WRI’s analysis of emissions caps, allowances, offsets, and other critical components of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
This summary has not been updated to reflect the bill that passed the House on June 26th.
Find the updated Q&A here and detailed summary here.
What are the key elements of the bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Friday?
We have a good understanding of the bill’s four major elements (the official version will be reported out of committee in early June.) These include:
A clean energy requirement, designed both to set new standards for current types of power generation and to accelerate development and deployment of clean energy technologies such as renewables, energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage.
An efficiency requirement that provides funding for energy efficiency programs, and the setting of stronger building codes and product efficiency standards.
A cap and trade program that sets mandatory caps on 87 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions including the electric power and oil and gas sectors, and heavy industry.
Measures designed to ease the transition into a low carbon economy by providing assistance to those impacted by a cap including industry, affected sectors of America’s workforce, and low income households.
What emission reductions would be achieved if this bill was implemented?
Implementation of the cap would reduce emissions from covered sources to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Total U.S. greenhouse emissions would be reduced, as a result, by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. This is slightly more than President Obama’s goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately 14% below 2005 levels). However, implementing the ACESA would result in significant additional emissions reductions beyond those generated by the pollution cap.
The bill contains substantial complementary requirements including emissions performance standards for uncapped sources and emission reductions from forest preservation overseas. When these are taken into account, GHG emissions would be reduced by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. When additional reductions from requirements related to international offsets - used for compliance with the federal cap and trade regime - are also factored in, potential emission reductions from the bill would be even greater. They could reach up to 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and up to 81 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, depending on the quantity of offsets used.
What assistance would industry and consumers receive to cushion the transition?
Title III of the bill provides details on the distribution of allowances allocated to aid affected industries and consumers through the transition to a clean energy, low carbon economy. Rather than being auctioned to the highest bidder, the lion’s share of allowances are allocated to entities in specific sectors, mostly with strict strings attached. For example, the largest chunk – 35% - is awarded to electric power distributors, with the requirement that the benefit of these allowances must be passed on to consumers to cushion against potential increases in energy bills. Similarly, allowances are also designated for consumers of natural gas, heating oil and propane. States would also receive some allowances to be used for specific purposes such as the deployment of clean energy technologies.
The bill also earmarks a small percentage of allowances to the automobile industry to help re-tool factories to manufacture new, clean vehicles such as plug in hybrids. At least 15% of the allowances would be auctioned, with the proceeds channeled into programs to assist low income energy consumers. Up to 17 percent will be given away for free to petroleum refineries and trade exposed industries to assist them as they adjust to a carbon constrained economy.
What are the bill’s offset provisions?
The bill allows for up to 2 billion tonnes of offsets a year, split 50/50 between domestic and international activities. Domestic offsets – generated by unregulated sources of greenhouse gases, not covered by the carbon cap – would mainly come from forestry and agriculture. International offsets would be generated from activities that reduce forest loss, as well as sectoral crediting mechanisms, and other programs. Oversight will lie with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Once approved by him or her, these offsets would be traded in domestic and international carbon markets, and purchased by covered sources toward their legal compliance with the emissions cap. (If the Administrator finds that 1 billion domestic offsets may not be available in a given year, the 50/50 split may be adjusted to allow fewer total domestic offsets and more international offsets - up to a 25/75 ratio.)
What happens next?
The American Clean Energy and Security Act faces several more hurdles in the House of Representatives. The bill has been referred to eight House committees with jurisdiction over its subject matter, four of which are waiving jurisdiction. Other committees, including the Natural Resources Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Committee on Agriculture, will debate, and possibly amend, areas of the bill relevant to their jurisdiction. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made this bill a priority and been clear that she expects quick consideration in these committees. The bill will then require a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, probably this summer.
Meanwhile, separate climate legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate. If passed, this will need to be reconciled with the ACESA. To become law, the joint legislation would then receive a final vote in both chambers, before being sent to the president for signing. This entire process could be completed in 2009 but this is unlikely. The prospects are fair for an approved House bill, complemented by substantial progress in the Senate, when the U.S. attends talks to conclude a post-2012 international climate agreement in Copenhagen in December.
John Larsen, Senior AssociateJohn Larsen is an expert on federal climate and energy policy, currently on detail at the U.S. Department of Energy.






14 Comments
I think I need to create a
I think I need to create a company to sell obesity offsets and a cap and trade system of the amount of calories that you can take in. So a person that goes to the buffet would have to buy fat credits from a super model who is starving herself. This must be done to reduce the amount of obesity in America!
In other words cap and trade is a bigger scam than the entire global warming farce. It does nothing but kills jobs and raises the rates on poor individuals. The argument that rates may go up but useage will go down is ridiculous. If I am an average household that makes 48,000 a year with a 20 mile commute to work, how am I going to afford to buy a plug in hybrid, buy new windows, roofs, solar panels, water heaters, etc... Answer is either financial suicide by borrowing the money or financial suicide by the increase in energy bills as well as other products such as food that will increase due to new surcharges incurred from transportation of food and products. This bill will make the McKinley Tariff look like a stimulus plan. It will destroy jobs, bankrupt the country, and not guarantee the reduction of pollution by a single ppm.
What's worse while trying to save the environment for our future generations we are slowly but surely destroying the U.S. Constitution by giving the government more and more powers. I'd rather live in a 1 degree warmer world than one that is less free.
Hear, hear. Not only is
Hear, hear. Not only is this an atrocious scam, it will start destroying jobs and investment almost immediately if it even starts to appear that the Senate will act on this. The costs on individual families will be mind-boggling, but the cost on industry will be devastating and more investment will necessarily go to countries that are not so punitive -- like India and China. As an added bonus, instead of "Buy America," the bill permits the offsets to be purchased offshore - so a polluter can pay Brazilian workers to plant trees rather than invest in US parklands. Up to 75% of the offsets may be offshore. Don't you just love the House of Representatives? They pass a "Buy America" provision that doesn't work in the so-called "Stimulus Bill" (how's that stimulus working out?) and then pass an "Anti-Buy America" act in Waxman-Markey.
If your concern about costs
If your concern about costs on low-income individuals is sincere, then you should be encouraged by the measures in the bill that are designed to offset those costs. the latest CBO study projects that the net impact on the lowest-income brackets to be negligible; they may even come out ahead.
Lots of research has been done on the economic impacts of this bill, and there’s room for legitimate debate on those points. But there is no credible evidence at all that the impacts will be anywhere close to what you describe. Show us some research; preferably not funded by the energy industries.
Nowhere does the Constitution assert the right for individuals pollute the environment without paying for it, or to live free of the consequences of our actions. It’s time to finally do the right thing.
Tim, Explain to me how
Tim,
Explain to me how increasing the costs on businesses is not going to do the following:
1. Eliminate high paying jobs at energy companies
2. Increase consumer costs
3. Increase the power of government into the lives and choices of everyday Americans and businesses
I'm not using studies, I'm using common sense. I have an MBA, so I know how business works. I worked in the energy industry and am a member of an electric co-op so I know how that industry works. I also have some meteorological experience so I know that global warming is the biggest scientific hoax since the dark ages. Weather right now is actually in a cooling pattern, will go into a warming pattern again, and so forth, its what weather does. I put far more respect into the founder of the weather channel than I do scientists receiving gov't funding to prove a foregone conclusion by using computer models that can't even predict correctly the weather for tomorrow, nonetheless 50 years from now.
Also in the CBO report it states. The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.
In English the CBO admits that this bill is recessionary. That wages will be reduced, jobs will be lost, and productivity will be decreased. The whole premise of the bill is that the tax credits and rebates will be enough to help offset the costs. However, in the real world when one is making 48k per year, they can't afford an extra 600 dollars per winter to heat their homes that they must pay upfront before waiting on the tax rebate. Especially if that 48 k becomes 38k in household income. Add on the extra 200 dollars per month it will cost for them for gasoline to get to work. This bill is economic suicide and won't help decrease pollution other than having us all unemployed staying at home and starving to death.
But I know as you work from your ivory tower, with your nose stuck up in the air, not really caring about the consequences to the American economy as long as indulgences are paid to the Church of global warming for the sins of mankind, that all will be well.
I'll send you a bill for my increases in energy and then see who is right and who is wrong. History is on my side, unfortunately.
Scott, this is an important
Scott, this is an important debate about an important topic that both of us obviously feel very strongly about. I’m happy to continue, but your “nose stuck up in the air” comment leads me to believe that for whatever reason, you don’t consider WRI’s views and research to be legitimate. In that case, there’s not a valid basis for discussion. My contact information is on this website if you care to reach me directly. I would be interested in where you get your numbers from. My quick analysis shows that you’d have to commute about 10,000 miles/month in a 15 mpg vehicle—with no rebates—to get to consumer costs of $200/month in increased gas prices.
How do you think the
How do you think the American Clean Energy and Security Act will affect the CCX and the prices of its Carbon Offsets?
Hi John, Thanks for such a
Hi John,
Thanks for such a clear and concise explanation of the bill and the protocol for its passing. In context with the domestic offset aspect of the bill, I have a question regarding the potential exclusion of landfill methane projects from qualifying for offset credits. There is evidently a debate raging about this although it is unclear where this is actually mentioned within the bill itself...are people getting unjustifiably upset on this point or should it be a real cause for concern for those in the industry? I am involved in the landfill gas to energy business.
Many thanks in advance for providing any clarification on this point.
QOur electric services
QOur electric services are,provided by a REA--will this "cap & trade" effect the price we pay for service? And if so by percent? As a person on Social Security and a small pension we are concered about costs.
Thank you.
H.Brooks
John, I congratulate in
John, I congratulate in explain this article and follow ups. Job well done! I have concerns about the forestry and agriculture sector not including in the Cap. For example, in south FL sugarcane farmers burn their canes before harvest, leading an intensive carbon emission to the environment. In my point of view it’s a point source of carbon emission. Does the bill provide any regulations pertaining to such activities which are causing air pollution at alarming rates? Thanks.
About electric rates. Thanks
About electric rates.
Thanks anonymous for responding to the questions about REA's and electric prices.
You are correct about the initial affect of the carbon price and how it would influence electric power rates. The carbon price on its own would increase power rates to varying degrees based on the price of allowances and the relative mix of electric generation that provides you your power. 50% seems on the high side based on most of the analyses I've seen at least through 2020 (not sure where you got that number).
However, the impact on rates is only part of the story. The Waxman-Markey bill has an extra set of components that will dampen the affect the carbon price has on your BILL as oppose to your RATES. First, there are multiple programs designed to increase the efficient use of electricity in people's homes this includes Co-op customers. Even if rates go up if you use less electricity you might see your bill go down. Second, a substantial amount of the emission allowances (pollution permits) are given to electric Local Distribution Companies (LDCs, this includes Co-ops) solely for the benefit of ratepayers. These allowances will likely be sold by the LDCs with the proceeds used to lower the fixed cost portions (not rates) of your electric bill (e.g. distribution and customer charges).
A quick example. Let's say I currently use 1000 kWh per month of electricity (that's a lot but the math is easier) at a rate of $0.04/kWh (full disclosure this rate seems really low, my Maryland LDC charges $0.115/kWh). So that's $40/ month. Then lets say the LDC charges $10/month to each customer for service. So my total monthly bill is $50.
Now let's a imagine a world with Waxman-Markey in play and its the year 2020. State efficiency programs funded through allowances sales plus new appliance standards have reduced my electric usage by 20% so now I use 800 kWh a month. The carbon price (to use your numbers) increase my rates by 50% so now I'm paying $0.06/kWh. Meanwhile my LDC has cut my costumer fee to $2.50 thanks to additional allowances from the cap and trade program. Under this scenario my total monthly bill is now $50.50.
Now this is a hypothetical scenario but it is illustrative of how the bill really will affect electric bills in total. While my rates went up 50% my bill went up 1%, not a bad deal considering the costs of doing nothing about climate change could be far greater.
This is a really nice
This is a really nice explanation, John. Well done!
Your power bill, depending
Your power bill, depending on your coops resource portfolio mix of coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, or alternative energy, could go up from 25% to 50%. Our coop energy bill is about $.04 per kwh. The cap and trade program is expected to raise thatcost by $.02 per kwh, or 50%.
I'm totally confused that
I'm totally confused that any offsets domestic or overseas are to be parts of its compliance, then there's no changes on GHG emission goal.
The description as to GHG emission potential , 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 ,
could be incorrect.
I highly apprecaite the comment on this. Thank you .
Our numbers reflect total
Our numbers reflect total emission reductions relative to total US emissions. This means our numbers represent total emission reductions acheived by the bill both domestically and internationally against total US emissions in 1990 and 2005. If more international offsets were used for compliance then US capped emissions would increase met with a proportional reduction in emissions elsewhere in the world (Assuming all offsets are of solid environmental integrity). So at least with this analysis, things come out in the wash. Where GHG reductions take place does matter for decision makers and the public but from the climates perspective its the total amount of GHGs that enter the atmosphere that matters most.