Transcript U.S. Climate Change Legislation and Regulation

BEIJING
BRUSSELS
CHICAGO
DALLAS
FRANKFURT
GENEVA
HONG KONG
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
SHANGHAI
SINGAPORE
SYDNEY
TOKYO
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. Climate Change Legislation and Regulation –
State of Play and Cross-Border Aspects Jan Bohanes
21 May 2009
Geneva
[email protected]
Major Concerns
<------------------------------------------------------------------->
Loss of
Carbon
Loss of
Competitiveness
Leakage
Effectiveness
2
Policy Options
• Internal measures
– Free allowances
– Output-based rebates
• External measures
– Border tax
– Allowance requirement
– Sectoral carbon-intensity standard
3
Overview
Regulatory
Action
Legislative Action
Environmental Protection
US Congress
Agency (EPA)
Waxman/Markey bill
Clean Air Act
International
Negotiations
4
Waxman-Markey Bill (1)
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
• 110th Congress saw a number of cap-and-trade bills
– many of them with border measures, none voted on
• 111th Congress: “dramatically improved” prospects for
climate change legislation
– President Obama called on lawmakers to send him
“legislation with a market-based cap on carbon pollution”
– Well-placed advocates in Congress
• Waxman/Markey bill released on 15 May 2009
– currently in the mark-up process in the Committee on
Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives
– previous Discussion Draft, hearings, and adjustments
5
Waxman-Markey Bill (2)
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
“A legislative
Susan Boyle”
Chairman Waxman
6
Waxman-Markey Bill (3)
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
• Deals with:
– Renewable Energy Standards
– Energy Efficiency
– Emissions Trading Scheme (“cap-and-trade” regime)
– Transition to a Clean Energy Economy (including
competitiveness and adaptation provisions)
7
Waxman-Markey Bill (4)
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
• Reductions under the cap-and-trade regime and overall
economy
– 3% below 2005 levels by 2012
– 17% by 2020 (overall economy 20%)
– 42% by 2030
– 83% by 2050
• Creates a market-place for allowances
– allows banking and borrowing
• Start 2012, phase in complete by 2016
8
Waxman-Markey Bill (5)
• Specifies distribution of emission allowances to key
sectors or for certain key purposes; rest auctioned off
• Carbon-based rebates
– Available to eligible industrial sectors with
• 5 percent – energy or GHG intensity
• 15 percent - trade intensity
• Which sectors? Determined by 2011
– Rebate calculated based on sum of
• direct carbon factor
• indirect carbon factor
– 100 percent through 2025, phase out by 2035
9
Waxman-Markey Bill (6)
• Allowance requirement on imports (border
measure)
– President must assess by 2017 effectiveness of rebates in
mitigating carbon leakage.
– Report must also include recommendations on the International
Reserve Allowance Program (IRAP); and on assistance to
affected industries by other developed countries
– By 2020, President must “notify foreign countries that an [IRAP]
may apply”
10
Waxman-Markey Bill (7)
• Allowance requirement on imports
– By 2022, President must determine whether more than 70
percent of global output for covered sectors comes from
countries that
“responsible
countries”
• are party to an international climate change agreement (overall
or sectoral)
• have an energy or GHG intensity same or lower as US
• have implemented policies that impose an incremental cost
increase at least 60 percent of cost of US program
11
Waxman-Markey Bill (8)
• Allowance requirement on imports
– If 30 percent or more from countries that do not satisfy any of
these criteria, President must assess rebates and the IRAP and
• modify amount of rebates and/or
• implement the IRAP for the relevant sector
– The IRAP may not begin until 2025
• exemptions for LDCs and low emission countries
12
Waxman-Markey Bill (9)
• What is the stated purpose of the IRAP?
– Administrator is to design the IRAP program “in a manner that
addresses, consistent with international agreements to which the
United States is a party, the competitive imbalance in the costs of
[production] ...”
– Explicitly stated preference for achieving goals through international
negotiations
13
Waxman-Markey Bill (10)
• What is the support for such legislation?
– Administration and well-placed advocates
– difficult economic times
– Party lines not a wholly accurate predictor
• Further steps:
– Mark-up finished by Memorial Day (25 May)?
– Approval by the House of Representatives
– Subsequent action by the Senate
– Signature by President
14
Van Hollen “Cap and Dividend” Bill (H.R. 1862)
(introduced April 1, 2009)
• Implements cap-and-trade system on entities selling fuel
• Permits auctioned by US Government, proceeds distributed as
“dividends” to US taxpayers
• Imposes carbon equivalency fee at border
– on imports of carbon-intensive goods
– equal to carbon cost to domestic producers
• Pays carbon equivalency amount to exporters
– of carbon-intensive goods
– equal to carbon cost to domestic producers
• Border measures cease if
– international climate change agreement reached
– exporting country implements measures equivalent to US measures
15
Overview
Regulatory
Action
Legislative Action
Environmental Protection
US Congress
Agency (EPA)
Waxman/Markey bill
Clean Air Act
International
Negotiations
16
Regulatory Action by the EPA
under the Clean Air Act
• In 2007 Supreme Court rules that CO2 fits within the
definition of “air pollutant” in the Clean Air Act
• Pres. Bush directs EPA to respond
• EPA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR)
17
Regulatory Action by the EPA
under the Clean Air Act (2)
• Far-reaching regulatory action
– mobile sources (from lawnmowers to heavy-duty trucks)
– stationary sources? (residential and industrial)
– standards on renewable energy, energy efficiency
– product lifecycle standards, e.g. for fuels (including GHG
emissions during production)
• But may not implement a cap-and-trade regime (?) and
cannot provide subsidies to affected industries
– also no authority to impose border measures
18
EPA action vs. legislative action
• EPA regulatory action runs parallel to legislative process,
until legislation is enacted
– Waxman/Markey bill would preempts EPA action
• EPA regulatory process provides Obama administration with
leverage to get legislation enacted
– EPA regulation comes without any subsidies or cap-and-trade
flexibility
• However, EPA regulatory process might also be an incentive
for Administration and Congress to avoid passing legislation
that might cost a lot of jobs
19
How do these developments affect
international negotiations?
• Enactment of legislation would signal willingness and ability
of US to commit to binding reduction targets
• What if by December a bill has cleared only the House, and
not yet the Senate?
• Provision for border measures – its effects on international
negotiations
– source of leverage gone?
– less confrontational/unilateral
20