Climate 411

The Latest on the Climate and Clean Energy Bill

Grist has a piece by Nathaniel Keohane, Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at the Environmental Defense Fund, on how the America Power Act will return the vast majority of the emission allowance value to consumers and the public, even though some of the allowances will be distributed for free. Nathaniel acknowledges that

“some progressives worry that free allocation is at odds with cutting emissions.  After all, if you give emitters something for free, doesn’t that eliminate the “price on carbon” that creates an economic incentive to cut carbon emissions?  The answer, actually, is ‘no.'”

He explains that

“the value of allowances doesn’t depend on how they are allocated.  Rather, allowances have value because they are in scarce supply — thanks to the cap on emissions.  The tighter is the cap, the greater is the scarcity, and the higher is the value of allowances, all else equal. “

Also on Grist, David Roberts gives a great summary of the new economic study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics which details the effects of the American Power Act.

Here is one key highlight:

“Employment Effects: The Act prompts $41.1 billion in annual electricity sector investment between 2011 and 2030, $22.5 billion more than under business-as-usual. This stimulates U.S. economic growth and job creation in the first decade, increasing average annual employment by about 200,000 jobs.”

Nathaniel Keohane also weighs in on the Peterson Institute report on the Huffington Post. He starts off by explaining how:

“Opponents of climate legislation often claim that now is the wrong time to put a price on carbon, with the economy just emerging from a recession. But a must-read study released yesterday by the well-respected, nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that the reverse is actually true: passing climate legislation would provide the economy with a much-needed shot in the arm.”

Treehugger reports on the carbon tax enacted by Montgomery Country, Maryland.

“Not waiting for national legislation to set a price on carbon and kick start the journey to a low-carbon future, Montgomery County, Maryland has enacted one the country’s first carbon taxes. Passed by a vote of 8-to-1 the tax applies to stationary emitters of CO2 releasing more than one million tons annually into the atmosphere.”

On E2, Nancy Pelosi is urging Congress to act on climate legislation.

“Asked if she wants the Obama administration to address climate change through regulations if Congress fails to pass a bill this year, Pelosi responded, ‘It has to be done by statute.'”

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Science / Comments are closed

The case for strong climate policy is simple. A cap on carbon pollution is too.

Edward L. Glaeser makes the case for simplicity in addressing climate change. I couldn’t agree more with his premise. The basic economics are indeed simple. Climate change might be the largest market failure the world has ever seen. To correct it, put the right incentives in place: correct the fact that we currently treat the atmosphere as a free sewer for our global warming pollution. Problem solved.

The how and especially the politics are not quite as straight-forward. Glaeser bemoans that the proposed American Power Act has 987 pages and identifies three culprits: that the Act tries to do more than just put a price on carbon, that it uses a cap-and-trade system rather than a tax, and that the problem has an important international dimension. He is broadly right on one and three but not on two: the issue of a cap versus a tax.

A firm limit on global warming pollution does not make the law more complicated. It makes it better.

First, a cap sets a firm upper limit on pollution. Glaeser acknowledges as much by saying that “fixing the number of permits may actually be the right thing to do.” It is.

Second, it’s politics, stupid. There is a good reason why the U.S. tax code has 17,000 pages. Proposing a tax on paper is simple. Getting it through the political process is a different matter altogether. Most significantly, every tax credit, every exemption means an increase in pollution. That’s not the case with a cap. While politics does what politics does best—worry about the allocation of allowances—the upper pollution limit stands.

Third, and contrary to what is sometimes argued by tax advocates, a cap creates a more stable policy environment. Certainty is the sine qua non for energy policy.  While it is true that a cap and trade program can introduce short-term variability into the carbon price, that is unlikely to matter for investments in energy infrastructure.  What matters is certainty over the long run. Capital-intensive investment decisions take years if not decades to pay for themselves (think about a new electric power station).

A well designed cap—especially one with a price floor, which this Act would include—creates this kind of certainty, by guaranteeing that emissions must go down and, therefore, that emissions reductions will have value. A tax is easily revoked, altered, or put “on holiday.” A cap has durability. And even if it does have to be amended, market foresight will allow smooth transitions, much more so than a tax would.

Fourth is the international dimension, Glaeser’s last point. A cap makes international coordination easier. It also creates incentives for developing countries to cap their own emissions, in order to gain from selling allowances into a U.S. market and create win-win-win situations for themselves, U.S. companies and consumers, and the atmosphere.

All four of these reasons also appear in America’s Climate Choices, a terrific new study just released by the National Academy of Sciences. It provides the scientific closing argument for the debate unfolding in the Senate. The science is compelling, the urgency to act is clear, and the main solution is equally apparent: put a price on global warming pollution, ideally through a firm, declining cap on emissions.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Why the American Power Act is Not a Corporate Give-Away

In his insightful post, Rob Stavins makes two key points regarding the allocation of emission allowances under climate legislation like that introduced last week by Senators Kerry and Lieberman.

First, Stavins addresses head-on the concerns that some progressives have toward the allocation provisions in the bill, asking in the title of his post: “Is the Kerry-Lieberman Allowance Allocation a Corporate Give-Away?”  To answer this question, Stavins carries out a careful breakdown of the allowance allocation in the Kerry-Lieberman bill.  He shows that the vast majority of emission allowances (more than 80% over the duration of the bill) — goes to energy consumers and public purposes (including deficit reduction).  That hardly sounds like a windfall to big corporations!  Indeed, if you add it up, the largest fraction of allowance value (43% in total, according to my calculations) goes to households, through an energy refund to low-income consumers, a tax credit to working families, a universal trust fund for all Americans, and allowances that are allocated to local electricity and gas utilities for the benefit of their customers.

As Stavins’s calculations illustrate, what matters most in terms of allocation is not whether the allowances are auctioned or given away for free, but who receives the value.  (For example, of the allowance value that is directed to households, about four-fifths comes as auction revenue, while the remainder is from the allowances allocated for free to local utilities.)

Even so, some progressives worry that free allocation is at odds with cutting emissions.  After all, if you give emitters something for free, doesn’t that eliminate the “price on carbon” that creates an economic incentive to cut carbon emissions?  The answer, actually, is “no.”

Here’s where Stavins’s second point comes in.  As he explains, it is a basic result of economics that even when allowances are distributed for free, they will still have a value (since they can be sold on a market). In economic terms, each time a company uses an allowance, there is an “opportunity cost” involved — the foregone profit they could have gotten from selling the allowance instead.  As a result, companies will still have a strong economic incentive to find cost-effective ways to reduce their carbon emissions — so that the economic performance of the bill is basically unaffected.  (It’s also worth pointing out that the environmental performance of the bill is also unaffected, since that is determined by the cap — not by how allowances are allocated.)

To put the same point a bit differently, the value of allowances doesn’t depend on how they are allocated.  Rather, allowances have value because they are in scarce supply — thanks to the cap on emissions.  The tighter is the cap, the greater is the scarcity, and the higher is the value of allowances, all else equal.

Of course, there are a few nuances worth noting.  First, from a strictly economic point of view, the best use of allowance value would be to use it to lower distortionary taxes on labor and capital, giving the overall economy an added boost.  However, getting such a “double dividend” requires not just auctioning the allowances, but using the revenue in a specific way to cut other taxes — something that has yet to generate significant political momentum.  In other words, acknowledging the possibility of a double dividend doesn’t undermine the main point that what matters is how the value of allowances is allocated, not simply whether allowances are auctioned or freely allocated.

Second, some ways of allocating allowances can affect incentives.  This can cut both ways.  In theory, using allowance value to reduce electricity rates can undermine incentives to conserve energy; this suggests that it would be preferable to compensate households for higher energy costs by sending them a lump-sum rebate rather than cutting their marginal price.  In other contexts, allowance allocation is deliberately designed to affect incentives.  For example, energy-intensive, trade-exposed manufacturers are given allocations that are tied to their output and to the average emissions intensity of their sector.  As research by Carolyn Fischer at Resources for the Future and others has shown, such “output-based rebates” manage to preserve the incentive to reduce emissions, while helping to keep manufacturing in this country and prevent “emissions leakage” to countries without a carbon price.

The bottom line is that the distinction between free allocation and auction makes little difference for the environmental or economic performance of the bill.  That’s a key point well worth keeping in mind in the coming debates over climate legislation.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

Blog highlights from the past few days

Climate Progress highlights Tom Friedman’s New York Times column “No Fooling Mother Nature” where Tom describes how

“There is only one meaningful response to the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and that is for America to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.”

The New Republic showcases a new report by the Energy Information Administration which shows that CO2 emissions in the United States are down 10% from 2005 levels.

On E2, Kerry and Lieberman say they are set to unveil the climate bill on Wednesday.

The Financial Times poses the question that is in the back of everyone’s minds:  “If we can fix the ozone layer, why do we struggle in tackling climate change?”

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation / Read 1 Response

The New and Improved Climate 411

In order to better serve our readers, Climate 411 has introduced a new feature: blog highlights. The blog highlights lists the top climate stories of the moment with our comments and expert insights.

We have a team of experts who will be both regularly commenting on relevant stories and contributing original posts when possible. Please let us know what you think of our new format.

A word on our experts:

Mark Brownstein is deputy director of Environmental Defense Fund’s national energy program. Mark leads EDF’s efforts on smart grid deployment, transmission development, wholesale and retail electric market design, and the environmentally sustainable siting of both renewable and conventional utility scale generation. Prior to joining EDF, Mark was director of Enterprise Strategy for Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), where he worked directly with PSEG’s senior leadership in crafting and implementing the corporation’s business strategy.  Mark was also an active member of the U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and New Jersey’s Renewable Energy Task Force. Aside from PSEG, Mark’s career includes time as an attorney in private environmental practice, a regulator with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and an aide to then-Congressman Robert G. Torricelli (D–NJ). Mark holds a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and a B.A. from Vassar College.

Nathaniel Keohane is Director of Economic Policy and Analysis at Environmental Defense Fund, a leading nonprofit advocacy organization based in New York.  Dr. Keohane oversees EDF’s analytical work on the economics of climate policy, and helps to develop and advocate the organization’s policy positions on global warming.  His research in environmental economics has appeared in prominent academic journals, and he is the co-author of Markets and the Environment (Island Press, 2007), and co-editor of Economics of Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2009).  Before coming to EDF, he was Associate Professor of Economics at the Yale School of Management.  He lives in New York City with his wife and two daughters. Dr. Keohane received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2001, and his B.A. from Yale College in 1993.

John Mimikakis works to develop global warming solutions within transportation, power-generation and agricultural sectors, by raising support on Capitol Hill for effective greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies. From 2001 to 2006, John was Deputy Chief of Staff for the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives where he was involved in legislation on a variety of issues, including energy, environment, space exploration and technology policy. Prior to that, John served as a legislative advisor to U.S. Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) on environmental, energy, and agriculture issues. In 1997, John was the American Chemical Society’s Congressional Science Fellow. He holds a P.H.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin and a B.S. from Tulane University.

Gernot Wagner is an economist in the Climate and Air Program. He focuses on carbon finance and works on developing and applying economically sound climate policy in the U.S. and internationally. Prior to EDF, he wrote for the editorial board of the Financial Times and worked at the Boston Consulting Group. Gernot holds a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard and an M.A. in Economics from Stanford.

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, Energy / Comments are closed

Comments on yesterday’s top blogs

On E2, Nike, eBay and others are asking Senators to “get stalled climate and energy legislation back on track.”

Reuters reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will start analyzing the comprehensive climate and clean energy bill. “The EPA analysis is an important step in the legislative process.” “We are sending the bill to be modeled now with Lindsey Graham’s consent,” Senator Kerry told reporters.

Green Inc. focuses on a new EPA report released yesterday called “Climate Change Indicators in the United States.”  The report is full of interesting data points and graphics including:

  • “The portion of North America covered by snow has generally decreased since 1972, although there has been much year-to-year variability. Snow covered an average of 3.18 million square miles of North America during the years 2000 to 2008, compared with 3.43 million square miles during the 1970s.”
  • “In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities increased by 14 percent from 1990 to 2008.”

Gernot Wagner, EDF economist notes:

“The EPA report is a terrific reminder of the fact that climate change is not some distant phenomenon our grand kids may or may not experience. We can already see some of the direct effects all around us. It’s also good reminder of the certainties among the sea of uncertainties surrounding climate change. We don’t know all the details, but the general direction has become increasingly clear. And the parts we don’t know are even scarier.”

Graph from EPA report Climate Change Indicators in the United States

Also posted in Climate Change Legislation, News / Comments are closed