|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. senators worry about damage to state climate efforts A federal climate bill should not override regional programs unless it provides extra assistance to states already curbing greenhouse gases through mandatory emission cuts, a group of senators argues in a new letter. The 14 liberal-leaning lawmakers say in the document that they cannot support the potential shutdown of programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative unless Congress ensures "equity for these states that have taken early action to address carbon pollution at their own expense." They express concern that a closure of the initiative, known as RGGI, could leave participating states with a cash shortage for investment in clean-energy efforts. Since its implementation in September 2008, RGGI has raised more than $580 million for 10 states in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, with most of the proceeds going to local energy-efficiency projects. "An outright federal preemption of state-based clean energy programs and regional carbon trading programs could leave states and business with millions of dollars in stranded costs and severely undermine public confidence in the new federal program," the lawmakers wrote. Democrats Barbara Boxer of California, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, as well as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, signed the letter. They sent their concerns to Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who are drafting a legislative compromise in the Senate on climate that could garner 60 votes to break a filibuster. Its release is expected in April. Their letter came in conjunction with one sent to Capitol Hill yesterday from officials in 14 states urging federal lawmakers to preserve "states' rights to implement their own climate policies, including but not limited to: state caps; vehicle, fuel and clean energy standards; and other innovative policy mechanisms." Pondering pre-emption Supporters of pre-empting such programs argue that it is necessary to eliminate a patchwork quilt of different plans and create certainty in the marketplace for businesses operating in multiple states. Opponents, on the other hand, say that a federal bill needs to give the states some wiggle room and allow them to serve as a backup in case something goes awry with a national approach. "There might be windows of time in the future when the federal government isn't moving," said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. Even if Congress passes a bill, it is possible that future Congresses and presidents could delay implementation of provisions, she said. In that case, the states need to be able to step in, she said. That could happen through RGGI, the only cap-and-trade system running in the United States, or through programs now in the planning stage. The Western Climate Initiative, for example, envisions a system among several Western states and two Canadian provinces that would cut greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. A climate bill that passed the House in June addressed the overlap issue by preventing states from operating their local programs from 2012 to 2017. The goal of the five-year freeze was to give the federal government time to make a new national program operational and allow states to pick up the slack in 2017 in case of any problems. According to sources, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are considering a stronger pre-emptive move that would block states entirely from any further operation of regional cap-and-trade systems. Some states are concerned that the trio could go further and override state renewable standards and other local climate programs, according to one New York state official. He said federal lawmakers should follow the precedence of past energy bills like the Clean Air Act and allow states to curb pollution beyond a minimum standard set by national legislation. Rewards for good behavior? As an example, he noted that RGGI does not allow businesses to meet their emission cut requirements through offsets. Offsets refer to projects such as reforestation efforts that companies could turn to in a federal climate plan if they had difficulty cutting emissions at their own facilities. Offsets have been criticized for their potential to let polluters off the hook, but also are considered a way to control costs under a federal climate regime. Because of the cost issue, there could be problems if some states accepted offsets and others did not, Segal argued. He also expressed concern that states could try and put different timetables for emission reductions in place and create uncertainty for multi-state corporations. Another murky area is what would happen to emission allowances bought and sold under RGGI if a national cap became the law of the land, said Barry Rabe, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan. States in the Northeast want to be rewarded for good behavior in cutting emissions ahead of other states though their participation in RGGI, he said. One way to give that reward would be by allowing RGGI allowances to become valid "currency" in a national plan, so state entities don't have to pay for emission cuts twice, he said. "In this case, you've got senators representing states that have a rate of emission reductions well below the national average," he said. "Those are states that are going to be coming to the table and saying, 'Where's our share?'" Source: ClimateWire |
|