The New Carbon Cycle

Senate Environment and Public Works Committe Releases Climate Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released its version of a climate change bill despite the fact that Republican senators on the committee were boycotting the mark up hearings.  The Senate apparently has an informal rule that two senators of the opposing party need to be present to make a quorum.  Senator Barbara Boxer decided to move forward based on the apparent actual rules that allows the committee to vote out a bill if there is a quorum of any party members.  The Democrats on the Committee voted unanimously to move the bill out of the Committee.

The bill will know be considered by other committees in the Senate.  If a bill is presented to the full Senate, it will probably be in 2010.

New Book on "The Impact of Global Warming on Texas"

A new, or perhaps second edition, of a book is being published by the University of Texas Press entitled "The Impact of Global Warming on Texas."  I have not read the book, but will be reading it over the next few weeks.  An electronic version can be found at the website of the Texas Climate Initiative.   The book contains chapters written by various scientists, including several from Texas A&M University. 

US Energy Information Administration Estimates Climate Bill Impact on Consumers

The US Energy Information Administration issued a report on August 4, 2009 evaluating the economic impact on the individual US citizen of the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.  This bill is known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454.  Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will increase $114 in 2020 and increase $288 in 2030.  The impacts, if accurate, certainly would not create a significant burden on the average citizen.  Of course the devil is always in the details in all of these economic predictions.  The report can be reviewed on the EIA website.

Should Trees Be Industry's Best Friends in a New Climate Change Regime?

The suggestion that trees should be industry's best friends under a new climate change or cap and trade program being considered by Congress, seems absurd at first.  Forests do not initially appear to most people to be a source of the problem when it comes to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  We generally think of planting trees as a local, individualized step to attempt to remove emissions from the atmosphere.  Often we think of tree planting as a symbolic rather than a substantive or significant action to reduce climate change.  Forests, however, are in fact a significant storing house for carbon and when burned, release a large amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

Forests provide the low-cost approach for the first tranche in anthropogenic greenhouse gas reductions as we seek the "low hanging fruit" of these reductions.  Forest preservation and regrowth provide the potential for the larger-volume and lower-cost source of greenhouse gas reductions and offsets for greenhouse gas emissions.  As carbon capture and storage by which CO2 from coal-fired power plants and other sources is injected underground for long-term storage takes several years to bring on line, Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) can serve to make a significant step toward emissions to be achieved by 2020 being discussed in Congress for a US climate change and cap and trade program, and in terms of international negotiations for a tray to follow the Kyoto Protocol.

The size of the emissions from forest destruction usually is startling.  It is in gross and relative terms rather astounding.  The destruction of forests actually accounts for somewhere between 17 and 22 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions.    Thus, controlling the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation is critical to any global plan to reduce climate change, particularly in the first few years as costlier reductions can be developed over the next decade, and perhaps ways to reduce those costs.

A second aspect of deforestation relates to the areas that have already been lost or significantly degraded.  For example, farmland that was previously what we call “primary forest” or forest that existed in its natural state prior to being deforested or degraded.   In these areas, opportunities exist for reforesting the land through tree planting.  Two types of reforestation are possible.  First, the forest can be replanted with native species that would have been present prior to the destruction of the forests.  The second involves the planting of non-native species or otherwise planting for the purpose of harvesting some or all of the trees.  The second approach has the goal of using trees to absorb or sequester CO2 , and then using the harvested wood in ways that maintain the carbon in building or other products for a long time.

In understanding the challenges of private development of forest carbon projects, it is important to comprehend the issues of these projects.  First let us consider avoided deforestation projects.  One of the first issues is simply measuring the amount of carbon in the forests that would be released if destroyed.  There are certain protocols that can be used now developed by the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), which has become the main standard setting organization for forest-related offset projects. 

Another issue is the question of permanence.  For growing forests a significant risk is permanence, that is, to what extent will the forest will be preserved over a very long period, as opposed to short term preservation with destruction to follow.  If the forest is logged or it burns or dies from disease, then the carbon sequestered in the trees, plant life, and soil, will be largely emitted to the atmosphere and future sequestration of carbon dioxide will not occur.  The carbon credits that are generated would be without substance if after five years the forest is destroyed.  Forestry projects are largely long-term projects, lasting 20 to 100 years in most cases.  Parties must show the registration entity and the verifiers that review the Project Design Document that the forest will not be cut down, burned, or harvested within the relevant project period.  One approach used by the VCS to address permanence concerns is to hold back a percentage of the verified credits and to release them back over time, say the 30-year life of the project, to the project developer.

One of the other major concern for forest projects is leakage.  For forest projects, leakage involves the question of whether the reduction in deforestation or degradation in one are simply moves that activity to a nearby property or a significant distance away.  As an illustration, burning forests for soy bean farming, which is such a significant problem in Brazil, moves from one part of a state in a country where actions have been taken to stop such burning to another area in that state or to an altogether different state.  Measuring and addressing these issues is required by the VCS.

Though the real game right now for REDD and reforestation projects lies with the VCS and voluntary carbon credits, it appears fairly clear that forest carbon projects will play a role and be large part of future US federal legislation and already has been accepted as an offset mechanisms in the California climate change regulatory system and will likely be part of the three multi-state climate change regulatory programs that are evolving and will go into effect even if Congress does not act to pass climate change legislation.  The discussions at the international level appear to be moving toward accepting forest-based offset credits.

The greenhouse gas emissions from forest destruction are so massive, that we cannot avoid taking on the need to reduce this destruction dramatically.  More and more major greenhouse gas emitters in the United States are beginning to review this opportunity and to look at investing in project-based REDD opportunities.  The thinking is that investment in a project or entering into emission reduction purchase agreements that allow a company to have a right to purchase REDD credits once approved and verified, provides a good hedging mechanism for future offset prices.  More and more of our clients are looking at both domestic and international forest carbon projects either as project developers or as investors to ensure that they take advantage of the opportunities that forest carbon projects provide.  Ironically, utilities and oil and gas companies may find that trees are truly their best friends when it comes to addressing the first few years of a cap and trade system in the United States.

EPA Issues Finding That Lays Foundation for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act

In a long expected finding, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulatory decision that lays the foundation for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).  The decision announced on Friday, April 17, 2009 is entitled Proposed Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases  and was published in the Federal Register.  This is a major step by the Obama Administration to attempt to force Congress to pass a climate change bill regulating greenhouse gases.  Time magazine may have said it best in an article entitle EPA's CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress's Head.  Whilee it was known that EPA was working on and would announce the finding, the actual announcement has gained enormous coverage in the media and serves as the Administration's opening salvo in its ultimate work to try to convince enough senators to vote for a bill to get beyond the 60 votes need to bypass a filibuster.

The EPA regulatory decision follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision two years ago that concluded the EPA under the Bush Administration had failed to articulate why greenhouse gases should not be regulated as emissions from automobiles.  In so doing, the Court indicated that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  Now that EPA is going to issue a final regulatory decision after 60 days of public comment and several public hearings, it is clear that EPA can, and will, take action absent Congressional action.

Regulation under the Clean Air Act is messy and may not include a cap and trade program, but simple command and control in the form of emission reductions without the ability to trade for other facility allowances or domestic or international offsets.  This would not be good for industry.

Certain industry groups have already begun to work to promote their version of a cap and trade program.  The group USCAP, which stands for United States Climate Action Partnership, has issued a document entitled A Blueprint for Legislative Action, providing a general outline of a climate change program based on cap and trade.

The one question that will likely play out is how the world will look if Congress does not pass a bill or passes late next year or even later.  Permits for coal=fired power plants and other greenhouse gas-emitting facilities are already being challenged, and environmental groups and other plaintiffs are challenging the permits in court as not meeting CAA requirements to address all pollutants including greenhouse gases.  If EPA issues a final decision that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant, do these cases then have a much greater change of success?  Will EPA and the states be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in federal Title V permits?  These are the types of questions that will come to the fore relatively quickly.

What about cement kilns, lime plants, refineries, natural gas processing plants, manufacturing plants, will they be challenged as well?  Coal-fired power plants may not be the only plants whose permits are challenged.

One need not look beyond the administrative case of In re Deseret Power Cooperative.  This was a case in which the permit for a power plant in Utah that was challenged because the plant permit did not address CO2 emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the CAA. the challengers argued the plant should implement the Best Available Control Technology or "BACT" to achieve greenhouse gas, largely CO2 emissions. 

The EPA Appeals Board remanded the issue back to the EPA, then under the Bush Administration, not to require such technology or reductions as the Appeals Board concluded that the decision was not supported by the administrative record.  The Appeals Board called on EPA to address the issue of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pollutants governed by the CAA.

Other cases have been brought against various sources and several petitions have been filed with the EPA to regulate mobile sources and stationary sources.

With the finding by EPA, all such permits, petitions, and proceedings could be affected.  Could this be a snowball effect with EPA and states finding themselves forced to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before Congress makes any final decisions whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?  The next year promises to be a challenging time for industry as they face a great deal of uncertainty as to how greenhouse gases will be regulated and how individual facilities and companies will be affected.  It appears more likely that some form of greenhouse gas regulation will be required.  For those companies that may be affected, it is time to develop a corporate strategy to address the risks and any opportunities that greenhouse gas regulation may bring.

Significant Climate Change Developments Part 1: European Parliament Adopts 20/20/20 Plan on Climate Change

The European Parliament after eleven months of long and tumultuous debate among the various countries and constituencies reached an agreement called 20/20/20.  By 2020 the EU plans to address climate change by achieving: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix.  The EU plans to extend and amend its cap-and-trade program referred to as the EU Emissions Trading System or ETS to control greenhouse gas emissions as well. 

A compromise was reached to address concerns by industry in the former communist countries that depend almost entirely on old coal-fired power plants for their electricity.  The EU agreed to provide free carbon allowances to industries that face stiff international competition as a result of greenhouse gas reductions if they face a 5 percent increase in costs.  The former communist countries will receive 70 percent of their carbon allowances without charge in 2013.  The exemption will be fazed out over time and end in 2020, when all allowances in these countries must be purchased at auction.

The revised EU ETS will apply from 2013 to 2020 and is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 21 % of 2005 levels. The EU ETS is a "cap and trade" system: it caps the overall level of emissions allowed but, within that limit, allows participants buy and sell allowances as they require, so as to cut emissions cost effectively. The Community-wide quantity of allowances issued each year will decrease in a linear fashion, so as gradually to reduce the overall level of emissions each year.
 
The ETS currently covers over 10,000 installations in the energy and industrial sectors, which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (the remaining 60 % will be covered by the 'non-ETS' Effort Sharing decision).
 
In the first and second ETS trading periods (2005 -2012) the great majority of allowances were allocated free of charge to installations. The revised directive establishes auctioning from 2013 in principle (as proposed by the Commission and backed by the Environment Committee), but includes several exceptions, as advocated by the European Council on 12 December 2008.

The "effort sharing" decision sets binding national targets for each EU Member State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from non-ETS sources (e.g. road and sea transport, buildings, services, agriculture and smaller industrial installations), between 2013 and 2020. These sources currently account for about 60% of all EU greenhouse gas emissions. The decision aims to reduce these emissions by 10% overall between 2013 and 2020, so as to contribute towards the EU's overall aim of a 20% reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The effort sharing decision is the first of its kind worldwide.

The EU Parliament also approved a proposed directive providing for the legal framework for the new carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). To cut their CO2 emissions, industrial installations and power plants could in the future use this new technology to capture CO2 and store it "permanently and safely underground" in geological formations.  Great Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown succeeded in winning a fund of 6 billion Euros to invest in technology to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants in underground formations.  The fund will apparently be established by earmarking 300 million allowances for CCS.

A new regulation will set emission performance standards for new passenger cars registered in the EU. The compromise backs the Commission's proposed target of an average of 120g of CO2/km for the whole car industry by 2012, compared to the current levels of 160g/km. The regulation sets an average target of 130g CO2/km for new passenger cars to be reached by improvements in vehicle motor technology.  It will be supplemented by additional measures to achieve a further 10g/km reduction, so as to reach the 120g/km target, through other technical improvements. The compromise introduces a long term target for 2020 for the new car fleet of average emissions of 95 g CO2/km.
 
Manufacturers will be given interim targets of ensuring that average CO2 emissions of 65% of their fleets in January 2012, 75% in January 2013, 80% in January 2014 and 100% from 2015, have to comply with each manufacturer's specific CO2 emissions target. In case the average emissions of CO2 exceed the targets, manufacturers will have to pay fines.

The revised fuel quality directive requires fuel suppliers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by extraction or cultivation, including land-use changes, transport and distribution, processing and combustion of transport fuels (i.e. fossil fuels like petrol, diesel and gas-oil and also biofuels, blends, electricity and hydrogen) of up to 10% by 2020.

The adoption of post-2012 greenhouse gas reductions is a critical first step in the process of moving toward a global carbon cap and trade system.  The EU has laid down the first step internationally to create the atmosphere for negotiations of a post-Kyoto climate change treaty. The negotiations in Poznan, Poland were to some extent inconclusive, but the Bush Administration was not going to make any commitments late in its administration and has not been willing to take steps to impose a greenhouse gas reduction program in the United States.  2009 could shape up to be the Year of Climate Change.

I will further discuss the other three developments in late 2008 that may lead to a global carbon-constrained economy.

Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and McCain to Offer New Climate Change Bills

As the year ticks to a close and the new Congress is on the verge of begining, senators are already announcing plans to offer new climate change bills in the 111th Congress in 2009.  Senator Barbara Boxer of California informed the press that she is going to propose a "streamlined" bill from the one offered by Senators Lieberman and Warner in 2008.  The latter bill was voted out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but went no where in the full senate.  Senator Boxer intends to include the greenhouse gas reductions that President Elect Obama announced during his campaign.  She also plans to offer a second bill that would provide the $15 billion clean energy and "green jobs" program that Obama has touted as part of an economic stimulus package.

Senator Lieberman has announced that he and Senator John McCain will author a new bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address climate change.  The two senators offered on of the first climate change bills.

The new year will likely start of with a bang in terms of new climate change bills.  Ultimately the issue will come down to whether any bill will be able to gather 60 votes in the Senate and, thus, overcome a potential filibuster of those senators who oppose any climate change legislation.

Bi-Partisan Western Governors Call for Energy and Climate Legislation

The Western Governors Association (WGA) sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, urging swift action in adopting and implementing a national energy plan that would transform the country's energy infrastructure and economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The group of 19 Western governors from both political parties call for near-zero greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired electricity generation in 10 years and from existing generation no later than 2030. The bi-partisan group of governors called on President-Elect Obama to act within the first 100 days of his administration.

The organization is led by Utah Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Chairman, a Republican, and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, Vice Chairman, a Democrat. On Nov. 21, Huntsman and Schweitzer met with John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, to promote the WGA proposal.

"The transformation we are talking about is broad based and will require new policies, incentives, market mechanisms and private-public partnerships to be in place by the end of next year," Huntsman said. "We plan to work with the new administration and Congress in addressing the multitude of energy challenges ahead."

"Western states are the country's energy breadbasket, but energy efficiency has also got to play a much bigger role," said Schweitzer. "That includes everything from manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles to changing regulatory structures so they reward utilities for achieving reduced energy usage among their customers."

The governors stated that a national energy policy must promote energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a scale necessary to contribute to climate stabilization. They state the position that the Obama administration's energy/climate policy must maximize the economic development opportunities offered by clean energy; ensure energy costs are affordable and support a sustainable, growing economy. They urge the incoming administration to increase the proportion of energy supplies that come from domestic resources and friendly trading partners; and minimize adverse environmental impacts.

Within the first 100 days, the governors are calling on the Obama administration to:

--Establish an aggressive and achievable national greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal that will put the United States on a path to contribute to global climate stabilization.

--Propose a mandatory national system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that makes maximum use of market-based mechanisms. Revenue raised should not be used as a means of sustaining or expanding general governmental operations.

--Pursue a national energy efficiency program to reduce existing and future energy demand and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

--Establish an oil import reduction goal that strengthens energy security and independence. Since nearly 90 percent of oil is used for transportation, an energy plan must bring more fuel-efficient and near-zero emission vehicles into the market; increase the supply of domestically produced, low-carbon fuels; minimize the economic and technological uncertainties inherent in deploying high efficiency vehicles and developing and using non-petroleum transportation fuels; and reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase mass movement of people and goods.

--Create a substantial, long-term national public investment on the scale of tens of billions of dollars annually, along with a similar investment from the private sector, to support the kind of basic and applied research and deployment of clean energy technology and infrastructure that will result in:

--Near-zero greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired electricity generation in 10 years and from existing generation no later than 2030.

--Dramatically increased energy from wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass resources.

--Expansion and upgrade of the electricity transmission grid and storage capabilities.

--Advanced vehicle and battery technologies and alternative transportation fuels.

--Next generation energy efficiency technologies and practices.

The governors also urge affordability for lower income energy consumers through energy efficiency and cost assistance programs. They support workforce development and clean energy jobs, adaptation to climate change impacts, reduced consumer impacts - particularly for low-income consumers - and transition assistance to industries.

"While the first 100 days are critical, these actions only represent the first steps," the governors say in their letter. "Within the next year, a comprehensive energy plan must be enacted that will set the direction of this nation for the next 50 years. This plan, though adjustable over time, must establish measurable goals, strategies, milestones and funding to ensure that we are moving towards affordable and environmentally responsible energy security and independence."

"We must not repeat the mistakes of the past," the governors declared in their letter. "We must have the collective political will and resolve to create and implement a long-term comprehensive energy policy despite short-term political and market fluctuations. The future of our nation depends upon it."

The environment really isn't a red or a blue issue. It's an American issue. I'm trying my very best as just one Republican, and I know there are others, to remind people of that fact — and that it will take a bipartisan effort," the Utah governor said.

The governors are calling in a bi-partisan way for action on energy policy. The biggest question is whether US senators can find a bi-partisan solution that reflects the governors’ proposal. Huntsman has been criticized by some Republicans for supporting climate change legislation and cap and trade.

"The Republican values I'm speaking to are right out of ... Teddy Roosevelt's playbook. He taught us all to revere our land, to leave a legacy ... to the next generation," Huntsman responded to criticism from some Republicans. "I'm also doing a very Republican thing to incentivize and develop technologies that are going to fuel our economy."

As 2009 approaches and the new administration prepares to work on climate legislation in the new Congress, this call by governors of both parties for climate and energy legislation suggests growing pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill. It appears only a possible filibuster in the Senate stands in the way of climate legislation. How the votes will come out on a climate filibuster remains to be seen.

Northeastern States Set Auction Dates for RGGI Carbon Emission Allowances Auction

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has set dates for the first set of auctions for carbon dioxide emission allowances.  RGGI is a regional program whereby ten Northeastern states have entered into agreements, developed model rules, and passed legislation and have or are developing their own state regulations to implement the regional CO2 cap-and-trade system covering power plants.

The dates for auctioning the allowances required by the regulated power plants to continue operating have been set for September 10, 2008 and December 17, 2008.  These auctions will be the first sale under the first mandatory or compliance greenhouse gas regulatory system in the United States.  Most of the emission allowances may be auctioned under RGGI rather than provided for free as in the case of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

Other states are working on such a system including California and several Western states, Canadian provinces, and Mexican states, and a separate group of Midwestern states.

The RGGI auctions will initiate the compliance trading market in the United States.  As this market develops, one significant issue will be whether the RGGI system has over allocated the number of allowances, as the EU ETS did in its initial phase.  In that case, the price for the allowances dropped to near zero.   The development of the market for RGGI allowances will be interesting given that many parties have asserted that more allowances have been issued to states for sale or allocatin than are required to allow the emissions of CO2 from the regulated power plants.

Article Published in Fuel Magazine Discusses How Carbon Credits Can Finance Use of Flared Gas

In the July 2008 edition of FUEL magazine I published an article discussing how carbon credits can serve to help finance local uses of natural gas that is otherwise flared or vented.  The article is entitled “Carbon Credits: New Uses for Financing Natural Gas.” 

In the article, it is explained that “The World Bank has formed a group that is working to reduce natural gas venting or flaring, based in part on its recent report estimating global vented or flared natural gas reaches about 14 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). The burning of the natural gas reportedly produces 400 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, which GHG [greenhouse gases] scientists blame for contributing to climate change.”

The article also discusses the fact that  “one of the means by which natural gas is captured and moved to markets such as the United States is through liquid natural gas (LNG) projects.”  However, “often there is no perceived market for this gas, and no known way of financing the transport of it to market if identified.” The article explains how GHG emission reductions can produce carbon credits, which can then be sold and serve as a basis for helping finance more local markets for flared natural gas.  Deatherage discusses carbon trading, “pollution rights,” cap-and-trade systems, and other market aspects of climate change. I conclude that “emission markets encourage capital to reduce GHGs and provide economic benefit to developing countries to be invested in these projects as they find substantial return on their investments.  Carbon trading may prove to be a key element to many of these projects, including those to reduce the venting and flaring of natural gas.”

To view the full article, please visit www.hartfuel.com.