Smith, Klobuchar, Kerry, Sununu, Sanders, Dole, Boxer, Johnson, Allard, Salazar, Mikulski, Stabenow, Murray, Dorgan, Brown, Bayh, Clinton, Collins, Specter, Menendez, Thune, Feingold, Dodd, Levin, Obama, Brownback, Coleman, Murkowski, Feinstein, Schumer, Stevens, Lautenberg, Leahy, Akaka, Kohl, Roberts, Grassley, Bingaman, and Domenici.
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 1
Modification Energy Package part of package passed by committee.
| Provision | Approx Cost (billions) |
| PTC (Sec. 45) | 3.0 |
| Solar (residential & business, including fuel cells, microturbines) | 0.13 |
| CREBs ($400m allocation) | 0.2 |
| Commercial buildings | 0.15 |
| Efficient homes (new) | 0.06 |
| (exp. 12/07) Efficient homes (existing) | 1.5 |
| (exp. 12/07) Efficient appliances | 0.32 |
| Percentage Depletion (marginal wells and stripper wells) | 0.25 |
| TOTAL | 5.57 |
1. Production Tax Credit (Section 45). Extends placed-in-service deadline for qualifying electric generating facilities (wind, biomass, geothermal, etc.) for one year. Estimated cost is $3b/10.
2. Solar, fuel cell, microturbine credits (Sections 48 and 25D). Extends Section 48 (30% investment credit for solar and fuel cell property, 10% credit for microturbines) and Section 25D residential solar credit for one year. Cost is approx. $130m/10.
3. Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs). Provides $400m in new CREBs issuance, at estimated cost of $206m/10.
4. Appliances Manufacturer Credit. Extends manufacturer credit for high-efficiency appliances for two years through 2009, at cost of approximately $323m/10.
5. Energy-Efficient Existing Homes. Extends 10% investment tax credit for energy-efficient home retrofits (windows, heating and cooling equipment, etc.) through 2009, at estimated cost of $1.5b/10.
6. Energy-efficient Commercial Buildings: Extends deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings for one year, at estimated cost of $153m/10.
7. Energy-efficient New Homes. Extends credit for energy-efficient new homes for one year, at estimated cost of $61m/10.
8. Percentage depletion for marginal wells. Extends suspension on the taxable income limit for purposes of depreciating a marginal oil or gas well through 2009, at estimated cost of $247m/10.
Senators Push For Renewable Tax Credits in Stimulus
Thirty-three senators, including several Republicans, sent a letter Friday urging leadership to include the renewable tax incentives set to expire this year in the economic stimulus package. Inclusion of the production tax credits in the 2007 energy bill failed by one vote.
We strongly support current bipartisan efforts to mitigate an economic downturn by providing direct financial relief to American families. At the same time, we believe that we must be cognizant that energy prices have been a leading cause of our current economic environment. Accordingly, we strongly believe that we must provide a timely long-term extension of clean energy and energy efficiency tax incentives that expire at the end of this year. Given record energy prices and growing demand, postponing action on these critical energy incentives will only exacerbate the problems afflicting our economy. In fact, these renewable energy and energy efficiency investments have a verifiable record of stimulating capital outlays and promoting job growth. We must ensure that this impressive record is maintained in 2008 and extend these tax credits expeditiously.
Nine of the signatories are members of the Finance Committee.
Full text of the letter is available here.
Rep. Markey Introduces Bill to Block Alaska Drilling Pending Polar Bear Decision
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has released the text of legislation which, if enacted, would forbid the sale of off-shore drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea, which includes polar bear habitat, until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes its long-delayed determination whether the polar bear is endangered and what its critical habitat is.
At today’s hearing, FWS director Dale Hill made it clear that he recognizes that the polar bear is definitely losing habitat and has been delaying his determination to make it “clear”; he also stated, “We need to do something about climate change starting yesterday.”
Minerals Management Service Director Randall Luthi admitted that if the lease auction goes forward, it would be impossible to revoke the leases even if they are found to be in conflict with a later endangerment listing of the polar bear.
Polluters Believe This May Be the Best Year for Climate Legislation
Representatives of the coal, oil, and gas lobby met yesterday at the United States Energy Association’s “State of the Energy Industry” conference at the National Press Club in Washington. They agreed that Lieberman-Warner may be the best legislation they can hope for, especially if issues like polar bear habitat set the standard for legislation.
Katherine Ling reports for E&E Daily that David Parker, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, said “Who would you rather have writing a bill in the Senate? I might guess it may set a tone for business to fully work with the Senate this year.” He continued that “the polar bear habitat is going to really drive this [climate change] debate. We all have a big education job to do and I think we need to do it collectively.”
Bill Scher has further commentary at Blog for Our Future.
While most panelists agreed it was not likely that a full bill capping greenhouse gas emissions would pass this session, they said a great deal could be accomplished in laying the groundwork this year.Tom Kuhn, president and CEO of Edison Electric Institute, predicted there will be a floor vote in the Senate this year on a climate bill. “No matter what happens on those votes, that will set the marker for what we do in the future,” he said, especially if there is White House involvement.
David Parker, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, agreed with Kuhn. Despite a general disagreement the energy industries have with the climate bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), he said, future legislation could be even harder on the industry.
“Warner is retiring this year, and then the question is, ‘Who comes into play?’” Parker said. Potentially, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – who both favor greater emission limits than those in the Lieberman-Warner bill – could lead the next attempt to pass climate change legislation under a Democratic president, he said.
“Who would you rather have writing a bill in the Senate? I might guess it may set a tone for business to fully work with the Senate this year,” he said.
Achieving workable legislation will require educating policymakers and the public a great deal more on energy markets, panelists said.
Parker said he was worried that “the polar bear habitat is going to really drive this [climate change] debate. We all have a big education job to do and I think we need to do it collectively.”
At the Auto Show: Dingell Supports EPA's Denial of California Waiver
In a Detroit News piece entitled Dingell tours show; says state-by-state emissions rules would doom carmakers, David Shepardson writes that Dingell fully supported last month’s decision by the EPA to deny the California waiver to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.
Dingell, D-Dearborn, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said if California got the waiver it could impose conflicting federal and state standards. The California standards could be make automobile production “so expensive that people won’t be able to buy and second of all get so difficult that the companies won’t be able to produce anyhow.”Dingell said the California system could lead to 50 different standards. He said the EPA decision “makes good sense.”
As has been previously discussed on Hill Heat, the specter of 50 different standards is simply false. Under the Clean Air Act only California has the authority to get waivers from national standards. Other states can then follow California or the federal standards. At most there can be two different standards.
Dingell plans to introduce a climate change bill in his committee “as fast as we can” but wants to exclude the auto industry, arguing that the CAFE standards in the 2007 energy bill are sufficient regulation: “We’ve had everybody else get practically a free ride and auto industry has to come up with a 40 percent increase in fuel efficiency,” Dingell said. “We’re going to try to see that the pain is shared equally all around.”
Update: Dingell has issued a clarification of his remarks, stating that he considers CAFE standards to be a “carbon constraint” and that the CAFE standard increase “tightens the cap on automobiles by 40 percent by 2020.” Any carbon cap would entail “further reductions” that would be have to matched by “comparable contributions” by other industries.
Shepardson also reports on an interview with Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s office of transportation and air quality. She didn’t expect the agency to issue a formal written denial “until next month at the earliest.” The EPA may be trying to argue that its the EPA press release announcing the denial isn’t actually grounds for a suit to overturn the decision. She also said that the EPA “completed its draft of its own new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” but didn’t provide details.
Krupp said he that he and Dingell don’t agree on all issues, but do on the need for a broader climate change.“He may be the only one that can get a climate change bill,” Krupp said, noting Dingell’s experience in moving large pieces of environmental legislation.
Krupp said he liked the increase in advanced technology vehicles especially in hybrids in broader vehicle lineups. “The fact that the Big Three makers as well as Toyota and others are making these higher mileage options available in everyday cars is terrific,” Krupp said.
Asked about the fact that hybrids still account for just 2 percent of U.S. sales, Krupp noted the growth rate year over year. “I suppose people said initially that very few people were buying Macintosh Apple computers,” Krupp said. “When gasoline prices are $3.50 a gallon, I think you will see growing interest in these options.”
Krupp said there’s “going to be a need for a shared burden” among automakers, oil companies and utilities. They all will have to “belly up to the bar,” Krupp said.
Boxer: Lieberman-Warner is "A huge step forward"
Subject: A huge step forwardOur progress on moving global warming legislation through the Environment and Public Works Committee this month and sending it on to the full Senate was a huge step forward for America, and personally, it was one of my proudest accomplishments over my 30 year career in public service.
But we’ve still got many more steps to take over the coming years to fight global warming and save our planet for our kids, our grandkids, and generations to come.
That’s one big reason I’ve decided to run again for the U.S. Senate when my term expires in 2010—and, because we know that I’ll be a top target for the right wing, I’m already preparing for a tough race. . .
As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, leading the fight against global warming will continue to be my top priority. And, if 2008 goes our way, I may soon be working with a new Democratic President and expanded Democratic majorities in Congress who share our commitment to that fight.
But we’re not going to solve the climate change crisis with just one bill, a better Congress, or a Democratic President. Fighting global warming is going to require many years of focus, dedication, and leadership to see things through. . .
We’ve still got a lot of work to do on fighting global warming, ending the war in Iraq, protecting our environment, defending a woman’s right to choose, and so many other important issues—and I’m going to need you with me every step of the way.
Ed. – the fundraising pitches have been stripped out.
EPA Admin Denies California Waiver
EPA administrator Stephen Johnson’s denial of California’s petition to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions following the White House energy bill signing ceremony was deservedly front page news from coast to coast. The Supreme Court forced the EPA to consider California’s December 2005 Clean Air Act waiver request in April 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA). In testimony before the Senate and the House earlier this year, Johnson signaled his lack of desire to grant the waiver. Now that decision has come in, with justifications even EPA’s own laywers and policy staff don’t believe. This is the first time in the history of the Clean Air Act that the EPA has denied a section 209 California waiver request.
[Ed.—Warming Law has superior analysis of the decision, from which I’ll steal some key insights.]
The EPA, which is yet to release the formal denial, announced in its press release that the increased CAFE standards in the new energy law to justify its denial of the California waiver:EPA has determined that a unified federal standard of 35 miles per gallon will deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks in all 50 states, which would be more effective than a partial state-by-state approach of 33.8 miles per gallon.
Warming Law says “EPA appears to be attempting to add a new test to the Clean Air Act” in requiring that California prove a local interest in addition to the “compelling” and “extraordinary” standards the Supreme Court said this problem meets.
Warming Law’s Tim Dowling notes that Johnson’s claim the waiver would create a “confusing patchwork of state rules” is typical industry rhetoric that is specious—only two sets of standards, national and California, would apply. “Johnson failed to explain how EPA has been able to grant EVERY other 209 waiver request in history without creating a confusing patchwork, but can’t do so here.”
Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post reveals that Johnson overrode his staff.In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, “EPA likely to lose suit.”If he allowed California to proceed and automakers sued, the staff wrote, “EPA is almost certain to win.”
The technical and legal staffs cautioned Johnson against blocking California’s tailpipe standards, the sources said, and recommended that he either grant the waiver or authorize it for a three-year period before reassessing it.
“Nobody told the administration they support [a denial], and it has the most significant legal challenges associated with it,” said one source, in an interview several hours before Johnson’s announcement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak for the agency. “The most appropriate action is to approve the waiver.”