Enjoy the Memorial Day holiday, readers, because when members come back from their week-long break, the pace of action on climate and clean energy legislation is going to accelerate. The House leadership wants to vote on Waxman-Markey before the August recess. I certainly hope they can stay on that schedule since the ideal time to debate a global warming bill is probably during the hot summer (see full House calendar here).
In story headlined, “House panels will make haste on energy bill — Hoyer,” E&E News (subs. req’d) reports:
Expect another fast-paced month of committee action on a sweeping global warming and energy bill ahead of possible floor debate in late June or early July, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today.
“I think the speaker and I will both be urging the committee chairs to consider these quickly,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview, referring to eight panels with jurisdiction on a bill approved last night by the Energy and Commerce Committee. “Frankly, they’ve been considering them for some time now. It’s not like it’s a great surprise.”
For most committees, the work will be swift, Hoyer said. “Their level of concern,” he said, “is not high.”
But there are two committees that want a piece of the debate: Ways and Means and Agriculture. Hoyer said he would work with the chairmen of both panels and did not expect much of a problem.
Yes, the chairs of both of those committees have made some remarks that might suggest they aren’t in a hurry:
House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants significant concessions for farm-state lawmakers, and he threatens to bring between 40 and 45 House Democrats along to vote “no” on the bill if that does not happen.
“I don’t know that I have 45 Democrats in my pocket and the speaker may or may not,” Hoyer said, adding, “Mr. Peterson has concerns. We’ll work with his concerns.”
And House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), said Tuesday that he would focus next month on health care while putting global warming on the back burner. “Maybe at some point we can do both at the same time,” Rangel said. “But health being first is a priority.”
That new agenda marked a reversal from comments Rangel had made in March, when he said climate ranked ahead of health care.
Hoyer downplayed the competition between health care and climate change.
“We’re going to move forward with the bills when they move forward,” he said. “That may be energy and it may be health care. The issue isn’t so much which goes first.”
Also today, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a top ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and head of the Democrats’ House campaign operations, said he did not think Rangel would need to spend much time changing the bill, offered by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman of California and his top lieutenant, Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
“We’ll be looking at what they did,” said Van Hollen, who also serves on the Ways and Means Committee. “I don’t expect any radical surgery on their bill in the Ways and Means Committee.”
Still, Hoyer was only stating his plans not making any commitments:
Hoyer said Democrats would try to get both health care and energy passed off the floor before the August recess, though he left himself some wiggle room for the climate bill. “It’s not a timeline,” he said. “It’s not a deadline.”
Pelosi has been even less committal on the timing:
For her part, Pelosi reveled today in last night’s Energy and Commerce Committee vote in favor of the energy bill.
“It’s been a very good week for new energy policy,” Pelosi told reporters, citing the 33-25 vote, as well as President Obama’s plan to set stronger fuel economy regulations.
Pelosi, who will spend next week’s recess in China to discuss global warming and energy as the head of a congressional delegation, called the House bill, H.R. 2454, “something transformational in how we address the climate change issue.”
As for timing, the furthest Pelosi went today was to suggest that Democrats still hope to send President Obama a climate bill that he can sign into law before a major U.N. global warming conference this December in Denmark.
“We’re hoping we’re able to seal the deal by the time we go to Copenhagen, but we have to see what the possibilities are for common ground, learn from each other, as we go forward,” Pelosi said.
Obama and his staff worked behind the scenes over the last few months with Waxman and Markey to prod the climate bill out of the committee. The president invited all 36 of the committee Democrats to the White House earlier this month, urging them to move quickly on global warming so that they could turn their attention to health care reform, another top item on his domestic agenda.
And Phil Schiliro, Obama’s top legislative aide and a former Waxman staffer, visited the House markup several times this week to lobby Democrats.
In an statement issued minutes after the vote, Obama said, “We are now one step closer to delivering on the promise of a new clean energy economy that will make America less dependent on foreign oil, crack down on polluters, and create millions of new jobs all across America.”
The president added, “This achievement is all the more historic for bringing together many who have in the past opposed a common effort, from labor unions to corporate CEOs, and environmentalists to energy companies. I applaud the committee for its action and look forward to signing comprehensive legislation.”
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
As you know perfectly well Joe Romm, there isn’t that much wind energy, wind
doesn’t blow steadily, and most of wind energy is over the ocean near Antarctica.
Nuclear is the “only game in town,” as you say, that can replace coal full time
and not produce CO2. Wind turbines are a WPA project. Nuclear is an energy
project.
NASA says wind is a 15% solution at best. The existence of some wind energy for a few poeple doesn’t mean there is enough wind energy for everybody. See:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Newsroom/ NewImages/ images.php3?img_id=18090
Here is that article minus the graphics.:
Large images [On the original web site. If you look at the images, you see that the best wind is at very INconvenient locations, like near Antarctica and in the North Pacific ocean.]
“Wind energy has the potential to provide 10 to 15 percent of the world’s future energy, according to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Once windmills are installed, wind can be converted to electricity inexpensively. But not everyone likes wind farms. The giant collection of whirling blades mars scenic views and can kill birds and bats, particularly if located in a high-traffic flyway. To minimize these risks, one solution may be to place wind farms in the ocean. Wind tends to blow stronger over the ocean than over land. The ocean presents a smooth surface over which wind can glide without interruption, while hills, mountains, and forests tend to slow or channel wind over
land.
But, as any sailor could tell you, wind over the ocean isn’t consistent. In some places, the air is still, while in others, the wind blows fiercely. To identify potential wind farm locations, NASA scientists Tim Liu, Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, all at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mapped out average wind intensity over the ocean between 2000 and 2007. They created their maps from data collected by NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuickSCAT), which measures wind speed and direction over the world’s oceans. The satellite sends pulses of microwave energy through the atmosphere to the ocean surface and measures the energy that bounces back from the wind-roughened surface. The energy of the microwave pulses changes depending on wind speed and direction. The scientists averaged QuikSCAT’s measured wind speeds by season, and then calculated the wind power density, the amount of energy that could be derived from a wind turbine in a given location. Their maps for the winter and summer seasons are shown here.
Wind strength is influenced by seasonal patterns, land-ocean interactions, land topography, and ocean temperatures. All of these interactions are evident in this pair of images. Areas of high wind power density, where winds are strongest, are purple, while low power density regions are light blue and white.
The largest patterns shown in the images are seasonal patterns. In December, January, and February, winter storms fuel strong winds in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In June, July, and August, winter reigns in the Southern Hemisphere, and the pattern is reversed. The Asian monsoon also controls the seasonal distribution of wind. In June, July, and August, strong winds gust across the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. From December to February, the monsoon winds blow over the East China Sea. Finally, the trade winds trace their way across the tropics, stronger in the winter than in the summer.”
In places where the land and the ocean interact to generate strong winds, the wind power density is more consistent. Winds accelerate as they deflect around a bit of land sticking into the ocean. This feature is most obvious off the southern tip of South America, which has high wind potential in both summer and winter. The effect occurs in other locations, such as off Tasmania, New Zealand, and northern California, and is easiest to see in the summer when seasonal winds are calmer.
The spot of brilliant purple in an otherwise calm ocean off the Pacific coast of Central America in December, January, and February is an example of strong winds created by the topography of the land. In Central America, as in other places, mountains channel the wind, creating a natural wind tunnel that sends strong gusts over the ocean.
The final wind pattern shown in this image is the wind created by the ocean itself. Warm ocean currents naturally warm the air above them. When ocean currents carry warm water into an area of cool water, or vice versa, the temperature difference in the air generates wind. The clearest example in these images is the Gulf Stream, which snakes up the east coast of the United States and east over the North Atlantic. In both winter and summer, winds are stronger over the Gulf Stream than the surrounding ocean.
References
Liu, W.T., Tang, W., and Xie, X. (2008, July 8). Wind power distribution over the ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 35 (L13808).
NASA. (2008, July 9). Ocean wind power maps reveal possible wind energy sources. Accessed July 15, 2008.
NASA image created by Jesse Allen, using data provided courtesy of Timothy Liu,
Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, NASA/JPL. Caption by Holli Riebeek.
The most troubling part of Waxman – Markey, even for its advocates, is the allowances and how they are distributed.
Allowances are a form of penalty avoidance coupons. These coupons become the currency of the new cap/trade market. Allowances, whether auctioned or free are the wrong approach. The goal of this new market is to eliminate carbon burning. Allowances, in a way, favor it.
In addition to focusing on eliminating carbon burning, the currency should also directly promote efficiency and alternatives deployment. Allowances are an indirect method.
The best cap/trade currency derives from actual activity within the market, not from government indulgence. It is based on real fossil fuel replacement through efficiencies and alternative energy production. Each watt or therm of energy produced or saved, whether by the largest corporation or the poorest individual, would be worth a designated amount of cap compliance.
The greatest advantage of a replacement based coupon/currency is that it will dramatically reduce the cost of alternatives and efficiencies, something allowances can never do. Everyone, including consumers, can now benefit from the market.
I consider myself an eager novice in the subject of alternative energy… slightly more educated than the common person Anonymous refers to.
I don’t disagree with the “clean power” potential of nuclear. It is an incredible source of energy with low emissions during the electricity production phase. I also agree that the world needs to step away from coal if society wishes to continue within our current lifestyle boundaries. I like that France has become one of the cleanest countries in the world (thanks to stepping away from coal).
I don’t like that we’re basing our (nuclear) solution on another diminishing resource. I don’t like that the time line for nuclear waste is something we feel we have the luxury of deciding for future generations to deal with. I also don’t like that nuclear, an incredible source of energy, is being considered for nothing more than a transition away from coal and buying us time for other alternative energy to then take the long term seat. Why create such a long term wild card (nuclear disposal) when you could create a hardship for our generations as we move towards alternative energy and reduction of consumption. It seems very selfish to me.
If you were alive 10 generations from now living in a sustainable world… Would you be more or less proud of the previous generations that chose nuclear waste over personal hardship?
I’m not saying this transition period we debate isn’t essential for our civilization’s safety… I’m saying coal AND nuclear doesn’t feel right.
I also feel nuclear has the potential to make a more positive implementation if we save it for better causes. I blindly argue that nuclear should be saved for a time period in our future where our civilization needs such a compact and powerful source of energy. A time period where coal, wind, solar and hydro won’t do the job. I’m thinking about space and the fact that NASA is spending a decent amount of money searching for other inhabitable planets.
The argument for nuclear reminds me a lot of the industrial boom. A solution is recognized for a short term issue. And so it solves a problem. Then time plays out and we have tougher long term problems… then we go into short term solution scramble mode again… just to do another long term mistake cycle?
If you’re going to point out the long term repercussions of sticking with coal, the incurred pollution with wind/hydro power then you should also provide the long term impacts of switching to nuclear (waste).
I worry that our species may crush itself before we learn to make long term ethical decisions that include life cycle analysis and compassion.
Excuse me for speaking and not being an expert.
Dear Simon: There is no such thing as nuclear waste. There is perfectly
recyclable fuel that is being wasted because of politics. We now have reactors
that can use up all of the radioactivity. Did you know that coal contains
uranium?
Did you know that coal fired power plants give YOU 100 to 400 times as much
radiation as nuclear power plants do? France recycles nuclear fuel. Yucca
Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that should not be wasted. We don’t recycle
nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it
went that it wasn’t supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the business
of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a nuclear
battery for a heart pacemaker. [The army offered me more money to work on
nuclear weapons effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace
batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec “lost” a quantity of reactor
grade uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their
nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear “waste.”
See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/ x/ pittsburghtrib/ news/ specialreports/ buriedlegacy/
s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States. It is
only when you don’t have access to nuclear “waste” that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian “CANDU”
reactor or a British Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the
US stopped.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government Owned Government
Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity
of ethnicity and religion would disable the transportation of uranium to
Israel or to any unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would
get out.
I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I never have.
Nobody is paying me to say this.
See:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Factory made nuclear reactors. The factory recycles the fuel once every 5 years.
Simon, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. Perfectly good recyclable
FUEL is being wasted because of politics. We have reactors that can use up all
of the fuel. France recycles nuclear fuel. The US used to recycle nuclear
fuel, but Israel stole it.
nuclear topic fascinating, but I’m still puzzling on the present bill as written:
I’m concerned about non compliance penalties for the CO2 allowances. Reading section 723. 723(a) says if you don’t own enough allowances to cover your CO2 creation, you need to pay 2X the current market value of the allowances. I guess that is sufficient incentive, but I don’t know for sure.
However 723(c) says if the company fails to pay the penalty, then the Administrator sets up a repayment scheme that is 1X the current market value. The Administrator can determine if this is to be payed the next year or over a series of years.
Perhaps I’m misreading subsection (c) and the repayment must be from available alllowances, in which case we still have a cap in place (as has been discussed above), but I wanted clarification. Anyone have a good handle on this language?
If there is a better forum for this question, please let me know.