Clean Energy Act’s Details Debated

Throughout the 2008 U.S. election cycle the need to deal with climate change was a recurring theme.

Both President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress promised swift action to reduce U.S. carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. And within the first 100 days of the new administration, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue began work to fulfill that promise.

On April 17, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding that carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gases endangered public health and welfare – a finding that requires EPA to issue a rule to regulate emission of these gases under the Clean Air Act.

This move was anticipated based on the president’s previous statements. But the White House and EPA admit they would prefer to have Congress develop a specific legislative framework for regulating greenhouse gases rather than use the 30-year-old Clean Air Act.

The wrangling to develop legislation began just after the November 2008 election, as Democrats elected leaders and committee chairs.

In a surprise move, and with the tacit support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) challenged and beat incumbent chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) for leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Waxman, a supporter of limits on greenhouse gas emissions, then shuffled the subcommittee chairs, asking Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), another strong supporter, to head the Energy and Environment subcommittee.

Waxman and Markey started working on a climate change bill, and in early April unveiled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill has not been formally introduced as of early May, and still lacks detail on a number of critical provisions.

It is a discussion draft to explore the issues, address the legislative gaps and gauge where members stand.

That is, are there sufficient votes to pass the legislation out of subcommittee and full committee?

The discussion draft has four titles:

The first is a clean energy title with several provisions, including a federal renewable energy standard, requiring power suppliers to begin supplying at least 6 percent of their base load from renewable sources in 2012, growing to 25 percent in 2025.

It promotes the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies. It introduces a low carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels, designed to stimulate the development of advanced biofuels. And it promotes the deployment of a modernized, smart electrical grid.

The second title deals with energy efficiency of all kinds, ranging from buildings and homes, to appliances, transportation and utilities.

The third title seeks to address global warming by establishing a federal cap and trade system for greenhouse gases.

The model proposed is based closely on recommendations from the United States Climate Action Partnership, which includes oil and gas producers ConocoPhillips and Shell. The goal of this title is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050.

The fourth title deals with the impact of transitioning to a clean energy economy. It creates a program to compensate for the costs associated with this transition, to ensure U.S. businesses remain competitive with overseas firms not operating under similar restrictions.

It provides assistance to consumers, and for those transitioning into green jobs.

The title also encourages broad deployment of clean energy technologies to other countries and forms an interagency commission to develop a coordinated federal response to adapt to changes induced by global warming.

During the week of April 20, the House Energy and Environment subcommittee held four hearings on the draft legislation to receive testimony from 68 witnesses and begin deliberating the draft provisions.

Where is all of this heading?

The initial timeline was for the subcommittee to “mark up” the bill the week of April 27, but that was postponed to the first week of May and then postponed again. The full committee hoped to mark up the bill the week of May 11, enabling a committee vote before Memorial Day to meet Chairman Waxman’s self-imposed deadline.

Speaker Pelosi had indicated a desire to have the House vote on the measure before the August recess.

But the politics of this legislation are very difficult. It is not clear that subcommittee chairman Markey has support to pass it out of subcommittee. So he is working with subcommittee members to make changes to the draft to gain the necessary votes for passage.

This is the legislative process in action, and its outcome is uncertain as we go to press.

On April 27, The Hill newspaper quoted Democratic leader Chris Van Hollen (Md.) saying, “The first thing we need to do is see whether we can come together around a consensus position in the committees in the House, and that’s what we’re working on. And then, of course, if we were able to arrive at that, the question is whether you would take it to the floor, or do you wait to see if anything develops on the Senate side.

“The chances of doing cap-and-trade in the Senate are much more difficult,” he continued. “We recognize that.”

Indeed, Senate leaders are trying to determine if and how to move climate change legislation this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has clashed with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) about including a cap and trade provision in the committee’s energy bill, currently being drafted.

Bingaman supports cap and trade, but fears that such a highly politicized provision could prevent passage of the entire energy bill.

The challenge in the Senate is perhaps best described by Reid, who indicated in an article by National Journal that global warming legislation would be his biggest headache between now and the 2010 election.

Comments (0)


Washington Watch

Washington Watch - David Curtiss

David Curtiss served as the Director of AAPG’s Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. from 2008-11.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Creties Jenkins

Creties Jenkins is a past president of the EMD.

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Peter MacKenzie

 Peter MacKenzie is vice chair of the Governance Board. 

Washington Watch

Washington Watch - Dan Smith

Dan Smith is chair of the Governance Board.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

See Also: Bulletin Article

In this study, seismic models and a Starfak and Tiger Shoal fields data set in the Gulf of Mexico Basin are used to investigate uncertainties caused by the frequency dependence of seismic data and solutions for avoiding pitfalls in seismic-stratigraphic and facies interpretation. Seismic amplitude and instantaneous attributes, along with stratigraphic interpretation of these attributes, are controlled by seismic interference, or tuning, between thin geologic units. Seismic-tuning effects include thickness tuning and frequency tuning, which cause nonlinear variations of reflection amplitude and instantaneous seismic attributes with thickness and/or data frequency. Seismic modeling shows that, whereas thickness tuning determines seismic-interference patterns and, therefore, occurrence of seismic events and seismic facies in layered rock, frequency tuning may further influence the nature of the correlation of seismic data and geologic time and modify seismic facies. Frequency dependence offers a new dimension of seismic data, which has not been fully used in seismic interpretation of geology.

Field-data examples demonstrate that a stratigraphic formation is typically composed of lithofacies of varying thicknesses, and a broadband, stacked seismic data set is not necessarily optimal for stratigraphic and facies interpretation. Although it is difficult to predict correct frequency components for interpretation of not-yet-known geologic targets, local geologic models and well data can be used to optimize the frequency components of seismic data to a certain degree and intentionally modify seismic-interference patterns and seismic facies for better seismic interpretation of geologic surfaces, sediment-dispersal patterns, geomorphology, and sequence stratigraphy.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/frequency-dependent-seismic.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3609 Bulletin Article
A new hierarchical architectural classification for clastic marginal-marine depositional systems is presented and illustrated with examples. In ancient rocks, the architectural scheme effectively integrates the scales of sedimentology (core, outcrop) and sequence stratigraphy (wireline-log correlation, reflection seismic). The classification also applies to modern sediments, which allows for direct comparison of architectural units between modern and ancient settings. In marginal-marine systems, the parasequence typically defines reservoir flow units. This classification addresses subparasequence scales of stratigraphy that commonly control fluid flow in these reservoirs. The scheme consists of seven types of architectural units that are placed on five architectural hierarchy levels: hierarchy level I: element (E) and element set (ES); hierarchy level II: element complex (EC) and element complex set (ECS); hierarchy level III: element complex assemblage (ECA); hierarchy level IV: element complex assemblage set (ECAS); and hierarchy level V: transgressive-regressive sequence (T-R sequence). Architectural units in levels I to III are further classified relative to dominant depositional processes (wave, tide, and fluvial) acting at the time of deposition. All architectural units are three-dimensional and can also be expressed in terms of plan-view and cross-sectional geometries. Architectural units can be linked using tree data structures by a set of familial relationships (parent-child, siblings, and cousins), which provides a novel mechanism for managing uncertainty in marginal-marine systems. Using a hierarchical scheme permits classification of different data types at the most appropriate architectural scale. The use of the classification is illustrated in ancient settings by an outcrop and subsurface example from the Campanian Bearpaw–Horseshoe Canyon Formations transition, Alberta, Canada, and in modern settings, by the Mitchell River Delta, northern Australia. The case studies illustrate how the new classification can be used across both modern and ancient systems, in complicated, mixed-process depositional environments.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/a-hierarchical-approach-to-architectural-classification.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3769 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4518 CD-DVD
Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4118 CD-DVD

See Also: Energy Policy Blog

China plans to significantly increase its natural gas consumption to help cut its appalling air pollution. But natural gas is still a small part of its energy mix. In addition, and to confound environmentalists, a significant part of China’s gas supply comes from Coal-to-Gas technology, which generates large volumes of greenhouse gas and other pollutants, but does allow China to deliver clean-burning gas to locations with severe air pollution.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/waiting-for-chinas-natural-gas-revolution-2014-08aug-01-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 12908 Energy Policy Blog