/PRNewswire/ -- A coalition of major manufacturers, agricultural organizations and other industrial energy consumers today cautioned the Senate to avoid legislating new natural gas demand in any energy or climate change bill, saying such an approach would be "misguided" given existing strong demand growth and looming regulatory and political uncertainty surrounding access to major supply sources.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 67 industrial and agriculture energy consumers -- representing farm and food concerns and makers of chemicals, fertilizer, glass, paper and steel -- expressed concern about artificially creating power and transportation sector demand for natural gas through legislative incentives. Doing so, they said, would cause the type of fuel switching that has ripple effects through the economy.
Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), said legislating new demand would prompt increased price volatility and higher prices. Higher natural gas prices also mean higher electricity costs.
"The impact will be felt by all consumers, not just industrial users," Cicio said. "Farmers will pay more for fertilizer, natural gas to dry their crops and electricity to run their irrigation systems; homeowners will pay more to heat and cool their homes; and manufacturers would be confronted with greater competitiveness challenges which threaten jobs at home."
The coalition said gas demand has been steadily rising in the past decade without the incentives being contemplated in the Senate and in the absence of carbon caps, which will increasingly shift more power generators from coal to natural gas. The power sector's natural gas demand has grown by nearly 30% since 2001.
"The economic recovery and our energy security will be better served if U.S. energy policy ensures American manufacturing can continue to compete globally and keep its jobs here," said Peter Molinaro, Dow Chemical's vice president of federal and state government affairs. "Our economy needs a diverse base of price-sensitive natural gas consumers -- and a diverse energy supply -- in order to reduce price volatility in all energy sectors."
The letter urges the Senate to allow the market to set supply and demand for natural gas instead of picking 'winners' and 'losers' through legislation.
The coalition acknowledged there is great hope that the large shale gas reserves will materialize as recoverable supplies. "However, history has shown that unforeseen circumstances, including the potential for both federal and state regulations to be placed on shale drilling, can either slow its production, increase its costs or otherwise dramatically alter these types of future projections."
The industrial and agriculture consumers called for a coherent energy policy that balances gas demand with the economy's need for affordable supplies.
Signatories to the letter include: American Forest &Paper Association, Dow Chemical Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Land O' Lakes, Steel Manufacturers Association and The Fertilizer Institute.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
IADC Applauds Senators' Leadership in Opposing Federal Drilling Moratorium
/PRNewswire/ -- The International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) applauds the leadership of three United States Senators: David Vitter (Louisiana), John Cornyn (Texas), and Roger Wicker (Mississippi), who are opposing the federal moratorium on offshore permitting and drilling activities announced on July 12 by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Last week the three Gulf Coast senators sponsored legislation (S. 3588) to lift the offshore drilling and permitting moratorium for companies that have complied with the new safety and inspection requirements issued by the Department of the Interior.
"The men and women whose livelihoods depend on the offshore oil and gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf of Mexico deeply appreciate the efforts of our legislators to lift the drilling moratorium," said IADC President Dr. Lee Hunt. "Industry representatives have communicated to the Interior Department and Congress our industry's strong commitment to rigorous requirements for well design, enhanced training, and adoption of safety case requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs). We are dismayed by the continued blanket suspension of deepwater drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Lifting the moratorium is critical to tens of thousands of jobs in the deepwater industry and to the oil and gas service sector in the Gulf Coast region and throughout the country."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The men and women whose livelihoods depend on the offshore oil and gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf of Mexico deeply appreciate the efforts of our legislators to lift the drilling moratorium," said IADC President Dr. Lee Hunt. "Industry representatives have communicated to the Interior Department and Congress our industry's strong commitment to rigorous requirements for well design, enhanced training, and adoption of safety case requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs). We are dismayed by the continued blanket suspension of deepwater drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Lifting the moratorium is critical to tens of thousands of jobs in the deepwater industry and to the oil and gas service sector in the Gulf Coast region and throughout the country."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Price Carbon Campaign: Kerry-Lieberman Bill Is No Match for Climate Challenge
/PRNewswire/ -- While senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) should be commended for their tireless efforts on climate and energy legislation, several flaws in their proposal will prevent it from reducing carbon dioxide to levels that are safe and sustainable, the Price Carbon Campaign said in a statement today.
"The Kerry-Lieberman bill fails the acid test of climate legislation, which is to provide clear signals on emission prices. Investors, entrepreneurs and households all need certainty in future fuel and energy prices, but Kerry-Lieberman hides these crucial price signals behind a curtain of cap-and-trade," said economist Charles Komanoff, co-founder of the Carbon Tax Center, one of the campaign members.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill also allows polluters to purchase carbon offsets, which will delay by precious decades America's transition to clean energy, the campaign said.
"Instead of making needed investments in renewable energy, utilities will have the much cheaper option of investing in third-world projects aimed at cutting carbon," said Tom Stokes, Coordinator of the Climate Crisis Coalition. "Most of these offsets do nothing to reduce current emissions, and they allow polluters in the U.S. to keep burning coal and other dirty fuels."
The campaign also said the Kerry-Lieberman bill fails to adequately protect American households from rising energy costs.
"We need to cut CO2, but we shouldn't stick hard-working families with the bill," said Marshall Saunders, Founder and President of Citizens Climate Lobby, another campaign member. "We believe all the revenue derived from pricing carbon should be returned to everyone, either through direct payment or payroll tax reductions."
The Price Carbon Campaign supports the "People's Climate Stewardship Act," introduced by Dr. James Hansen at the Climate Rally in Washington, DC, on April 25. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Bob Inglis (R-SC) have each introduced bills based on the same paramount principles: steadily-increasing carbon fees and recycling the revenue back to the American people.
The Price Carbon Campaign includes Climate Crisis Coalition, Carbon Tax Center and Citizens Climate Lobby.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The Kerry-Lieberman bill fails the acid test of climate legislation, which is to provide clear signals on emission prices. Investors, entrepreneurs and households all need certainty in future fuel and energy prices, but Kerry-Lieberman hides these crucial price signals behind a curtain of cap-and-trade," said economist Charles Komanoff, co-founder of the Carbon Tax Center, one of the campaign members.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill also allows polluters to purchase carbon offsets, which will delay by precious decades America's transition to clean energy, the campaign said.
"Instead of making needed investments in renewable energy, utilities will have the much cheaper option of investing in third-world projects aimed at cutting carbon," said Tom Stokes, Coordinator of the Climate Crisis Coalition. "Most of these offsets do nothing to reduce current emissions, and they allow polluters in the U.S. to keep burning coal and other dirty fuels."
The campaign also said the Kerry-Lieberman bill fails to adequately protect American households from rising energy costs.
"We need to cut CO2, but we shouldn't stick hard-working families with the bill," said Marshall Saunders, Founder and President of Citizens Climate Lobby, another campaign member. "We believe all the revenue derived from pricing carbon should be returned to everyone, either through direct payment or payroll tax reductions."
The Price Carbon Campaign supports the "People's Climate Stewardship Act," introduced by Dr. James Hansen at the Climate Rally in Washington, DC, on April 25. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Bob Inglis (R-SC) have each introduced bills based on the same paramount principles: steadily-increasing carbon fees and recycling the revenue back to the American people.
The Price Carbon Campaign includes Climate Crisis Coalition, Carbon Tax Center and Citizens Climate Lobby.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Deloitte Survey: Age of Plenty Predicted for Natural Gas
/PRNewswire/ -- The United States is entering an age of plenty for natural gas, according to a survey of oil and gas professionals conducted by the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions.
"The survey numbers are striking," said Gary Adams, vice chairman and leader of Deloitte's oil and gas practice. "The overwhelming majority of survey respondents, 84 percent, say the best days for the natural gas industry are still ahead of us, despite today's low prices."
Current industry thinking would attribute this enthusiasm about natural gas to a surge in production from unconventional formations, such as shale and coal bed methane, and to the expectation that climate change legislation will increase the demand for gas-powered electricity generation.
Adams notes the survey confirms the increasingly common perception among many energy pundits that America's energy future will become more closely aligned with natural gas than we thought just a few years ago. In contrast, oil will continue to be a dominant fuel source for transportation for many years to come, but difficulties are expected to continue when it comes to finding and producing the fuel in the future, mainly because oil is increasingly found in challenging environments such as deep water and arctic regions, or in reserves controlled by national oil interests.
"While most analysts agree that oil will remain vital for transportation, the current belief in a vibrant future for domestic natural gas -- driven by significant technological advances in the production of gases from unconventional fuel sources -- stands in contrast to the industry's thinking just a few years ago, which indicated that natural gas supplies in the United States would not grow dramatically," said Adams.
The survey further supports the optimism about a natural gas future by looking at several key perceptions:
-- While oil is expected to remain the single most widely used energy
source in the United States for some time, its usage is expected to
decline over time. The number of respondents that expect oil to remain
the most widely used overall energy source in the United States drops
16 points over the next five years -- sinking to 41 percent who
believe oil will dominate in 2015 from 57 percent who currently think
oil is the most widely used overall energy source.
-- In contrast, expectations that natural gas will be the most widely
used fuel source by 2015 double over the next five years, rising to
almost one quarter (24 percent) who believe it will dominate in 2015
from one in 10 respondents who see natural gas as the currently
dominant fuel source. Current industry thinking would indicate that
much of the rising demand for natural gas will be for power
generation.
-- Additionally, almost one in 10 respondents expects unconventional
natural gas to be the main source of energy in five years -- as well
as an additional 4 percent who think it will be liquid natural gas
(LNG) -- further elevating the status of natural gas in respondents'
views as a critical energy source.
-- When it comes to fossil fuel production, 85 percent of respondents
believe the domestic production of natural gas will increase in the
next five years, compared to only 45 percent who think American oil
production will increase during the same time period.
-- A higher percentage of survey respondents believe oil prices will
increase versus respondents that think natural gas prices will
increase. More than half (51 percent) believe the price of oil will
greatly increase over the next five years. In contrast, only 32
percent of respondents foresee the price of natural gas greatly
increasing in the same time period, probably due to the abundant
supply of natural gas versus increasingly constrained oil supplies.
Climate Change Legislation Expected to Pass; Industry and Consumers to Feel Impact
Survey respondents also were in accord regarding climate change legislation, anticipating some form of the legislation would pass within two years, but that it would penalize oil and gas companies, and increase fuel prices for consumers.
"According to our survey," said Adams, "a solid majority of respondents, 60 percent, think that some form of the climate change legislation currently under discussion in Congress will be finalized and passed within the next two years. A mere 14 percent think Congress will never pass such legislation."
While oil and gas professionals are split on whether or not climate change legislation will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are united in their opinions that it will push consumer prices higher and penalize oil and gas companies:
-- More than 90 percent of respondents believe climate change legislation
will lead to higher gasoline and natural gas prices for consumers.
-- Three quarters (75 percent) of all respondents expect climate change
legislation will lead to significantly lower profits for oil and gas
companies and 68 percent say it will lead to more layoffs in the
industry.
-- Most oil and gas professionals (76 percent) believe that climate
change legislation is not likely to create more jobs for Americans.
"All of this speaks to a general concern about the effectiveness of governmental energy policies among oil and gas professionals," said Adams. "The survey reveals that most oil and gas professionals, 76 percent, think the energy industry is heading in the wrong direction and a similar amount, 63 percent, say it is in worse shape now than it was even a year ago."
Despite Concerns about Layoffs and Expense Cutting, Respondents are Optimistic about Exploration and Production Revenues
When the survey looked at recession-related business issues, it found that concerns about layoffs and expense cutting persisted among oil and gas professionals:
-- Almost one in two oil and gas professionals expects that layoffs in
the industry will increase over the next year.
-- Most oil and gas professionals say their companies are reducing
operating expenses (75 percent) and many say their companies are
reducing overall capital expenditures (56 percent) in response to the
recession.
Despite these concerns, respondents do not expect revenues to shrink in the various oil and gas industry sectors in the next year, with the exception of the refining sector:
-- 76 percent expect revenues to grow at national oil companies
-- 76 percent expect revenues to grow at international oil companies
-- 67 percent expect revenues to grow at independent exploration and
production companies
-- 61 percent expect revenues to grow at supply and service companies
-- 58 percent expect revenues to grow at outside energy consultancies
-- 35 percent expect revenues to grow at refining companies
The survey also shows that, contrary to speculation by many analysts about mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector, most oil and gas professionals do not currently see such activity at their own companies. When asked how their individual companies are responding to current oil and gas prices, only 14 percent say their company is pursuing a merger or acquisition.
"What we are seeing here is an underlying confidence in the sustainability of the oil and gas industry," said Adams. "Oil and gas companies have survived severe volatility over the past decades, and despite the current recession, these companies have sophisticated, adaptable business models and believe they can post healthy revenues well into the future."
Energy Independence will be Hard to Achieve in the Near Term
A final area of interest in the survey concerned energy independence. Oil and gas professionals are more or less evenly split on whether or not the United States can realistically achieve energy independence with 53 percent saying the United States can achieve independence while 46 percent say it cannot. Among the half that believes it is possible, most do not expect it for at least 15 years.
Concerns about independence from foreign oil are further complicated by climate change legislation. The majority of oil and gas professionals (62 percent) think climate change legislation will worsen the United States' dependence on foreign nations for oil.
Adams believes the survey responses reinforce the idea that oil and gas professionals are clearly looking to the future and that they see their industry as a vital part of the bridge to alternative energy and renewables. "Oil and gas will continue to be critical to meeting energy demand for many years to come, with natural gas playing an increasingly important role in our energy future. The oil and gas industry is healthy, innovative and enthusiastic about the opportunities before it," he added.
To view a graphic related to this survey, visit www.deloitte.com/us/OilSurvey2009. A high resolution version of the graphic is available upon request.
To obtain the full findings, contact Jon Rucket at 713-819-0712 (mobile) or 713-982-4217 (office) or jrucket@deloitte.com.
Survey Methodology
Deloitte conducted 200 quantitative interviews among oil and gas professionals from Oct. 30, 2009 to Nov. 5, 2009. All respondents were energy sector employees who have worked in the industry for at least five years, are college educated and earned at least $100,000 per year.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"The survey numbers are striking," said Gary Adams, vice chairman and leader of Deloitte's oil and gas practice. "The overwhelming majority of survey respondents, 84 percent, say the best days for the natural gas industry are still ahead of us, despite today's low prices."
Current industry thinking would attribute this enthusiasm about natural gas to a surge in production from unconventional formations, such as shale and coal bed methane, and to the expectation that climate change legislation will increase the demand for gas-powered electricity generation.
Adams notes the survey confirms the increasingly common perception among many energy pundits that America's energy future will become more closely aligned with natural gas than we thought just a few years ago. In contrast, oil will continue to be a dominant fuel source for transportation for many years to come, but difficulties are expected to continue when it comes to finding and producing the fuel in the future, mainly because oil is increasingly found in challenging environments such as deep water and arctic regions, or in reserves controlled by national oil interests.
"While most analysts agree that oil will remain vital for transportation, the current belief in a vibrant future for domestic natural gas -- driven by significant technological advances in the production of gases from unconventional fuel sources -- stands in contrast to the industry's thinking just a few years ago, which indicated that natural gas supplies in the United States would not grow dramatically," said Adams.
The survey further supports the optimism about a natural gas future by looking at several key perceptions:
-- While oil is expected to remain the single most widely used energy
source in the United States for some time, its usage is expected to
decline over time. The number of respondents that expect oil to remain
the most widely used overall energy source in the United States drops
16 points over the next five years -- sinking to 41 percent who
believe oil will dominate in 2015 from 57 percent who currently think
oil is the most widely used overall energy source.
-- In contrast, expectations that natural gas will be the most widely
used fuel source by 2015 double over the next five years, rising to
almost one quarter (24 percent) who believe it will dominate in 2015
from one in 10 respondents who see natural gas as the currently
dominant fuel source. Current industry thinking would indicate that
much of the rising demand for natural gas will be for power
generation.
-- Additionally, almost one in 10 respondents expects unconventional
natural gas to be the main source of energy in five years -- as well
as an additional 4 percent who think it will be liquid natural gas
(LNG) -- further elevating the status of natural gas in respondents'
views as a critical energy source.
-- When it comes to fossil fuel production, 85 percent of respondents
believe the domestic production of natural gas will increase in the
next five years, compared to only 45 percent who think American oil
production will increase during the same time period.
-- A higher percentage of survey respondents believe oil prices will
increase versus respondents that think natural gas prices will
increase. More than half (51 percent) believe the price of oil will
greatly increase over the next five years. In contrast, only 32
percent of respondents foresee the price of natural gas greatly
increasing in the same time period, probably due to the abundant
supply of natural gas versus increasingly constrained oil supplies.
Climate Change Legislation Expected to Pass; Industry and Consumers to Feel Impact
Survey respondents also were in accord regarding climate change legislation, anticipating some form of the legislation would pass within two years, but that it would penalize oil and gas companies, and increase fuel prices for consumers.
"According to our survey," said Adams, "a solid majority of respondents, 60 percent, think that some form of the climate change legislation currently under discussion in Congress will be finalized and passed within the next two years. A mere 14 percent think Congress will never pass such legislation."
While oil and gas professionals are split on whether or not climate change legislation will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are united in their opinions that it will push consumer prices higher and penalize oil and gas companies:
-- More than 90 percent of respondents believe climate change legislation
will lead to higher gasoline and natural gas prices for consumers.
-- Three quarters (75 percent) of all respondents expect climate change
legislation will lead to significantly lower profits for oil and gas
companies and 68 percent say it will lead to more layoffs in the
industry.
-- Most oil and gas professionals (76 percent) believe that climate
change legislation is not likely to create more jobs for Americans.
"All of this speaks to a general concern about the effectiveness of governmental energy policies among oil and gas professionals," said Adams. "The survey reveals that most oil and gas professionals, 76 percent, think the energy industry is heading in the wrong direction and a similar amount, 63 percent, say it is in worse shape now than it was even a year ago."
Despite Concerns about Layoffs and Expense Cutting, Respondents are Optimistic about Exploration and Production Revenues
When the survey looked at recession-related business issues, it found that concerns about layoffs and expense cutting persisted among oil and gas professionals:
-- Almost one in two oil and gas professionals expects that layoffs in
the industry will increase over the next year.
-- Most oil and gas professionals say their companies are reducing
operating expenses (75 percent) and many say their companies are
reducing overall capital expenditures (56 percent) in response to the
recession.
Despite these concerns, respondents do not expect revenues to shrink in the various oil and gas industry sectors in the next year, with the exception of the refining sector:
-- 76 percent expect revenues to grow at national oil companies
-- 76 percent expect revenues to grow at international oil companies
-- 67 percent expect revenues to grow at independent exploration and
production companies
-- 61 percent expect revenues to grow at supply and service companies
-- 58 percent expect revenues to grow at outside energy consultancies
-- 35 percent expect revenues to grow at refining companies
The survey also shows that, contrary to speculation by many analysts about mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector, most oil and gas professionals do not currently see such activity at their own companies. When asked how their individual companies are responding to current oil and gas prices, only 14 percent say their company is pursuing a merger or acquisition.
"What we are seeing here is an underlying confidence in the sustainability of the oil and gas industry," said Adams. "Oil and gas companies have survived severe volatility over the past decades, and despite the current recession, these companies have sophisticated, adaptable business models and believe they can post healthy revenues well into the future."
Energy Independence will be Hard to Achieve in the Near Term
A final area of interest in the survey concerned energy independence. Oil and gas professionals are more or less evenly split on whether or not the United States can realistically achieve energy independence with 53 percent saying the United States can achieve independence while 46 percent say it cannot. Among the half that believes it is possible, most do not expect it for at least 15 years.
Concerns about independence from foreign oil are further complicated by climate change legislation. The majority of oil and gas professionals (62 percent) think climate change legislation will worsen the United States' dependence on foreign nations for oil.
Adams believes the survey responses reinforce the idea that oil and gas professionals are clearly looking to the future and that they see their industry as a vital part of the bridge to alternative energy and renewables. "Oil and gas will continue to be critical to meeting energy demand for many years to come, with natural gas playing an increasingly important role in our energy future. The oil and gas industry is healthy, innovative and enthusiastic about the opportunities before it," he added.
To view a graphic related to this survey, visit www.deloitte.com/us/OilSurvey2009. A high resolution version of the graphic is available upon request.
To obtain the full findings, contact Jon Rucket at 713-819-0712 (mobile) or 713-982-4217 (office) or jrucket@deloitte.com.
Survey Methodology
Deloitte conducted 200 quantitative interviews among oil and gas professionals from Oct. 30, 2009 to Nov. 5, 2009. All respondents were energy sector employees who have worked in the industry for at least five years, are college educated and earned at least $100,000 per year.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Climate Change Bill Needs State Roles, Says Emory's Buzbee
The Boxer-Kerry bill on climate change now making its way through Congress moves in the right direction, says environmental law expert William Buzbee, but some critical improvements are needed to make the legislation effective.
Buzbee's analysis of the bill, one of a series from the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) by their member scholars, appears on the CPRBlog.
One unintended consequence of the bill's many implementation steps and corrective mechanisms, writes Buzbee, "is an avalanche of obligations." A big question, he says, is whether this "will lead to implementation delays."
A big risk in Boxer-Kerry, says Buzbee, "is that the federal law could prove too lax, but that the federal legislative and regulatory venues would be gridlocked and hence unable to set new, lower emissions caps or take other actions to lower emissions levels."
If that happens, he writes, "states might once again want to reassume the climate change leadership role they exhibited over the past decade and take actions to reduce emissions."
The bill does have provisions to preserve states' ability to require lower emissions than federally mandated, and provisions to prevent polluters from "simply turning and selling emission allowances or credits outside the jurisdiction."
Boxer-Kerry also retains the power of the federal EPA "to take action to supplement a cap-and-trade scheme if that proves necessary," writes Buzbee. "In reality, the mere threat of such supplemental action could nudge polluters into supporting implementation of the cap-and-trade regime."
Yet the bill is less than clear on whether "state supplemental roles are meant to be preserved under all the bill's provisions," writes Buzbee. A second important but missing element "is a citizen suit provision authorizing citizens to sue regulators, polluters, or other players in the cap-and-trade market for violations of the law."
With a law this complicated, writes Buzbee, "a multiplicity of enforcers is needed."
He concludes that "retention of state roles in combating climate change and adding a citizen suit provision" are near necessities "if a cap-and-trade market is to become a well policed reality."
Buzbee is professor of law and director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at Emory Law School. He is also a director of Emory’s new Center on Federalism and Intersystemic Governance.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Buzbee's analysis of the bill, one of a series from the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) by their member scholars, appears on the CPRBlog.
One unintended consequence of the bill's many implementation steps and corrective mechanisms, writes Buzbee, "is an avalanche of obligations." A big question, he says, is whether this "will lead to implementation delays."
A big risk in Boxer-Kerry, says Buzbee, "is that the federal law could prove too lax, but that the federal legislative and regulatory venues would be gridlocked and hence unable to set new, lower emissions caps or take other actions to lower emissions levels."
If that happens, he writes, "states might once again want to reassume the climate change leadership role they exhibited over the past decade and take actions to reduce emissions."
The bill does have provisions to preserve states' ability to require lower emissions than federally mandated, and provisions to prevent polluters from "simply turning and selling emission allowances or credits outside the jurisdiction."
Boxer-Kerry also retains the power of the federal EPA "to take action to supplement a cap-and-trade scheme if that proves necessary," writes Buzbee. "In reality, the mere threat of such supplemental action could nudge polluters into supporting implementation of the cap-and-trade regime."
Yet the bill is less than clear on whether "state supplemental roles are meant to be preserved under all the bill's provisions," writes Buzbee. A second important but missing element "is a citizen suit provision authorizing citizens to sue regulators, polluters, or other players in the cap-and-trade market for violations of the law."
With a law this complicated, writes Buzbee, "a multiplicity of enforcers is needed."
He concludes that "retention of state roles in combating climate change and adding a citizen suit provision" are near necessities "if a cap-and-trade market is to become a well policed reality."
Buzbee is professor of law and director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at Emory Law School. He is also a director of Emory’s new Center on Federalism and Intersystemic Governance.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Subplots Will Signal Whether New Senate Energy Bill Gets Passed
On Wednesday, U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would establish for the first time a comprehensive national low-carbon energy program.
Tim Profeta, director of Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, has seen similar legislation introduced on Capitol Hill over the past 10 years, and calls the latest bill “a cautious first move in what must be a bipartisan leap to modernize the U.S. energy economy. The bill leaves question marks, appropriately, on some of the toughest issues.”
Profeta, who served as Counsel for the Environment to Sen. Joseph Lieberman before becoming founding director of the Nicholas Institute in 2005, said there will be telltale signs on whether Democrats and Republicans will be able to reach agreement on this issue.
“Make sure to watch three key subplots in this story develop,” he says. “First, will senators struggle to choose the right policy tool to prevent the costs of energy transition from harming consumers, business or the economy as a whole.
“Second, as the global economy continues to grow as an organic whole, how will lawmakers strengthen U.S. competitiveness in international trade.
“Third, in the wake of last year's Wall Street financial meltdown, will the new market for carbon credits be designed smartly, drawing on all of our knowledge and experience of how efficient markets work.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
State-by-State Analysis of Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation Paints Dour Picture for Nation's Economy
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) today unveiled a comprehensive study on the impact of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 2454). The bill aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to cap the amount of carbon that is emitted by U.S. industry. The legislation does so by mandating a cap and trade program and other provisions governing fuel choices available to businesses and consumers. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a slim margin (219-212) earlier this summer. The Senate is expected to release its version of climate legislation in September.
The study, which was commissioned by the NAM and ACCF and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) using NAM and ACCF input assumptions, assesses the impact of the Waxman-Markey Bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and our overall economy. The NAM and ACCF released national data as well as the analysis for 15 industrial states that would be impacted greatly if this or similar legislation is signed into law. The full report, including the data covering the remaining 35 states will be released in the coming weeks.
Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the NAM said, "Climate change is a very complex issue and I hope Senators will look closely at this study as they consider climate change legislation this fall. At a time when our country is struggling to come out of our longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, lawmakers should be focused on policies that provide incentives for businesses so they can create jobs and grow. Unfortunately, this study confirms that the Waxman-Markey Bill is an 'anti-jobs, anti-growth' piece of legislation. Further, leaders of countries such as China and India have made it clear they have no intention of reducing their own emissions. Waxman-Markey would give an edge to overseas competitors, discouraging domestic investment and the creation of American jobs."
The NAM/ACCF study accounts for all federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price (WOP) profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February are included in this study. Key findings include:
-- Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion
(2012-2030)
-- Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030
-- Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030
-- Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030
Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist for ACCF, highlighted the importance of reviewing economic findings while debating the climate change legislation. "This data shows that we cannot divorce the environmental impacts from potential economic damages. Policymakers may have the best of intentions when it comes to the environment, but it's crucial that we compare the economic cost to the legislation's actual impact on global GHG reductions. Considering that developing countries such as China and India have publicly stated that they will not undertake similar emissions policies, there would be almost no global environmental benefits from the bill. Ultimately, this study shows that Waxman-Markey, would significantly decrease employment and increase energy prices at a time when we can least afford it."
Further, this study shows industrial states would be disproportionately impacted by high energy prices, loss of jobs and income. The 15 states analyzed in the initial study include:
1. Arkansas
2. Illinois
3. Indiana
4. Iowa
5. Kentucky
6. Michigan
7. Minnesota
8. Missouri
9. North Carolina
10. Ohio
11. Pennsylvania
12. Tennessee
13. Virginia
14. West Virginia
15. Wisconsin
SAIC used a modified version of the National Energy Modeling System, NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2, and the NAM and ACCF input assumptions, to quantify the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.
"Policymakers and the public must have a clear understanding of the potential impact of climate change legislation to assess whether it will cause more economic harm than environmental good," concluded Timmons.
The national and 15 state-by-state economic impacts can be found by visiting: http://www.accf.org/publications/126/accf-nam-study
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The study, which was commissioned by the NAM and ACCF and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) using NAM and ACCF input assumptions, assesses the impact of the Waxman-Markey Bill on manufacturing, jobs, energy prices and our overall economy. The NAM and ACCF released national data as well as the analysis for 15 industrial states that would be impacted greatly if this or similar legislation is signed into law. The full report, including the data covering the remaining 35 states will be released in the coming weeks.
Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the NAM said, "Climate change is a very complex issue and I hope Senators will look closely at this study as they consider climate change legislation this fall. At a time when our country is struggling to come out of our longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, lawmakers should be focused on policies that provide incentives for businesses so they can create jobs and grow. Unfortunately, this study confirms that the Waxman-Markey Bill is an 'anti-jobs, anti-growth' piece of legislation. Further, leaders of countries such as China and India have made it clear they have no intention of reducing their own emissions. Waxman-Markey would give an edge to overseas competitors, discouraging domestic investment and the creation of American jobs."
The NAM/ACCF study accounts for all federal energy laws and regulations currently in effect. It accounts for increased access to oil and natural gas supplies, new and extended tax credits for renewable generation technologies, increased World Oil Price (WOP) profile, as well as permit allocations for industry and international offsets. Additionally, the provisions of the stimulus package passed in February are included in this study. Key findings include:
-- Cumulative Loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion
(2012-2030)
-- Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030
-- Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030
-- Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030
Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist for ACCF, highlighted the importance of reviewing economic findings while debating the climate change legislation. "This data shows that we cannot divorce the environmental impacts from potential economic damages. Policymakers may have the best of intentions when it comes to the environment, but it's crucial that we compare the economic cost to the legislation's actual impact on global GHG reductions. Considering that developing countries such as China and India have publicly stated that they will not undertake similar emissions policies, there would be almost no global environmental benefits from the bill. Ultimately, this study shows that Waxman-Markey, would significantly decrease employment and increase energy prices at a time when we can least afford it."
Further, this study shows industrial states would be disproportionately impacted by high energy prices, loss of jobs and income. The 15 states analyzed in the initial study include:
1. Arkansas
2. Illinois
3. Indiana
4. Iowa
5. Kentucky
6. Michigan
7. Minnesota
8. Missouri
9. North Carolina
10. Ohio
11. Pennsylvania
12. Tennessee
13. Virginia
14. West Virginia
15. Wisconsin
SAIC used a modified version of the National Energy Modeling System, NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2, and the NAM and ACCF input assumptions, to quantify the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.
"Policymakers and the public must have a clear understanding of the potential impact of climate change legislation to assess whether it will cause more economic harm than environmental good," concluded Timmons.
The national and 15 state-by-state economic impacts can be found by visiting: http://www.accf.org/publications/126/accf-nam-study
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
