Is Cap And Trade Now Really Most Sincerely Dead?

Is cap and trade now really, most sincerely dead?  Well, Politico is reporting "Senate Democrats pulled the plug on climate legislation Thursday, pushing the issue off into an uncertain future ahead of midterm elections where President Barack Obama’s party is girding for a drubbing."  

However, even if cap and trade is truly dead and buried this time, the fact is that much more aggressive CO2 regulations are on the way.  Expect EPA to accelerate its rule-making binge and give free rein to green ideologues, both in and outside of the agency.  Also, the "energy bill" promised by Reid likely will contain billions in subsidies and pay-outs to a variety of favored industries and players.  We expect to see a draft of the bill next week, and will analyze its terms, and the winners and losers, then.

Cap And Trade Is Alive!

The always-useful Politico nails the Democrat plan for cap and trade legislation though Harry Reid won't use that term.  Look for the Bill to have four sections: (1) oil spill response; (2) a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; (3) a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and (4) a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.  Sections 1 and 2 seem to have bi-partisan support in concept and should pass (though more spending is somewhat problematic politically, given deficit concerns). Sections 3 and 4 may be jettisoned at the end of the day to assure passage of 1 and 2.  Still, the Bill is being written and deals are being cut now. 

We will post the Bill and analyze winners and losers as soon as the text is out. 

Waxman-Markey/American Power Act Cap And Trade - All Pain And No Gain?

The justification for cap and trade, centerpiece of both Waxman-Markey and the American Power Act, is that placing a price on carbon emissions makes solar, wind, and other sources of alternative energy cost-competitive with fossil fuels.   However, as James Kanter of the New York Times reports, the EU's experience with carbon trading suggests that carbon must be priced at approximately $76 per ton to make alternative energy economically viable.  He writes:

Each permit, representing a ton of carbon, currently costs around $19, but most experts agree that permits need to cost around four times as much to make them cost-effective enough to build cleaner systems, like offshore wind farms and solar power plants.

To minimize economic dislocation, Waxman-Markey prices carbon emissions using a "soft collar" of $28 per ton going to 60% above three-year-average market price.   The American Power Act prices carbon emissions using a  “hard” collar between $12 and $25 per ton, floor increases at 3%+CPI, ceiling at 5%+CPI, plus permit reserve auctions.   Yet, if Kanter's reporting is correct, then neither Bill prices carbon anywhere near the level needed to make solar and wind cost-competitive.  The result?  The worst of both worlds, it seems.  Big economic pain without any environmental gain.  

 

The American Power Act - First Read (cont.) Title II Cap And Trade

Title II creates an economy-wide, comprehensive GHG cap and trade system. (When Sen. Graham said cap and trade is dead, he apparently meant only the term and not the program.)  The Power Act's cap and trade provisions are immensely complex and thus it is very difficult on a first pass to meaningfully summarize this Title.  Here is an overview - a more detailed analysis of all relevant subtitles will follow in a few days. 

To begin with, the Power Act will substantially increase energy costs, perhaps 8 - 10% or more per year for each year between 2013 and 2030.  Title II sets a shrinking cap on CO2 emissions - which are, after all, only a surrogate for energy consumption - that will by 2020 require the US to emit no more than 83% of the CO2 emitted in 2005.   By 2050, the US must emit no more than 17% of the CO2 emitted in 2005.  The Power Act empowers the federal government to throw billions and billions of dollars into subsidies for "alternative energy" projects.  However, the Power Act's drafters do not rely on new technology to meet the self-imposed energy consumption cap.  Instead, they ensure compliance by raising energy costs so substantially that the average consumer cuts his or her energy consumption by the requisite amount (17% by 2020, 83% by 2050).    

Consequently, the Power Act will increase costs and lead to job losses across the board as businesses, farmers, trucking companies, landlords, utilities, and gasoline refiners, among others, pass along the higher costs of energy to consumers, and consumers devote more of their disposable income to energy-related expenses.  The potential cost increases will likely run into the trillions of dollars over the next ten to fifteen years.  High energy costs generally correlate with a reduction in economic activity.  Therefore, there is good reason to believe the Power Act will, at least in the short term, depress US economic performance to a significant but uncertain extent.  

It is clear that investment banks and carbon traders will do extremely well under the Power Act.  The Power Act sets up a comprehensive trading system that will allow carbon traders to profit from selling and speculating in emissions allowances and derivatives.  Although there are "transparency" requirements in the Power Act, it is difficult to understand how a complex trading system that transfers wealth from all energy consumers to a small group of politically connected financial institutions and individuals serves the Power Act's stated goals.   Producers of solar, wind, nuclear, and other forms of non-fossil fuel energy should also benefit.  The Power Act essentially increases the public subsidy for these energy sources. Given that fossil fuels are effectively subsidized under current federal transportation, defense, and energy policy and funding, the Power Act's provisions can reasonably be seen to level the playing field somewhat.

The Power Act is designed to substantially reduce the use of coal and it certainly will do so if Title II is enacted in its current form.   Also, manufacturing companies that compete with foreign companies operating in jurisdicitions without energy consumption caps (e.g. China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia) will face significant competitive pressure if Title II of the Power Act is enacted in its current form

Although the Power Act allows the government to move money (using tradeable emissions allowances) in a creative fashion to reward certain constituencies and businesses for their political support, but the average consumer will not and can not benefit from these mechanisms.  The point of the Power Act is to reduce the demand for energy by increasing price.  Because the demand for energy is classically inelastic, price increases must be very, very large to reduce consumption.  It appears the Power Act's drafters have accounted for this fact by designing the law to ensure energy costs rise so much and so fast that the average consumer will have little choice but to pay much more and use much less.    

Could It Be Cap And Trade Lives?

In late February, cap and trade was declared dead.   The blogosphere then began buzzing with alternatives, revolving around Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman's revamp of Waxman-Markey and the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR bill, S.2877.  But now, in the wake of health care, there are rumors the White House has put cap and trade back on the table confident it has the power to jam at least one more massive government program through Congress prior to the November elections.

Cap and trade's Zombie resurrection is no miracle.  Cap and trade has some quiet Republican support, and might prove to be an easier "get" than either financial system reform or a comprehensive immigration over-haul,  the other two big Obama initiatives.   Stay tuned.

Reading The Budgetary Tea Leaves.

The FY2011 Budget is out.  The numbers provide useful indications of key Obama Administration environmental and energy policies.   Highlights include an aggressive EPA rule-making agenda to control GHGs and more money for DOE 's renewable energy research but huge cuts in DOE's fossil fuel programs.

To begin with, the term "cap and trade", which was prominently featured in the FY2010 Budget (see for example page 21) is missing entirely from the FY2011 Budget.   The new and apparently improved euphemism for mandatory GHG emission controls is "comprehensive market-based policy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions."  While the Administration has apparently jettisoned "cap and trade" as a political liability, it remains committed to regulating GHG emissions and has requested significant funding for EPA to do so through command and control regulations. The Administration allocates "$56 million– including $43 million in new funding – for the EPA and states to address climate change effectively through regulatory initiatives to control greenhouse gas emissions."   The budget is $25 million for states to regulate GHG emissions under the New Source Review and Title V operating permits programs, $7 million for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to regulate GHG emissions from major stationary sources, $6 million to implement the 2010 auto emissions rule and to develop regulations for large mobile sources, and $5 million to develop guidance regarding the best available practices and technologies to control GHG emissions through command and control permits.   My suggestion here that key Administration policymakers viewed GHG legislation as a mere side-show and were instead committed to administrative rule-makings seems to have been on the mark. 

Other key EPA funding requests include $3 billion for water infrastructure projects and millions more for enforcement.  Notably, EPA's Budget anticipates re-institution of the long-dead Superfund tax.

DOE's Budget emphasizes scientific research.   $5.1 billion is allocated for the Office of Science and $300 million for ARPA-E.    An additional $5 billion is promised for the successful 48C tax credit program as well as $36 billion in loan authority for nuclear power plants and $545 million for carbon capture technology.  DOE seeks $302 million for solar, $220 million for biofuels and biomass R&D, $325 million for "advanced vehicle technologies" and $231 million for "energy efficient building technologies."   

Fossil fuels take a beating.  DOE proposes a 43% cut in funding for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, no money at all for clean coal, and a 12.8% cut in funding for fossil fuel research and development

What then do we learn from the FY2011 EPA/DOE Budget?  Well, first and foremost, it is terribly unwise to underestimate the Obama Administration's ideological commitment to "climate change" regulation through restrictions on fossil fuel use and development, and stakeholders need to plan and act accordingly.   Administrative rules, not legislation, appears to be the preferred mode of control and Federal agencies are moving very aggressively to implement the GHG control agenda. 

It is gratifying to see DOE devoting serious money to "hard science" R&D, enlarging its successful loan guarantee and tax credit programs, and taking the first steps toward a serious domestic nuclear power effort.  Still, the evisceration of its relatively small yet critical fossil fuel programs, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is very troubling.  As the President pointed out, domestic energy security requires a robust domestic fossil fuel industry.  However, the FY2011 Budget suggests energy security is a lesser value, for  the Administration has targeted existing tax breaks and incentives for domestic oil and coal exploration for termination, apparently because of its single-minded GHG agenda and without regard for domestic energy security or economic efficiency.  This is a problem at many levels, reflecting, in the words of one Brookings Institution expert, a "profound ignorance of our petroleum industry."

Brown Elected, What Does It Mean For Cap And Trade?

They're playing hockey in Hades.  Massachusetts has elected a Republican Senator.

The conventional wisdom seems to be Scott Brown's election means cap and trade is all but dead.  Maybe so.  But, Scott Brown and the Republicans are not the reason cap and trade is in extremis.  Cap and trade proponents must admit data quality, or more accurately the lack thereof, is the root of the problem

In a Politico blog posting (Politico is a first rate source for DC news) Walter Russell Mead, a respected fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, makes the point well:

While everyone's attention was fixed on Massachusetts, the climate change agenda was busily unraveling....The problem is that the IPCC's prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 turns out to have no factual or scientific basis at all. Zip. The IPCC is withdrawing the prediction...after ignoring attempts by specialists to delete the ridiculous prediction and then vilifying public critics as anti-scientific numbskulls.

Mead's point, which should be well taken, is poor data quality will "heighten skepticism about IPCC recommendations -- and about both the will and the capacity of the climate change establishment to translate raw scientific data into serious policy".  As a result, he predicts "2010 will not be the year that either the US or the world in general come to terms on a serious climate agenda."  Absent a credible data fix, the US may not "come to terms on a serious climate agenda" for 2010 and beyond.

Casas on Cap and Trade

Greg Casas on cap and trade here.   Well worth your time.