* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download President Obama placed energy and climate change at
Survey
Document related concepts
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Fossil fuel phase-out wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
DRAFT President Obama’s energy program – A midterm review President Obama has placed energy and the environment at the top of his second term agenda. Near the mid-point of his second term, the Administration’s progress has been notable, especially in comparison to progress in other areas such as health care, immigration, and foreign affairs. In large measure the success is due to the team he has assembled: Ernie Moniz, the capable and energetic Secretary of Energy; John Podesta, senior White House councilor, the David Ortiz of Democratic Party strategists; and the Administrator Gina McCarthy, who has proven her ability to explain and advocate for the President’s climate agenda. The focus has been on climate change, exploiting the unexpected plenty of North American oil gas, and energy technology. The President’s highest priority was for EPA to use its legal authority to set regulations reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of existing electricity generating power plants. In June the EPA released an unexpectedly thoughtful and well supported plan setting state specific goals for reducing emissions chosen from a menu of measures such as increased efficiency, emissions trading, and fuel switching, mainly from coal to natural gas electricity generation. The CO2 projected reductions by 2020 of about 25% below 2005 levels are entirely reasonable and should not significantly increase costs for consumers or industry. It is, indeed, a modest plan, and I would argue that the projected 2030 target of 30% reduction could have been more ambitious. Ironically, these regulations for reducing emissions from existing power plants are more realistic than the regulations issued for new coal and natural gas power plants that EPA justified by asserting that carbon capture and sequestration was an “adequately demonstrated control technology,” which it certainly is not. But, this assertion is of no consequence, since no one in the United States is planning on building a new coal electricity generating plant in the foreseeable future. 1 DRAFT President Obama’s strategy of relying on legally sanctioned EPA regulations to advance his agenda for CO2 appears to be succeeding. But, EPA may yet suffer a backlash from the public that expects this agency to be a fair and capable administrator of a policy endorsed by a majority of Congress, rather than the promoter of a Presidential policy, no matter how meritorious, that does not, as yet, command widespread public support. The EPA regulations will strengthen the U.S. position in the complex international climate negotiations that seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. However, few believe that mitigation of global emissions will be sufficient to avoid disruptive climate change. Thus, the country needs a strategy and program for adaptation to climate change. The President’s climate action plan takes a step in this direction pointing to the need to improve the resiliency of the U.S. infrastructure due to extreme climate events, such as Hurricane Sandy, a goal which resonates with the public. But, climate science has not established a link between massive hurricanes and climate change. How the world will adapt to the economic disruption and possible conflict that will accompany climate change is the unacknowledged elephant in the room. The Administration has been slower to grasp the opportunities presented by the North American unconventional oil and gas revolution. While recognizing the tremendous benefits from lower oil and gas prices, more jobs, and reduced imports, the Administration has not yet advanced specific proposals for allowing the export of crude oil and condensates (ethane, propane, butane). Department of Energy approvals for the export of liquefied natural gas proceed at a leisurely pace. As a director of the only company granted an export license with a plant to export LNG under construction, and a close observer of the supply of North American unconventional gas, I find it fanciful to expect that a flood of new petroleum exporting facilities will drive the domestic price of natural gas up over the next couple of decades. 2 DRAFT Increased domestic production requires expanding the oil and gas distribution infrastructure while continuing to reduce the significant environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. It seems likely that President Obama will take a dive on deciding whether or not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline application. But this unfortunately contentious issue should not stop the Administration from proposing measures to extend and modernize the oil and gas distribution system. Ironically, both safety and cost considerations point to pipelines rather than rail cars as the preferred way to move petroleum products from production sites to market. The greatest risk to significant expansion of U.S. oil and gas production is that public concern about the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing will lead to banning the activity. The significant environmental impacts are on water quality, air quality, community disruption, and induced seismicity. Incredibly, the EPA will not begin the process of adopting regulatory guidelines for water management until 2015. Moreover, there are serious tensions between the EPA and state regulatory authorities, which have knowledge of local geological and operating practices, as to the best way to craft and enforce regulations. In addition as methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the President has properly emphasized the importance of reducing methane emissions from all aspects of natural gas production, storage, and distribution. Responsible exploitation of North American unconventional oil and gas resources demands making progress on these important environmental issues. Industry well understands what is at stake here and is especially attentive to the pending Colorado statewide referendum on granting local governments control over oil and gas development as signal of broader national public sentiment about hydraulic fracturing. Companies would be well advised to adopt, in advance of regulation, a policy of transparency and a commitment to continuously reducing the environmental impact of their operations. President Obama’s support for new energy technology, begun under Energy 3 DRAFT Secretary Steven Chu in the first term is continuing under Ernie Moniz in the second. The new “all the above strategy” implies that the Obama administration will pursue all energy options equally, which is unlikely to displease any advocate. The strategy makes sense as a declaration of intent to explore all technical options that might meet the country’s energy future needs and to provide some R&D support for these explorations. However it naively seems to suggest that resources will be available to pursue all the costly pathways of demonstrating the commercial viability of all options: clean coal, renewables, nuclear, and an efficient and secure energy infrastructure. Priorities need to reflect a realistic assessment of the government role. The first priority should be substantial support for basic R&D is the first priority, because the private sector does not have commercial justification to undertake studies that may have long-term benefits they cannot capture. Some nearer term technologies deserve government support, e.g. carbon sequestration, which is essential to enable clean coal use. Other do not deserve government support either because the technology is too expensive, e.g., nuclear power, or because markets and technical progress have made the option commercially viable, e.g., grid-connected photovoltaics and many energy efficiency applications in industry applications. In sum, President Obama is having much greater success in advancing his energy agenda in his second term than in in his first term. But, as we know it will take more than one successful term to secure the country’s energy future. To coin a phrase: one good term deserves another. 4