Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (7) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
2 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
November 2, 2009

Senate Committee Tackles Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) held three marathon hearings this week, featuring more than 50 witnesses discussing the revised draft of the climate legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

While substantially similar in structure to the climate legislation approved by the House this summer, the Kerry-Boxer bill proposes more stringent near-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements than the House bill, with reductions required below 2005 levels of 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

In order to emit GHGs under the cap, an entity would have to hold allowances (i.e., a permit, which equals the right to emit one ton of GHGs). A market would be created in which companies could buy and sell the right to emit. Rob Gramlich, AWEA’s senior vice president of public policy, said, “The continuing progress of this bill marks another milestone toward passing comprehensive policy that addresses climate change while changing our energy economy to one that is clean and domestic, creating thousands of new manufacturing, construction, and technical jobs to help drive our economy back to health.”

Putting a price on carbon in this way and raising the price of fossil fuels is expected to help make renewable energy more cost competitive. However, based on the analysis done to date, in the near and medium term, the carbon price will be too low to drive renewable deployment on its own. That is why the wind industry’s top policy priority has been enactment of a national renewable electricity standard (RES) as a key part of the comprehensive policy to address climate change.

On that subject, a highlight in the hearings—from a renewable energy perspective, at least—came when Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman John Wellinghoff told committee members that a national RES of 25% by 2025 can be met. “I do think it is achievable,” he said. “It is time that we have a national standard, and I think the goals that you have set are very achievable." Bills passed in the House, as well as the Senate Energy Committee, over the summer include significantly less aggressive RES provisions.

The Kerry-Boxer bill distributes allowances to a variety of industries and sectors, including electric utilities, manufacturers, refiners, and state governments. Of particular importance to the wind industry, the bill provides a small pool of allowances to be distributed directly to renewable generators. Selling these allowances would provide wind farm developers with another source of revenue to keep their projects cost competitive.

The bill also includes provisions to benefit coal with carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear power, and natural gas.

The legislation could be voted on in the committee as early as the first week of November. It is expected to eventually be combined with the broader energy legislation approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, which includes a national renewable electricity standard and transmission provisions. Timing for floor consideration of the combined package is unclear.

This article first appeared in Wind Energy Weekly, and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association.

Reader Comments (7)
 
No image available
November 3, 2009
This is hype. The Americans simply have too much self interest to agree upon and employ any bill which would significantly halt global climate change.
Democracy? No.
Corporate profit? Yes.
Way too little, and a decade too late.
Comment 1 of 7
No image available
November 3, 2009
Its sheer arrogance to assume that 1) man can cause climate change and 2) that man can reverse it. The last 8 years of cooling are just another indication that climate change is tied to sunspot activity and is not anthropogenic.

Renewable resources are key for energy sustainability, not a solution for a political crisis. "warming" is not anthropogenic. Computer models are not evidence.
Comment 2 of 7
No image available
November 3, 2009
NO COOLING TREND. This is taken from the NASA website on 11/03/09. I always look to the elite scientists for my climate science.
"Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

"The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.""
Comment 3 of 7
No image available
November 3, 2009
Elite scientists would use the scientific method, which Mann did not use. Also, I think you are going by the old temperature data which Nasa adjusted after some people started realizing the temperature stations were next to hot sources such as AC units, parking lots, airport tarmacs etc. Here's the numbers from NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

2005 is not the warmest, 1998 was. That site also shows the correlation to solar irradiance.

A correlation between CO2 and temperatures does not prove a single thing. If you have ever studied statistics, science or even law, it should be evident. I'm not saying that CO2 *can't* cause climate change. I'm just saying the evidence to date is woefully lacking and is all circumstantial.

How can you trust a computer model for 20 years when it couldn't predict the last 8 years of cooling?
Comment 4 of 7
No image available
November 3, 2009
Here's an interesting paper that questions the methods of the warming conclusionists without making any judgements whether it is anthropogenic or not: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
Comment 5 of 7
No image available
November 3, 2009
In recent years, the high oil price has taxed jobs word-wide, therefore job creation via developing sustainable resources is considered to be imperative, which might be a final focus of this great recession.
Comment 6 of 7
No image available
November 4, 2009
Why do so many people refuse to acknowledge actual science when it comes to climate change?

It is everyone's responsibility to be informed, instead of swallowing the hype.

I DARE you to read this article - you may have to change what you believe!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
Comment 7 of 7
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
European Wind Energy Association KYOCERA Solar, Inc. GoGreenSolar.com Renewable Energy World North America PeopleSense Consulting LLC Second Wind Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo