* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Presentation
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources and Globalization: The Road Ahead Views from the U.S. Senate November 16, 2009 Hayden Milberg Senior Economist Senate Agriculture Committee Climate Change – Legislative Update • House Committee on Energy & Commerce reported H.R. 2454 May 21, 2009, by a vote of 33-25. • The full House of Representatives passed the bill on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219 – 212. • Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works reported version on November 5, 2009 by a vote of 11-1. All Republican members on the Committee boycotted vote. Cap & Trade • Cap – S. 1733 has a more stringent cap than H.R. 2454 between 2017 and 2029. From 2030 onward, both bills have the same cap on emissions. • Allowance Allocation – The Senate bill would auction a much larger share of allowances for deficit reduction. This off-the-top allocation reduces the share of allowances available for other purposes. • Offset Treatment and Implementation – Both bills would allow covered entities to submit 2 billion tons of offsets each year. However, the House program allows 50% domestic and 50% international, whereas the Senate allows 75% domestic and 25% international. Waxman-Markey w/ Peterson • Directs USDA to establish an offset program from domestic agricultural and forestry sources. The Committee-passed bill gave authority to EPA. • Requires USDA to publish a list of eligible offset practice types – bill includes list of potential practices. • Creates “term offset credits,” which are supposed to allow agriculture producers to adopt mitigation measures for a short (five-year) period of time Kerry-Boxer • President to establish an offset program and an initial list of eligible practices; priority given to offset project types that are well-developed. • New, special environmental considerations for forestry projects, i.e. enhancing biological diversity and sustainable forestry practices – not required of any other practices. • Establishes a Carbon Offsets Integrity Unit within DOJ to supervise and coordinate investigations and civil enforcement of the carbon offsets program. Stabenow • S. 2729 introduced as stand-alone bill on 11/4/09. • Directs EPA and USDA to jointly establish an offset program; proscribes specific duties for USDA • Directs EPA and USDA to establish lists of eligible projects; USDA’s initial list must include many agriculture and forestry practices – initial list of eligible projects and the list of eligible projects are different. • Established five and ten year crediting periods, similar to term offset credits Peterson vs. Stabenow • Peterson gives all authority to USDA for agriculture/forestry projects. Stabenow creates a joint program with a specific role for USDA. • Peterson will likely make more offsets available to producers. Under Stabenow, it’s not likely they will be available in the early years. There’s a subtle bias in her bill toward non-agriculture projects. • Stabenow has stronger language for verification, accounting, standards, etc provisions. • Both bills require implementation within one year. Impact on Agriculture - Key Questions • Net farm income – What is effect of higher input prices? – Will offset income be larger than increased costs? • Environmental benefit – Will cost of implementing cap and trade provide real and tangible environmental results? • Land use changes – Will new incentive structure result in a change in production practices and outputs? Economic Analyses • USDA – Short term costs low. Medium and long term, costs rise but remain modest. Benefits from offset market rise and will likely overtake costs. • Agriculture & Food Policy Center – 71 of 98 representative farms have lower ending cash reserves. • Nicholas Institute (Baker, et al) – Producer surplus increases; climate mitigation opportunities increase the demand for land, reduce supply, and result in market impacts. • 25x25 – Net returns to agriculture are positive, afforestation of cropland and major shifts in commodity cropland will not occur. Impacts on Energy Costs (Change from Baseline) EIA Basic HR 2454 EIA High Offset EIA High Cost EPA HR2454 (Scenario 2) Diesel fuel 7.1% 4.1% 7.7% 3.9% Electricity 2.6% 3.0% 4.1% 13.5% Industrial natural gas 18.0% 10.8% 25.8% 8.5% Coal 146.9% 94.9% 164.3% 81.0% Diesel fuel 12.4% 7.0% 14.4% 5.6% Electricity 19.5% 10.6% 29.2% 14.1% Industrial natural gas 21.8% 7.4% 38.2% 10.5% 2020 2030 Coal 283.3% 185.8% 323.5% 118.0% Source: EIA and EPA analysis of HR 2454, the House climate change bill, 2007 $ Impacts on Energy Use (Change from Baseline) EIA Basic HR 2454 EIA High Offset EIA High Cost EPA HR2454 (Scenario 2) Liquid Fuels -3.1% -2.3% -2.8% -2.4% Natural Gas -2.7% -2.3% -0.5% -7.4% Coal -15.6% -10.2% -17.2% -20.8% Nuclear 7.7% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% Renewable 17.3% 10.6% 20.2% 27.3% 2020 Source: EIA and EPA analysis of HR 2454, the House climate change bill, Quadrillion Btu Impacts on Energy Use (Change from Baseline) EIA Basic HR 2454 EIA High Offset EIA High Cost EPA HR2454 (Scenario 2) Liquid Fuels -5.0% 1.6% -1.3% -3.8% Natural Gas -12.8% 1.9% 7.0% -16.6% Coal -44.9% 44.3% -18.3% -42.6% Nuclear 74.2% -25.9% -20.0% 50.0% Renewable 26.3% -4.7% 9.2% 57.1% 2030 Source: EIA and EPA analysis of HR 2454, the House climate change bill, Quadrillion Btu H.R. 2454 – Nuclear Production (Scenario 2) Estimated Crop Prices USDA FAPRI-MI* AFPC** Near (2020) 0.40% 3.35% 2.40% Medium (2030) 4.60% 3.95% - Long (2050) 9.60% 8.45% 7.50% Near (2020) 0.40% 1.60% 2.60% Medium (2030) 2.20% 2.00% - Long (2050) 5.19% 4.40% 4.20% Corn Soybeans *Average of dryland and irrigated. *Estimates from first and last year of analysis. USDA – Impacts on Net Farm Income (Change from Baseline, 2005 $) Item Near Term Medium Term Long Term Total Receipts 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% Total Expenses 0.3% 1.1% 2.2% Fuel, oil and electricity 6.4% 11.1% 22.2% Fertilizer and lime 0.3% 9.5% 19.9% -0.9% -3.5% -7.2% Net Farm Income Source: Office of the Chief Economist, USDA Offset Revenues • USDA/EPA – Estimated gross revenues from offsets associated with H.R. 2454 grows from $2.1 billion in the near term to $28.4 billion in the long term. • NI/TAMU/FASOMGHG – Direct GHG payments generate annualized revenues of $7.6 billion ($15/tCO2e) to $35 billion ($50/tCO2e). FASOMGHG – Agriculture Cropland (July 2009) 2020 2030 2040 2050 Base 308,426.27 306,105.43 301,916.80 297,220.95 $15 @ 5% 292,498.20 280,623.33 262,350.59 243,543.68 Change from Base -15,928.07 -25,482.09 -39,566.21 -53,677.27 Scenario FASOMGHG – Land Use Change (July 2009) 2020 2030 2040 2050 EPA $16.31 $26.54 $43.37 $70.40 EIA High Offsets $20.52 $41.90 EIA Basic $31.75 $64.83 EIA High Cost $35.37 $72.23 Allowance $/tCO2e Scenario Thousand Acres (Cropland & Cropland Pasture) Base 11,555.91 12,481.17 12,893.73 13,730.73 $30 -20,786.88 -29,623.98 -32,878.58 -25,780.30 $15 @ 5% -6,215.58 -14,828.97 -30,009.13 -45,856.50 $50 -26,729.59 -37,125.51 -43,252.73 -42,697.36 $30 @ 5% -11,666.22 -26,062.89 -39,512.06 -51,771.40 FASOMGHG (Change in Base, Million bu, July 2009) 2020 2030 2040 2050 Production Corn -735.62 -730.88 -1,553.83 -4,423.85 Soybeans -358.93 -934.27 -1,323.59 -1,676.58 Corn -164.75 -274.77 -544.36 -1,712.90 Soybeans -153.82 -279.89 -272.74 -146.64 Exports Agricultural & Food Policy Center Farms by type with higher or lower ending cash reserves Farm Type Higher Lower Total Feedgrain/Oilseed 17 8 25 Wheat 8 3 11 Cotton 1 13 14 Rice 0 14 14 Dairy 1 21 22 Cattle Ranches 0 12 12 Total 27 71 98 Source: Economic Implications of the EPA Analysis of the CAP and Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 for U.S. Representative Farms, August 2009 RFS2 Regulations – Cellulosic Mandate • The EISA included a separate carve out for advanced (cellulosic) biofuels starting in 2010, 100 million, gallons growing to 21 billion gallons in 2022. • No commercial scale plant yet online. • EPA considering lowering 2010 mandate to a unspecified level. E15 • On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy (on behalf of 52 U.S. ethanol producers) applied to the EPA for a waiver from the current Clean Air Act limitation on ethanol content in gasoline. • Under EISA, the EPA Administrator must grant or deny the waiver request within 270 days of receipt (December 1, 2009). • Likelihood that EPA will work past December 1 deadline to “review more test results.” Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) • The BCAP was authorized by Title IX of the 2008 Farm Bill. • Provides assistance for the establishment and production of eligible crops for the conversion to bioenergy and matching payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation (CHST) of eligible material. • June 11, 2009 NOFA for CHST. $25 million available for FY 2009. • Establishment provision subject to a pending EIS. Congressional Agenda – 111th Congress • Cap and Trade legislation unlikely to be considered by the Senate until 2010. • Unclear if Senate will move a separate energy bill. • Suspension of EISA indirect land use change provision unlikely before release of the final RFS2 regulation.