WRI Publications Feed: U.S. Climate & Energy Legislation

Testimony: American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of North America's Energy Resources

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:21:07 -0500

Summary of Key Points

Our energy choices need to factor in both opportunities and risks. This testimony gives particular attention to why we must consider the risk of climate change, both on our resources being developed and utilized today and on our choices for development into the future. It concludes with the following recommendations:

Congress should request that the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee review the current authorities of federal agencies and national laboratories, and recommend how consideration of risks associated with climate change can be more directly incorporated into decision-making.
Congress should support efforts to better assess the impacts of climate change on America’s energy infrastructure and incorporate this into planning and investment decisions.
Congress should keep in mind four important criteria in considering policies to drive more effective clean energy growth and competitiveness: any energy policy should be comprehensive, long-term, targeted, and inclusive.
In capturing energy efficiency across the economy, Congress can play a constructive role in two key areas:
- Informed consumer choice: supporting and expanding programs to help ensure product labeling is accurate and publicly reported in a timely manner, to encourage energy-wise investment decisions throughout the U.S. economy.
- Efficiency standards: supporting and extending the ability of federal agencies to develop and update energy efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, and other energy-consuming equipment that is sold into U.S. commerce.
Congress must work toward reaching bipartisan agreement on national energy policies that encourage more efficient energy consumption, increase the diversity of domestic energy production, maximize deployment of low-carbon energy technologies, and minimize environmental impacts throughout our energy systems. In the near-term, it is also critical for Congress to provide funding and incentives for low-carbon and clean energy technologies.

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the United States: An Overview of the Current Policy Landscape

Sarah Parsons — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:11:27 -0500

Executive Summary

In 2009, at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, President Barack Obama pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “in the range of a 17 percent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.” To date, this pledge is not enshrined in or supported by any domestic law. However, a variety of federal policies and programs are directly and indirectly reducing GHG emissions. In addition, U.S. state and local governments have authority to adopt GHG-reduction policies, and some are taking noteworthy actions.

In the context of the U.S. GHG reduction goal, this report examines key existing and emerging federal policies that are likely to reduce GHG emissions in the United States. Pages 10-12 also provide examples of policy actions being taken by U.S. states. For federal policies, our discussion focuses on those that are mandatory or provide a financial incentive, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), tax credits for renewable energy, and new standards for passenger cars and trucks. These programs, and others that are considered in the pages that follow, will drive significant reductions in U.S. GHG emissions.

Will this be enough to meet U.S. GHG reduction goals? Although this report does not provide an exhaustive assessment of U.S. policies, U.S. government GHG projections suggest that additional policy action is likely to be necessary for the United States to achieve the president’s GHG reduction target and continue significant emissions reductions after 2020. At this time, no promising initiatives are being considered in the U.S. Congress to drive further reductions in GHG pollution.

However, federal agencies already have the authority to do more, and have begun to take action. Additional policies such as standards for existing power plants, additional energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, and policies that reduce HFC consumption, can drive additional reductions in 2020 and beyond. WRI is conducting a separate analysis to quantify the possible reductions from these policies and to examine their impact on the United States’ 2020 reduction target. Moving forward it will be important to track action on these and other policies.

Fact Sheet: The Connection Between Climate Change and Recent Extreme Weather Events

Sarah Parsons — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:20:06 -0400

What do we know about the connection between climate change and recent extreme weather events, such as the heat waves, drought, and fires?

Scientists agree that climate change has already primed the pump for extreme weather events:

A recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists compared the rising risk of extreme weather events to a baseball player’s improved performance after taking steroids. “For any one of his home runs… you would not know for sure whether it was caused by steroids or not…. But you might be able to attribute his increased number to the steroids.”
Recent climate science assessment reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Global Change Research Program find that several types of extreme weather are on the rise, that man-made climate change is likely responsible, and that these trends are expected to continue. Jonathan Overpeck, a professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona, said, “This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about…. This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level.”

Extreme Heat

Government scientists at NOAA are saying that man-made climate change has increased the probability of longer and more intense heat waves.
This year the U.S. has been breaking high temperature records at a ratio of 10-to-1 over cold temperature records (in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, the typical ratio was 1-to-1).
The U.S. has just experienced the warmest 12-month period since record-keeping began in 1895.
More than 26,000 new record temperature highs have been set this year (2012) alone in the United States.
According to NOAA, June 2012 marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. Thomas Karl, Director of NOAA’s climate office said, “We believe there is an important human component explaining these record-breaking temperatures, and that’s the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Droughts

The recent study by NOAA scientists found that the conditions leading to the 2011 Texas drought are 20 times more likely to occur now, in a world warmed by greenhouse gas emissions, than in the 1960s. The head of NOAA’s climate office, Tom Karl, stated, “What we’re seeing, not only in Texas but in other phenomena in other parts of the world, where we can’t explain these events by natural variability alone. They’re just too rare, too uncommon.”
Nearly two-thirds of the contiguous U.S. is currently suffering from drought.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has designated 1,297 counties across 29 states as disaster areas–this is the largest natural disaster area declaration in U.S. history.
U.S. government research shows that global warming intensifies both drought and heat, making drought events even dryer and heat waves even warmer than they otherwise would have been. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said man-made global warming “…creates stronger, more intense, and longer-lasting drought. No doubt about it.”
The U.S. Global Change Research Program has projected more frequent and severe droughts across much of the United States in the coming decades. For the Great Plains region, 70 percent of which is farmland, their projection is dire: increasing temperatures and evaporation rates and more sustained drought, further stressing already overstrained water resources.

Fires

This summer’s wildfires in Colorado were promoted by hot and extremely dry conditions and belownormal snowfall during the recent winter. Early summer statewide snowpack in Colorado was at 2 percent of its historic average. According to the USDA Undersecretary, Harris Sherman, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, whose firefighters are on the front lines, “The climate is changing, and these fires are a very strong indicator of that.”
According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, climate change has likely contributed to a significant increase in big forest fires in the West. Over the past 30 years, large and long-duration forest fires in the American West have increased fourfold, the length of the fire season has expanded by 2.5 months, and the size of wildfires has increased several-fold.

Download the fact sheet to see full citations.

An Updated Response to EEI’s Timeline of Environmental Regulations

Kevin Lustig — Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:48 -0400

This fact sheet updates the analysis done in our earlier response to EEI’s timeline of environmental regulations.

EPA remains on track in issuing rules that provide a path to a cleaner power fleet.

After years of delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to reduce dangerous and toxic pollutants released to the air and water by electric power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other statutes. Four key points about EPA’s actions are clear:

Clarifying EEI’s Timeline

Figure 1: Edison Electric Institute’s Timeline of Environmental Regulatory Requirements for the Utility Industry (Click to enlarge)

Figure 2: Modified Edison Electric Institute Timeline, Removing All But New Compliance Obligations (Click to enlarge)

Figure 3: Timeline of Actual Compliance Obligations for Electric Power Plants (Click to enlarge)

Contrary to assertions by industry groups, EPA is pursuing a realistic timeline over the next five to ten years to bring the electric power industry into compliance with the law.
In most cases, the electric power sector has been on notice for several years (in some cases several decades) that these pollutants would be regulated.
Without new regulations, these pollutants will continue to impair America’s waterways, heat the planet, perpetuate acid rain, and lead to preventable hospital visits and premature deaths.
In each of its rulemakings, EPA provides for an extensive, open, and evidence-based public process. This leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector. As EPA finalizes each rule, it will establish an increasingly clear pathway for investments in an American electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

CEOs and other representatives of major electric power corporations have suggested that EPA’s regulatory timeline is unworkable. The largest industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), produced a slide in 2010 (updated in May 2011) that purports to display an onslaught of new requirements for power plants. EEI has distributed this slide (reproduced in Figure 1) widely on Capitol Hill, where it presumably hopes to win lawmakers’support for additional delays in EPA rules or even a stripping of EPA’s regulatory authority.

WRI has identified four categories of EPA activities on the EEI timeline that are potentially misleading. When these activities are removed, only the timing of actual new compliance obligations is left. In Figure 2, “X”s (color coded for each filter in the screening process) have been applied to remove events from EEI’s timeline that are not consequential from a compliance standpoint.

Rules that have been remanded or vacated by court decisions that do not impose compliance obligations.
Rules that were already in effect when EEI circulated its chart, representing compliance obligations that already exist; there are no new requirements imposed by these rules.
Public input through the rulemaking process (which leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector, and should not be conflated with new compliance obligations).
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) rules for various pollutants that set standards for states to achieve. They do not establish new requirements for electric generation units.

The EPA regulatory process is far from a “train wreck.” EEI’s misleading timeline consists mostly of procedural events and activities that will not impose a direct compliance obligation on power plants. This serves only to spread confusion about EPA’s actual regulatory schedule.

Figure 3 shows a more accurate picture of the timeline for new requirements applicable to electric power plants.

EPA is carrying out the intent of Congress (through the passage of the bipartisan Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and subsequent amendments) to clean the nation’s air and water. These rules can help the United States transition to cleaner and more efficient power plants by establishing a clear pathway for investments in an electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

The CAA requires EPA and states to regulate and reduce harmful pollutants from major emissions sources, including power plants. To date, this framework has delivered substantial improvements in air quality and significant public health benefits estimated between $82 and $556 billion annually. Over the next decade, power plants will be subject to new rules under the CAA as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to control substances that cause serious health problems and substantial damage to America’s natural resources. These rules will take effect after long lead times; in most cases industry has been on notice for years that these pollutants would be regulated.

Many of the regulations under consideration by EPA have been in the regulatory pipeline for over a decade. Due to administrative delays and litigation resulting in court decisions remanding or vacating previous rules, many of these rules have not been finalized or the final rules were reversed. In many cases Congress has set statutory deadlines for EPA to act, EPA has missed the deadlines, and courts have ordered EPA to act.

Download the complete fact sheet (includes additional figures, footnotes, and references) (PDF, 476 Kb)

Fact Sheet: U.S. Electricity Markets Increasingly Favor Alternatives to Coal

Kevin Lustig — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:20:35 -0400

The U.S. electric power system is gradually shifting toward cleaner forms of generation. One sign of this transition is the declining use of coal for electric power production.

In 2011, use of coal for U.S. power generation dropped to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to the federal government’s independent U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). In fact, the EIA reported1 earlier in 2012 that coal’s share of total U.S. electric power generation dropped below 40% for the last two months of 2011, the lowest level since 1978.

To understand the cause of this decline, it is important to examine contributing market forces. Doing so provides important context for recent coal plant retirement announcements, particularly given that some companies have attributed retirements to EPA rules that are still years away from going into force. For example, FirstEnergy Corp. announced in late January 20122 that it would retire several of its smaller coal-fired power plants, explaining that the decision was “based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which were recently finalized, and other environmental regulations.” FirstEnergy, however, had previously cited a range of reasons3 for its decision to reduce operations at many of its smaller coal plants.

Furthermore, available evidence does not support the notion that regulations are the primary driver behind recent coal plant retirement announcements. These business decisions4 are heavily influenced by such market forces as lower natural gas prices, declining growth in electricity demand, rising coal prices, and increased cost-competitiveness of renewables.

Download the fact sheet to keep reading and see full citations.

Testimony: China's Prospects for Shale Gas and Implications for the U.S.

Maggie Barron — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:51:49 -0500

Testimony Of Sarah M. Forbes
Senior Associate, Climate and Energy Program
World Resources Institute

HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION

CHINA’S GLOBAL QUEST FOR RESOURCES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES; CHINA’S PROSPECTS FOR SHALE GAS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE U.S.

Introduction

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the deliberations of this Commission. My name is Sarah Forbes, and I am a Senior Associate for the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute. I am also manager of the World Resources Institute’s Shale Gas Initiative.

I am delighted to speak with you today about China’s prospects for shale gas and the implications for the United States. The United States and China share an interest in the domestic and international development of shale gas resources. In this testimony I will describe the state of China’s shale gas industry as well as the governmental policies that will drive its future development in China. I will discuss the implications of U.S.-China business-to-business partnerships as well as government-to-government cooperation―including the risks and opportunities such cooperation could yield. I will also describe how shale gas development in China and the United States changes the global dynamics of energy security. In conclusion, I will provide recommendations for future actions Congress and this Commission can take. In the interest of time, I have limited the scope of my testimony to a discussion of the implications of shale gas development in China on the U.S. and China.

Considering the speed with which shale gas has shifted the U.S. energy outlook1, this is an important moment to consider the implications of the development of China’s shale gas resources. Development of shale gas in China will shift future global energy dynamics. How it is done will affect the environment and global climate picture. As I describe in this testimony, shale gas can help improve international energy security by providing an abundant domestic energy resource and reducing the need for natural gas imports. What role it plays in addressing climate change will depend in large part on the degree to which shale gas displaces inefficient coal plants and supplements continued improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

As I start, I would like to emphasize the following key points, which I will describe in detail in the sections that follow.

1. Current state and future direction of China’s shale gas industry: The shale gas industry in China is in early development, but the topic has already garnered significant interest from the national government. The Chinese government is implementing new policies that support the future development of China’s gas industry broadly, as well as supporting shale gas research. State-owned and provincial-owned enterprises are conducting exploration and pilot demonstrations on shale gas in China. Through its state-owned enterprises, China2 is also investing in shale gas development in the United States.

2. U.S.-China cooperation on shale gas: The global oil and gas industry operates joint ventures (JVs) to sustain growth and defuse financial risk. The emerging international shale gas industry will rely on the same tactics, particularly given the current state of the global economy. In recent years, major investments or partnerships between U.S. and Chinese companies in the shale gas sector have been used to the near-term economic benefit of both countries and provide potential for U.S. companies to benefit domestically and abroad.

3. Impacts on the energy situation in China: Shale gas development in China will reduce natural gas imports, thus improving China’s energy security. Because total natural gas demand will continue to far outstrip all domestic production for the foreseeable future, any natural gas from shale in China is expected to be consumed domestically. From an environmental perspective, the more China can develop energy alternatives to imported oil and domestic coal, the less pressure it exerts on global energy markets and the global environment. China’s domestic use of its own natural gas resources would be unlikely to have an effect on net U.S. energy imports, as the U.S. is projected to domestically produce sufficient quantities of natural gas to meet its own demand for at least the next 25 years.

Throughout my testimony, I will also emphasize a fourth point that cross-cuts these three themes.

4. Ensuring responsible operations and creating a “level playing field”: Shale gas development should proceed in China (or any country) with environmentally and socially responsible operations which are (1) enforced by appropriate laws, regulations, and standards, (2) realized through implementation of international best practices, and (3) based on an understanding of the real risks and benefits of responsible deployment (both to industry and the public). Such approaches drive demand for U.S. products and ensure a “level playing field” between companies operating in the United States and those in China. More importantly, they help ensure that any negative environmental impacts associated with shale gas development in the United States are not repeated elsewhere.

Read the full testimony here >>> (PDF, 454 Kb)

Fact Sheet: EPA Mercury Rules and Power Reliability

Kevin Lustig — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:30:45 -0500

Recent Electricity Reliability Assessments

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). (November 2011) 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.

M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC; Analysis Group. (November 2011) Ensuring a Clean, Modern Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System Reliability; Fall 2011 Update.

DOE. (December 2011) Resource Adequacy Implications of Forthcoming EPA Air Quality Regulations.

Bipartisan Policy Center. (June 2011) Environmental Regulation and Electric System Reliability.

CERES. (November 2011) New Jobs-Cleaner Air Part II: An investment in American Businesses and American Jobs.

Edison Electric Institute. (January 2011) Potential Impacts of Environmental Regulation on the U.S. Generation Fleet.

Electricity generation capacity adequacy and transmission and ancillary services reliability are difficult to quantify and forecast due to the inherently local scale of power flow modeling. However, the lack of reliability problems over decades of previous Clean Air Act regulation and the flexibility of the standards suggest that the U.S. can keep the lights on while cost effectively removing toxic pollutants from power plant emissions.

Power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions to the air. This mercury eventually makes its way into water, and can cause neurological problems for people who eat contaminated seafood. Because of the dangers of mercury emissions, especially to children and pregnant women, a court order mandated that the EPA issue a final set of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) by December 16, 2011.

Recent modeling assessments have typically focused more broadly on the cumulative impacts of EPA regulations, including: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Coal Combustion Residuals rule, the 316 (b) Cooling Water Intake Structures rule, and the yet-to-be announced New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases. Recent studies have varied largely based on assumptions regarding the stringency of pending regulations, the costs of compliance measures, and the legal flexibility of regulatory enforcement.

Rules Are Flexible, and States Are Prepared

While there are modeling and forecasting limits for assessing long-term electricity system reliability, recent studies indicate that MATS and other EPA rules can be effective and implemented in a timely way while allowing for a range of compliance outcomes. The feasibility of cost-effectively complying with new regulations while maintaining electricity system reliability is supported by four key points:

Both state and federal regulators have a suite of flexible enforcement options, which they have been using for decades, to delay power plant closures when this is necessary to preserve grid reliability; for example, the Cooling Water rule requires states to first consider reliability in implementing new regulations;
While states often have the authority to set more protective pollution control standards in the interest of public health and welfare, there is no evidence that they would do so at the risk of grid reliability. Many states have already exercised this authority without imperiling electricity reliability — as of 2011, 17 states have already imposed rules on mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, including Montana;
Adequate new plant capacity is in the pipeline to replace the majority of potentially affected power plants; most American power companies are on record as already having prepared for expected environmental regulations;
In terms of compliance, the MATS rule allows for temporal and technological flexibility. As this fact sheet goes to press, the final rule has not yet been published but is expected to allow three years for compliance, with an optional 4th year extension from the EPA or additional security-based extension from the President. A wide range of commercially viable, proven compliance technologies from Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) to Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) are available to help reduce toxic air emissions and can be installed in 10 to 30 months, providing ample time for America’s skilled engineers, manufactures and technicians to conduct plant upgrades within the legally allotted time frame.

Download the fact sheet to keep reading and see full citations.

More than Meets the Eye: The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Climate Policy, in Plain English

Maggie Barron — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:25:58 -0400

Presidents since Ronald Reagan have required that significant rules issued by the federal government be accompanied through intra-governmental review by a cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the Obama administration (like the Bush administration before it) has imposed a requirement to assess climate regulation through the lens of a figure (or range of figures) known as the “social cost of carbon” (SCC). The SCC estimates the benefit to be achieved, expressed in monetary value, by avoiding the damage caused by each additional metric ton (tonne) of carbon dioxide (CO2) put into the atmosphere.

The impact of SCC numbers is not theoretical and has consequences for the government regulatory process and therefore for the strength of regulations on climate change that emerge from it. Application of this tool can be problematic to achieving optimum outcomes for society. A growing literature indicates that developing the SCC requires assumptions that go well beyond the usual boundaries of science or economics. It requires many judgment calls that are hidden in complex economic models and largely invisible to policymakers and stakeholders. The Obama administration has formulated a standardized approach to estimating the SCC for all new federal rules issued that would regulate greenhouse gases. In the case of climate change, the government calculates the cost imposed on society globally by each additional tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. These include health impacts, economic dislocation, agricultural changes, and other effects that climate change can impose on humanity. The benefit to society of avoiding those costs is summed up in the social cost of carbon.

In 2009 an interagency team of U.S. government specialists, tasked to estimate the SCC, reported a range of values from $5 to $65 per tonne of carbon dioxide. The choice of a final figure (or range of figures) is, in itself, a major policy decision, since it sets a likely ceiling for the cost per tonne that any federal regulation could impose on the economy to curb CO2. At $5 a tonne, government could do very little to regulate CO2; at $65, it could do significantly more. Higher SCC numbers, such as the United Kingdom’s range of $41–$124 per tonne of CO2 with a central value of $83, would justify, from an economics perspective, even more rigorous regulation.

This paper discusses the limitations that the special nature of climate change imposes on cost-benefit analysis and its constituent parts, primarily focusing on the estimation of the SCC. It explains in plain English the various steps in calculating the SCC, the weaknesses and strengths of those calculations, and how they are used to inform climate policy. The aim is to help policymakers, regulators, civil society, and others judge for themselves the reliability of using the resulting numbers in making policy decisions. Framed as a series of questions and answers, it also allows these stakeholders to understand the current debate within the economics community as to whether climate policy is a special case for which standard cost-benefit and SCC tools of the trade are not adequate to assess policy options.

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power: The Transformation of China's Energy System

Deborah Seligsohn — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:50:47 -0400

Testimony Of Deborah Seligsohn
Senior Advisor, China Climate and Energy Program
World Resources Institute

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Transformation of China’s Energy System: Challenges and Opportunities

Summary

In my testimony today, I will start by discussing both where China is now and its plans for the upcoming five years, and then I will talk about some of the business opportunities this creates for other countries, including the United States, that want to compete in new energy technologies.

Energy, environment and climate policy has become increasingly important in China in the last decade. As with any policy focus, there are a number of interests and drivers involved. The confluence of concerns about energy security, environmental protection, climate change and economic restructuring has strengthened the Chinese government’s commitment to both energy efficiency and non-fossil fuel development. Under the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-2010), China made considerable progress. It came quite close to its energy intensity target, reducing energy intensity over the five-year period by 19.1%, and it increased non-fossil fuel use by 3.1% per year, so that non-fossil energy now comprises 8.3% of China’s total energy use.

In March, China’s National People’s Congress adopted its 12th Five-Year Plan. The plan sets 2015 goals that continue to focus on energy efficiency and non-fossil energy development and set China well on the way to meeting its 2020 goals made at Copenhagen. The five‐year goals are to reduce carbon intensity by 17% and energy intensity by 16%, to increase the share of non‐fossil fuels in China’s total energy mix to 11.4%, and to increase forest cover by 12.5 million hectares and forest stock volume by 600 million cubic meters.

While decreasing as a percentage of total energy used, coal will continue to be an important energy source for many years. To address the greenhouse gas issue, China is actively pursuing a research and commercial scale pilot program looking at carbon capture and storage, a technology China has a strong interest in mastering.

International partnerships with Chinese clean technology companies are growing rapidly. What makes China attractive to U.S. and international investors is the clear policy framework which gives businesses the certainty they are looking for before investing. Companies including First Solar, GE, Duke Energy and American Electric Power have all announced new initiatives in the last year. Increasingly entrepreneurs with new ideas are looking to China to make those ideas become a reality. With a similarly supportive policy environment, the U.S., with its unsurpassed research resources and proven track record in new technologies, could be an unsurpassable winner.

Download Full Testimony (PDF, 119 Kb)

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Using Existing Federal Authorities and State Action

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:16:58 -0400

Click here to explore emissions, reduction scenarios, and agency actions with our interactive tool.

WRI’s analysis of potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions by federal and state governments suggests a range of potential outcomes is possible. On the federal level, whether reductions are achieved at the lower end or upper end of the range shown in Figure 1 depends on the extent to which the Obama Administration and subsequent administrations use existing regulatory authority to go after reductions shown to be technically possible in the literature. On the state level, whether reductions are realized at the lower or upper end of the range projected in Figure 2 depends similarly on the continued resolve by governors and legislative leaders in the 25 states counted as having taken actions. The findings set out here represent an assessment of what is possible given available inputs for some key sectors. It does not include potential emissions reductions achievable through federal policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled, management of agricultural lands and forests, new federal investments in areas such as energy efficiency, renewable energy infrastructure, or other areas that could yield reductions, nor new federal legislation of any kind. Key findings are summarized below.

Figure 1: Projected U.S. Emissions under Different Federal Regulatory Scenarios

Figure 2: Projected U.S. Emissions under Different Federal Regulatory Scenarios and State Scenarios

If federal agencies and states pursue the path of “go getters” and move strongly to achieve the reductions published literature suggests are technically feasible in the sectors analyzed, the U.S. could achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which approach but fall short of President Obama’s Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
If, however, federal agencies fail to capitalize on available reduction opportunities and states fall short on their announced plans to reduce emissions, middleof- the-road or lackluster reductions will result, falling far short of the 17 percent reduction by 2020 goal.
Longer-term reductions post-2020 are less certain under all analyzed scenarios, primarily due to uncertainty about how quickly aging power plants will be replaced and the transportation sector can be transformed. Regulatory policies can drive technology, but without knowing what technological advances will happen and when, it is difficult to project the tightening of regulatory standards.
All scenarios under current federal authority and announced state plans show the United States far off the pace of reductions the IPCC suggests are necessary by mid-century to prevent average global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius.
While the results of the analysis suggest that existing federal regulatory tools can be used effectively to reduce emissions alongside state actions, it is clear that the federal government and states will need to achieve reductions beyond those identified in even the most ambitious regulatory scenario if the United States is to meet its Copenhagen commitment. Some of these reductions might be found in regulatory policies not analyzed here, such as agricultural and forest lands management (approximately 7 percent of the U.S. inventory) or transportation planning (approximately 27 percent). Implementation of other environmental policies that encourage high-emitting sectors to modernize could also yield more reductions, such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, ozone and ash disposal regulations affecting aging coal plants.
Among the existing federal regulatory tools most useful to achieve reductions are the mobile source and New Source Performance Standard provisions of the Clean Air Act, as well as the existing authority under Title VI of the Act to reduce hydrofluorocarbons. The vehicle fuel efficiency authority of the Department of Transportation is also important. State action that contributes reductions beyond federal regulatory policies will likewise be essential to meeting reduction goals.
The analysis shows that a significant portion of the reductions can be achieved in non-energy emissions. It is expected that these non-energy reductions can be accomplished without energy price increases.
It is likely that the U.S. Congress and states will need to step up to augment existing regulatory tools, especially if the United States is to gear up to reduce emissions by the approximately 80 to 95 percent needed by 2050 to ward off the most deleterious effects of climate change.