New Energy Forecasts Show Time is Right for Senate Action

Photo credit: cliff1066/flickr

WRI Senior Associate John Larsen answers questions about recent emissions reductions and what they mean for climate legislation.


Q: The Energy Information Agency (EIA) recently announced that emissions are projected to drop 6% this year. Why?

A: Energy demand in the United States is changing because of the recession. The transportation, electric power and industrial sectors have all seen lower energy demand in part because of high energy prices but also because of lower economic output. Coal use in particular has dropped off because of recent declines in natural gas prices and lower electricity demand. Since coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, drops in its use translate to big drops in emissions compared to other fuels.

At the same time, clean, renewable energy is growing as a proportion of the electricity grid, indicating that zero-emitting energy sources are playing an increasingly important role in our economy.

EIA’s projections for 2010 show emissions increasing slightly as the economy begins to pick up again.

Q: How do these emissions reductions compare to those required in the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454)?

A: The House climate bill requires total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, when its cap-and-trade program begins. Given that the EIA projects that U.S. emissions are 6% below 2005 levels today (and are only forecasted to rise slowly), it is very likely that the bill’s requirements for the first year of the program would be met.

This is very good news for business. It means that transitioning to a cap-and-trade program should not add any significant stress to the U.S. economy, contrary to what opponents of ACES have argued.

Q: If emissions stay flat, what would this mean for the new U.S. carbon market?

A: If we continue at 2009 emissions levels, there would be lower demand for allowances and offsets from regulated entities such as utilities and coal-fired plants than projected by EIA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, ACES essentially sets a price floor on allowances of $10, which will ensure that a sufficient price on carbon is established even if demand is low. In addition, some regulated companies will likely buy up low-cost allowances and bank them for future use.

Q: Critics of cap-and-trade say this isn’t the right time to act on climate change. Is that true?

A: Actually, the exact opposite is true. Cap-and-trade provides a great deal of flexibility in a down economy. With the price of allowances down, businesses and utilities will have an easier time transitioning. This will allow businesses to get comfortable with the new emissions requirements at relatively low cost, as well as giving them certainty that the investments that they make in clean technology will have value in the future. If the Senate acts now, it will be easier for businesses in the long run.

  • John Larsen, Senior Associate

    John Larsen is an expert on federal climate and energy policy, currently on detail at the U.S. Department of Energy.

4 Comments

Comments expressed on this page are opinions of the authors themselves, and not positions of the World Resources Institute. WRI reserves the right to remove any comments that it considers inappropriate or spam.

Having seen this exact same

Having seen this exact same series of "NucEngineer's" 2 troll postings above on a number of Kerry-Boxer blog posts today, I wouldn't waste too much time on response...

Wow! I provided a link in my

Wow! I provided a link in my previous post to the senate cap & tax bill that is 801 pages long, dated 8/21/09. The new version at Senator Kerry’s website has 821 pages and is dated 8/30/09.

http://kerry.senate.gov/cleanenergyjobsandamericanpower/pdf/...

I can't keep up. Will your senator read it? Will you have a chance to read it? Will our supposed watchdogs in the Press have a chance to read it?

It is nice that the Senate

It is nice that the Senate Cap & Trade bill (in its current form, I can’t keep up with the added pages) is on-line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/DEC0...

However, that gave me the opportunity to note a very distressing fact: Section 744. INTERNATIONAL OFFSET CREDITS, will provide the global redistribution of wealth that is so desired by the leftists. This is our future being given away to foreign countries where corruption is rampant (well, it's also rampant in Washington DC, but that is another problem).

Often, the SO2 (acid rain) cap & trade program of 1992 is held up as an example of sucess, and yes it has worked. However, that plan was debated on the floor of congress for 6-weeks. It did not permit international offsets.
This international plan for GHGs will be rife with corruption.
Also, like the House version, will 300 pages be added to the bill at 2am on the day that it is voted on and passed by the Senate?
Get a grip folks, we are being had.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks for your thoughts. As I’m sure you’re aware, the virtue of offsets is that it allows for emissions reductions to occur where they are cheapest, even if it’s outside the country, thus lowering the costs of the legislation. Personally, I doubt the motivation is to redistribute wealth outside the country. Otherwise, you could make a similar argument for any imported commodity.

That said, lots of people have very legitimate concerns about the role of offsets in a domestic climate change program, and we need to ensure that offsets represent real emissions reductions from what would have occurred otherwise. Here’s some more information on offset quality in ACES; I’m not an expert on this, but I believe a lot of these provisions carried over into the Senate proposal. I’m not an expert on this, but comparing this initial summary to WRI’s summary of HR 2454 (ACES), it looks like the amount of international offsets allowed in the program is smaller in the current Kerry-Boxer bill compared to HR 2454—but stay tuned.