American Federation of Government Employees Local 1916
|
American Federation of Government Employees Local 1916
|
|
|
Update on the Boucher Bill, sent from President Demicheli to the NETL
Bargaining Unit Cap and trade's future may rest with carbon sequestration windfall, experts say Passage of a major energy package in the House this week cast doubt over whether coal industry supporters and opponents can ever find compromise on future climate legislation. With Congress focused on expanding offshore drilling, a provision pushed by Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Fred Upton (R-MI) that would have divvied $10 billion over a decade for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology on coal plants got stripped from the package at the last minute. Some funding remained, but in an amount that industry representatives termed minuscule. Boucher said yesterday that House leaders have assured him that the bill, which would create a new fund for carbon capture and sequestration, will move quickly in the next Congress. But with critics continuing to raise concerns about the costs and the feasibility of CCS, some climate change experts say they fear a deadlock that could scuttle chances for cap-and-trade legislation next year. "I'm terrified that it may take too much time for there to be a meeting of the minds on this," said Manik Roy, director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Scientists are telling us we need to act now on global warming, and people need to recognize they're not going to get everything they want." Supporters of the carbon capture and sequestration plan see it as a critical precursor to larger cap-and-trade legislation. While there appears to be bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for CCS funding generally, some lawmakers and environmental advocates question how much money should go toward the technology and have expressed concerns about allowing an extragovernmental body, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), to oversee money in the proposed fund.Boucher and Upton said the failure of their measure to gain passage this week was simply a timing issue, particularly with Congress on a tight schedule before leaving town Sept. 26. They maintained that most of the concerns about the fund came from the Department of Energy, and Boucher said those concerns could be easily abated through the assurance that money eventually would flow through the bill to projects the agency already supports.But other lawmakers on Capitol Hill said they have several concerns about Boucher and Upton's approach.Fierce debate over costs and feasibility "There is absolutely no justification for one technology getting its own fund," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), who was one of a handful of Democrats who urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pull the carbon capture and sequestration proposal. He said any future climate bill should not favor one approach and give equal billing to solar, wind and renewable technologies. Even Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), a co-sponsor of the bill, said supporters of the CCS measure were painted as "big taxers." A Democratic Senate aide familiar with the coal debate said there's significant concern in the chamber about the potential of EPRI having too much power under the Boucher-Upton concept, as well as the politics of having ratepayers fund the program. The money would be raised through a fee on utilities passed on to consumers."This is never going to pass in the Senate as written," the aide said, adding that ramping up existing programs at the Department of Energy was an alternative getting some chatter. Currently, the Senate does not have a companion bill to the House one.Boucher defended the idea of an extragovernmental fund, arguing that the congressional appropriations process is too slow for massive CCS funding. He said providing a constant money stream from ratepayer fees to EPRI, assuming the cash starts flowing next year, would help assure that commercial carbon capture can be operational by 2020. One of the most influential businessmen in the debate, American Electric Power CEO Michael Morris, said Thursday that simply boosting the Department of Energy's power would be a bureaucratic, inefficient mess.Even if lawmakers could put aside their differences about dollar signs and the way money should be funneled toward CCS, there remains a large philosophic gap between coal's supporters and critics about how to address climate change on an economywide scale.Green groups decry 'coal payoff' With coal firing 50 percent of U.S. electricity and a hefty supply of lobbying dollars, the fate of a cap-and-trade bill may rest with whether a "a good chunk" of coal interests -- including companies, utilities, manufacturers and lawmakers in industrial states -- are behind it, Roy said. Many groups speak fondly about the term "cap and trade," but hairs start raising about the details. The National Mining Association, which represents many coal companies, wants any potential scheme to time emissions reductions to the availability of CCS technology, put a regulatory structure in place for the storage of carbon dioxide and have a "safety valve" that kicks in above a particular carbon price. "I'm not prepared to say that the lack of any of those three are deal killers, but if you take any one of them away, the door is open for big problems," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the association. The association also is pushing for some allowance money raised in a potential cap-and-trade system to go for CCS technology, said NMA Vice President of Government Affairs Glenn Kelly. Meanwhile, environmental advocates continue to press for much stricter legislation, stressing that many scientists are saying the atmosphere already has dangerous levels of greenhouse gases. "In effect, the coal lobby is running an extortion racket," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "Can Congress enact meaningful climate legislation without a big coal payoff? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer yet."No CCS? No cap and trade Roy said climate change advocates will not accept a safety valve unless it's high, and even that prospect is questionable. That thought comes on top of existing concerns that carbon capture and sequestration technology needs a high carbon price, ranging from $40 to $130, to be viable. Yet Roy said he remains optimistic because he has seen significant movement already on both sides. Two years ago, many environmental groups weren't even acknowledging a need for carbon capture and sequestration funding, he noted, and some polluters now in support of cap and trade once argued that global warming didn't even exist. What everyone seems to agree on is that increased carbon capture and sequestration funding is coming, even if President Bush vetoes an energy package that emerges from Congress before recess. "Unless there is significant carbon capture and sequestration funding in a future climate bill, it doesn't have much future," said the Senate aide. "In fact, it won't even make it to the Senate floor."ClimateWire, 09/19/2008 |
|
|
||||
