The 1st Annual Meeting of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association will be as follows:
Saturday, November 14th, 2009
2:00 to 6:00 pm
Library Auditorium
Marian University
3200 Coldspring Rd.
Indianapolis, IN 46222
$15 InREA members
$25 non-members
(includes dinner buffet)
Bring a check payable to: Indiana Renewable Energy Association
The theme for our first annual meeting will be to review the past history, present status and future proposals for renewable energy development in Indiana.
We will present an overview of the activities of our association over the past year including our recent participation in the ASES National Solar Tour. Amie McCarty with Mann Plumbing in Bloomington will present an overview of these solar tours and our plans for 2010 solar tours and related activities.
We will describe the current status of renewable energy development in our state and how we compare to other states in our region and the nation as a whole.
The current status of renewable energy in Indiana will also include a panel discussion of InREA members about professional accreditation. Training and education remains a "hot topic" in this current economic climate.
Panelists include:
David Hippensteel, Riverbridge Electric, North Manchester
David Mann, Mann Plumbing, Bloomington
Mac Williams, Inverde, Fishers
Gary Washington, Solar Usage Now, Ft. Wayne
Lastly, we will conduct a discussion of our plans for the future.
A presentation by InREA member Chris Stribeck with Integrated Development Services (IDS) of Indianapolis is planned on 1) proposed changes to our current dues structure and 2) formation of a sister organization with an IRS tax status that will allow for unrestricted lobbying activities.
Earlier this year, the InREA Board of Directors decided to pursue status with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization that would be both tax exempt and tax deductible allowing both membership dues and contributions to be tax deductible. Pursuing such a tax status will also allow InREA to apply for grants from foundations as well as charitable contributions from individuals.
In response to feedback from various prospective members including electric utilities as well as current members, it was felt that it would be better for direct lobbying activitiess such as advocacy on various energy issues at the Indiana General Assembly be done through a separate organization.
Final steps are underway to complete InREA's application to the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit and it is anticipated it will be filed before the end of the calendar year.
Our meeting will conclude with an informal networking session and a dinner buffet.
We hope you will make plans now to join us and to celebrate our first year as the Indiana Renewable Energy Association as the Indiana state chapter of the American Solar Energy Society.
For more information visit the website of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association at www.indianarenew.org.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bill McKibben: Pursuing Prosperity and Local Sustainability
Bill McKibben spoke on the campus of Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) Monday afternoon (11/09/09). McKibben was one of the organizers of a recent global day of action on October 24th called 350.org. Several members of the Indiana Renewable Energy Association participated in these 350.org activities throughtout the state of Indiana.
McKibben, author of Deep Economy, challenges us to find ways to create more sustainable communities, both locally and globally, and frames a fresh perspective on where we should lead our economy, environment, and society for a more durable future. An IUPUI 40th anniversary event presented by the Common Theme Project, IUPUI; Christian Theological Seminary; Earth Charter Indiana; Hoosier Environmental Council; Improving Kids' Environment; Indiana State Museum; Indianapolis Winter Farmers Market; and Unitarian Universalist Church of Indianapolis.
The thesis of Bill McKibben’s most recent book, Deep Economy, is twofold: On the one hand, the growth economy described in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations has produced unprecedented gains in many people’s standards of living, aiding the development of liberal democracies and human rights. On the other hand, there are signs that the growth economy is reaching and exceeding the planet’s environmental limits, and economic wealth is not producing equivalent gains in human happiness. The subtitle of McKibben’s book, The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, asks us to consider, what other forms of wealth in our communities are worth investing in, both locally and globally, to create more sustainable, satisfying, and inspiring places to live?
Bill McKibben has a wealth of anecdotes about how people are living more sustainably in local communities, both in the U.S. and around the world. He has proposals for downsizing the scale of farms, energy production, and living spaces, and supporting radio stations, community theaters, and civic organizations in order to enrich the places where people live. At the same time, he appreciates the benefits of markets, and he argues that securing property rights for the world’s poor is vital to global equity. His twin goals of deepening economic ties locally and building up the wealth of communities globally provide an effective framework for conversations about Inspiring Places.
In the Spirit & Place event, McKibben gave a 35-40 minute talk that focused on his insights and proposals, including his work on global movement 350.org’s “International Day of Climate Action.” The lecture was followed by a Q&A session, a book signing , and a public reception.
Audience members have several ways to follow up on this lecture. The Indiana State Museum will sponsor a panel with McKibben on November 10 on the question: Can local food feed Indiana and the world? On November 11, will host a community panel, with audience participation, to discuss the connections and disconnections between market prosperity and vital places today. There will also be lists of the events in IUPUI’s 2009-2010 Common Theme Project, and the audience will be directed to the project’s web resources, which will include bibliographies of books and films with links to community organizations working in relevant issue areas.
McKibben explains that he has solar panels on his home in Vermont.
This tidbit brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
McKibben, author of Deep Economy, challenges us to find ways to create more sustainable communities, both locally and globally, and frames a fresh perspective on where we should lead our economy, environment, and society for a more durable future. An IUPUI 40th anniversary event presented by the Common Theme Project, IUPUI; Christian Theological Seminary; Earth Charter Indiana; Hoosier Environmental Council; Improving Kids' Environment; Indiana State Museum; Indianapolis Winter Farmers Market; and Unitarian Universalist Church of Indianapolis.
The thesis of Bill McKibben’s most recent book, Deep Economy, is twofold: On the one hand, the growth economy described in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations has produced unprecedented gains in many people’s standards of living, aiding the development of liberal democracies and human rights. On the other hand, there are signs that the growth economy is reaching and exceeding the planet’s environmental limits, and economic wealth is not producing equivalent gains in human happiness. The subtitle of McKibben’s book, The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future, asks us to consider, what other forms of wealth in our communities are worth investing in, both locally and globally, to create more sustainable, satisfying, and inspiring places to live?
Bill McKibben has a wealth of anecdotes about how people are living more sustainably in local communities, both in the U.S. and around the world. He has proposals for downsizing the scale of farms, energy production, and living spaces, and supporting radio stations, community theaters, and civic organizations in order to enrich the places where people live. At the same time, he appreciates the benefits of markets, and he argues that securing property rights for the world’s poor is vital to global equity. His twin goals of deepening economic ties locally and building up the wealth of communities globally provide an effective framework for conversations about Inspiring Places.
In the Spirit & Place event, McKibben gave a 35-40 minute talk that focused on his insights and proposals, including his work on global movement 350.org’s “International Day of Climate Action.” The lecture was followed by a Q&A session, a book signing , and a public reception.
Audience members have several ways to follow up on this lecture. The Indiana State Museum will sponsor a panel with McKibben on November 10 on the question: Can local food feed Indiana and the world? On November 11, will host a community panel, with audience participation, to discuss the connections and disconnections between market prosperity and vital places today. There will also be lists of the events in IUPUI’s 2009-2010 Common Theme Project, and the audience will be directed to the project’s web resources, which will include bibliographies of books and films with links to community organizations working in relevant issue areas.
McKibben explains that he has solar panels on his home in Vermont.
This tidbit brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Federal Energy Subsidy Scorecard: How Renewables Stack Up
Reprinted from Renewable Energy World, November 3, 2009
by Matthew Slavin, PhD
In a speech at the United Nations and afterward at the G-20 summit meeting in September, President Obama called for elimination of government subsidies for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fossil fuels. Said the President "I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge."
The President’s pronouncement, the essential role solar and wind energy have to play in the fight against global warming, the critique that renewables are overly reliant upon government assistance and congressional debate over a national cap and trade energy and climate bill make this a good time to take stock of how renewables stack up in terms of federal energy subsidies. A short primer on the different types of federal energy subsidies at work provides a useful point of departure.
Types of Federal Energy Subsidies
Federal energy subsidies come in many different shapes and sizes. However they can be broadly divided into three main categories.
Tax credits constitute the largest source of federal assistance to the energy sector. According to a prepared by Washington D.C. consulting group Management Information Services Inc. (MISI), tax credits accounted for an estimated 45 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2003. An analysis by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts put this number at 65 percent for 2006. Tax treatment also comprises one of the earliest ways by which the federal government subsidized energy development and production, dating to 1917, when income tax credits were established to encourage oil drilling.
Investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal energy fall into this category as do tax incentives for ethanol and other biofuels. So does the oil depletion allowance, established by the Revenue Act of 1926 that allows downstream fossil fuel producers to make deductions from their gross income and the Foreign Tax Credit, the largest single energy subsidy, which allows U.S. oil and gas companies to claim a credit against revenues derived from overseas production that would be taxed at a higher rate if produced domestically.
Another type of subsidy encompasses direct cash grants, loan guarantees and similar targeted disbursements. These accounted for about 20 percent of federal energy support from 1950 through 2003 and 29 percent in 2006. The renewable energy cash grants authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) fall into this category.
Also included is federal spending that began in the 1930s to construct the Columbia-Snake River and Tennessee Valley hydroelectric systems and the $1 billion authorized under ARRA for FutureGen, the coal-carbon sequestration pilot project slated for construction in Illinois with uncertain prospects for success.
A third subsidy platform revolves around regulation: creating a regulatory climate that encourages energy investment. Regulatory subsidies are as old as tax incentives, dating to 1917 when the U.S. Fuel Administration moved to ensure sufficient oil to fuel America’s entry into World War I by creating a petroleum quasi-cartel that boosted oil prices and profits only six years after the breakup of Standard Oil. Shortly thereafter the oil industry formed the American Petroleum Institute to lobby for additional federal largess.
Some critics argue that regulation should not be characterized as a subsidy. However, a key feature of government subsidies is that they influence investment behavior by lowering risk or by raising demand, and in this, regulatory provisions play a substantial role. The $10 billion cap federal law imposes upon corporate liability for a commercial nuclear generating accident is an example of a regulatory subsidy. This cap insulates the nuclear energy industry from the financial risk of a catastrophic accident. Absent this, sufficient capital could not be attracted to build nuclear plant. Ethanol additive requirements likewise constitute a regulatory subsidy, as will a federal renewable energy standard (RPS) when one comes into effect.
Cap and trade would place a steadily declining ceiling on GHG emissions, allowing power plants, refineries, and other large industrial emitters to trade allowances that give them flexibility in meeting GHG reduction targets and provide capital to fund development of new low carbon technologies. It seeks to price fossil fuels at a level that reflects the externalized cost of their GHG emissions upon the environment. This approach combines a regulatory and a market-based mechanism to promote climate friendly technologies and create increased demand for clean renewable energy.
How Do Subsidies for Renewables Rank?
Evaluating federal energy subsidies is something akin to alchemy. The myriad of ways in which they are funded, managed, and monitored, and year-to-year changes in legislation and budgets make an exact accounting difficult. This said, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) recently completed a study for the period 2002 through 2008 in conjunction with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which, coupled with the MISI study, illuminates how federal energy subsidies affect renewables and other competing fuels.
These studies confirm conventional wisdom that fossil fuels have been the primary beneficiary of federal energy subsidies. Oil and gas garnered 60 percent of an estimated total of $725 billion in federal assistance between 1950 and 2003, with oil alone taking 46% of the total. Coal took 13 percent. Next was hydroelectric at 11 percent and nuclear at 9 percent, not counting the liability cap subsidy which is an implicit avoided cost and impossible to quantify. At the back of the pack are wind, solar, geothermal, and bio-fuels, recipients of only 6 percent of total energy sector spending during this period.
Given the recent vintage of renewable technologies, use of a 1950 baseline for breaking down how federal energy subsidies have been parceled out may not paint a fair picture. However, the more recent 2002 – 2008 period continues to show fossil fuels as dominant. According to ELI, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled $72 billion, with most going to oil and then gas.
Support for coal-carbon capture and storage received $2.3 billion of this total. Fossil fuels took almost two-and-a-half times more in subsidies than renewables, which received $29 billion. Furthermore of this $29 billion, $16.8 billion went to corn-based ethanol whose climate friendly credentials are increasingly open to question.
Only $12.2 billion, or 16.6 percent of what fossil fuels received went for wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and non-corn based biofuels and biomass. This is better than in preceding years but much less than what is needed in the face of global warming, a point understated by ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass when he introduced the ELI study’s results by saying “These figures raise the pressing question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.”
Rejoinder to the Rap Against Subsidies for Renewables
Critics argue that renewable energy technologies cannot compete on price with fossil fuels without public subsidies. It’s true to date that renewables’ return per dollar of federal assistance remains higher than for fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), federal subsidies for conventional coal generated electricity production in 2007 equaled $0.44/MWh (megawatt-hour). The equivalent figure for wind was $23.37 and for solar, $24.34 per MWh.
But these critics miss the mark. Commercial scale federal subsidies for renewables are less than twenty years old, dating to production tax credits enacted under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to bolster national energy security in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, production tax credits for renewable energy have been subject to on again, off again congressional approval. This contrasts with fossil fuel subsidies, recipients of largely continuous and predictable subsidies since 1917.
Nor are the costs of subsidies for renewables out of line with other emerging and evolving clean energy technologies. For example, federal subsidies for refined coal technology that removes moisture and certain pollutants from sub-bituminous and lignite in 2007 equaled $29.81/MWh. If refined coal and FutureGen are any indication, yet untested clean-coal carbon sequestration will require vast federal expenditures on a scale probably surpassing what has been directed to wind and solar.
Renewables do not export environmental externalities such as drinking water contamination stemming from coal mining in West Virginia and other states, as recently reported in the New York Times. There is no need for a liability cap with wind and solar of the sort needed to fuel investment in commercial nuclear generation.
The reality is that federal subsidies for renewables have played an important role in generating economies of scale and investment capital for improved technology that have driven down the cost of photovoltaic solar energy by 50 percent to about $3 per watt in the past decade and dropped the cost of wind generated electricity to as low as 4 cents/kWh per in some areas today. These costs will only decline further as the market for renewables grows and technology improves.
Former longtime Saudi oil minister Sheik Zaki Yamani once famously said "the Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil". Now would be a good time for critics of renewable energy subsidies to get the rocks out and for the U.S. to put in place long term federal subsidies that will provide the stable and predictable investment climate needed to accelerate America’s transition to a modern and clean renewable energy economy.
This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
by Matthew Slavin, PhD
In a speech at the United Nations and afterward at the G-20 summit meeting in September, President Obama called for elimination of government subsidies for greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fossil fuels. Said the President "I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge."
The President’s pronouncement, the essential role solar and wind energy have to play in the fight against global warming, the critique that renewables are overly reliant upon government assistance and congressional debate over a national cap and trade energy and climate bill make this a good time to take stock of how renewables stack up in terms of federal energy subsidies. A short primer on the different types of federal energy subsidies at work provides a useful point of departure.
Types of Federal Energy Subsidies
Federal energy subsidies come in many different shapes and sizes. However they can be broadly divided into three main categories.
Tax credits constitute the largest source of federal assistance to the energy sector. According to a prepared by Washington D.C. consulting group Management Information Services Inc. (MISI), tax credits accounted for an estimated 45 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2003. An analysis by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts put this number at 65 percent for 2006. Tax treatment also comprises one of the earliest ways by which the federal government subsidized energy development and production, dating to 1917, when income tax credits were established to encourage oil drilling.
Investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal energy fall into this category as do tax incentives for ethanol and other biofuels. So does the oil depletion allowance, established by the Revenue Act of 1926 that allows downstream fossil fuel producers to make deductions from their gross income and the Foreign Tax Credit, the largest single energy subsidy, which allows U.S. oil and gas companies to claim a credit against revenues derived from overseas production that would be taxed at a higher rate if produced domestically.
Another type of subsidy encompasses direct cash grants, loan guarantees and similar targeted disbursements. These accounted for about 20 percent of federal energy support from 1950 through 2003 and 29 percent in 2006. The renewable energy cash grants authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) fall into this category.
Also included is federal spending that began in the 1930s to construct the Columbia-Snake River and Tennessee Valley hydroelectric systems and the $1 billion authorized under ARRA for FutureGen, the coal-carbon sequestration pilot project slated for construction in Illinois with uncertain prospects for success.
A third subsidy platform revolves around regulation: creating a regulatory climate that encourages energy investment. Regulatory subsidies are as old as tax incentives, dating to 1917 when the U.S. Fuel Administration moved to ensure sufficient oil to fuel America’s entry into World War I by creating a petroleum quasi-cartel that boosted oil prices and profits only six years after the breakup of Standard Oil. Shortly thereafter the oil industry formed the American Petroleum Institute to lobby for additional federal largess.
Some critics argue that regulation should not be characterized as a subsidy. However, a key feature of government subsidies is that they influence investment behavior by lowering risk or by raising demand, and in this, regulatory provisions play a substantial role. The $10 billion cap federal law imposes upon corporate liability for a commercial nuclear generating accident is an example of a regulatory subsidy. This cap insulates the nuclear energy industry from the financial risk of a catastrophic accident. Absent this, sufficient capital could not be attracted to build nuclear plant. Ethanol additive requirements likewise constitute a regulatory subsidy, as will a federal renewable energy standard (RPS) when one comes into effect.
Cap and trade would place a steadily declining ceiling on GHG emissions, allowing power plants, refineries, and other large industrial emitters to trade allowances that give them flexibility in meeting GHG reduction targets and provide capital to fund development of new low carbon technologies. It seeks to price fossil fuels at a level that reflects the externalized cost of their GHG emissions upon the environment. This approach combines a regulatory and a market-based mechanism to promote climate friendly technologies and create increased demand for clean renewable energy.
How Do Subsidies for Renewables Rank?
Evaluating federal energy subsidies is something akin to alchemy. The myriad of ways in which they are funded, managed, and monitored, and year-to-year changes in legislation and budgets make an exact accounting difficult. This said, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) recently completed a study for the period 2002 through 2008 in conjunction with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which, coupled with the MISI study, illuminates how federal energy subsidies affect renewables and other competing fuels.
These studies confirm conventional wisdom that fossil fuels have been the primary beneficiary of federal energy subsidies. Oil and gas garnered 60 percent of an estimated total of $725 billion in federal assistance between 1950 and 2003, with oil alone taking 46% of the total. Coal took 13 percent. Next was hydroelectric at 11 percent and nuclear at 9 percent, not counting the liability cap subsidy which is an implicit avoided cost and impossible to quantify. At the back of the pack are wind, solar, geothermal, and bio-fuels, recipients of only 6 percent of total energy sector spending during this period.
Given the recent vintage of renewable technologies, use of a 1950 baseline for breaking down how federal energy subsidies have been parceled out may not paint a fair picture. However, the more recent 2002 – 2008 period continues to show fossil fuels as dominant. According to ELI, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled $72 billion, with most going to oil and then gas.
Support for coal-carbon capture and storage received $2.3 billion of this total. Fossil fuels took almost two-and-a-half times more in subsidies than renewables, which received $29 billion. Furthermore of this $29 billion, $16.8 billion went to corn-based ethanol whose climate friendly credentials are increasingly open to question.
Only $12.2 billion, or 16.6 percent of what fossil fuels received went for wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and non-corn based biofuels and biomass. This is better than in preceding years but much less than what is needed in the face of global warming, a point understated by ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass when he introduced the ELI study’s results by saying “These figures raise the pressing question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.”
Rejoinder to the Rap Against Subsidies for Renewables
Critics argue that renewable energy technologies cannot compete on price with fossil fuels without public subsidies. It’s true to date that renewables’ return per dollar of federal assistance remains higher than for fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), federal subsidies for conventional coal generated electricity production in 2007 equaled $0.44/MWh (megawatt-hour). The equivalent figure for wind was $23.37 and for solar, $24.34 per MWh.
But these critics miss the mark. Commercial scale federal subsidies for renewables are less than twenty years old, dating to production tax credits enacted under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to bolster national energy security in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, production tax credits for renewable energy have been subject to on again, off again congressional approval. This contrasts with fossil fuel subsidies, recipients of largely continuous and predictable subsidies since 1917.
Nor are the costs of subsidies for renewables out of line with other emerging and evolving clean energy technologies. For example, federal subsidies for refined coal technology that removes moisture and certain pollutants from sub-bituminous and lignite in 2007 equaled $29.81/MWh. If refined coal and FutureGen are any indication, yet untested clean-coal carbon sequestration will require vast federal expenditures on a scale probably surpassing what has been directed to wind and solar.
Renewables do not export environmental externalities such as drinking water contamination stemming from coal mining in West Virginia and other states, as recently reported in the New York Times. There is no need for a liability cap with wind and solar of the sort needed to fuel investment in commercial nuclear generation.
The reality is that federal subsidies for renewables have played an important role in generating economies of scale and investment capital for improved technology that have driven down the cost of photovoltaic solar energy by 50 percent to about $3 per watt in the past decade and dropped the cost of wind generated electricity to as low as 4 cents/kWh per in some areas today. These costs will only decline further as the market for renewables grows and technology improves.
Former longtime Saudi oil minister Sheik Zaki Yamani once famously said "the Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil". Now would be a good time for critics of renewable energy subsidies to get the rocks out and for the U.S. to put in place long term federal subsidies that will provide the stable and predictable investment climate needed to accelerate America’s transition to a modern and clean renewable energy economy.
This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Republicans move to delay climate bill progress
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/AR2009103101048.html
By Richard Cowan
Reuters
Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:10 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All seven Republicans on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plan to boycott next week's work session on a climate-change bill, an aide said on Saturday, in a move aimed at thwarting Democratic efforts to advance the controversial legislation quickly.
"Republicans will be forced not to show up" at Tuesday's work session, said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Republican senators on the environment panel.
Under committee rules, at least two Republicans are needed for Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to hold the work sessions that would give senators an opportunity to amend the controversial legislation and then vote to approve it in the panel, which is controlled by President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats.
But Republicans are demanding more detailed economic analysis of the bill by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- a task that could take more than a month -- before agreeing to participate in the work sessions that are called "mark ups."
The seven Republicans have not indicated they ultimately would vote for the bill, which Boxer wants to move through her committee before December's international climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Even with committee approval of the bill, the full Senate is not expected to vote on it this year. The legislation, as currently written, would have a hard time gaining the support of the 60 senators needed to pass major bills.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration is hoping for more progress by Congress before the Copenhagen summit. In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
CARBON POLLUTION
Boxer's bill, which she wrote with Democratic Senator John Kerry, would require U.S. manufacturers, utilities and refineries to reduce their carbon pollution output 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels. That is slightly more ambitious than the House-passed bill.
Most Republicans and some moderate Democrats in the Senate have criticized the emissions-reduction target of the Kerry-Boxer bill.
Kerry already has begun talking to other senators about significant changes to his bill, including expanding U.S. nuclear power generation.
Republicans on the environment committee say the climate-change bill would cause significant job losses by encouraging manufacturers to relocate more of their plants in countries that do not have as strict carbon controls.
They also say it would significantly boost consumer prices as companies are forced to use more expensive alternative fuels -- a claim that has not been backed up by some independent analysis or by a preliminary EPA analysis.
"Republicans are insisting on a full EPA analysis before a mark up. We are not opposed to a mark up, only on holding one this rushed," said a statement by committee Republicans. Full details of the Democratic bill were unveiled only a week ago.
The senior Republican on the committee, Senator James Inhofe, has been an outspoken opponent of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saying there is no sound scientific evidence that the world is suffering due to carbon emissions resulting from human activities.
(Editing by Will Dunham)
This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
By Richard Cowan
Reuters
Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:10 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All seven Republicans on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plan to boycott next week's work session on a climate-change bill, an aide said on Saturday, in a move aimed at thwarting Democratic efforts to advance the controversial legislation quickly.
"Republicans will be forced not to show up" at Tuesday's work session, said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Republican senators on the environment panel.
Under committee rules, at least two Republicans are needed for Chairwoman Barbara Boxer to hold the work sessions that would give senators an opportunity to amend the controversial legislation and then vote to approve it in the panel, which is controlled by President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats.
But Republicans are demanding more detailed economic analysis of the bill by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- a task that could take more than a month -- before agreeing to participate in the work sessions that are called "mark ups."
The seven Republicans have not indicated they ultimately would vote for the bill, which Boxer wants to move through her committee before December's international climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Even with committee approval of the bill, the full Senate is not expected to vote on it this year. The legislation, as currently written, would have a hard time gaining the support of the 60 senators needed to pass major bills.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration is hoping for more progress by Congress before the Copenhagen summit. In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
CARBON POLLUTION
Boxer's bill, which she wrote with Democratic Senator John Kerry, would require U.S. manufacturers, utilities and refineries to reduce their carbon pollution output 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels. That is slightly more ambitious than the House-passed bill.
Most Republicans and some moderate Democrats in the Senate have criticized the emissions-reduction target of the Kerry-Boxer bill.
Kerry already has begun talking to other senators about significant changes to his bill, including expanding U.S. nuclear power generation.
Republicans on the environment committee say the climate-change bill would cause significant job losses by encouraging manufacturers to relocate more of their plants in countries that do not have as strict carbon controls.
They also say it would significantly boost consumer prices as companies are forced to use more expensive alternative fuels -- a claim that has not been backed up by some independent analysis or by a preliminary EPA analysis.
"Republicans are insisting on a full EPA analysis before a mark up. We are not opposed to a mark up, only on holding one this rushed," said a statement by committee Republicans. Full details of the Democratic bill were unveiled only a week ago.
The senior Republican on the committee, Senator James Inhofe, has been an outspoken opponent of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saying there is no sound scientific evidence that the world is suffering due to carbon emissions resulting from human activities.
(Editing by Will Dunham)
This article brought to you by the Indiana Renewable Energy Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
