McCain Adviser Questions CAFE, Energy Policies Other Than Cap-and-Trade
In an interview with Darren Samuelson of E&E News last Thursday, Douglas Holtz-Eakin lays down significant markers for Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) climate policy.
On policies such as a low-carbon fuel standard or renewable portfolio standard:“The basic idea is if you go with a cap and trade and do it right with appropriate implementation, you don’t need technology-specific and sectoral policies that are on the books and that others are proposing simultaneously.”On the rise in CAFE standards in the 2007 energy act:
“He’s not proposing to eliminate those. He simply wants to check as time goes on if they become completely irrelevant. You might want to take them off the books, but we’re not there yet.”On McCain-Lieberman:
“When he introduced that bill, the floor statement was pretty clear that this was an ongoing process. He wasn’t so much committed to the bill as to an issue.”On Lieberman-Warner:
“The Lieberman-Warner is a good bill. It’s not his intention to suggest anything different. . . We don’t take positions on Senate legislation given it will change. He’s going to realistically need to have time to study the bill. It’s premature.”On nuclear subsidies:
“He wants to see the use of nukes. The ultimate policy proposal will be designed to make sure that’s true.”
Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003-2005 and chief economist for President Bush 2001-2002, is the top economic advisor for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.
CAMPAIGN 2008: McCain adviser questions Democrats’ push for more than cap and trade (03/21/2008) Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire senior reporterJohn McCain bucks the traditional Republican establishment with his support for cap-and-trade legislation, but the Arizona senator’s presidential campaign is trying to differentiate itself from its Democratic rivals by rejecting calls for additional climate-themed restrictions.
“The basic idea is if you go with a cap and trade and do it right with appropriate implementation, you don’t need technology-specific and sectoral policies that are on the books and that others are proposing simultaneously,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a McCain campaign policy adviser, said in an interview yesterday.
Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, dismissed the presidential campaign platforms of McCain’s two remaining Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Specifically, he questioned the candidates’ calls for a new federal low carbon fuel limit, stronger fuel economy standards and policies to reduce U.S. oil consumption.
Cap and trade, Holtz-Eakin said, is the ideal solution by itself. “You don’t need redundant policies that interfere with the flexibility that is the key to meeting these desirable goals at low costs,” he said.
Asked if this position meant McCain would block implementation of new corporate average fuel economy requirements that President Bush signed into law last December, Holtz-Eakin replied, “He’s not proposing to eliminate those. He simply wants to check as time goes on if they become completely irrelevant. You might want to take them off the books, but we’re not there yet.”
Both Clinton and Obama support setting up a mandatory cap-and-trade program to reduce U.S. heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by midcentury. They are also identical in backing a 100 percent auction of the emission credits.
Unlike McCain, the two Democratic candidates would push their climate regulations beyond cap and trade.
Clinton, for example, would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels. Obama says he would double fuel economy standards within 18 years and supports a federal low carbon fuel standard requiring suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by 10 percent by 2020.
Campaign aides for both Clinton and Obama did not return calls or e-mails requesting comment about the McCain adviser’s efforts to contrast the candidates.
But their surrogates did defend the push for even broader climate policies beyond cap and trade during a panel discussion last week in Santa Barbara, Calif., hosted by the Wall Street Journal.
“He appreciates the problem of climate change is unlike anything we’ve ever faced before,” Obama climate adviser Jason Grumet said. “It’s going to require a kind of social commitment along the lines we’ve not seen in this country since World War II.”
Added Gene Sperling, a Clinton adviser, “It can’t be an all-or-nothing proposition. Senator Clinton has a lot of proposals about what you can do as the executive from day one going forward.”
No position on Lieberman-Warner
McCain also is not wedded to the cap-and-trade bill he introduced in January 2007 with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that seeks to cut U.S. emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. “When he introduced that bill, the floor statement was pretty clear that this was an ongoing process,” Holtz-Eakin said. “He wasn’t so much committed to the bill as to an issue.”
Several climate proposals have been introduced in Congress since Lieberman and McCain teamed up, including a more stringent Lieberman proposal that includes Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) as the lead co-sponsor. “The Lieberman-Warner is a good bill,” Holtz-Eakin said of the legislation due on the Senate floor this June. “It’s not his intention to suggest anything different.”
But Holtz-Eakin said that does not mean McCain will be a guaranteed “yes” vote.
“We don’t take positions on Senate legislation given it will change,” he said. “He’s going to realistically need to have time to study the bill. It’s premature.”
Turning to some cap-and-trade specifics, McCain does have concerns about the idea of using a complete 100 percent auction for emission credits. While McCain’s views remain static on the topic, Holtz-Eakin said the Arizona Republican wants to make sure allowance distribution takes into account international competition for U.S. businesses and also how to distribute costs across the economy.
McCain also continues to support growth in nuclear power. Pressed to explain what beyond a cap-and-trade program would be needed, Holtz-Eakin replied, “He wants to see the use of nukes. The ultimate policy proposal will be designed to make sure that’s true.”
Post-Kyoto deadlines
McCain is planning several environmentally themed speeches later this year as the general election campaign picks up steam—though no firm dates have been set.
The four-term senator also is trying to brandish his foreign policy credentials this week with visits to Iraq, Israel and Europe.
McCain, Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) visited British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London yesterday to talk about a number of issues, including international climate negotiations aimed at getting a new treaty that can succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
“I am convinced that if we work at it, we will be able to convince India and China that it is in their interest to be part of a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” McCain told reporters outside Brown’s 10 Downing Street office. “I believe that we can achieve a global agreement.”
Keeping the focus on climate negotiations, McCain also visited with Stavros Dimas, the top European Commission climate official. And echoing aides to Obama and Clinton, Holtz-Eakin acknowledged that McCain is considering sending staff to the annual U.N. climate conference this December in Poznan, Poland, if he wins the election.
“We have certainly contemplated it,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Climate negotiators have given themselves a 2009 deadline for completing a new post-Kyoto agreement—a schedule some see as difficult to meet given the time it will take for a new U.S. president to get his or her staff and policies in place.
Asked to comment on the post-Kyoto deadline, Holtz-Eakin replied, “Saying anything very definitive about meeting a target that is 11 months into the first term when you don’t have any control in between is really hard. We’ll certainly be interested in moving this process forward as quick as possible.”
Boxer Requests Hearing with Interior Secretary over Polar Bear Delays
On Thursday March 20, Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne asking him “to appear before the Committee as soon as possible for an oversight hearing” on the “considerable delays in taking final action” over the Endangered Species Act listing of the polar bear. Boxer told him that the hearing would be planned for April 2 or 8.
The following day, Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, faxed back a response at 5:56 PM saying:I understand Secretary Kempthorne called you on March 17, 2008, and expressed his commitment to testify before the Committee on the polar bear proposal once a decision is made on the issue. I also understand the Secretary committed to calling you on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, with an update on the progress towards a decision.
Boxer immediately responded, calling the offer of a telephone briefing and a hearing after a decision has been made “wholly inadequate,” and again requested the April 2 or 8 date for a hearing discussing “this serious breach of the Department’s duty to follow the law.”
It has been nearly a month since FWS director Dale Hall stated in a House Appropriations Committee hearing that he had submitted his decision on the polar bear listing to Secretary Kempthorne.
Water Availability: A Matter of Quantity, Quality, and Use
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) invite you to a briefing to examine the factors that limit the water available for critical uses throughout the country. The briefing is held in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.
Competition for water is becoming more intense across the United States. Population growth competes in many areas with demands for water for irrigation and power production. Aquatic ecosystems compete for water used by cities, farms, and power plants to support their minimum flow requirements. In addition, the depletion of water in many aquifers decreases the supply of good quality surface water, and climate change is likely to exacerbate the availability of water as well.
Water quality impaired by human activities constrains water use. Perhaps less understood is that water use can degrade water quality by releasing naturally occurring contaminants, like salts, uranium and radium, into streams and aquifers, thereby constraining water availability.
This briefing will explain and provide examples of the connections between water use and water quality and how they can ultimately affect water availability for critical uses. It will begin by highlighting salinity in the Southwest, where a new USGS study has found reduced concentrations of salts in streams resulting from control activities in irrigated agricultural areas. It also will provide brief examples of how agricultural practices have affected naturally occurring radium in New Jersey, pumping has affected naturally occurring uranium in San Joaquin public-supply wells, and water re-use has introduced man-made organic compounds in coastal aquifers in southern California.
To conclude, the briefing also will connect the science to national policies relating to issues of water availability.
Speakers include:
- David Anning, NAWQA scientist, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey
- David Kanzer, Senior Water Resource Engineer,Colorado River Water Conservation District
- Robert Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey
- Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resource and Environmental Policy, Congressional Research Service
This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP is required. Please forward this notice to others who may be interested. For more information, contact Leanne Lamusga, [email protected], 202-662-1884.
Under Subpoena, EPA Instead Demands Docs From Oversight Committee
Originally posted at the Think Progress Wonk Room.
On March 10, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) kicked off a new round the latest installment in his ongoing investigation of the EPA with a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson:
“I am writing to request that EPA provide to the Oversight Committee documents that the agency has improperly withheld from the Committee…relating to your decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
This request includes not only specific documents that EPA eventually turned over in heavily redacted form, but also “hundreds of documents” that involve EPA and the White House that top-level EPA officials told Waxman’s committee are being withheld.
On March 12, Waxman sent a detailed timeline of events to Johnson based on the EPA interviews showing that the EPA’s efforts to regulate CO2 stopped after the White House became involved.
On March 13, Waxman issued a subpoena for 196 of the documents.
The next day, the EPA’s Christopher P. Bliley – who was White House budget director Jim Nussle’s chief of staff when Nussle was in Congress – sent a letter to Waxman, saying that the documents “raise very important Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and that “we need additional time to respond to your request.”
Then he one-upped Waxman, making a document demand of his own:EPA would also like to request copies of the transcripts from the Committee’s interviews of seven Agency employees.His reason?
The Agency has an interest in ensuring that the information provided to the Committee by Agency employees in their official capacity is accurate and complete, particularly here where that information appears to be the basis for a new and expansive document request.
In other words, the White House wants to make sure their stories don’t contradict what Waxman already knows.
Needless to say, the EPA does not have oversight or subpoena power over the House of Representatives.
Waxman has also opened an investigation into Bush’s manipulation of the new smog standards issued by the EPA last week.
EPA LETTER (3/14/08) EXCERPTS:
EPA respects your role as Chairman and is committed to providing the Committee information necessary to satisfy its oversight interests to the extent possible and consistent with our Constitutional and statutory obligations. The three documents you are requesting are internal EPA documents that raise very important Executive Branch confidentiality interests. Because of this concern, we need additional time to respond to your request. We plan to further respond by March 20.[…]
EPA would also like to request copies of the transcripts from the Committee’s interviews of seven Agency employees. During the interview process, your staff noted concerns about the possible chilling effect on testimony of Agency employees if the Agency were privy to the information disclosed by the employees. In light of your March 12 letter, which contains multiple references to individual testimony and is posted on the Committee’s website, EPA believes that this concern is not longer a valid basis for withholding the transcripts from the Agency. The Agency has an interest in ensuring that the information provided to the Committee by Agency employees in their official capacity is accurate and complete, particularly here where that information appears to be the basis for a new and expansive document request.
We look forward to discussions with your staff on the scope of this request. As I have said before, this is a top priority for the Agency and we are committed to responding as expeditiously as possible. . .
Investing in Sustainable Energy Options in Ukraine via the Kyoto Protocol
This webcasted panel discussion will examine opportunities for U.S. businesses and others to invest in energy efficient and renewable energy projects in Ukraine using the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. The panelists will review opportunities for reducing energy waste in Ukraine’s major end-use energy sectors as well as the status and near-term potential for developing Ukraine’s solar, wind, biomass/biofuels, small hydro, geothermal, and coal-mine methane resources.
Panelists- Brian Castelli – Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Alliance to Save Energy
- John Palmisano – Chairman, IE3
- Rich Rosenzweig – Chief Operating Officer, Natsource
- Ken Bossong – Co-Director, Ukrainian-American Environmental Association
(biographical information on each of the four panelists follows below)
This event, being co-sponsored by the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation and The Washington Group, will be broadcast live on-line in English.
Persons planning to attend in person should arrive by 11:50 am
- (Ukrainian Time: 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm)
U.S.-Ukraine Foundation 1701 “K” Street NW Suite #903 Washington, DC 20006
TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS ON-LINE: Questions for the panelists can be e-mailed either in advance or during the discussion to [email protected]. Please type “Kyoto/Energy Panel” in the “subject” line.
TO REGISTER AND FOR MORE INFORMATION: For On-Site Attendance, RSVPs Required. Lunch will be served. Space is Limited.
RSVP by email to: [email protected].
The presentation will be broadcast live online. To register to watch online, please visit this link and follow the instructions.
Speakers:
JOHN PALMISANO Chairman, IE3
Since 1976, Mr. Palmisano has:
- Created 3 emissions brokerage and 1 emissions trading businesses, including the first emissions brokerage firm, AER*X
- Advised the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on developing a “green” exchange
- Consulted to trade associations, the US EPA, the United Nations, the World Bank, US Congress, the Russian government, the Ukrainian government, the Canadian government and many US and international companies on both emissions trading matters and developing “green” energy projects and policies
- Helped create three “green” NGOs that focus on promoting emissions trading—one in Russia, one in Ukraine, and one in the United States
- Established emission brokerage offices and representatives in Moscow, Kiev, Hong Kong, London, and Washington DC
- Brokered more than 70 emission trades
- Served as an expert witness in public utility commission and legal proceedings
- Managed the air pollution control program in California for an engineering company
- Developed several major environmental policies while working at US EPA
Mr. Palmisano’s immersion into emissions trading began when he was a manager at the United States Environmental Protection Agency where he developed regulatory reforms dealing with air and water pollution control. He received U.S. EPA’s Gold Medal for his work on emissions trading.
////////////////////////////////
BRIAN CASTELLI Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Alliance to Save Energy
Brian T. Castelli is the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Alliance to Save Energy. He has 30 years of national and international experience in the energy field, including expertise in energy efficiency, renewables, emission reductions, and electricity demand reduction.
Prior to joining the Alliance in July 2005, Castelli ran his own energy consulting firm. There he was the federal energy liaison for the California Energy Commission; a principal with the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, and a consultant to both the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).
As a presidential appointee, Castelli served as chief of staff to the U.S. Department of Energy’s assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy from 1994 to 2001. He managed 550 staff and more than $1 billion in programs and research, development, and deployment initiatives and directed the development and implementation of energy policies and programs.
Castelli also led and participated in missions to Western Hemisphere, European, and former Soviet Union countries and was also deeply involved in developing energy-efficiency measures for the eventual closure of the nuclear reactors in Chornobyl, Ukraine.
Prior to DOE, Castelli was appointed in 1988 by Gov. Bob Casey to the Pennsylvania Energy Office (PEO), for three years as deputy director for administration and public affairs and then as executive director, through 1994. As executive director he ran the commonwealth’s energy policies and programs, managed the state energy office and the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, and took the lead on responding to energy emergencies.
Notably, he developed a revolving loan fund for energy-efficiency measures and a “Green Buildings” program for cutting energy use and costs in all commonwealth-owned or operated buildings, and he drafted legislation for and implemented an alternative fuel program.
Earlier in his career, Castelli was vice president of finance for The National Center for Appropriate Technology; senior vice president and cofounder of CEXEC; and financial analyst with the Federal Energy Administration. He has authored many articles, studies, and reports on energy-related issues, served on various boards of directors, and made presentations in many state, national, and international forums and conferences.
Castelli holds two degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, a bachelor of science in chemical engineering and an MBA in industrial/environmental management from the university’s Wharton School.
////////////////////////////////
RICH ROSENZWEIG Chief Operating Officer, Natsource
Richard Rosenzweig, Chief Operating Officer of Natsource (Washington, DC), is responsible for the company’s global Advisory Services and Research business unit. He provides services to private firms, investment funds, governments, and international financial institutions on all aspects of climate change and renewable energy, including risk assessment and management, market entry strategies, trading system design, domestic policy development and international negotiations. Mr. Rosenzweig has extensive experience in all aspects of emissions trading and risk management. He represented several companies in the design of the U.S. Acid Rain and NOx SIP Call Programs. Mr. Rosenzweig was involved in the first transaction of UK and Danish greenhouse gas allowances. He joined Natsource from the Washington law firm of Van Ness Feldman, where he was Principal.
Mr. Rosenzweig served as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) from 1993-1996. His national policy responsibilities included the development and coordination of DOE strategy related to global climate change. He played key roles in developing the Clinton Administration’s Climate Change Action Plan, which incorporated the first project-based mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the Secretary of Energy’s international energy, environmental, and national security initiatives. He also helped to negotiate voluntary agreements between DOE and more than 600 electric utilities to achieve voluntary greenhouse gas reductions in the “Climate Challenge” program. Mr. Rosenzweig has written extensively on the greenhouse gas market, the impacts of trading system design, and the role of technology in addressing climate change. He has a BA degree from Northeastern University and an MS degree from American University in Political Science.
////////////////////////////////
KEN BOSSONG Co-Director, Ukrainian-American Environmental Association
A former volunteer in Ukraine with the U.S. Peace Corps (February 2000 – January 2003), Ken Bossong presently serves as the coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition, a U.S. NGO comprised of 50+ U.S. business, environmental, consumer, and energy policy organizations promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Over the past 35 years he has served as the director of several national U.S. environmental NGOs as well as worked as a member of several organizations working on Ukrainian issues. He has degrees in law, public administration, and environmental engineering.
Most recently he was a short-term scholar at the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center where he conducted research on sustainable energy policies and options for Ukraine.
////////////////////////////////
Major Financial Program Support provided by:
Chopivsky Family Foundation Dmytro & Jaroslava Jarosewycz Memorial Charitable Gift Fund Heritage Foundation of First Security Federal Savings Bank (Chicago, IL) The Maria Hulai Lion Foundaton Self Reliance (NY) Federal Credit Union (New York City) Selfreliance Ukrainian American Federal Credit Union (Chicago, IL) Sutaruk Foundation
Individuals: Leonard & Helena Mazur Marta Pereyma Murray Senkus Stefan & Wolodymyra Slywotzky
PEER: FWS Scientists in "Ethics Tug of War"; IG Launches Inquiry
This is crossposted from the newly launched Think Progress Wonk Room, which will be covering policy news from climate change to national security. The issues covered by Hill Heat writer Brad Johnson will enjoy deeper coverage at the Wonk Room, where he is now a full-time staffer.
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility today highlighted the ethical conundrum facing scientists currently serving under Fish & Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall.
In addition, this month the Interior Inspector General opened a preliminary inquiry into whether Hall violated the code of conduct for repeatedly missing Endangered Species Act deadlines to list the polar bear, despite clear scientific guidance.
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch asks: “How can we expect scientists to obey a code of conduct that their director ignores?”
The latest delay has also triggered a lawsuit from environmental groups.
Allison Winter reports for E&E News:The Interior Department’s internal watchdog said today it has begun a preliminary probe of the delayed polar bear decision.Responding to requests from environmental groups, the Inspector General’s Office official said its preliminary review will determine if there is a need for a full investigation.
The Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League and four other organizations requested a review by Inspector General Early Devaney, claiming the delay violates the Fish and Wildlife Service’s scientific code of conduct and rules of the Endangered Species Act by allowing MMS to proceed with Chukchi lease sales.
UCS at Chamber of Commerce Presentation Against Climate Legislation in New Hampshire
The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) (an industry coalition organized in 2001 to support the administration’s Energy Task Force efforts), the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are hosting a series of state climate change dialogues in 2008 in Ohio, New Hampshire, Montana, and North Dakota, with Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation, a conservative corporate think tank. The first such forum was held in Manchester, NH on Wednesday, March 12.
Jim Rubens, of the Union of Concerned Scientists attended the event. Below is his story of what transpired, a Hill Heat exclusive.The American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – fronting for coal, oil and the fossil-heavy utilities – last Wednesday road tested their forum on what they claim are the dire economic consequences of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. It was train wreck I am certain they will not want repeated.First, in response to a letter from 8 utility CEOs asking that exaggerations be removed from the Charles River Associates analysis forming the basis for the phony projections, lead ExxonMobil-funded economist Dr Margo Thorning announced that no specific impact numbers would be provided. We’d need to wait to see the new, even more slanted ACCF-sponsored study due to be released the next day.
Next, a couple of global warming denialists in the audience asked the Chamber rep why the nation’s business lobby was buying into the need for anything at all to be done, given that glaciers are growing worldwide, Mars is getting colder, etc. The response: the IPCC report is in, and attacking the science is no longer politically tenable. Subtext read in the facial expressions from the dais: we’d love to, but we’re stuck now fear mongering the economics of an American energy future of stable prices, domestic job growth, and intact Florida coastlines.
Next, Tufts economist Dr Julie Nelson asked Dr. Thorning whether the new ACCF-sponsored analysis would be any better than the CRA version, allowing peer review, disclosing assumptions, etc, like all the competing 25 climate-economy models which project only very modest impacts. Answer: an embarrassed no.
Next, yours truly asked Dr. Thorning whether the ACCF analysis – to correct the CRA’s failings – would model the costs of projected warming under the business as usual or baseline scenario at greater than zero, given that New Hampshire’s $650 million ski industry will be wiped out by 2100, or would assign a return greater than zero to stepped-up efficiency and conservation investments, or a value greater than zero for future energy technology innovation. Answer: another hang-dog faced no. Given the lack of data, there is no way to assign any number, she said.
I then asked Dr. Thorning whether it would therefore be fair to footnote the baseline scenario GDP and energy cost numbers, with a statement to the effect that the predicted cost of L-W is high because the baseline number is likely to be low, in that the cost of global warming under business as usual is greater than zero. She acknowledged some merit to that before quickly retreating from the room to work her cell phone.
Recommendations for the three future ACCF fora: be sure to have credible economists and clean energy and efficiency experts and developers in the room. Call them on every false, exaggerated and unsupported statement. Talk about what American entrepreneurs are doing right now in the states where the fora are held to make the American economy stronger while reducing the risks of future climate change. Make sure the media is present to witness it.
EPA Fully Embroiled in Scandal; Bush Changed Regulations
EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson has taken significant heat from environmental groups, state officials, and Congress for his December denial of California’s Clean Air Act waiver request to enact AB 32 to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions (and the February release of his justification). Congressional investigations, though stonewalled repeatedly by Johnson, have revealed that unanimous staff recommendations to approve the waiver were overturned by the administrator.
The Supreme Court decision Mass. v. EPA, which compelled the agency to make a decision on the waiver, also required the agency to make an endangerment finding as to whether greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and if so, to issue motor vehicle regulations. On Wednesday Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)’s Oversight Committee investigation revealed that Johnson in fact attempted to issue an endangerment finding and motor vehicle regulations in December, but was evidently overruled by the White House and Department of Transportation. Johnson is still being unresponsive to Waxman’s investigation, as well as the one newly opened by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) of the Global Warming Committee.
Late Wednesday night, the EPA issued new smog regulations, lowering the public health (primary) and public welfare (secondary) standards to 75 parts per billion from 84 ppb. The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin revealed that the EPA scientific panel was overruled in its recommendation to establish a much lower seasonal secondary standard to protect plantlife during the growing season:Nearly a year ago, EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reiterated in writing that its members were “unanimous in recommending” that the agency set the standard no higher than 70 parts per billion (ppb) and to consider a limit as low as 60 ppb.
She goes on to note that on March 6, the Office of Management and Budget’s Susan E. Dudley sent a letter to the EPA asking them to consider the effect of a too strict regulation on “economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,”. EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus C. Peacock replied that “EPA cannot consider costs in setting a secondary standard,” with the cutting retort: “EPA is not aware of any information that ozone has beneficial effects on economic values or on personal comfort and well being.”
Today Eilperin further revealed that President Bush personally stepped in at the last minute to block the EPA’s intended secondary standard.The president’s order prompted a scramble by administration officials to rewrite the regulations to avoid a conflict with past EPA statements on the harm caused by ozone. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement warned administration officials late Tuesday night that the rules contradicted the EPA’s past submissions to the Supreme Court, according to sources familiar with the conversation. As a consequence, administration lawyers hustled to craft new legal justifications for the weakened standard.
Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA Part II: Implications of the Supreme Court Decision
Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming will hold a hearing on Thursday March 13, 2008 with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and other experts to discuss EPA and the Bush administration’s response to the landmark Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA.
Witnesses
Panel I
- The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Panel II
- The Honorable Roderick Bremby, Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment
- The Honorable Josh Svaty, Kansas House Member
- Lisa Heinzerling, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel, Sierra Club
- Peter S. Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders
Summit on America's Energy Future
This event will feature presentations by leading thinkers on energy policy from the U.S. government (state and federal), universities, and the private sector, as well as international perspectives. It will take place in the main auditorium of the National Academy of Sciences building at 2100 C Street, NW, in Washington DC. This event will serve to develop information for the Academies’ ongoing study, America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs, and to stimulate discussion among leading thinkers with diverse points of view on energy issues as the 2008 U.S. elections approach.
The Summit will include presentations addressing three major energy themes: Energy Security; Energy and the Economy; and Energy and the Environment. During the sessions, the analyses and results of key recent energy studies will be presented by principals from:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Electric Power Research Institute
- InterAcademy Council
- International Energy Agency
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- McKinsey Global Institute
- National Commission on Energy Policy
- National Petroleum Council
- National Research Council
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- U.S. Climate Change Science and Technology Program
- U.S. Department of Energy
In each session, there will also be time provided for participants to ask questions to a roundtable of speakers. The preliminary agenda will be posted by mid-January. This event is expected to be very full – please register early (free) if you’d like to attend. If you have any questions, please contact us at energysummit at nas.edu.
Thursday, March 13, Auditorium, National Academy of Sciences Building
| 8:00-8:15 a.m. | Welcome and Introduction Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences (confirmed) |
| 8:15-9:45 a.m. | Current U.S. Energy Policy Context Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate (invited) The Geopolitical Context of America’s Energy Future Raymond L. Orbach, Undersecretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy (invited) The Geopolitics of Energy Fatih Birol, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency (confirmed) |
| 9:45-10:00 a.m. | Question and Answer Forum Moderator: Ralph Cicerone |
| 10:30-10:45 a.m. | Defining the Problems Robert W. Fri, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Resources for the Future (confirmed) |
| 10:45-11:15 a.m. | Reference Global Energy and Environment Projections Ged Davis, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Centre for Strategic Insight, and Co-Chair, Global Energy Assessment Council, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (confirmed) |
| 1:15-11:45 a.m. | Facing the Hard Truths about Energy Lee F. Raymond, Chair, National Petroleum Council (invited) |
| 11:45 a.m. – noon | Question and Answer Forum Moderator: Robert W. Fri |
|
Session 1 1:30-1:45 p.m. |
Introduction to Session 1 Harold T. Shapiro, President Emeritus, Princeton University and Chair, National Research Council Committee on America’s Energy Future (confirmed) |
| 1:45-2:30 p.m. |
The Future of Coal and Nuclear Power Ernest J. Moniz, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Co-Chair, MIT Interdisciplinary Study on the Future of Nuclear Power (confirmed) |
| 2:30-3:00 |
Biofuels: How Much, How Fast, and How Difficult? Jose Goldemberg, Secretary for the Environment, State of São Paulo, Brazil and Co-chair, Global Energy Assessment Council, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (confirmed) |
| 3:30-4:00 p.m. |
Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Paul R. Portney, Dean, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona and Chair, National Research Council Committee on Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (confirmed) |
| 4:00-4:30 p.m. |
Prospects of a Hydrogen Economy Michael P. Ramage, Executive VP, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co. (Retired), and Chair, National Research Council Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use (confirmed) |
| 4:30-5:15 p.m. |
Closing Address Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy (confirmed) Moderator: Harold Shapiro |
| 5:15-6:30 p.m. | Reception: Great Hall, National Academy of Sciences Building |
| Friday, March 14, Auditorium, National Academy of Sciences Building | |
|
Session 2 9:00-9:15 a.m. |
Introduction to Session 2 Charles M. Vest, President, National Academy of Engineering (confirmed) |
| 9:15-10:00 a.m. |
Ending the Energy Stalemate John P. Holdren, Professor, Harvard University and Co-Chair, National Commission on Energy Policy (confirmed) |
| 10:00-10:30 a.m. |
Google’s RechargeIT Program for Commercial Deployment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles Dan W. Reicher, Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Google.org (invited) |
| 11:00-11:30 a.m. |
Electricity Innovation Pathways Steven R. Specker, President, Electric Power Research Institute (confirmed) |
| 11:30 a.m.-noon |
Session 2 Question and Answer Forum Moderator: Charles M. Vest |
|
Session 3 1:15-1:30 p.m. |
Introduction to Session 3 Richard A. Meserve, President, Carnegie Institution for Science (confirmed) |
| 1:30-2:00 p.m. |
Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future Steven Chu, Director, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and Co-Chair, Interacademy Council Study Panel on a Sustainable Energy Future (confirmed) |
| 2:00-2:30 p.m. |
Global CO2 Reduction Supply Curve Matt Rogers, Director, McKinsey and Co. (invited) |
| 3:00-3:30 p.m. |
Winning the Oil End Game Amory Lovins, CEO, Rocky Mountain Institute, and Principal Investigator, Winning the Oil End Game (confirmed) |
| 3:30-4:00 p.m. |
Climate Change Technologies Robert Marlay, Deputy Director, Climate Change Technology Program, U.S. Department of Energy (confirmed) |
| 4:00-4:30 p.m. |
Session 3 Question and Answer Forum Moderator: Richard Meserve |
| 4:30 p.m. |
Closing Remarks and Adjourn Robert Fri |