Energy Firms Are Split on Bill to Battle Climate Change
WASHINGTON — As the Senate prepares to tackle global warming, the nation’s energy producers, once united, are battling one another over policy decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.
Producers of natural gas are battling their erstwhile allies, the oil companies. Electrical utilities are fighting among themselves over the use of coal versus wind power or other renewable energy. Coal companies are battling natural gas firms over which should be used to produce electricity. And the renewable power industry is elbowing for advantage against all of them.
Some supporters of global warming legislation believe that the division in the once-monolithic oil and gas industry, as well as other splits among energy producers, could improve the prospects for the legislation.
“It’s much harder to pass clean-energy legislation when big oil and other energy interests are united in their opposition,” said Daniel J. Weiss, climate policy director at the liberal Center for American Progress. “The companies that recognize the economic benefits in the bill can help bring along their political supporters.”
The American Petroleum Institute trade group, dominated by major oil companies, opposes the legislation, saying it would discourage domestic exploration and lead to higher oil prices. But some natural gas companies, though longtime members of the institute, have formed a separate lobby and are working actively with the bill’s sponsors to cut a better deal for their product.
The proposal moving through Congress would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases each year and allow companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. That approach, known as cap and trade, is meant to guarantee that emissions will decline, while providing market incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies.
The measure would effectively put a price on carbon, raising the prospect that some energy producers might have to pay more than others. For that reason, billions of dollars could be at stake in some of the most arcane language in the bill.
Energy lobbies are using every tactic in the book to protect their industries, producing alarming studies about $5 gasoline and other steep cost increases that might result from a cap-and-trade system. They are also financing protest groups and advertising campaigns. In one case, a public relations firm working for the coal industry even sent opposition letters to Congress under forged names.
The divisions in the energy sector mirror a split in the broader business community. Several large companies like Apple and the utility Exelon left the United States Chamber of Commerce recently over the group’s opposition to climate change legislation.
But the biggest fights are among energy producers. They have spent more than $200 million in the first half of the year on lobbying efforts in Washington, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group, up from $174 million in the same period last year.
“The fact that the lobbying is so fast and so furious is a positive sign that this thing is moving along,” said Mark Brownstein, a managing director at the Environmental Defense Fund and an advocate of climate legislation. “The fact that everyone is rushing to Washington tells you people believe it is real.”
As legislation inches through Capitol Hill, onetime allies in the utility sector, like Exelon, which operates low-emission nuclear plants, and the Southern Company, a big consumer of coal, find themselves on opposite sides of the debate over renewable energy.
Utilities that have access to hydroelectric power or operate nuclear plants tend to favor a national mandate to increase the use of renewable power, because their carbon emissions are relatively low. Many coal-dependent utilities, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest, oppose the provision because they emit more carbon and would have to buy more permits over time.
In past energy policy debates, the oil and gas lobbies were largely united. In 2005, they won incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Two years later, after Democrats had taken control of Congress, producers were unable to block a huge new mandate for alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, but managed to save valuable oil industry tax breaks that some Democrats tried to end.
Today, each energy subsector, fearing any legislation that might give it a disadvantage, is battling for favor. The gas producers, for example, have formed the American Natural Gas Alliance, which is spending heavily on advertising and lobbying to point out that gas emits roughly half the carbon dioxide of coal. The group has also helped organize its allies in Congress into a new natural gas caucus, with two dozen members.
“These fissures are happening because a policy is increasingly seen as inevitable,” said David G. Victor, an energy expert at the University of California, San Diego. “Old coalitions are splintering and fascinating new alliances are being formed.”
The most important fight is over whether companies have to buy pollution permits, called allowances, or whether the government hands them out free in the early years to help ease the cost of the transition.
President Obama has said the permits should be auctioned, an approach that would cost companies tens of billions of dollars. But after fierce lobbying from electrical utilities, the House made the permits free in the first decade of the program, to help finance the transition to cleaner fuels and to shield electrical consumers from higher prices.
Industry analysts say the utilities’ willingness to negotiate with Democratic lawmakers gained them a huge advantage when the House passed its climate bill in June. The oil and natural gas industries, by contrast, felt shunned in the House debate because they would not negotiate, these analysts say.
For example, oil companies complained that their mandated purchase of emissions permits would amount to a tax to be used to clean up dirty coal plants.
“There was an inherent flaw when Congress set off down the road of favoring one fuel source over another,” said J. Larry Nichols, chairman of Devon Energy, an independent oil and gas company, and also chairman of the American Petroleum Institute. “You knew there had to be a feeding frenzy among various competing fuels trying to protect themselves.”
Half of the nation’s electrical power is generated by burning coal, and emission limits are a long-term threat to the business. The coal industry, through a group it finances called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, is running a campaign to persuade the public that coal is affordable, abundant and can be cleaned up thanks to still-distant technology that would capture carbon emissions and store them underground.
Some coal executives aim to scuttle legislation in the Senate by continuing to cast doubts on the science of climate change.
“A lot of coal-using utilities seem to be on the wrong side of this issue,” said Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy, the largest producer of Appalachian coal, who has called climate legislation a hoax and a Ponzi scheme. “How can they be so confident that man is changing the world climate?”
John Broder reported from Washington, and Jad Mouawad from New York. Clifford Krauss contributed reporting from Houston.
WASHINGTON — As the Senate prepares to tackle global warming, the nation’s energy producers, once united, are battling one another over policy decisions worth hundreds of billions of dollars in coming decades.
Producers of natural gas are battling their erstwhile allies, the oil companies. Electrical utilities are fighting among themselves over the use of coal versus wind power or other renewable energy. Coal companies are battling natural gas firms over which should be used to produce electricity. And the renewable power industry is elbowing for advantage against all of them.
Some supporters of global warming legislation believe that the division in the once-monolithic oil and gas industry, as well as other splits among energy producers, could improve the prospects for the legislation.
“It’s much harder to pass clean-energy legislation when big oil and other energy interests are united in their opposition,” said Daniel J. Weiss, climate policy director at the liberal Center for American Progress. “The companies that recognize the economic benefits in the bill can help bring along their political supporters.”
The American Petroleum Institute trade group, dominated by major oil companies, opposes the legislation, saying it would discourage domestic exploration and lead to higher oil prices. But some natural gas companies, though longtime members of the institute, have formed a separate lobby and are working actively with the bill’s sponsors to cut a better deal for their product.
The proposal moving through Congress would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases each year and allow companies to buy and sell permits to pollute. That approach, known as cap and trade, is meant to guarantee that emissions will decline, while providing market incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies.
The measure would effectively put a price on carbon, raising the prospect that some energy producers might have to pay more than others. For that reason, billions of dollars could be at stake in some of the most arcane language in the bill.
Energy lobbies are using every tactic in the book to protect their industries, producing alarming studies about $5 gasoline and other steep cost increases that might result from a cap-and-trade system. They are also financing protest groups and advertising campaigns. In one case, a public relations firm working for the coal industry even sent opposition letters to Congress under forged names.
The divisions in the energy sector mirror a split in the broader business community. Several large companies like Apple and the utility Exelon left the United States Chamber of Commerce recently over the group’s opposition to climate change legislation.
But the biggest fights are among energy producers. They have spent more than $200 million in the first half of the year on lobbying efforts in Washington, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group, up from $174 million in the same period last year.
“The fact that the lobbying is so fast and so furious is a positive sign that this thing is moving along,” said Mark Brownstein, a managing director at the Environmental Defense Fund and an advocate of climate legislation. “The fact that everyone is rushing to Washington tells you people believe it is real.”
As legislation inches through Capitol Hill, onetime allies in the utility sector, like Exelon, which operates low-emission nuclear plants, and the Southern Company, a big consumer of coal, find themselves on opposite sides of the debate over renewable energy.
Utilities that have access to hydroelectric power or operate nuclear plants tend to favor a national mandate to increase the use of renewable power, because their carbon emissions are relatively low. Many coal-dependent utilities, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest, oppose the provision because they emit more carbon and would have to buy more permits over time.
In past energy policy debates, the oil and gas lobbies were largely united. In 2005, they won incentives for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Two years later, after Democrats had taken control of Congress, producers were unable to block a huge new mandate for alternative fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, but managed to save valuable oil industry tax breaks that some Democrats tried to end.
Today, each energy subsector, fearing any legislation that might give it a disadvantage, is battling for favor. The gas producers, for example, have formed the American Natural Gas Alliance, which is spending heavily on advertising and lobbying to point out that gas emits roughly half the carbon dioxide of coal. The group has also helped organize its allies in Congress into a new natural gas caucus, with two dozen members.
“These fissures are happening because a policy is increasingly seen as inevitable,” said David G. Victor, an energy expert at the University of California, San Diego. “Old coalitions are splintering and fascinating new alliances are being formed.”
The most important fight is over whether companies have to buy pollution permits, called allowances, or whether the government hands them out free in the early years to help ease the cost of the transition.
President Obama has said the permits should be auctioned, an approach that would cost companies tens of billions of dollars. But after fierce lobbying from electrical utilities, the House made the permits free in the first decade of the program, to help finance the transition to cleaner fuels and to shield electrical consumers from higher prices.
Industry analysts say the utilities’ willingness to negotiate with Democratic lawmakers gained them a huge advantage when the House passed its climate bill in June. The oil and natural gas industries, by contrast, felt shunned in the House debate because they would not negotiate, these analysts say.
For example, oil companies complained that their mandated purchase of emissions permits would amount to a tax to be used to clean up dirty coal plants.
“There was an inherent flaw when Congress set off down the road of favoring one fuel source over another,” said J. Larry Nichols, chairman of Devon Energy, an independent oil and gas company, and also chairman of the American Petroleum Institute. “You knew there had to be a feeding frenzy among various competing fuels trying to protect themselves.”
Half of the nation’s electrical power is generated by burning coal, and emission limits are a long-term threat to the business. The coal industry, through a group it finances called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, is running a campaign to persuade the public that coal is affordable, abundant and can be cleaned up thanks to still-distant technology that would capture carbon emissions and store them underground.
Some coal executives aim to scuttle legislation in the Senate by continuing to cast doubts on the science of climate change.
“A lot of coal-using utilities seem to be on the wrong side of this issue,” said Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy, the largest producer of Appalachian coal, who has called climate legislation a hoax and a Ponzi scheme. “How can they be so confident that man is changing the world climate?”
John Broder reported from Washington, and Jad Mouawad from New York. Clifford Krauss contributed reporting from Houston.
Source: New York Times
« Back to Business News
Related News
-
Geithner, Brown Split on Tobin Tax as G-20 Seeks Rebalancing Oct 19, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Group of 20 governments split onwhether to tax financial trading as part of a broader strategyto ensure the global economy’s expansion is less crisis-prone.
-
PG&E, Duke Energy Walkouts Show US Business Split on Climate Oct 19, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp. quit the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce. Nike Inc. and Johnson & Johnson criticized the groupfor its stance. Duke Energy Corp. resigned from the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.
-
PG&E, Duke Energy Walkouts Show US Split on Climate Oct 19, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp. quit the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce. Nike Inc. and Johnson & Johnson criticized the groupfor its stance. Duke Energy Corp. resigned from the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.
-
Exelon to Quit Chamber Over Climate Bill Oct 19, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
Exelon, one of the country’s largest utilities, said Monday that it would quit the United States Chamber of Commerce because of that group’s stance on climate change. It was the latest in a string of companies to do so, perhaps a harbinger of how intense the fight over global warming legislation could become.
-
Greening America's Schools Oct 19, 2009 @ 01:15 AM
By Rob Watson - Greener World Media
Maybe it's my guilt at being out of town for my son Max's first day back, or maybe it was being at BASF's High Performance Buildings for Education Summit, but school is on my mind.
At the BASF Summit last Wednesday, Vivian Loftness from Carnegie Mellon University gave a very interesting presentation on the recently released National Academy of Sciences study on health and productivity benefits of green schools, which concluded that while many issues require more research, there are clear and quantifiable benefits to green schools. David Mooji from Neptune Township gave an fact-filled presentation on the success of New Jersey's first LEED-Platinum public school and the LEED-Gold Summerfield Elementary School. Kris Kolluri, CEO of the New Jersey Schools Development Authority inspired the audience with his commitment to actually certify all new schools in New Jersey to LEED, going beyond the state's existing commitment to build facilities to LEED standards. These presentations and that of yours truly will be available on the web and I'll post a URL shortly.
The USGBC just kicked off the third year of its highly successful National Green Schools Campaign (NSGC) with the launch of the Coalition for Green Schools. In the past 12 months, the NGSC has been supporting the passage of federal, state and local initiatives including the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act, funding for green school construction and renovation as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the "Making green Schools a Reality" Resolution. So far, over 1,700 schools have registered in LEED for Schools and nearly 200 have certified.
Kudos to the Green Schools Alliance and Habitat Heroes for their efforts to tangibly connect children worldwide around the issue of Climate Change. On September 23, the international Climate Quilt Campaign will launch its North America leg, coinciding with Global Climate Week and the United Nations Secretary-General's High Level Summit on Climate Change. The Climate Quilt is traveling the globe, attracting patches from children on every continent.
Proving that learning is a lifelong process, rather than an event (sort of like LEED EBOM . . . ) San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom writes about his city's commitment to expanding the knowledge and training of its staff in green buildings with over 120 architects, engineers and construction managers who have achieved LEED professional accreditation. With justifiable pride, Newsom also points to San Francisco's more than 40 municipal buildings in the LEED certification process.
IIDA's Leadership Breakfast for Northern California was in San Francisco and Majora Carter wowed the audience with her lessons learned on how to unlock the sustainability potential in almost any situation. Moving from students to "teachers," the state of California's (there go those plucky Californians again) first-in-the-nation green building standard will be used as a model for the International Code Council's new International Green Construction Code. Having cut my teeth on Title 24 as a starving intern for NRDC back in the mid '80s, I can vouch that it will be an excellent model.
Hey! How come I'm always writing about California cities?! I know there's life east of the Sierra Madres. Send us your municipal success stories and I'll make sure some GreenerBuildings.com love comes your way.
The McGraw Hill Construction-Siemens report on the "Greening of Corporate America" shows that sustainability is now part of the core curriculum and not an elective any more. A couple of very interesting findings in 2009 is that the percentage of companies (we're talking companies that make up 75 percent of the $36 trillion U.S. equities market, not niche or boutique firms) that are actively engaged in sustainability has doubled since 2006, while the number that look at it as a regulatory nuisance declined by 40 percent. Also, the vast majority (71 percent) expect their sustainability initiatives to reduce costs -- so much for the economic "burden" of green.
Rounding out the week's features are articles about YKK zipping up leaky building facades with its new enerGfacade line of products that integrate shading, daylight and better insulation value and Melbourne's new convention center, a wonder from down under that's achieved a six-star rating from the Aussie GreenStar certification program, which equals or exceeds LEED-Platinum certification. Bonzer!
The week's Look-Grandpa-I-picked-up-the-$20-bill-you-said-was-fake-but-it's-real! mention goes to the U.S. Department of Energy for jump-starting large-scale energy saving programs with a $450 million-plus solicitation going out to the states. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said it best: "Energy efficiency isn't just low-hanging fruit; it's fruit lying on the ground." NOTE: The 5-second rule does NOT apply here.
