Can natural gas from shale save climate bill?

(Photo of natural gas rig in Louisiana from Flickr and photographer Daniel Foster)

Some Senators see incentives for natural gas from shale as a way to win more support for a climate change bill in their chamber. Leading the way to add those incentives are Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, the latter a swing vote himself.

New discoveries of shale gas (not to be confused with dirty shale oil) reserves, plus the technology to drill for it, have made shale gas a cleaner replacement for coal to make electricity, as well as a potential backup for wind and solar. Natural gas has about half the carbon emissions of coal. And wind and solar will need a backup, at least at the start, because of their dependence on the weather. Natural gas generators can be fired up quickly to serve that purpose.

New discoveries have increased natural gas reserves in the past couple of years, from 1,300 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 1,800 tcf in 2008, mostly in shale, according to a report by the Potential Gas Committee.

The political potential
Lo and behold, many of the gas reserves in shale are in the homes states of uncommitted Democratic senators: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – as well as Republican George Voinovich of Ohio.

When the House version – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – narrowly passed, the majority of reps from Ark. Ohio, La. and Penn. voted against it (as well as Texas. Okla. and Ky.) and the W. Va. delegation was evenly split.

Natural gas vs. coal
Incentives for natural gas would pit the gas industry against the coal business. Natural gas would benefit from the proposed cap on emissions because it will lead to a quicker changeover from coal. And the gas industry favors fewer offsets, which would allow coal-fired utilities to stall in making changes by contributing to forests and other projects.

The coal business, not surprisingly, is worried about losing out to natural gas under climate legislation and opposes incentives that could speed that transition. The American Mining Association is running ads pointing to the volatility of natural gas prices and warning of spiking electricity costs. They’re not going to give up without a fight, so it remains to be seen which is strongest in vying for these senators’ loyalty.

But natural gas from shale, though not clean enough in the long run, just might help us over two humps – the transition to totally renewable, clean energy and the passage of a climate bill by both houses of Congress this year.

(Source: E&E Daily)

Follow us at Twitter.

Ten key Dem Senators had problems with global warming bill -- what happens next?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Gawnesco/Scott Gawne.)

Weekly Angst: Following a 48-36 vote (60 were needed) to end debate on the Climate Security Act Friday, 10 keys Dems, 9 of whom voted with the leadership, said they had problems with the bill that would have kept them from ultimately voting for it.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the 10 said their states would be the most adversely affected by the bill, as written. Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin (Mich.), Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Jim Webb (Va.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said they favored a cap-and-trade bill but it must “ensure consumers and workers in all regions of the U.S. are protected from undue hardship.” The following issues need to be addressed, they said:
* Make sure there’s a short-term cushion to ensure technologies will be there to help meet early emissions targets.
* Fold state laws into the federal system.
* Expand agriculture and forestry offsets.
Advocates are now looking to a new President and new Congress to get a cap-and-trade bill passed. With Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) retiring, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he is looking for a new partner to continue working on the Climate Security Act.

Next on the Senate agenda
While the global warming bill may be dead for now, Senate leadership is moving on to other energy bills: the unfinished business of passing an extension of renewable tax credits (approved by the House) and a “windfall profits” bill to tax major oil companies and address “price gouging.”

The renewable tax credit extentions (HR6049) would continue wind farm production credits 1 year and solar energy investment credits 6 years, as well as continue credits for other renewable energy sources and efficiency. The credits are due to expire the end of this year and without them renewable projects face an uncertain future.

The windfall profits bill (S3044) will probably come up first and is intended to address high oil and gasoline prices. In addition to a new tax and the repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, the bill has a price-gouging provision and also allows the Justice Department to bring anti-trust actions against OPEC. This one is unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster and President Bush has threatened a veto.

And across the way in the House
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected a GOP challenge to debate global warming on the floor of the House before the 4th of July and said any activity this year will be in Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.)’s committee. She indicated chances for passing a strong bill will be much better next year.

Dingell has announced his subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, headed by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), will hold hearings on the bill that just died in the Senate, as well as the two strong bill introduced in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Waxman’s bill calls for an emissions cut of 80% by 2050, with 100% of the credits auctioned, and Markey mandates an 85% reduction, with 94% of credits auctioned. Dingell and Boucher are expected to produce their own bill at some point.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

Senate global warming bill dies without debate

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Matt Wright.)

Washington Report: America’s Climate Security Act died an ignominious death Friday morning, when those who wanted to limit debate and move toward a vote lost a cloture motion 48-36 (60 votes were needed). Seven Republicans – Collins, Snowe, Warner, Smith, Sununu, Martinez and Dole – joined 39 Democrats and 2 Independents to support the motion. An additional 6 senators – Obama, McCain, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden and Coleman -- sent written messages that they would have voted for cloture if they’d been there. The vote followed several days of filibustering by the GOP leadership, including the forced 9-hour reading of the entire 492-page bill aloud by clerks. A point of contention was Majority Leader Harry Reid’s refusal to allow unlimited amendments. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the move was a protest against Democrat delay on judicial appointments. Along with McConnell, others using procedural motions to delay debate included Sens. Allard, Inhofe and Cornyn. A GOP lobbyist’s memo that was leaked pointed to a strategy to “make political points” by linking the debate to the high price of gasoline every day. Democrat leaders now say they are looking to next year and a new administration to carry the ball forward. In an effort to rally support in the final hours, bill co-sponsor Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told colleagues a new president could have the EPA draft global warming regulations under the Supreme Court decision Massachusetts vs. EPA, and Congress would have little input. Republicans’ main argument against the bill was cost. Four Democrats broke with their colleagues and voted no: Sens. Dorgan, Johnson, Brown and Landrieu. For more on the bill see the blog Grist. (Sources: E&E News PM, E&E Daily, Greenwire, Grist, Sierra Club)

Looks like Lieberman-Warner global warming bill is running out of gas

Washington Report: Sponsors of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act are having trouble lining up the necessary 60 votes to avoid a Senate filibuster. Environment Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) conceded last week she didn’t know if they could get to 60, but this bill showed progress and they still plan to have a debate in early June. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) admitted the votes aren’t there at this point. Several Senators are holding back, looking for more benefits for their states, while others oppose the bill for fear it will hurt the economy. Co-sponsor John Warner (R-Va.) is looking for a way the president could slow the cuts in emissions if the technology needed was not available, and also for a safety valve if the economy was under stress due to the high price of gasoline. Sen Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he plans to put a revised bill out there for others to comment on and tell him how to “improve.” Don’t hold your breath for a global warming bill to pass this year. With the make-up of this Senate, it’s just not going to happen. As they say in baseball, “Maybe next year.” Meanwhile greenhouse gas emissions keep climbing and the years to do something tick away. (Source: E&E Daily)

Voinovich says wait 22 years for cap-and-trade, touts alternative to global warming bill

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Jonathon D. Colman.)

Washington Report: As proponents for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act meet behind closed doors with various Senators to gauge what tweaking would be needed to get the requisite 60 votes for their cap-and-trade bill, Sen. John Voinovich (R-Ohio) has drafted a bill of his own. It drops cap-and-trade in favor of incentives for new technologies, including for “clean coal” and nuclear energy. Cap-and-trade would not be enacted until 2030, so that carbon-capture technology could be operational. (What’s another 22 years' wait?) Voinovich claims Lieberman-Warner would disastrous for the economy. Lobbyists and the White House helped him draft his bill, which should be unveiled soon – except that so far he can’t find a Democrat to co-sponsor. Meanwhile, a coalition of major coal companies and the National Mining Assn. have 14 amendments that would provide incentives for carbon capture and storage, give away more free carbon credits to polluting industry, pre-empt state and regional global warming bills, and create a “safety valve” in case carbon prices get too high. So far, they’ve found no sponsors for their amendments. I don't think any of this will go anywhere, but don't look for Voinovich to vote for Lieberman-Warner. Environmental Defense tell us 10 key senators to watch during the debate in the Senate. Senators will be home the last week in May, before the June debate, so it would be a good time to call their office or go see them and urge them to strengthen, not weaken the Lieberman-Warner bill (S 2191). (Sources: E&E Daily, Environmental Defense)

Will Lieberman-Warner global warming bill pass the Senate? Should it pass the Senate?

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Eamonn O'Brien-Strain)

Weekly Angst: A “compromise” global warming bill (S. 2191) will head to the Senate floor for debate the first week in June. It has a fine line to tred between those who want to make it weaker and those who think it must be stronger.

Sponsors Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) are working hard to get more converts, so it can pass the 60-vote test to avoid a filibuster. Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is working with them, even though she proposed a stronger bill herself. But Boxer vows to pull the bill from the floor if it is weakened further.

Lieberman said last week he has 45 firm votes and 15 leaning heavily toward approval. That means he needs every single one of those votes, and he suggested there would need to be changes to win them. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lieberman’s Republican buddy whom he’s supporting for president, is a “leaning” vote because he wants more money for nuclear energy in the bill.

Cap-and-trade system
Lieberman-Warner (America’s Climate Security Act) is a cap-and-trade bill. That means a cap will be placed on overall greenhouse gas emissions and will steadily be lowered each year. Companies that do not cut emissions that much must buy credits from those that exceed their goal.

The bill calls for:
*A 4% reduction of GHG emissions in 2012, steadily increasing to 70% (from 2005 levels) by 2050. (Boxer would like to see that amended to 80%)
*An auction for 26.5% of the credits in 2012, rising to 79.5% by 2031. The rest of the credits would be given away free. (Boxer wants more credits paid for.)
*Distribution of auction income for jobs, deploying advanced technology, helping low- and middle-income people with increased energy costs, and mitigating negative impacts of climate change abroad.

The bill covers electric utilities, transportation, most manufacturing and natural gas, the sources of 87% of GHG. That means the actual total reduction will be 66% by 2050.


Efforts to weaken the bill
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who famously called global warming a “hoax,” says he will propose 40 amendments and lead a filibuster against the bill if he can. Inhofe has support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.

The National Mining Association wants more money to research carbon capture and storage.

Some want the bill to pre-empt action by the states that want to do more. Boxer, from a state that is already doing more, said she will pull the bill before she lets that happen.

Others are asking for a “safety valve” if carbon prices get too high, or for more money for nuclear energy.

A coalition of energy companies and other businesses are on a 17-state blitz to undermine the bill, citing loss of jobs and higher energy prices.

Environmental groups
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace oppose the bill as not going far enough. The National Wildlife Federation supports it. The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and World Wildlife Fund appeared with Boxer at a news conference last week, but some of them are saying the bill must be strengthened.

The dilemma for many environmentalists (in and out of Congress) is whether it’s better for the Senate to pass something, even if it’s just a first step.

The bill, of course, has two more hurdles. Passage of a similar bill in the House, which Energy Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) says needs more deliberation and likely won’t get through the House until the end of 2008. Then there’s a likely veto from George Bush, who never has bought into the cap-and-trade idea.

An optimistic Lieberman gives his bill a 50-50 chance of becoming law, but says a new president in 2009 will increase those chances to 90%.

So some are saying why not just wait, and get a stronger bill. Others say let’s take the first step.

Frankly, I’m torn. I'd like to see 80% by 2050 and 100% auctioned credits, but we’re so far overdue in taking action I hate to put it off another year. And doing so could affect international negotiations for a climate treaty. We have been the largest cause of global warming up to now, so most of the stuff up there is ours. Maybe passing a bill, even if it doesn’t do it all, is a show of good faith and something to build on.

What do you think?

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire, Boston.com, E&E PM, and America’s Climate Security Act. )
For a one-page description of the act go to Lieberman’s Web site.